• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rail operators call for leisure fares (especially day returns) to increase

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Not to be a contrarian but my employer pays travel time outside of contracted hours as have several of my previous ones.

Or with one previous employer flexible scheduling took the travel time out of the hours for the period in question

It's over 8 years since I retired but both of those were true when travelling in the UK and abroad. From the employer's pov, there is a cost in time lost. London to Preston by Virgin train vs M1/M6 queues, breaks and fatigue was an issue. Eight years later, the attitude of enforced excessive hours, particularly when driving is involved is a risk that any responsible employer wishing to keep out of the courts/tribunals bears in mind, especially when the actual difference in the cost is a very small proportion of the total.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I am very regular business traveller, and this is something I can comment on based on some experience. Some of these points are fair, but some are less important than they might seem.

My experience was different. Different employers, different levels within organisations, different industries etc., all play a part here.

Regarding a) times - true to a degree, but meetings can be organised around cheaper fares. The start time of a regular meeting I attend in London has shifted later and later in the morning over the years, so people can avoid the most expensive fares. On another recent trip, I simply arrived 30 minutes late to the meeting to save 100 pounds. Most meetings don't start very punctually anyway. :) The higher the fares, the more likely it is that this will happen.

Meetings can be routing events running to a strict timescale, but many are there to perform a specific task/agreement in my experience.

b) flexibility - every company I have worked for has had a strict policy of buying the cheapest available ticket for the chosen flights or trains. The logic is that most changeable tickets are not changed. It's cheaper overall, considering all business travel for the company, to buy the cheapest ticket, and buy another one on the occasions when plans need to changed.

My employer went through a couple of 'let's save money at all costs' 'initiatives' to keep the bean counters happy, each followed by a realisation that up front cost is a small part of the real cost.

c) and d) paid travel time - no company I know pays employee travel time outside of normal working hours. If they are very lucky, a few consultants might get paid for travel time, although not necessarily at full rate. This can be a mixed blessing. I've known companies insist that if they are paying a consultant's travel time, the consultant must travel at the time with cheapest ticket even if that's not very inconvenient. :)

See above re time loss rather than bookable hours.

e) working during journey - this is a good point in theory, but in practice seems to make little difference. Employers suspect (correctly) that many employees don't work very much on the train, and will anyway do the work later.

Many don't some do. Often the stigma of turning up to a meeting unprepared helped focus the mind.

f) total price versus other modes of transport - this is a key point, and it sets a limit on what rail can charge. Rail must also compete against people not travelling at all, and joining meetings via phone or video conferencing. I suspect this is how Virgin get away with 350 pound fares between London and Manchester. British Airways actually want a bit more even than this for flights tomorrow, although flights in a week's time are more reasonable.

This is one area where cheaper flights were encouraged domestically, e.g. Easyjet LUT-EDI, but between EU countries it was usually BA.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
I find there's a limit to how much work you can do on a train. Reading documents/ making notes for meeting prep is certainly possible but technical drawings or complex spreadsheets are better on a proper desktop PC with a reliable internet connection. So I'd put the productive value at maybe half the usual amount of office time.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
My experience was different. Different employers, different levels within organisations, different industries etc., all play a part here.

It's interesting how different our experiences are. Maybe things have changed over time. The companies I have worked for seem to have a very different culture to yours. You seem to have had a very prescriptive approach, especially things like the employer discouraging driving, and discouraging the use budget airlines for European travel. I've worked mostly for multinational companies and I have always been lucky enough to have a large degree of freedom to arrange travel as I see fit. I am trusted to choose to drive, take the train, take the airline of my choice, etc. The main limitations are some price limits on things like hotels, economy class only, cheapest available tickets on a given flight/train (not flexible tickets, unless that is the cheapest available option), and where possible to book via the company travel agent - and these are pretty consistent across all the different companies I have worked for. Of course, I am also expected to minimise costs for the company - if airline X is much cheaper than airline Y I should use airline X.

Within these rules and common sense, I've always been able to make my own judgements (there are occasional exceptions, one of which I referred to above). There are some checks and balances. In principle, I could be audited, but this has never happened to me and I'm not aware it's happened to anyone else. The company travel agent would probably refuse to book anything too outrageous. And if I deviate from the rules too much, the company can also withhold expenses or take disciplinary action, but I have never heard of either of those things happening.

So I could probably buy the 350 pounds return from London to Manchester if I felt that was justifiable. The problem is that I don't think it is, and would find an alternative if at all possible.
 

globetrotter

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2011
Messages
91
A few points I'd like to offer, which I don't see examined in this thread :

Each rail operator is on a government contract, the terms of which are hidden from the public and, presumably, RDG. The contracts all expire on different dates.

It's easy to adjust fares, the number of trains and their capacity (seats), departure times, pricing when there are just one or two operators between departure point and destination. But if we look at the rail network as a whole and at long distance tickets, often we are talking of three or more operators.

Any proposals to alter fares that, in terms of the existing contract that each operator holds, are not seen as "revenue neutral" will result in the lawyers keeping quiet if it's seen as more revenue but OTOH they will immediately protest if it's seen as hitting revenue, reducing profits or benefiting the competition (such as under ORCATS). These discussions will be private and never see the light of day, I'm thinking.

So the only way this could be done is to fix a date in the future when major changes would be made across the entire rail network, already reflected in the negotiations and bids for new contracts. If I am correct, all this discussion here on this thread is a little academic as neither we nor RDG are privy to the T&C of each contract. The cost of altering contracts could be huge and as in the end the rail user pays, it might not be worth attempting this but instead just tinkering around the edges.

If you compare with the system used worldwide by airlines, it might be possible to introduce something comparable. Very simply, all major airlines use a three digit code for airports (LHR) or cities (LON) and an arcane system of "bucket codes" for seats. BA for example has a long list of single digit codes for seats in First Class, Business and Economy. There are typically multiple codes for "available seats". Imagine I am flying to New York - if I pay "full fare" every seat shows as available. BA decides, based on competition, fare levels and, importantly, yield management ... how many seats to offer in each code (fare basis class). The passenger paying a budget fare may sit in the same seat and gets the same service despite having paid one third of the full fare. But he may not get to choose the particular seat and if he decides not to fly he will lose some or all of the price paid. For the operator the idea is that, if possible, all this and yield management attracts people (in this case to BA), rewards loyalty through different schemes, airline alliances and so on. A particular fare will book into one of those fare basis codes. If the flight date is close or the flight is nearly full, no cheap seats will be available or, conversely, if a large number of seats remain unsold last minute promotional fares can be offered at a moment's notice.

The idea is that when the plane takes off, in a perfect world every seat is occupied. BA has a flight specialist on each route whose job it is to manage available seats and prices to be competitive and to fill the plane. They even deliberately overbook in the knowledge that some people will not show up, based on past statistics for that flight on that route. To understand more of how this works, go to a website called matrix.itasoftware. Click on Advanced Controls, pick an airport pair and then on the question mark for help. You can look at Itineraries and Faring. It's a subject in itself and a lot of the analogies do not apply to rail travel or ticketing, but the principles are the same - to offer a range of fares for all markets, fill the capacity and be competitive. Importantly, it can be used at the most basic level or one can use it in very sophisticated ways.

Coming back to rail travel we already have 3-digit station codes, 4-digit codes like 0035. If I want to travel from the South Coast to Glasgow or Edinburgh, with a system like this I could just do a basic search Brighton to Glasgow and see a suitable fare for my travel dates and times. Or I could get more sophisticated and - all in one single search - say I am prepared (depending on price, departure time) to travel on Tuesday or Wednesday morning, prefer faster trains but extra time in London between connections, and to consider leaving instead from Hove and going to Edinburgh instead of Glasgow if that's cheaper or better for me in some way that I decide. I'm then offered a range of fares for my departures (between let's say 8 AM and 10 AM). I see a fare at £82.50 and one at £168.90. In the (airline) example above each fare has a code (it might have 6 digits) and before I book and pay I see (and must accept) the terms and conditions of that particular fare.

In an imaginary future situation I might be able to see "change fees" (yes, just like the airlines) and in this way every fare level could be offered and every condition imposed to manage yields, encourage (or discourage) travel, meet the competition and so on. In other words behind a very simple user-friendly facade lies a huge powerful flexible system for those with the time, knowledge or inclination. No problem with operators, via points, capacity, routes. Validity can be set for specific trains, certain hours of the day (e.g. between 10 AM and noon) and so on. Fares can be SuperBudget, Budget, semi-Flex, Flex, even Football. It can be all things to all people from the elderly to a tech-savvy teenager studying for a business degree. All this just needs the government to invest in or license suitable IT. Tickets from airports could, for a supplement, be valid for a later departure if the incoming flight was late. Everything is possible, even last minute £5 MegaBudget fares when trains are empty - intended to encourage more people to use trains.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I find there's a limit to how much work you can do on a train. Reading documents/ making notes for meeting prep is certainly possible but technical drawings or complex spreadsheets are better on a proper desktop PC with a reliable internet connection. So I'd put the productive value at maybe half the usual amount of office time.

It also depends how busy the train is. I've had some incredibly productive journeys when I've had a table of 4 to myself (or a table of 2 in 1st), I find things going by the window and the rail noise to be the perfect level of background noise to allow me to concentrate very well. However, make that a single non-priority airline seat where my laptop barely fits and I don't have a power socket, and yeah, you're down to reading papers on the iPad.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I agree with you apart from your first sentence, and I have never said otherwise.

Commuters and business travellers pay more than their share for the running of the railways. Their fares are higher so of course they do. That's subsidising other users. That is unavoidable and necessary to some degree. The question is what is that degree. I refer you to the calculation in my post 65 and repeated in post 180. Maybe leisure travellers can pay a bit more, to ease the pain of commuters?



Of course it does. But the question is how do we maximise income from leisure travellers, as we do for business travellers with their magic expenses money tree? Are the current fares, and the current fares structure, absolutely the best that we can achieve? We don't necessarily maximise income by selling more tickets - 200 tickets sold at 10 pounds makes more money than 300 tickets sold at 5 pounds.

Now, I am speaking somewhat provocatively for effect. I'm actually in favour of subsidising the railways properly and attracting people away from more damaging forms of transport such as cars. But the current system is what it is, and the role of the TOCs is to maximise their income while meeting minimum service levels. To use a nice old proverb - what's good for the goose (business travellers and commuters) is good for the gander (leisure travellers).

No, commuters aren't subsidising leisure travellers. They are paying (almost) the cost of providing the service, minus whatever precious pennies discretionary travellers will throw into the pot.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Each rail operator is on a government contract, the terms of which are hidden from the public and, presumably, RDG. The contracts all expire on different dates.
Franchise agreements and direct awards are available via Freedom of Information requests, albeit with a few redactions. Many are proactively published.

In this example, we raise some extra money from leisure travellers which we could use to cut prices to business travellers and commuters (or for some other purpose).
If you really think the TOCs will cut prices for business travellers, when they are, by and large, having success in extracting ridiculous amounts from the sale of business-oriented fares, then perhaps you need to reconsider the proposal!

I don't think some people quite understand that rail fares are not about fairness. They are about maximising revenue at the end of the day. The operators don't care how full or empty the trains are, beyond trying to avoid levels of overcrowding that are so severe they generate negative PR.

Business travellers and particularly commuters are, by and large, much less demand elastic than leisure travellers are. Increase fares by 10% and you might lose 5% of customers. Meanwhile, increase leisure fares by 10% and you might lose 20% of customers, as the travel is fundamentally more discretionary and thus alternative ways of travelling or spending the money are actively considered.

If the railway is to operate in this manner, rather than the 'public service' manner that it perhaps was before any kind of discounted fare was introduced (e.g. Railcards, Off-Peak fares), that is an inevitable part of having a viable system.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
It also depends how busy the train is. I've had some incredibly productive journeys when I've had a table of 4 to myself (or a table of 2 in 1st), I find things going by the window and the rail noise to be the perfect level of background noise to allow me to concentrate very well. However, make that a single non-priority airline seat where my laptop barely fits and I don't have a power socket, and yeah, you're down to reading papers on the iPad.
It also depends how busy the train is. I've had some incredibly productive journeys when I've had a table of 4 to myself (or a table of 2 in 1st), I find things going by the window and the rail noise to be the perfect level of background noise to allow me to concentrate very well. However, make that a single non-priority airline seat where my laptop barely fits and I don't have a power socket, and yeah, you're down to reading papers on the iPad.

And to bring it back to the topic - my colleague and I do London to Manchester roughly once a quarter. We inevitably go up on the 0900 from Euston which is half the price of the 0820 or 0840 for Advances, as it's the first "off peak" train. It's also less busy so we can get a table of four all the way. All of this is "on expenses" but we'd never buy the Anytime Return.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
How many of those business users using the full fat anytime return fare for London - Manchester are paying for it out of their own pocket, rather than claiming it back on business expenses (or it having been purchased for them)?
Probably not many. But their employers may well decide that the cost of those tickets is not justifiable, and that they should travel at other times, by other modes, or simply not travel.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Any proposals to alter fares that, in terms of the existing contract that each operator holds, are not seen as "revenue neutral" will result in the lawyers keeping quiet if it's seen as more revenue but OTOH they will immediately protest if it's seen as hitting revenue, reducing profits or benefiting the competition (such as under ORCATS). These discussions will be private and never see the light of day, I'm thinking.

So the only way this could be done is to fix a date in the future when major changes would be made across the entire rail network, already reflected in the negotiations and bids for new contracts. If I am correct, all this discussion here on this thread is a little academic as neither we nor RDG are privy to the T&C of each contract. The cost of altering contracts could be huge and as in the end the rail user pays, it might not be worth attempting this but instead just tinkering around the edges.

I don't really think that there is any reason not to grasp the nettle with regard to fares when the argument to do so is won (and I think it is more widely, if not on this forum). The subsequent renegotiations might in fact be a blessing in disguise as many franchises have overbid and this allows a graceful way to avoid a situation where franchises might collapse if things stay as they are.

One thought that was prompted by your post: if every leg of every journey is individually priced, this leaves much more level playing field for open access operators to compete with the incumbents. The old pre-privatisation dream of true competition on rail - with no franchises just operators bidding on a path-by-path basis - might come a bit closer.

We will also have to see what the Williams review brings. Some of its findings might also be grounds for renegotiating a franchise mid flow.

Your references to the way things are done in the airline business are rather over my head (pun not intended). Hopefully the rail operators will take advantage of such experience to have a system that is even more modern.
 

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
956
If I'm travelling from Birmingham to Nottingham and back, the right ticket (for me) is one which allows me to choose which of the permitted routes to take and whether/where to break my journey. Under the proposed system it sounds like I would have to make that choice at the point of purchase. Is that correct?

The proposed system would integrate journey planning data fully into fare calculations - either in advance or post-journey (as Pay As You Go) does. So any journey, via any route, with any required breaks of journey could be calculated. Furthermore, it would be very easy with any itinerary change either in advamce or on route so see whether the existing ticket was valid or whether it needed exchange or excess. This does not mean that tickets have to be train specific; flexible fares would continue to exist - but for the ordinary person it can be ridiculously complex to establish whether your ticket is valid or, if you need to excess it, to be charged the right fare and be able to pay it easily. The fundamental underlying reason for this is that the design of the current fares structure pre-dates mobile phones, internet, apps and devices to help both customers and staff, and needs reform.

If fare regulation was abolished as proposed what mechanism would exist for the government to control pricing of routes that fall under a monopoly of one TOC or where only one TOC can set fares for a flow?
How do the proposals increase flexibility in terms of return tickets though?
Would it actually result in any lessening of restrictions without large price increases for off peak travel?
I acknowledge the current routing system is complicated and open to loopholes but how does the new system cope with pricing anomalies caused by different TOC setting the prices for flows dependent on the load of that service but then using a connection to another service?

Regulation will not be abolished - but it needs to be revisited to reflect modern requirements. This is not a job for TOCs, it is for the regulating authorities and so will be one for DfT and the ORR. However, the products that were regulated in 1995 do not reflect modern life, so part of that debate will be for them to consult and agree about what form of regulation and on what fares represents the best value for taxpayers and passengers. In terms of return tickets, at the simplest level, you wouldn't need to buy an Anytime return if you were going out at peak time and bak at off-peak time. But it also allows mixing and matching of routes out and back and all sorts of other potential advantages. Each operator would set fares individually or where required jointly, but the system algorithms would work out the best combination for through fares and screen out more expensive options that do exactly the same thing.

- How does the system change the current fares settlement for the TOC on routes compared to ORCATS? If by leg pricing is introduced does this limit revenue for TOC who provide the first part of a long journey e.g. Harrogate to London.
- How would it be decided who set the fares for a particular flow? At the moment the setting is mostly historical, which leads to anomalies. I can see a situation in which travellers are disadvantaged because they are only served by an "InterCity" TOC who correspondingly have a higher price base even for local commuting services (see the XC Cheltenham-Birmingham example from my previous post.)
- How transparent is by leg pricing going to be without making for very complicated ticketing options for routes with multiple routing opportunity. E.g. Leeds - Glasgow has three obvious routes (ECML, WCML and Settle-Carlisle) and 5 possible TOC how is this explained to passengers without a huge range of possible fares with per leg pricing?
- Is the current lack of simplicity more actively a lack of education to consumers about how to excess route restrictions? If the default option was defined by all retailers as cheapest for defined time with an ability to excess easily would we have the current issues.

The TSA requirement for revenue allocation is that revenue should follow the passenger. ORCATS was a management information tool designed in the 1980s for BR and never intended to settle real lif money; it is hoplessely out of date. Technology now will allow real time dynamic allocation of revenue to a much greater accuracy and the report recognises that this must happen - not least to eliminate a major factor in fare distortions where a TOC sets a fare based on its allocation in ORCATS rather than what the customer pays. If an operator knows it will get the money for a passenger travelling on a flexible ticket, it will make them more likely to price these realistically rather than try and drive people to advance tickets simply because they know they keep all the money in the latter case.
In terms of 'who sets the flow?', this gets to the heart of the current problem, which is that the fares structure exists externally to the operation of scheduled train services. Think instead of a process whereby anyone running a train service has to price that train service, either themselves or jointly with other operators. Train times and fares are just data - with the right process any train or combination of trains will produce a price to enable travel.
Take your Leeds-Glasgow example - yes, it is 5 TOCs and three geographic routes but actually it is just a bundle of train time data and associated prices - configured correctly. no-one needs to have to work out what TOC or route they want, they simply work out what they want to do and the data processing will come up with an answer. Want it cheaper? If it's possible the data will tell you how. What if you don't know what time you're travelling? OK, this fare lets you use any of the combinations....it's just data, but the current structure predates the processing power we have today.
It's not really lack of education - modern businesses need to adapt to customers' needs, not require them to learn the ropes (especially very tangled ones!)

The practical answer to this one is "by way of a journey planner".
If RDG were to offer a single accredited back end system it would make sense in that all errors in planners could be corrected if an error was discovered quickly. Likewise mobile ticketing would make far more sense if a single app was accredited and used by all TOC without extra charges. I.e. a National Rail app that also sold tickets.

Yes, journey planning needs to be fully intergrated into the pricing structure, and new ticketing technology must be capable of working industry wide. Both if these are enabled by the proposed fares reform.

Each rail operator is on a government contract, the terms of which are hidden from the public and, presumably, RDG. The contracts all expire on different dates. So the only way this could be done is to fix a date in the future when major changes would be made across the entire rail network, already reflected in the negotiations and bids for new contracts.
51% of the industry is either currently under government control or within a year of franchise change. The existing frnachise agreements are capable of being adjusted to hold TOCs harmless during the transition. The point of confluence is Government - as long as the changes can meet treasury requirements, DfT can manage surpluses and losses across contracts as long as they collectively add up. The crucial thing about the proposed approach to reform is that it does not have to be done as a big bang as long as the customer front end is configured to calculate the right answer based on available fares - so the early work is likely to focus on that as much as anything if Government goes for this.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
12,981
Regulation will not be abolished - but it needs to be revisited to reflect modern requirements.

I'm suspicious of this as the document indicates that outside of commuter routes regulation is likely to be revenue based rather than on a specific type of fare. The problem with a revenue based regulation is that if a TOC is falling short of their turnover target guess what they'll do. For transparency regulation needs to be based on a specific fare (I'd suggest an Off Peak fare on a ling distance train) as this prevents greedy TOCs from fleecing passengers.
 

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
956
I'm suspicious of this as the document indicates that outside of commuter routes regulation is likely to be revenue based rather than on a specific type of fare. The problem with a revenue based regulation is that if a TOC is falling short of their turnover target guess what they'll do. For transparency regulation needs to be based on a specific fare (I'd suggest an Off Peak fare on a ling distance train) as this prevents greedy TOCs from fleecing passengers.
Remember, those 'greedy' TOCs are paying premiums to the DfT. The margins in rail currently are small or non-existent. The problem with regulating one fare type is that it doesn't help you if you don't use that one fare - at the moment, peak long distance travellers have no protection whatsoever. So the question is whether regulatory authorities might instead want to target actual average fares paid or something similar. Any future regulation does indeed need to be transparent but it shound't just favour a specific type of traveller for historic reasons - instead it is important to understand who is being protected and to what end to ensure that the subsidy (for that is waht it is) is spent wisely.
 

Randomer

Member
Joined
31 Jul 2017
Messages
314
The proposed system would integrate journey planning data fully into fare calculations - either in advance or post-journey (as Pay As You Go) does. So any journey, via any route, with any required breaks of journey could be calculated. Furthermore, it would be very easy with any itinerary change either in advance or on route so see whether the existing ticket was valid or whether it needed exchange or excess.

I can see some sense in this however the current fares system could be able to do this with a properly integrated journey planner with a single joined up back end for journey planning and ticket sales. I appreciate there isn't a commercial imperative for the RDG members collectively (or the RDG itself) to implement such a planner without either being linked to fares reform or is obligated to move to such a programme through newer DFT franchise agreements.

This does not mean that tickets have to be train specific; flexible fares would continue to exist - but for the ordinary person it can be ridiculously complex to establish whether your ticket is valid or, if you need to excess it, to be charged the right fare and be able to pay it easily. The fundamental underlying reason for this is that the design of the current fares structure pre-dates mobile phones, internet, apps and devices to help both customers and staff, and needs reform.

I agree that the current system is incredibly complex. However; the situation is not helped by some TOC doing things like making it onerous for staff to issue zero fare excesses, incorrectly training staff that a new ticket must be issued onboard for when a route taken is not valid for the service used and a general lack of ticketing training for staff involved in revenue duties (including the use of contracted personnel as revenue protection or investigation staff e.g. Northern's use of Carlisle security or TfWRail use of Transport Investigations Limited who have repeatedly threatened prosecution on tickets that only required a zero fare excess on XC.)

I fundamentally disagree that the system was too complex at inception at privatisation or it would have never been put in place. It has only become so because of the profusion of routing restrictions both on tickets and the routing guide along with the huge numbers of TOC only tickets now available.

But it also allows mixing and matching of routes out and back and all sorts of other potential advantages. Each operator would set fares individually or where required jointly, but the system algorithms would work out the best combination for through fares and screen out more expensive options that do exactly the same thing.

This sounds like a reasonable idea if the ability to retain flexibility for the customer was still there (both before purchase, before travel and on train) something which I hope we can agree the current system lacks. However, in some cases the cause of the problem is precisely because of policy restrictions by RDG and its member TOC. The most glaring one that comes to mind is the lack of ability to excess a TOC only ticket to another TOC or indeed to any other flexible ticket.

For example if the ability to excess any fare without a fee was put in place with a condition that it must be done before travel in the case of whatever "advance" tickets are to become in the new system. If the TOC can calculate and put a price on any train journey using a particular service then it should be easy to calculate any difference in price and release the advance ticket held back for sale. This would result in greater flexibility for customers and potentially increased profit for a TOC (in the original ticket price, the excess and the resale of the advance fare.)

Yes, journey planning needs to be fully intergrated into the pricing structure, and new ticketing technology must be capable of working industry wide. Both if these are enabled by the proposed fares reform.

However, the current proposals do not obligate this to happen. We could continue with the same fragmented confusing system of ticket sales but with different journey planners dealing with them in multiple different ways (indeed in the case of those that provide back end services e.g. Trainline for Northern with completely different appearance.) How does this simplify the ticket buying process for the least experienced travellers?
 
Last edited:

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
956
I fundamentally disagree that the system was too complex at inception at privatisation or it would have never been put in place. It has only become so because of the profusion of routing restrictions both on tickets and the routing guide along with the huge numbers of TOC only tickets now available.
The system was not too complex at inception because it was then a current system using current technology. But we have to remember that this was 24 years ago, and it is simply not reasonable to expect it to have kept pace with the dramatic chnage in technology and lifestyles since. It is true that systems can be designed to cope with the current structure - but they are expensive, inefficient and create high barriers to entry for new suppliers. The concept of TOC only versus interavailable tickets has got beyond sustainability, and to break it down into the simplest proposition means getting to a point where there are fares and there are the trains that you can use, and you can search for it either way!
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
12,981
Remember, those 'greedy' TOCs are paying premiums to the DfT. The margins in rail currently are small or non-existent. The problem with regulating one fare type is that it doesn't help you if you don't use that one fare - at the moment, peak long distance travellers have no protection whatsoever. So the question is whether regulatory authorities might instead want to target actual average fares paid or something similar. Any future regulation does indeed need to be transparent but it shound't just favour a specific type of traveller for historic reasons - instead it is important to understand who is being protected and to what end to ensure that the subsidy (for that is waht it is) is spent wisely.

It's the Government that's part of the problem! If we had revenue based regulation VTEC would still be in existence with fares rising exponentially to pay the premium due to the Government while trying to stay afloat. I agree that regulating just one fare is far from perfect but at least it enables a degree of control which a pure revenue based target would not.

There's no way we'd have flexible Off Peak return fares like London - Manchester at £89, London - Bristol at £61, London - Norwich at £56 with revenue based regulation. The regulated off peak fare also provides an effective maximum for Advance fares as well which a revenue based regulation wouldn't.

I agree that there's little protection here for Anytime fares but as far as I'm concerned that just demonstrates the sort of increases the TOCs would like to impose across the board on popular flows.
 
Last edited:

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
People using TVMs to buy stuff are generally either expert users or just buying a return to the nearest large town or city.

Do you have any evidence for this ? It certainly does not match my observations of people using TVMs.

The fundamental underlying reason for this is that the design of the current fares structure pre-dates mobile phones, internet, apps and devices to help both customers and staff, and needs reform.

RDG/TOCs are very fond of claiming the current design has been around for decades. In fact, it is their actions which have caused many of the problems in the choosing of a ticket - introducing more and more routing restrictions (as stated many times, the original Routeing Guide contained 26 maps - the latest version contains over 350) and timing restrictions (until they started meddling, 'saver' tickets almost never had time restrictions expect for travel to/from/via London and day return tickets outside of London & the South East had no evening restrictions).

Interesting, also, that despite all the devices available to help staff, many refuse to use them and trot out the line "I have worked here for xx years" with the clear implication that things have been set in stone since pre-digital days - they obviously subscribe to the RDG/TOC mantra.
 
Last edited:

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
I think one key sticking point will always be the level of regulation. The TOCs would like to abolish product-specific regulation, because they say it 'hampers innovation', whatever they actually mean by that. The only alternative form of regulation that I would be willing to accept would be regulating the average price paid, per journey leg, for each flow, in addition to maintaining regulation of season ticket prices (where I see no case whatsoever for deregulation). As stated before, total revenue regulation only leads to ever wider gulfs between Anytime and Off-Peak fares.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
RDG/TOCs are very fond of claiming the current design has been around for decades. In fact, it is their actions which have caused many of the problems in the choosing of a ticket - introducing more and more routing restrictions (as stated many times, the original Routeing Guide contained 26 maps - the latest version contains over 350) and timing restrictions (until they started meddling, 'saver' tickets almost never had time restrictions expect for travel to/from/via London and day return tickets outside of London & the South East had no evening restrictions).

Interesting, also, that despite all the devices available to help staff, many refuse to use them and trot out the line "I have worked here for xx years" with the clear implication that things have been set in stone since pre-digital days - they obviously subscribe to the RDG/TOC mantra.
I agree very much, and this goes to the heart of the matter. I would be open to discussing proposals of how the system could be changed, but as a frame of reference the TOCs must accept that the current system stays in place (except for small-scale trials) until everything is agreed about a potential new fares system, and that this change cannot be a back-handed way of increasing revenues, like the last two "major changes" were.

The way that the RDG continually blame the very system that their own members made so needlessly complex, is simply insidious and disgusting. It devalues anything else they say - even things that would otherwise be potentially notable points. They need to stop doing that, or else it will make it impossible to have meaningful discussion over what the best solution is.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
1. I disagree that it's not politically acceptable. What you mean is that you don't like it as you might have to pay more.
Shipping to a specific point. There is a long tradition in politics of the voice of losers outweighing the voice of winners. So, in this case, the voice of a large number of people being asked to pay some more may well outweigh that of a smaller number who gain by reductions in their fares.

That is not about economics - I agree with your view if I accept your premise that revenue maximisation is paramount - but practical politics.

As it happens, I disagree with your starting premise given the public policy objectives of this and previous governments, and the subsidy that is paid to provide this important public transport service. As others have cited, it is also debatable whether a pure revenue maximisation approach of the sort you advocate achieves that result.

I personally feel that the RDG approach, as reported, misses one of the most fundamental blockers to use of the railway - the loss of affordable turn up and go fares, and the perception that they have been replaced by use it or lose it tickets for specific trains. All of the measures proposed - some of which may have virtue - fail to deal with the key issue that the railway has progressively been made more customer unfriendly over the last 30 or so years.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
The way that the RDG continually blame the very system that their own members made so needlessly complex, is simply insidious and disgusting. It devalues anything else they say - even things that would otherwise be potentially notable points. They need to stop doing that, or else it will make it impossible to have meaningful discussion over what the best solution is.

RDG are highly unlikely to do that. Their insidious behaviour is obviously having the effect they desire - they have convinced a number of posters on here, never mind the unquestioning media outlets who repeat the claim and hence the general public who consume the media.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,157
Location
West of Andover
Probably not many. But their employers may well decide that the cost of those tickets is not justifiable, and that they should travel at other times, by other modes, or simply not travel.

Depends how high in the food chain the employee is, and how important the meeting/event they are attending is
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Depends how high in the food chain the employee is, and how important the meeting/event they are attending is
I quite agree, that will affect the decision. But that point about importance cuts two ways. Tools like Skype dramatically reduce the requirement for face to face contact, and excessive costs force more and more focus on the value of the trip. There’s a saying about golden geese...
 

FenMan

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2011
Messages
1,364
Until the rail industry grasps the concept that many passengers have no interest in the shortest mileage when traveling from A to B this initiative will be at best half-cocked and possibly a lot worse than what we have now. Many want the best A to B journey time and frequency.

I live in Blackwater and often travel to London using a Travelcard (mainly after the morning peak). The two primary routes are via Reading and Guildford (and several options exist from Guildford to London of course), but other routes are available, via Farnborough North - Farnborough Main, via North Camp - Ash Vale, via Wokingham - Ascot, via Dorking Deepdene - Dorking Main and, for some tickets, via Redhill. Mileages vary considerably, but each of these routes can be the best way of Joe Punter (me) getting to and from where I want to go.

Pricing of these options currently is in the hands of GWR (any permitted route) and SWR (via Guildford/Ascot) and, off peak, the pricing is very similar, with the GWR fare being better value for travellers unable to comply with SWR's super off peak restrictions. More fool SWR for pricing their via Guildford/Ascot off peak fares* higher than the GWR any permitted off peak fares. The current pricing works, just about.

*The shortest routes to London are via Ascot or Guildford, so the cheaper GWR fares are valid, as confirmed by the NRE Journey Planner.

How would RDG's proposals deal with this as they appear to be focussing on passengers taking direct trains from A to B?
 
Joined
24 Apr 2017
Messages
12
I think theres a bit of a panic on the forums. I don't believe these proposals will go through parliament. There will be too much of a public backlash for any government that institutes it. They are currently just in a 'paper' from RDG and I suspect will probably be forgotten in a few months. In any case, even if they are instituted, all the RDG approved TIS would need time to institute the changes and modify their systems, test, etc which is no trivial task. A 3-5 year timeline is VERY optimistic in my view!

What I do believe however is TOCs are intent on killing the split-ticketing market by proposing touch-in/out tickets. Split ticketing currently works in part because passengers can carry valid paper tickets for a portion of their journeys (say the mid parts). If these tickets are no longer valid because the passenger didn't "touch-in" then split-ticketing no longer works. This looks like an attempt to do just that.

Don't panic guys! Split ticketing is going to be around for quite a while and apps like TrainPal, TrainAI and TrainSplit will be around for quite some time.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The system was not too complex at inception because it was then a current system using current technology. But we have to remember that this was 24 years ago, and it is simply not reasonable to expect it to have kept pace with the dramatic chnage in technology and lifestyles since. It is true that systems can be designed to cope with the current structure - but they are expensive, inefficient and create high barriers to entry for new suppliers. The concept of TOC only versus interavailable tickets has got beyond sustainability, and to break it down into the simplest proposition means getting to a point where there are fares and there are the trains that you can use, and you can search for it either way!

What are these great changes to lifestyles that have changed beyond recognition over the past 24 years ? The only one I can think of is that people work from home more, something that can be catered for by carnet tickets.

Apart from this, the fundamentals haven't changed. Passengers still need good value tickets, those doing a short notice day trip more so, those doing pre-planned business trips less so.

The key is that unless people are doing a pre-planned long distance trip where they're more inclined to stick with a particular train, people will want route and train flexibility for when plans change, things go wrong or if they need to stop off on the way.

It is the TOC's who want some sort of massive change in passenger habits - for people to book to a particular train for unrealistically short journeys, for their own ends, not the travelling public.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I personally feel that the RDG approach, as reported, misses one of the most fundamental blockers to use of the railway - the loss of affordable turn up and go fares, and the perception that they have been replaced by use it or lose it tickets for specific trains. All of the measures proposed - some of which may have virtue - fail to deal with the key issue that the railway has progressively been made more customer unfriendly over the last 30 or so years.

Absolutely. The fact of the matter is that a lot of short and medium distance travel just isn't suited to pre-booked trains and the TOC's are unwilling to accept that.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
I think theres a bit of a panic on the forums. I don't believe these proposals will go through parliament. There will be too much of a public backlash for any government that institutes it. They are currently just in a 'paper' from RDG and I suspect will probably be forgotten in a few months. In any case, even if they are instituted, all the RDG approved TIS would need time to institute the changes and modify their systems, test, etc which is no trivial task. A 3-5 year timeline is VERY optimistic in my view!

What I do believe however is TOCs are intent on killing the split-ticketing market by proposing touch-in/out tickets. Split ticketing currently works in part because passengers can carry valid paper tickets for a portion of their journeys (say the mid parts). If these tickets are no longer valid because the passenger didn't "touch-in" then split-ticketing no longer works. This looks like an attempt to do just that.

Don't panic guys! Split ticketing is going to be around for quite a while and apps like TrainPal, TrainAI and TrainSplit will be around for quite some time.
The fact is, it's not down to Parliament to approve these changes - the DfT already has the power to enact the changes.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Commuters and business travellers pay more than their share for the running of the railways. Their fares are higher so of course they do. That's subsidising other users.

Much of the cost of the railway is to provide peak capacity, especially in the south east. Extra trains, extra drivers, capacity upgrades. The commuter railway is very expensive to operate. Commuters don't "subsidise" anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top