How can rail fares be simplified?

[WesternLancer]

At this stage it is proposed as a concept to 'simplify' fares, not as a hugely detailed plan to be immediately shot down on the basis of minor flows. At no point have I suggested any kind of timetable change at the time of 'simplification', so I do not know where you get your 'removing half the service between St. Austell and Liskeard' [as if there are lots of people making that journey!] . The trains would still be operating, just on a differential tariff. Likewise there will not be 60% of the service removed between Coventry and Birmingham either! Travel from Plymouth to St. Germans at 18h31 on a local train the fare is £5; at 20h16 on an Inter-City it is £7. Simplification could mean single leg pricing anyway.

Clearly there would have to be pretty clear distinctions between Local and Inter-City trains, but I don't think that would be too hard. Apparently this works pretty well in Germany.

It is inevitable, with any simplification, that there will be winners and losers. Fares are not merely going to be reduced to the lowest possible fare available now. What kind of emotion has been stirred for an assumption that the Inter City tariff would be 'two or three times' that of a local train?

As I stated, exceptions would have to be kept at a minimum, otherwise the term 'simplification' is a misnomer. Possibly Edinburgh to Dunbar is one of those which are inevitable. I certainly wouldn't envisage, in the short term at least, running additional trains or any complicated bustitution. That is just scare mongering. I see no reason why the Inter-City fare for a short hop from Edinburgh to Dunbar, in the absence of a parallel local service, would be punitive.

I would expect networks and timetables of the two train types to gradually change as the decision making evolves. This may even result in a local train service to Dunbar, possibly at the expense of fewer Inter City trains. But this is conjecture.

Obv it's do-able but the culture of UK travel by rail does not really support it in the eyes of the users - if you are doing a local trip you just want to do what a car driver can (sort of) do - get on and go for one price.

It's like the way I get hacked off between Nottingham and Derby with an off peak day return, I can't use the rtn portion as XC withdrew eve off peak on the route which they priced, unless I pay the anytime fare, which is the grand sum of c50p more - but when I set out in the morning I don't know when my shopping trip may end so I have to buy the higher cost ticket just in case I need to come back in the peak as there is no system to pay the excess 50p upgrade.

To the avg passenger there is no quality difference between an XC 170 and EMR 158 (due to become a 170 of course) on the route

But if I lived in Mansfield that would not be part of the picture as XC don't price that route

It just does the avg passengers head in, annoys you and isn't simple...

And as for Gatwick - London.....

 

[Starmill]

At this stage it is proposed as a concept to 'simplify' fares, not as a hugely detailed plan to be immediately shot down on the basis of minor flows.

They aren't really minor flows though, are they? As I was explaining, they're endemic. Such problems would arise countrywide. It would be better to design a system of charging which fits the services we a) already have and b) want to offer in the future. This proposal would mean redevelopment of the service in a way which fits the charging system. This may be a viable proposal, and as has been suggested it doed work very well elsewhere. But if that's the suggestion it should come with an understanding that infrastructure, timetable development and so on all need to develop to fit it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Sep 2020 ==

Apparently this works pretty well in Germany.

Yes, because, in Germany, next to nobody will ever use an ICE train for a short hop. Nor is that really any disadvantage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's like the way I get hacked off between Nottingham and Derby with an off peak day return, I can't use the rtn portion as XC withdrew eve off peak on the route which they priced, unless I pay the anytime fare, which is the grand sum of c50p more - but when I set out in the morning I don't know when my shopping trip may end so I have to buy the higher cost ticket just in case I need to come back in the peak as .

There is. You either go to the ticket office and do it before boarding if there is one, or you take a seat and pay the guard if not. It's a simple excess - and a fairly common one to do, too, unlike e.g. route excesses.

 

[Starmill]

Fares are not merely going to be reduced to the lowest possible fare available now.

Personally I would argue that this is reasonable, sensible, and affordable to taxpayers, and comes with very significant benefits for the environment and the overall reputation of the industry. In the grand scheme of government spending, this is not going to cost very much. Of course, even before Covid-19, most people use trains infrequently or never, so it's not an easy sell.

 

[mark-h]

And how would Dunbar be solved, given it's going to be near impossible to run an hourly local between Edinburgh and Dunbar? The 'intercity' fare for a short hop would need to be punitive

The any train fare could be set to be the same as the local only service for some journies. Dunbar would be reletively easy as the Intercity services run non-stop to Edinburgh so this would not create many fare anomolies where it is cheaper to buy a ticket for a greater journey length than that traveled. It may create split ticket opportunites which go against the idea of a simplified system.

 

[Starmill]

The any train fare could be set to be the same as the local only service for some journies. Dunbar would be reletively easy as the Intercity services run non-stop to Edinburgh so this would not create many fare anomolies where it is cheaper to buy a ticket for a greater journey length than that traveled. It may create split ticket opportunites which go against the idea of a simplified system.

This appears to be nothing more than a description of the position today. So the prospect is now... reform the current structure, but not everywhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The any train fare could be set to be the same as the local only service for some journies. Dunbar would be reletively easy as the Intercity services run non-stop to Edinburgh so this would not create many fare anomolies where it is cheaper to buy a ticket for a greater journey length than that traveled. It may create split ticket opportunites which go against the idea of a simplified system.

In Germany the odd case where this would cause issues is handled by having the IC train act as a RE beyond a certain point. For instance, I don't think it exists any more but there was a once-daily return train pair Hamburg-Berchtesgaden which fitted into a RE path past Freilassing, and so was classed as RE past there. So you could argue that, say, the Penzance GWRs could be IC as far as say Plymouth, but then everything within Cornwall would be RE as part of the regular interval service.

There is a UK example - in normal times the FW Sleeper is basically a "RE" to Edinburgh thence a reservation compulsory night train.

 

[Starmill]

There is a UK example - in normal times the FW Sleeper is basically a "RE" to Edinburgh thence a reservation compulsory night train.

Indeed, this could work very well. But there needs to be a recognition that what we're doing there is proposing a gradual shift over time in the development of the timetable rather than just looking at ways to change the existing fares. I don't think that this is at all the way the government are currently looking at it.

 

[deltic]

Heard of e-tickets? App with a simple button labelled "buy this ticket again" does the trick.

The olden days of queuing up for the ticket window on a Monday morning whilst the gentleman commuter in front with bowler hat, briefcase and umbrella renews his season ticket are over. As are the days of absolutely everybody travelling to work on the 07.18 with their Metro newspaper in hand.

I have but must confess I wasnt thinking of them when I wrote my point. Although interested to know the level of fraud on them given comments on here of people buying a ticket at the last minute before being checked on board rather from their actual origin.

 

[Ianno87]

I have but must confess I wasnt thinking of them when I wrote my point. Although interested to know the level of fraud on them given comments on here of people buying a ticket at the last minute before being checked on board rather from their actual origin.

On the flip side, how many people fare evade because there's a queue at the office/machine and they can't be bothered to wait?

 

[Roy Badami]

I wonder if this will spell the end of the routeing guide, and a return to "any reasonable route"? With the farebox revenue going to the government there'll be no real need for it.

 

[JonathanH]

I wonder if this will spell the end of the routeing guide, and a return to "any reasonable route"? With the farebox revenue going to the government there'll be no real need for it.

It is more likely to lead to the route being made abslolutely clear and specified on the ticket than a free for all on routeing. Mind you, a PAYG system doesn't have routeing limitations other than a maximum journey time.

 

[deltic]

I wonder if this will spell the end of the routeing guide, and a return to "any reasonable route"? With the farebox revenue going to the government there'll be no real need for it.

I have somewhere a very slim booklet which was BR routing guide

 

[thedbdiboy]

Regulation is effectively dead from here on, because it was only ever a contractual agreement between DfT and operators with revenue risk, there is no staututory protection. As the operators have now been relieved of this revenue risk, the DfT and Government is free to do what it likes. It won't rip up the rules for now, but no one should be under any illusion that any fare, route or price is protected beyond what the DfT chooses to do.
However, the changes do set the path for fares structures to be collectively managed without breaching Competition Law, and this creates quite a lot of scope for simplification simply by removing over time duplicate route and product types, some of which are pure ORCATS (allocations) raids with no benefit to the travelling public. This has created the biggest problem with anomalies because the national fares structure is spilt out to seperate operators who are then not allowed to talk to each other and therefore create conflicting fares.
Given that Government will now directly pick up the tab when one fare undermines another, we can expect more action on closing loopholes (although given the speed of Government decission making its unlikely to happen quickly except for the most extreme cases).

 

[WesternLancer]

Regulation is effectively dead from here on, because it was only ever a contractual agreement between DfT and operators with revenue risk, there is no staututory protection. As the operators have now been relieved of this revenue risk, the DfT and Government is free to do what it likes. It won't rip up the rules for now, but no one should be under any illusion that any fare, route or price is protected beyond what the DfT chooses to do.
However, the changes do set the path for fares structures to be collectively managed without breaching Competition Law, and this creates quite a lot of scope for simplification simply by removing over time duplicate route and product types, some of which are pure ORCATS (allocations) raids with no benefit to the travelling public. This has created the biggest problem with anomalies because the national fares structure is spilt out to seperate operators who are then not allowed to talk to each other and therefore create conflicting fares.
Given that Government will now directly pick up the tab when one fare undermines another, we can expect more action on closing loopholes (although given the speed of Government decission making its unlikely to happen quickly except for the most extreme cases).

Good points.
They will need to abolish some fares so that the minister can announce that over x000 fares have been abolished as we simplify the system. But it will remain just as complicated.

 

[Hadders]

At the moment there is a lot of confusion about what peak, off peak and super off peak actually mean, and it varies between routes. Add in the different types of return too, plus travelcards...

It's actually relatively simple once you get your head round it!

Restrictions apply to tickets not to trains. The restriction for a particular ticket will be referenced on the ticket itself. For example, on the ticket it will say 'valid only at certain times for details see nre.co.uk/xx' where xx is the particular restriction code applicable to that ticket.

It goes away with PAYG as well. Question is how far they are prepared to expand that facility. Grant Shapps certainly seems to be in favour.

I'm surprised Shapps hasn't checked the contactless fares from stations in his own constituency because if he did he would find that many of them are more expensive than their paper equivalents, especially at off peak times.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm surprised Shapps hasn't checked the contactless fares from stations in his own constituency because if he did he would find that many of them are more expensive than their paper equivalents, especially at off peak times.

That is a point of detail I would guess he cares little about as discussed before. There are all sorts of downsides to the extension of PAYG from the point of view of how the fares have been set - especially the mixed mode premium - the convenience of Contactless at peak times when the fares aren't that different is what is seen as attractive.

 

[Hadders]

PS - the quoting isn't right in your message.

Thanks - no idea what happened but fixed now

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a point of detail I would guess he cares little about as discussed before. There are all sorts of downsides to the extension of PAYG from the point of view of how the fares have been set - especially the mixed mode premium - the convenience of Contactless at peak times when the fares aren't that different is what is seen as attractive.

But then there are massive advantages of it in terms of convenience.

But does it actually need to follow the cack-handed TfL zonal model, anyway, which wasn't even designed for that sort of ticketing and thus has more holes than Swiss cheese (e.g. having to assume which journeys go via Zone 1 and which not)? There's no real reason why it couldn't just apply point to point fares between the touch in and touch out - it would require single-fare pricing (i.e. return = single x 2) but apart from that it would work fine with any walk up fare structure you like, pretty much. Nationally if you want. The only other limitation is that any peak restrictions can only be based on when you touch in or out, not to any intermediate changes.

OK, you can't do Break of Journey effectively, which is a downside, but apart from that?

 

[yorkie]

I wonder if this will spell the end of the routeing guide, and a return to "any reasonable route"? With the farebox revenue going to the government there'll be no real need for it.

How do you define any "reasonable" route? (in a format that can be understood by electronic booking sites)

It is more likely to lead to the route being made abslolutely clear and specified on the ticket than a free for all on routeing.

What would you print on a ticket from Aberdeen to Penzance to make it "absolutely clear" what routes you may take?

Is there actually a problem with the concept of permitted routes that causes complexity for customers?

The only thing that causes problems is when train companies do make it "absolutely clear" in a way that prevents customers travelling by reasonable routes; I fail to see how more of that is going to help?!

 

[markymark2000]

I think I would ban operator specific fares if the price difference between the operator specific and the anytime is less than £2 single.
Also operators selling tickets less than £1 below a day ranger price should be banned. Passengers then get sold a dayranger. This is commonplace in buses so I believe people are getting more used to it.

In some areas, I think it would be good to start grouping stations and sell tickets to the station group and remove all tickets to specific stations. For example Wrexham General and Central renamed to 'Wrexham Stns'. Liverpool Moorfields, Lime Street Lower, Liverpool Central and James Street renamed to 'Liverpool Loop'. I know that this is done in some areas common already but it doesn't go far enough and I think that by changing it to be more common, it would reduce the amount of fare combinations.

For a slightly more 'out there' grouping fare system, you could link branch lines. For example Milford Haven Branch. As all the fares to all stations on the branch are very similar, you could group the line for the purposes of non local travel. Then for local travel on the branch, set a standard fare. Ie, local travel between Milford Haven, Johnston, Haverfordwest & Clarbeston Road, this could be charged at £5. For travel from any of these stations to anywhere else, fares are basically the same as now, worked out point to point, but the origin is 'Milford Haven Branch'.
All tickets for travel to/from Deganwy is priced as for traveling to Llandudno is another one.
Anglesey could be it's own fare zone again, £5 single for inter zone or longer distance fares charged as Anglesey to [destination]
I know this would still cause some confusion over the amount of fares and it may cause some confusion over the destination on the ticket not being the destination which you chose but all in all, you are massively reducing the amount of point to point fares which may help to reduce the overall fares.

I think a final point would be where network tickets exist, just have no point to point fares. Merseyrail is the main one I am looking at here. They already have an off peak daysaver. Just make a peak time daysaver and rid all point to point Merseyrail fares. Combined with above, fares to/from places outside of the Merseyrail network are then done by the line so 'London to Merseyrail Wirral Line'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For a slightly more 'out there' grouping fare system, you could link branch lines. For example Milford Haven Branch. As all the fares to all stations on the branch are very similar, you could group the line for the purposes of non local travel. Then for local travel on the branch, set a standard fare. Ie, local travel between Milford Haven, Johnston, Haverfordwest & Clarbeston Road, this could be charged at £5. For travel from any of these stations to anywhere else, fares are basically the same as now, worked out point to point, but the origin is 'Milford Haven Branch'.
All tickets for travel to/from Deganwy is priced as for traveling to Llandudno is another one.

That already is the case to a very large extent. It used to be more visible, because in the old paper fares manuals if you looked up say Aughton Park it would say "for any fare not listed see Ormskirk", then that would say "for any fare not listed see Liverpool BR" and so on.

But yes, I do agree with formalising it a bit more. This also adds flexibility, so you don't get people, say, threatening you with PFs for going to another station for which the fare is the same instead of the one on the ticket.

 

[yorkie]

....For example Milford Haven Branch. As all the fares to all stations on the branch are very similar, you could group the line for the purposes of non local travel. ...

This is known as fares clustering, and is already done

http://www.brfares.com/#expert?orig=YRK&dest=MFH

Flow Origin​	Q484​
Cluster​	8232 CATTAL​	8241 HAMMERTON​	8257 SHERBURN IN ELMT​	8263 YORK​
	8233 CHURCH FENTON​	8254 POPPLETON​	8261 ULLESKELF​	​
Flow Destination​	Q489​
Cluster​	4069 CLARBESTON ROAD​	4083 KILGETTY​	4101 PEMBROKE​	4129 PENALLY​
	4070 CLUNDERWEN​	4084 LAMPHEY​	4102 PEMBROKE DOCK​	6680 FISHGUARD & GWCK​
	4076 FISHGUARD HBR​	4094 MANORBIER​	4108 SAUNDERSFOOT​	​
	4079 HAVERFORDWEST​	4095 MILFORD HAVEN​	4110 TENBY​	​
	4081 JOHNSTON (PEMBS)​	4098 NARBERTH​	4111 WHITLAND​

 

[Ianno87]

In some areas, I think it would be good to start grouping stations and sell tickets to the station group and remove all tickets to specific stations. For example Wrexham General and Central renamed to 'Wrexham Stns'. Liverpool Moorfields, Lime Street Lower, Liverpool Central and James Street renamed to 'Liverpool Loop'. I know that this is done in some areas common already but it doesn't go far enough and I think that by changing it to be more common, it would reduce the amount of fare combinations.

What would be handy for longer distance journeys is to re-badge existing fares as being from X Zone to Y Zone.

E.g. Cambridge to Bolton is already the same price as Newmarket to Kearsley, Shelford to Westhoughton, Dullingham to Bromley Cross, etc


Replace this with "Cambridge Zone" to "Bolton Zone" and you add flexibility to arrive and depart from different stations on outward and return.

 

[Meerkat]

But then there are massive advantages of it in terms of convenience.

But does it actually need to follow the cack-handed TfL zonal model, anyway, which wasn't even designed for that sort of ticketing and thus has more holes than Swiss cheese (e.g. having to assume which journeys go via Zone 1 and which not)? There's no real reason why it couldn't just apply point to point fares between the touch in and touch out - it would require single-fare pricing (i.e. return = single x 2) but apart from that it would work fine with any walk up fare structure you like, pretty much. Nationally if you want. The only other limitation is that any peak restrictions can only be based on when you touch in or out, not to any intermediate changes.

OK, you can't do Break of Journey effectively, which is a downside, but apart from that?

Would the public trust that system, with little visibility of the cost of their journey? I assume Londoners know how much a zone 1 fare is, and increases are clearly advertised. It’s not a big practical issue, but a PR/political one.

 

[JonathanH]

Would the public trust that system, with little visibility of the cost of their journey? I assume Londoners know how much a zone 1 fare is, and increases are clearly advertised. It’s not a big practical issue, but a PR/political one.

Some of the public trust that system so much that they try to use it on routes where it isn't yet even available.

Checking fares is pretty easy - I wouldn't go anywhere without looking here first https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/find-fares/tube-and-rail-fares/single-fare-finder

But does it actually need to follow the cack-handed TfL zonal model, anyway, which wasn't even designed for that sort of ticketing and thus has more holes than Swiss cheese (e.g. having to assume which journeys go via Zone 1 and which not)? There's no real reason why it couldn't just apply point to point fares between the touch in and touch out - it would require single-fare pricing (i.e. return = single x 2) but apart from that it would work fine with any walk up fare structure you like, pretty much. Nationally if you want. The only other limitation is that any peak restrictions can only be based on when you touch in or out, not to any intermediate changes.

The evidence of what has been done so far to extend PAYG suggests that the TfL zonal model is forming the basis of how it will work, with morning and afternoon peak restrictions, mixed-mode surcharge, capping only on the basis of travel to Zone 1 etc

 

[yorkie]

Replace this with "Cambridge Zone" to "Bolton Zone" and you add flexibility to arrive and depart from different stations on outward and return.

Problem is, adding flexibility can increase complexity.

 

[Ianno87]

Problem is, adding flexibility can increase complexity.

Not sure how this follows in this example? It's basically just a re-labelling of how most longer distance fares are already priced.

 

[JonathanH]

Not sure how this follows in this example? It's basically just a re-labelling of how most longer distance fares are already priced.

Not much good if your ticket is priced to Cambridge Zone, you want to break your journey to Newmarket at Cambridge and the barriers swallow the ticket (but maybe break of journey is being withdrawn in the 'simple' world as being too complex)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not much good if your ticket is priced to Cambridge Zone, you want to break your journey to Newmarket at Cambridge and the barriers swallow the ticket (but maybe break of journey is being withdrawn in the 'simple' world as being too complex)

Easy answer would be that barriers do not retain tickets. They don't all do it anyway, and they can't if it is an e-ticket as it increasingly is.

(Does scanning an e-ticket at the destination barrier invalidate it?)