EMR fares should be lowered to levels comparable with other lines

[JonathanH]

After all, I won't be charged more to jump on a 80x train at Paddington to Reading as I will on a slow - which is as it should be.

You will on the return direction if you want to travel in the evening peak. Most GWR priced off-peak day returns from Reading to Paddington and beyond are only valid on TfL Rail and a handful of slow GWR trains in the evening peak from Paddington.

You missed the point - ordinary people don't know about splitting, splitting is not that widespread or for that matter, that easy to do.

Ordinary people who use the Trainline app do appear to be getting split fares suggested. Some split fares get well known if ticket office staff learn of them.

 

[AM9]

You will on the return direction if you want to travel in the evening peak. Most GWR priced off-peak day returns from Reading to Paddington and beyond are only valid on TfL Rail and a handful of slow GWR trains in the evening peak from Paddington.


Ordinary people who use the Trainline app do appear to be getting split fares suggested. Some split fares get well known if ticket office staff learn of them.

That's my perception. There's been so much publicity in the last 3 or 4 years about splitting fares that I beleive that the most obvious ones (like the Bedford split on a WEL-STP journey) are often used by those who should.

 

[Trainbike46]

That's my perception. There's been so much publicity in the last 3 or 4 years about splitting fares that I beleive that the most obvious ones (like the Bedford split on a WEL-STP journey) are often used by those who should.

Either everyone knows about the split, and there is no disadvantage to the railway to reduce the fare to the level of the split fare, as noone is paying more than that anyway, so we might as well stop making everyone go through the effort (and even safe some money as less tickets need to be printed!).

Or there are people who are paying the higher fare, in which case "everyone does the split anyway" is a pretty useless justification for the fare existing.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The RDG report on this probably got lost/forgotten about because of Covid, and probably because govt has just put it in the 'too difficult' box:

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2019-02_easier_fares_for_all.pdf

[Link to Rail Delivery Group 2019 report "Easier Fares for All"]

Page 19 of the PDF (36/37 of the document as printed) has the results of the customer insight work, some findings look quite pertinent to this thread.

 

[AM9]

Either everyone knows about the split, and there is no disadvantage to the railway to reduce the fare to the level of the split fare, as noone is paying more than that anyway, so we might as well stop making everyone go through the effort (and even safe some money as less tickets need to be printed!).

If everyone uses the split, there would be a case for imntroducting an SDR which of course be cheaper than a fully open ticket. Not exactly a priority for the railway but it could happen that way. As far as saving money by using less paper for tickets, it would be peanuts, so is a specious argument as the overall cost of effectively reducing the fare would by far outweigh it.

Or there are people who are paying the higher fare, in which case "everyone does the split anyway" is a pretty useless justification for the fare existing.

Clearly there are people paying the higher fare, maybe they want an open return, so there's no point in removing that option.

The bottom line is that day London return tickets become increasingly irrelevant the fuirther away from from the capital they originate from as fewer passengers see that as a day trip. The other issue is that there are journeys that booking offices routinely make up with more than one ticket as no through ticket is offered. An anytime day return to London from Wellingborough is one of those so splitting passengers are effectively doing what the railway is doing elsewhere.

 

[Trainbike46]

As far as saving money by using less paper for tickets, it would be peanuts, so is a specious argument as the overall cost of effectively reducing the fare would by far outweigh it.

I know, the main reason I brought it up is because in ticketing threads people keep saying CCST tickets are so incredibly expensive and that's why we need to switch over to other ticketing options,

The bottom line is that day London return tickets become increasingly irrelevant the fuirther away from from the capital they originate from as fewer passengers see that as a day trip. The other issue is that there are journeys that booking offices routinely make up with more than one ticket as no through ticket is offered. An anytime day return to London from Wellingborough is one of those so splitting passengers are effectively doing what the railway is doing elsewhere.

If a passenger asks for a day return, does the ticket office in wellingborough offer the open return or the split in Bedford as a standard?

 

[spotify95]

I know, the main reason I brought it up is because in ticketing threads people keep saying CCST tickets are so incredibly expensive and that's why we need to switch over to other ticketing options,

If a passenger asks for a day return, does the ticket office in wellingborough offer the open return or the split in Bedford as a standard?

Nope, they charge £110 for an anytime return, which is the wrong fare as it should be around £70 or less, by splitting at Bedford!

The only way you get the split ticket is by specifically requesting that you split at Bedford...

It's a good job I don't work for Wellingborough's ticket office, as I would be splitting the tickets as standard to help the passenger. Splitting the ticket would also give the option of 1st Class BDM-STP by getting on a GTR at Bedford (though IMO, Standard is fine enough).

 

[AM9]

I know, the main reason I brought it up is because in ticketing threads people keep saying CCST tickets are so incredibly expensive and that's why we need to switch over to other ticketing options,

Just because they say it doesn't make it true, - so it sounds like you agree that the cost saving would be minimal (or even negative when the costs of changing the fares was taken into consideration).

If a passenger asks for a day return, does the ticket office in wellingborough offer the open return or the split in Bedford as a standard?

If a passenger doesn't do any research, yes they will pay for an SOR (Standard class Open Return). If the passenger does what people are increasingly doing, i.e. using or even just checking on an online vender's website they can see the saving to be had by splitting. There's so much information on consumer programmes and websites about splitting, then most occasional travellers from WEL to STP would most likely know about it. If they want a 'day return', (aka an SDR) then the split gives them exactly what they want. Those from Wellingborough that know about this should make sure that anybody they care for does as well rather than complain on a social media site.

 

[Trainbike46]

If a passenger doesn't do any research, yes they will pay for an SOR (Standard class Open Return). If the passenger does what people are increasingly doing, i.e. using or even just checking on an online vender's website they can see the saving to be had by splitting. There's so much information on consumer programmes and websites about splitting, then most occasional travellers from WEL to STP would most likely know about it. If they want a 'day return', (aka an SDR) then the split gives them exactly what they want. Those from Wellingborough that know about this should make sure that anybody they care for does as well rather than complain on a social media site.

It shouldn't be like that though. UK train tickets are massively more complicated than those in many other countries. Occasionally there is a good reason for that, but in this situation there clearly isn't. Introducing a day return at the rate of the split ticket would be a sensible simplification. These anomalies just make the railway appear more expensive than it actually is, and feed into the view many people have that the train is (very) expensive, which is ultimately costing the railway passengers

 

[AM9]

It shouldn't be like that though. UK train tickets are massively more complicated than those in many other countries. Occasionally there is a good reason for that, but in this situation there clearly isn't. Introducing a day return at the rate of the split ticket would be a sensible simplification. These anomalies just make the railway appear more expensive than it actually is, and feed into the view many people have that the train is (very) expensive, which is ultimately costing the railway passengers

Well, it is like that and I doubt there's any intention of changing it anytime soon. What you are asking for is the ticket simplification exercise to introduce yet another ticket at Wellingborough. Mmmm, - some here have been saying all along that those wishing for ticket 'simplification' should be careful of what they wish for. There's not much enthusiasm from RDG to only change tickets that suit a limited number of passengers from a limited number of stations. It isn't a one-way change (excuse the pun).
So those that care for their fellow travellers should spread the word of the perfectly legitimate split, big savings to be had for the minimal inconvenience of buying two tickets instead of one and carrying all that additional weight of an extra CC sized piece of card, it's a no-brainer.

 

[43066]

It shouldn't be like that though. UK train tickets are massively more complicated than those in many other countries. Occasionally there is a good reason for that, but in this situation there clearly isn't. Introducing a day return at the rate of the split ticket would be a sensible simplification. These anomalies just make the railway appear more expensive than it actually is, and feed into the view many people have that the train is (very) expensive, which is ultimately costing the railway passengers

As we are forever being told the railway needs to raise as much money as possible at the moment.

Most passengers will be content to simply buy a ticket from A to B and perhaps back again (albeit an increasing number will indeed split). If they are prepared to pay the fare stated, why on Earth should it be incumbent on ticket offices to sell tickets for the lowest possible price and turn away vital revenue?!

 

[py_megapixel]

If they are prepared to pay the fare stated, why on Earth should it be incumbent on ticket offices to sell tickets for the lowest possible price?

Well, why shouldn't it? If ticket offices aren't helping people find the best ticket for their journey, they may as well not exist.

 

[43066]

Well, why shouldn't it? If ticket offices aren't helping people find the best ticket for their journey, they may as well not exist.

Whether they should be closed is a separate question and has more to do with the way tickets are bought changing than what we are discussing here.

Ticket offices (or TOC websites) are there to sell tickets. Beyond very basic matters such as issuing appropriate peak and off peak fares they are not an advisory service who will undermine their own revenues by helping passengers find obscure ways to pay as little as possible. There are websites like TrainSplit that perform that function perfectly well for those who can be bothered to use them (many people really can’t!).

The passengers choosing to buy “normal” un-split tickets are, by definition, willing to pay the face value being asked for. It would be madness to for the railway to invite such passengers to pay less. Would you expect any other businesses to actively undercut its own revenue?!

 

[py_megapixel]

Ticket offices (or TOC websites) are there to sell tickets. They are not an advisory service who will undermine their own revenues by helping passengers find obscure ways to pay as little as possible.

I am not suggesting that ticket offices should be finding obscure ways to pay as little as possible - I'm suggesting that the system should be changed so that such obscurities don't exist. And no, before all the naysayers come on here, that doesn't mean fares must go up.

I suspect that among some people on this forum, not necessarily yourself I hasten to add, there are people who feel (frankly rather snobbishly) that if little-known obscurities are smoothed out, they will lose the feeling of superiority they get from knowing about them and using them.

There are websites like TrainSplit that perform that function perfectly well for those who can be bothered to use them (many people really can’t!).

Why should passengers have to "be bothered" to do anything? I thought the railways were supposed to provide a convenient travelling experience (which means being competitive wiith private cars), not a reward for spending time working round bureaucracy.

The passengers choosing to buy “normal” un-split tickets are, by definition, willing to pay the face value being asked for.

Are they? Or are they paying it because they have no other option in that case, and getting their beliefs confirmed that the railways are an overpriced faff and they should just take the car in the future?

Would you expect any other businesses to actively undercut its own revenue?!

Well, other transport operators do. I've definitely been informed by bus drivers if the local day ticket is cheaper than a return, for example. It's good customer service.

 

[cle]

Sadly it is no longer seen as a public service. Yes of course it needs to recoup cost, but it is a service. We shouldn't need to research it or exploit loopholes. Great for those that do, but it shouldn't be that way.

In Switzerland or Germany a ticket machine is smart enough to sell a specific advance/seat on a specific train - vs an open. Fare categories needn't be more complicated - choose a train (valid only on that) - or any train. And everything is 10% off on weekends/holidays perhaps, with no peak/offpeak otherwise.

That is all you need, and there is no reason why that can't be replicated in the UK and on every app.

 

[Mikw]

The current system gives rise to the "rip off" narrative.

If you know what you're doing, and use the right apps, there's bargains to be had.

But, if you just buy a straightforward ticket to a destination you can get totally ripped off.

 

[43066]

I am not suggesting that ticket offices should be finding obscure ways to pay as little as possible - I'm suggesting that the system should be changed so that such obscurities don't exist. And no, before all the naysayers come on here, that doesn't mean fares must go up.

I suspect that among some people on this forum, not necessarily yourself I hasten to add, there are people who feel (frankly rather snobbishly) that if little-known obscurities are smoothed out, they will lose the feeling of superiority they get from knowing about them and using them.

The ticketing system is indeed far too complex. Thankfully I have few dealings with it as I have free travel/priv discount. Before I had that I tended just to buy the most reasonably priced regular ticket I required for travel. I didn’t trouble myself to always look for the cheapest possible alternative because I simply didn’t care enough and didn’t have the time.

I suspect much of the snobbery on here comes from those who feel superior because they’ve saved a fiver via some obscure ticketing arrangement only a tiny minority of people have bothered to make themselves aware of.

Why should passengers have to "be bothered" to do anything? I thought the railways were supposed to provide a convenient travelling experience (which means being competitive wiith private cars), not a reward for spending time working round bureaucracy.

The railway provides a transport solution which people can use if they wish. Attracting passengers back is clearly important but, once people have presented themselves at a ticket office window and have indicated they are willing to pay the price of the ticket they’ve asked for, why on Earth would that ticket office try and sell them an obscure ticketing itinerary which costs less?

Surely the reasons why they won’t are obvious?

Are they? Or are they paying it because they have no other option in that case, and getting their beliefs confirmed that the railways are an overpriced faff and they should just take the car in the future?

If they have no other option but to pay the price then, by definition, they shouldn’t be offered a discount. That’s just commercial reality. If you turn up at a BA ticketing desk at Heathrow and ask for a ticket to New York that day, do you seriously think they’d sell you the cheapest one they could?

Lots of people are quite happy to simply pay the price asked and have far better things to do than work out how to safe a fiver by splitting the ticket five ways.

Well, other transport operators do. I've definitely been informed by bus drivers if the local day ticket is cheaper than a return, for example. It's good customer service.

Yes - and railway ticket offices do exactly that. They will suggest the most appropriate standard ticket for the journey the customer wants to make. Return, two singles, that cross London thing where you can use the ticket on the tube. They won’t offer you Manchester to Sheffield, via Kyle of Localsh and Ryde Pier Head, split fifteen times because it saves you a fiver.

The current system gives rise to the "rip off" narrative.

If you know what you're doing, and use the right apps, there's bargains to be had.

But, if you just buy a straightforward ticket to a destination you can get totally ripped off.

Most people just want a straightforward ticket. They don’t “know what they’re doing” and simply don’t care enough to learn. The majority of railway travellers ask for a day single/cheap day return (or whatever) and are perfectly happy with that. Nobody has put a gun to their head and they don’t feel “ripped off”.

I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people on here to accept?

 

[Mikw]

The ticketing system is indeed far too complex. Thankfully I have few dealings with it as I have free travel/priv discount. Before I had that I tended just to buy the most reasonably priced regular ticket I required for travel. I didn’t trouble myself to always look for the cheapest possible alternative because I simply didn’t care enough and didn’t have the time.

I suspect much of the snobbery on here comes from those who feel superior because they’ve saved a fiver via some obscure ticketing arrangement only a tiny minority of people have bothered to make themselves aware of.



The railway provides a transport solution which people can use if they wish. Attracting passengers back is clearly important but, once people have presented themselves at a ticket office window and have indicated they are willing to pay the price of the ticket they’ve asked for, why on Earth would that ticket office try and sell them an obscure ticketing itinerary which costs less?

Surely the reasons why they won’t are obvious?



If they have no other option but to pay the price then, by definition, they shouldn’t be offered a discount. That’s just commercial reality. If you turn up at a BA ticketing desk at Heathrow and ask for a ticket to New York that day, do you seriously think they’d sell you the cheapest one they could?

Lots of people are quite happy to simply pay the price asked and have far better things to do than work out how to safe a fiver by splitting the ticket five ways.



Yes - and railway ticket offices do exactly that. They will suggest the most appropriate standard ticket for the journey the customer wants to make. Return, two singles, that cross London thing where you can use the ticket on the tube. They won’t offer you Manchester to Sheffield, via Kyle of Localsh and Ryde Pier Head, split fifteen times because it saves you a fiver.



Most people just want a straightforward ticket. They don’t “know what they’re doing” and simply don’t care enough to learn. The majority of railway travellers ask for a day single/cheap day return (or whatever) and are perfectly happy with that. Nobody has put a gun to their head and they don’t feel “ripped off”.

I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people on here to accept?

I'll have to disagree that "they don't feel ripped off" if they buy a cheap day return.

There has been many a time (before I discovered splitting) that I have both brought a ticket AND felt ripped off.

 

[AM9]

I'll have to disagree that "they don't feel ripped off" if they buy a cheap day return.

There has been many a time (before I discovered splitting) that I have both brought a ticket AND felt ripped off.

Well some people seem to feel ripped off when they have to spend any of their money, maybe they just expect others to pay for them.

 

[Mikw]

Well some people seem to feel ripped off when they have to spend any of their money, maybe they just expect others to pay for them.

No, I just don't like a system where the unaware are often charged three figure sums. This is how the railways get their"rip off" tag

 

[43066]

No, I just don't like a system where the unaware are often charged three figure sums. This is how the railways get their"rip off" tag

If they’re happy to pay (or even if they are not happy but pay anyway) then I don’t see the problem. There’s no big conspiracy here and nobody is being “ripped off”. It’s easy enough to buy advance tickets. If you’re desperate and/or disorganised you can indeed expect to pay more.

If people find the train too expensive they are at liberty to use alternative transport. If they elect to pay for the train anyway, as many do, then clearly it isn’t too expensive.

EDIT: it should also be remembered that the price of tickets is down to a political decision to shift more of the cost of the railway onto fare payers and away from general taxation. Thus the increasing cost of tickets doesn’t necessarily imply the railway is “too expensive”, it’s simply the result of a value judgement about who should bear that cost.

 

[py_megapixel]

If someone's car breaks down some distance from home and they need to get home urgently, they are clearly already having a bad day. I can't imagine getting to a station and being told "that'll be <insert ridiculous price here>, please" does anything other than rubbing salt in the wound, or makes them terribly impressed with the railway.

 

[43066]

If someone's car breaks down some distance from home and they need to get home urgently, they are clearly already having a bad day. I can't imagine getting to a station and being told "that'll be <insert ridiculous price here>, please" does anything other than rubbing salt in the wound, or makes them terribly impressed with the railway.

Well then they’re free to take a taxi instead, or a bus, or to walk, or to ask a friend/family member to collect them. You do realise the railway isn’t supposed to be a charity or an emergency service?

 

[py_megapixel]

You do realise the railway isn’t supposed to be a charity or an emergency service?

I'd agree it's not a charity or an emergency service (in a legal sense it certainly isn't). But it does get a lot of taxpayer money. So what exactly is it? And is it not reasonable for those taxpayers to expect that if they use it, they will pay a reasonable price and get decent standards out of it, regardless of the purpose of their journey?

The fact that someone is willing to pay a price at a specific point in time (because it's the only reasonable option) doesn't mean they won't feel ripped off by it.

 

[AM9]

I'd agree it's not a charity or an emergency service (in a legal sense it certainly isn't). But it does get a lot of taxpayer money. So what exactly is it? And is it not reasonable for those taxpayers to expect that if they use it, they will pay a reasonable price and get decent standards out of it, regardless of the purpose of their journey?

The fact that someone is willing to pay a price at a specific point in time (because it's the only reasonable option) doesn't mean they won't feel ripped off by it.

So based on that presumption, a person on benefits or a state pension has no right to feel aggrieved at the fares charged, but a highly paid middle class person does. How about somebody who pays tax, but never uses the railway, - would they think that fares should be higher?
An expression like "taxpayer's money" is an irrelevance, the railway is funded from general taxation, just as the roads are.

 

[43301]

The railways are supposed to be a public service, but from the approach of several posters on here you'd think that people should be grateful to the railways for generously transporting them, at whatever price. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have become increasingly prevalent among some railway staff (and some railway companies) over the past few years.

Having travelled mainly by train for years, I bought a car recently because I'd just had enough of the carry on - ever-increasing prices for often poor and unreliable service, on top of all the hassle and jobsworthery of the Covidian years. I'll still use trains if I need to, but it's going to be occasional now.

Many on the railways seem to think that they are immune from general economic pressures, but if ridership doesn't increase (and little is being done to encourage it) then it's pretty likely that the government will be looking to make funding cuts.

 

[43066]

I'd agree it's not a charity or an emergency service (in a legal sense it certainly isn't). But it does get a lot of taxpayer money. So what exactly is it?

It’s a subsidised public transport service, which promotes economic growth by transporting people. Successive governments have decided more of its costs should be funded by its users. That isn’t the railway’s fault and, of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with that approach and use your vote accordingly.

The railway could be made completely free at the point of use, with its costs borne entirely by the taxpayer. Many taxpayers might then, quite reasonably, question why they are exclusively funding a service they never use themselves.

And is it not reasonable for those taxpayers to expect that if they use it, they will pay a reasonable price and get decent standards out of it, regardless of the purpose of their journey?

I suppose it all depends what you mean by reasonable! A variety of ticketing options are provided to cater for different types of customer. Want to travel at peak time with the flexibility of an open return? You’ll pay a lot more than someone more cost conscious or better organised who books an advanced ticket weeks in advance. As a taxpayer I don’t have a problem with that and I certainly don’t want the railway to turn away money unnecessarily.

The fact that someone is willing to pay a price at a specific point in time (because it's the only reasonable option) doesn't mean they won't feel ripped off by it.

I took an Uber earlier and paid approximately 50% more than normal for the journey due to high demand. I found that mildly irritating, for sure, but do I have any right to feel “ripped off” by it?

Railway ticketing is arguably too complex but it is transparent. If you rock up at peak time and feel annoyed by the price of tickets you have a choice whether or not to travel. If you choose to pay the going rate how have you been “ripped off”?

I'll still use trains if I need to, but it's going to be occasional now.

Well then, as an occasional user, presumably you’re very much in favour of putting more of the cost of the railways onto fare payers!?

 

[mmh]

I'd agree it's not a charity or an emergency service (in a legal sense it certainly isn't). But it does get a lot of taxpayer money. So what exactly is it?

It's an essential l public service. It is, although I have reservations over the concept, considered to be a service whose staff are "key workers." Personally, I think it's vital to the economic and social existence of our country.

What do you think it's for? Instead of asking someone else - a poor debating tactic - you should be telling us what you think.

 

[43301]

I suppose it all depends what you mean by reasonable! A variety of ticketing options are provided to cater for different types of customer. Want to travel at peak time with the flexibility of an open return? You’ll pay a lot more than someone more cost conscious or better organised who books an advanced ticket weeks in advance. As a taxpayer I don’t have a problem with that and I certainly don’t want the railway to turn away money unnecessarily.

The ticketing system is opaque, complicated and difficult to understand - it doesn't have to be like this and it should not be necessary to know its ins and outs in detail in order to get the lowest prices.

And you seem to assume that everyone can book well in advance. Not everyone has the luxury of knowing where and when they are going weeks before travelling.

You don't want to 'turn away money unnecessarily', but if people are charged a lot and have a crap experience, particularly those who travel less (and are therefore less likely to be familiar with the ticketing system), they may well chose to travel by car in future if they are able to do so.

Well then, as an occasional user, presumably you’re very much in favour of putting more of the cost of the railways onto fare payers!?

No, not really - I think that railways are a useful public service, but due to the way they are run in this country are a lot less useful than they could be. Spending reasonable amounts on them is fine, but it needs to be spent sensibly and the current messy, fragmented system does not do that - possibly the forthcoming changes will address that, but I doubt it.

 

[43066]

The ticketing system is opaque, complicated and difficult to understand - it doesn't have to be like this and it should not be necessary to know its ins and outs in detail in order to get the lowest prices.

I agree that it’s generally too complicated but you don’t need to understand anything in detail to choose advanced tickets, peak versus off peak etc. Indeed ticket offices can assist with this by giving you the most cost effective standard ticketing option for your journey. You also have the option of splitting tickets if you have that level of knowledge.

And you seem to assume that everyone can book well in advance. Not everyone has the luxury of knowing where and when they are going weeks before travelling.

No. I simply assume that those passengers who require the flexibility of travelling at short notice and at peak times will be prepared to pay more for the privilege. It’s quite right that the railway should recognise that commercial reality and charge them more. As per my example above - I willingly paid more for a taxi journey during a time of high demand because I had somewhere I needed to be. Why should the railway be any different?

You don't want to 'turn away money unnecessarily', but if people are charged a lot and have a crap experience, particularly those who travel less (and are therefore less likely to be familiar with the ticketing system), they may well chose to travel by car in future if they are able to do so.

That’s their choice. Prior to Covid the railway was getting busier and busier every year, and indeed off peak travel is now above pre Covid travel levels, and passenger numbers are rising, indicating that many people are still willing to pay the prices charged.

No, not really - I think that railways are a useful public service, but due to the way they are run in this country are a lot less useful than they could be. Spending reasonable amounts on them is fine, but it needs to be spent sensibly and the current messy, fragmented system does not do that - possibly the forthcoming changes will address that, but I doubt it.

Again, it all depends on what you mean by “reasonable”. It’s notable that policies such as maintaining a smaller than optimum workforce, with heavy reliance on overtime to run the required service, are specifically intended to reduce costs. Yet those practices are oft criticised on here.

Perhaps you are of the view that more of the railway’s costs should be covered by general taxation. If so you can vote accordingly.