Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
no company I know pays employee travel time outside of normal working hours
Every company I've ever worked for has given me TOIL for travel time outside working hours.
no company I know pays employee travel time outside of normal working hours
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.
I have totally the opposite opinion. I actually think a little creative destruction is a good thing here! I am of the camp that consider rail fares have become so convoluted that evolution of the present system is foreclosed, and so revolution it must be. Tear it all down and start again, I say
I actually think a little creative destruction is a good thing here! I am of the camp that consider rail fares have become so convoluted that evolution of the present system is foreclosed, and so revolution it must be.
Exactly - I'm not against change, but things have to stay as they are until we can be sure that the proposed new system is actually better than the current one, and not just a hidden way of price rises.I'd probably agree, I just wouldn't trust RDG not to build something worse for passengers (in fact, I'd lay bets on a new system being worse!)
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.
I have totally the opposite opinion. I actually think a little creative destruction is a good thing here! I am of the camp that consider rail fares have become so convoluted that evolution of the present system is foreclosed, and so revolution it must be. Tear it all down and start again, I say! Obviously the evolutionary and revolutionary sides of the argument are not going to reach agreement, that's just how things are.
Sweeping away the old and replacement with the new is a natural part of life. Death, rebirth, renewal. I follow advances in computing so have some examples there. Around the turn of the millennium both Microsoft and Apple replaced their old systems from the 1980's (DOS based Windows 95, 98, ME to WinNT based XP for Microsoft, Mac OS to the Next based OS-X in Apple's case). This was necessary because the basic architectures behind the old systems had simply become too stuffed with bodges and hacks intended to give modern functionality that a whole clean sheet architecture was needed. Does that mean these firms were bad custodians of their own software? No, it's just that anything can only be improved up to a point before the original assumptions underpinning its design become liabilities. Replacement became inevitable when the benefits long term outweighed the inconvenience to users of doing so. Blackberry and Palm both failed before they could compete a similar evolution their handheld operating system - both had developed lovely new systems the equal of Android or iOS but had acted too late to stop the rot, maybe a lesson for the rail industry there?
The fact is, it's not down to Parliament to approve these changes - the DfT already has the power to enact the changes.
I haven't yet read through all the RDG proposals yet, so I can't say if I believe them to be the right way forward. But I am pleased to see that the current system is now under real challenge, because this will provoke debate as it has here, & hopefully encourage more ideas & innovations to be put on the table. The current system isn't just broken, its in danger of switching off passengers. Of course it shouldn't just be used to force revenue grabbing by stealth, there will need to be transparency at every stage & revenue neutrality at point of switchover is essential. But that does not mean we simply stick to the current system until everyone is happy, because not everybody will ever be. Yes it may mean the loss of some ultra-cheap seats, but it doesn't necessarily have to impact most leisure travellers by any means.
I have totally the opposite opinion. I actually think a little creative destruction is a good thing here! I am of the camp that consider rail fares have become so convoluted that evolution of the present system is foreclosed, and so revolution it must be. Tear it all down and start again, I say! Obviously the evolutionary and revolutionary sides of the argument are not going to reach agreement, that's just how things are.
Sweeping away the old and replacement with the new is a natural part of life. Death, rebirth, renewal. I follow advances in computing so have some examples there. Around the turn of the millennium both Microsoft and Apple replaced their old systems from the 1980's (DOS based Windows 95, 98, ME to WinNT based XP for Microsoft, Mac OS to the Next based OS-X in Apple's case). This was necessary because the basic architectures behind the old systems had simply become too stuffed with bodges and hacks intended to give modern functionality that a whole clean sheet architecture was needed. Does that mean these firms were bad custodians of their own software? No, it's just that anything can only be improved up to a point before the original assumptions underpinning its design become liabilities. Replacement became inevitable when the benefits long term outweighed the inconvenience to users of doing so. Blackberry and Palm both failed before they could compete a similar evolution their handheld operating system - both had developed lovely new systems the equal of Android or iOS but had acted too late to stop the rot, maybe a lesson for the rail industry there?
I think you are being way too optimistic. Based on what the RDG have said, it is clear this is not just a "challenge" to fix the existing broken system. It is just a group of private companies wanting to get rid of regulation that they don't like as those regulations (at least try to) protect passengers from unfair restrictions and unfair price rises. I have seen no evidence to suggest that they actually have the passengers interest at heart with any of this.
I think you are being way too optimistic. Based on what the RDG have said, it is clear this is not just a "challenge" to fix the existing broken system. It is just a group of private companies wanting to get rid of regulation that they don't like as those regulations (at least try to) protect passengers from unfair restrictions and unfair price rises. I have seen no evidence to suggest that they actually have the passengers interest at heart with any of this.
I think you are being way too optimistic. Based on what the RDG have said, it is clear this is not just a "challenge" to fix the existing broken system. It is just a group of private companies wanting to get rid of regulation that they don't like as those regulations (at least try to) protect passengers from unfair restrictions and unfair price rises. I have seen no evidence to suggest that they actually have the passengers interest at heart with any of this.
But it is possible, of course, that even if their main motivation is to do that (and I think it is a motivation, but I think it isn't the only one; most businesses do want to extract maximum profit from their customers, but it also isn't in their interest to scare them all off) there are positive outcomes for the passenger too.
Ryanair might be a good example of this - it has many, many bad points, but people still use it because it is cheap.
To clarify my issue is how does that level of complexity display in a journey planner in an easily understood format? We already have accredited planners unable to offer fares (e.g. the ongoing saga of LNER SSU fares being unavailable in some planners.)
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. This is what is available in all of the EU countries I have used mobile ticketing in. However this is really a separate issue to the ticketing reforms despite attempts by RDG to link them.
Playing the Devil's Advocate here, and having recently booked a flight with said airline, so long as you understand their pricing policy from the off (as well as the T&Cs like checking in online), it is possible to fly very cheaply & without fuss. Indeed booking a flight with them is at least as easy, maybe even easier than booking trains! However its not a pricing model I would advocate for the railways, but there are lessons to be learned from the airline industry I feel that could benefit passengers just wanting an A to B journey with no thrills, and passengers wanting those extra pops, bells & whistles.
Can I see an argument for having a single specification of ticketing app so that the current confusion of mobile ticketing is solved, yes.
From page 51 with the diagrams:
"KMPG modeling showing smoothed demand on long distance travel could reduce overcrowding by up to a third on some services"
So KMPG have a rail demand management model? Did they have that or develop it specifically? Has it been validated by any organisation? Is it open for "inspection"? Pretty important I'd have thought if this exercise is to be revenue neutral for the taxpayer. Do those diagrams look revenue neutral? Forecasting hasn't exactly been one of the rail industry's strong points.
So not only let the fox run the hen house in terms of fares but also have a monopoly on the tech? Lots of travellers are already missing out on cheaper alternatives they might prefer because of the sites they choose to buy from, do you think that would improve if there was just one tech solution?
I think you are being way too optimistic. Based on what the RDG have said, it is clear this is not just a "challenge" to fix the existing broken system. It is just a group of private companies wanting to get rid of regulation that they don't like as those regulations (at least try to) protect passengers from unfair restrictions and unfair price rises. I have seen no evidence to suggest that they actually have the passengers interest at heart with any of this.
Ultimately more passengers means more revenue, and fairer fares means more passengers. So this being currently driven by TOCs may not be entirely bad. Of course with any change there will be winners and losers, but as commuter, business & leisure user I can see potential for improvements from this.
Studies of the rail industry showed dramatic benefits for both railroads and their users from the alteration to the regulatory system.[2]:253–4 According to studies by the Department of Transportation's Freight Management and Operations, railroad industry costs and prices were halved over a ten-year period, the railroads reversed their historic loss of traffic (as measured by ton-miles) to the trucking industry, and railroad industry profits began to recover, after decades of low profits and widespread railroad insolvencies.[5] In 2007 the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress, "The railroad industry is increasingly healthy and rail rates have generally declined since 1985, despite recent rate increases.... There is widespread consensus that the freight rail industry has benefited from the Staggers Rail Act."[6]
The Association of American Railroads, the principal railroad industry trade association, stated that the Staggers Act has led to a 51 percent reduction in average shipping rates, and $480 billion has been reinvested by the industry into their rail systems.[5]
If you say so. But my point still stands, any Government that allows this to happen on their watch will not be looked at favourably by the public. The transport secretary (whoever he/she is at the time) will get the blame for "raising commuters fares unfairly". I'd be very surprised if these plans go ahead.
Didn't think I'd ever agree with Mike but I agree here. I don't think its feasible to let any one party own the backend TIS. Competition in the market is currently almost non-existent as things stand. Forcing all the players to use a single TIS will kill off innovation in the industry completely. Not sure its likely that RDG will develop their solution though. We've all seen how large "government" IT projects have gone in the past.
Didn't think I'd ever agree with Mike but I agree here. I don't think its feasible to let any one party own the backend TIS. Competition in the market is currently almost non-existent as things stand. Forcing all the players to use a single TIS will kill off innovation in the industry completely. Not sure its likely that RDG will develop their solution though. We've all seen how large "government" IT projects have gone in the past.
ATOC/RDG have managed to develop the National Rail planner as probably the best one of the lot, though, including support for split tickets in the manner that this system proposes (i.e. it doesn't go "no, ner ner ne ner ner" if you want to do an odd route, it prices it up as a split). So how's it implausible that they might simply add a retail function to it and away you go?
Mobile based tickets should be optional, not mandatory. Someone should not be at a disadvantage because they can't or don't want to use that option.
This could be done easily with the existing system but for one thing - return tickets, which massively confuse things.
most businesses do want to extract maximum profit from their customers, but it also isn't in their interest to scare them all off) there are positive outcomes for the passenger too.
Ryanair might be a good example of this - it has many, many bad points, but people still use it because it is cheap.
Ultimately more passengers means more revenue, and fairer fares means more passengers. So this being currently driven by TOCs may not be entirely bad. Of course with any change there will be winners and losers, but as commuter, business & leisure user I can see potential for improvements from this.
I, however, cannot. The TOCs do not have any meaningful competition. Those booking 6 months in advance may grab cheap fares but everyone else will be shafted. The current regulatory system acts as a brake against price gouging, but getting rid of it removes that brake. Dynamic pricing only ever leads to astronomical price gouging for anyone who has to travel at short notice; look what airlines charge for last minute tickets!
TOCs do have competion though, cars. It is true where airlines have little or no competition they do price gouge on late ticket sales. But throw in a couple of budget airlines and things change quickly. And whilst there are no options for budget competition on the rails, cars for represent a viable alternative for many.
However for the most part airlines have a captive market, trains do not. Most passengers do have a choice, price them out and watch the passenger numbers fall off a cliff, in particular services used more by leisure passengers. TOCs will be aware of this, despite what many people believe. And if they don't, then they will go the way the airline companies that ignored the changing face of passenger demand.
You don't buy air tickets the same way that you did in 1995. The High Street has changed beyond recognition. The Monday-Friday 9-5 full time office job has changed. People don't get their news from newspapers and TV. London didn't have Oyster. I'm just skimming the surface.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.