Should rail fares prohibit break of journey?

[tomuk]

It's not, which is why Break of Journey should be permitted on all tickets within their date(s) of validity. It de-facto is anyway in most cases, so it's just a case of changing the rules to fit practice.

Which is what my contrarian reply to a response in the other thread that begat this one was trying to point out.

 

[6Gman]

BoJ is and isn't allowed based on the type of ticket purchased and in some cases tickets which appear to be the same type but due to specific imposed restrictions. As you post in real life due to the need to use station facilities outside the gateline, no gateline and make out of station the rule is difficult/impossible to enforce. I myself have exited New Street for example to buy food off the station on an advance ticket when I was changing there. What would my options be if I was refused re-entry to the station?
Also in real life I would argue that the number of passengers using BoJ in the sense of actually breaking their journey is small eg buying a London-Stafford return and stopping in Nuneaton for two days on the way there.

I would therefore argue BoJ is an 'enthusiast thing'. And in terms of fare reform is a feature of the current system that is a complication and should be reviewed.

You can argue it, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Someone I know was staying in Plymouth, took his wife shopping in Exeter. He's a birdwatcher and heard there was a rare bird at Dawlish. They broke their journey at Dawlish on the way back (didn't see the bird though).

A group of racing fans went to Ludlow Races from Chester and Stoke. On the way back they broke their journey at Salop for a few drinks before going their separate ways.

And so on.

 

[yorkie]

BoJ is and isn't allowed based on the type of ticket purchased and in some cases tickets which appear to be the same type but due to specific imposed restrictions. As you post in real life due to the need to use station facilities outside the gateline, no gateline and make out of station the rule is difficult/impossible to enforce. I myself have exited New Street for example to buy food off the station on an advance ticket when I was changing there. What would my options be if I was refused re-entry to the station?

At the east end you have to exit and re-enter, if interchanging between low & high level platforms. At the other end, I can't imagine staff disallowing exit and re-entry to use the facilities; I have never had any issues at BHM whatsoever and have not heard of any reports on the forum of any instances.

Also in real life I would argue that the number of passengers using BoJ in the sense of actually breaking their journey is small eg buying a London-Stafford return and stopping in Nuneaton for two days on the way there.

I'm not so sure; a minority yes, but a lot of ramblers/hikers make use of BoJ; I've seen football fans do it to have a drink at a pub en-route and of course there are pub crawls which take place on various lines on a regular basis (some of which have guides to inform people of where they can go!) which are frequented by many regular people, not just rail enthusiasts!

As a kid, I remember my parents bought return tickets which allowed us to travel between York & London with a break of journey to see family friends in Newark (at the time I was excited to get an IC225 but later on my preference would switch to the HST!); journeys like that are absolutely normal and while they may not be the majority of journeys, they aren't insignificant.

I would therefore argue BoJ is an 'enthusiast thing'.

That's fine; it's your opinion and you are absolutely entitled to it and you can reject my opinion; we will simply have to agree to disagree.

And in terms of fare reform is a feature of the current system that is a complication and should be reviewed.

I don't see how a prohibition would make anything simpler. How does denying someone the opportunity to do something of this nature achieve that?

I can think of all sorts of things that would make things simpler (e.g. common Railcard T&Cs, common T&Cs for all evening fares, single leg pricing, etc) but barring break of journey doesn't strike me as achieving anything, other than making rail travel less attractive to leisure travellers, who are the type of passenger the rail industry really should be trying to attract now more than ever as that's where the opportunities to grow passenger volumes lie.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2022 ==

You can argue it, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Someone I know was staying in Plymouth, took his wife shopping in Exeter. He's a birdwatcher and heard there was a rare bird at Dawlish. They broke their journey at Dawlish on the way back (didn't see the bird though).

A group of racing fans went to Ludlow Races from Chester and Stoke. On the way back they broke their journey at Salop for a few drinks before going their separate ways.

And so on.

Agreed; all perfectly normal. Some passengers may ask "can we do this?" while many regulars will know it's perfectly fine.

If we take this away from people, we take away one of the key reasons people may choose to travel by train. But for what benefit? I can't see how anyone would benefit from this. Even if we barred BoJ today, most people who really wanted to do it would be able to do so regardless, without being detected or denied travel.

 

[tomuk]

I don't see how a prohibition would make anything simpler. How does denying someone the opportunity to do something of this nature achieve that?

I didn't say prohibition you did when you created and titled this thread.

I said wouldn't it be easier with singles and no BoJ when I made a my somewhat contrarian reply to the other thread giving somebody somewhat less than straightforward advice using 'Contractual BoJ' to game the system to get a cheaper fare to Stratford.

My whole motivation is to point out that in many cases normal passengers aren't getting the best value fares due to the complexity of the system. Should you really need to post a question on an enthusiast forum to get the best fare to Stratford upon Avon?

barring break of journey doesn't strike me as achieving anything, other than making rail travel less attractive to leisure travellers, who are the type of passenger the rail industry really should be trying to attract now more than ever as that's where the opportunities to grow passenger volumes lie.

Would you agree then that the removal of the concept of BoJ i.e. it is possible to break the journey on all tickets the solution?

If we take this away from people, we take away one of the key reasons people may choose to travel by train.

Do you have any evidence that 'Contractual BoJ' on as allowed on open and non restricted tickets is a key reason? Do you a have a link to any surveys or the like?

 

[SuspectUsual]

This is an opportune thread for me to ask a question that occurred to me whilst planning a weekend away - are multiple breaks of journey permitted?

I’m staying near Bristol and my plan is to buy an off-peak return from either Patchway or Filton to Bradford on Avon, travel there without a break, visit friends, then walk along the canal bank to Avoncliff, have a couple of pints in the Cross Guns, get a train Avoncliff to Bath, have a couple of hours there, and then go back to Patchway

 

[jfollows]

This is an opportune thread for me to ask a question that occurred to me whilst planning a weekend away - are multiple breaks of journey permitted?

Yes, there is no limit to the number of breaks of journey. Other than that there's a finite number of station stops on your journey.

 

[Birmingham]

This is an opportune thread for me to ask a question that occurred to me whilst planning a weekend away - are multiple breaks of journey permitted?

I’m staying near Bristol and my plan is to buy an off-peak return from either Patchway or Filton to Bradford on Avon, travel there without a break, visit friends, then walk along the canal bank to Avoncliff, have a couple of pints in the Cross Guns, get a train Avoncliff to Bath, have a couple of hours there, and then go back to Patchway

Yes, there is no limit to the number of breaks of journey. Other than that there's a finite number of station stops on your journey.

Sounds a lovely day. Thank goodness for break of journey!

 

[yorkie]

I didn't say prohibition you did when you created and titled this thread.

The thread title reflects what you said which was "no break of journey allowed"; as I said to you earlier, if you can come up with a more appropriate thread title, you are welcome to rename the thread accordingly.

I said wouldn't it be easier with singles and no BoJ when I made a my somewhat contrarian reply to the other thread giving somebody somewhat less than straightforward advice using 'Contractual BoJ' to game the system to get a cheaper fare to Stratford.

Yes, you are proposing a ban on break of journey, which I am disagreeing with. That's what this thread is about.

My whole motivation is to point out that in many cases normal passengers aren't getting the best value fares due to the complexity of the system.

I think your argument is that the best fare for (say) a Clapham Junction to Southampton journey is a ticket from Brighton, and therefore we should prohibit a Brighton to Southampton fare being used for that journey, and therefore people buying Clapham Junction to Southampton journeys can rest assured that they are getting the best fare, is that correct?

Should you really need to post a question on an enthusiast forum to get the best fare to Stratford upon Avon?

For nearly all practical purposes, the best fare to Stratford upon Avon can be obtained by anyone simply using a split ticket website such as Trainsplit.

• How can I get "the best fare" for a bus journey between two places that are not served by the same bus company? (and how can I be sure if a multi operator ticket is better than individual singles)
• How can I get "the best fare" to fly from London to the US or Australia or anywhere else? (and how can I be sure it's not cheaper to go via Ireland, Iceland or Inverness or anywhere else)
• How can I get "the best fare" from a bus served origin in Zurich to a tram served destination in Basle including the train between the two?

Would you agree then that the removal of the concept of BoJ i.e. it is possible to break the journey on all tickets the solution?

It's the solution to a concept that doesn't really exist in the eyes of most people. The only reason you are keen to prohibit break of journey is because otherwise someone could buy a ticket for a longer journey and use it for only a section of the route, which undercuts the higher priced fare?

Do you have any evidence that 'Contractual BoJ' on as allowed on open and non restricted tickets is a key reason? Do you a have a link to any surveys or the like?

Well the evidence that people do things like rambling/hiking between stations, or pub crawls etc clearly exists by real world evidence. What sort of survey did you have in mind?

 

[tomuk]

The thread title reflects what you said which was "no break of journey allowed"; as I said to you earlier, if you can come up with a more appropriate thread title, you are welcome to rename the thread accordingly.

Yes, you are proposing a ban on break of journey, which I am disagreeing with. That's what this thread is about.

Stop saying I'm proposing a ban break of journey. As I have repeatedly have said that was a contrarian reply to another thread attempting to point out the absurdity of the fares system.

I think your argument is that the best fare for (say) a Clapham Junction to Southampton journey is a ticket from Brighton, and therefore we should prohibit a Brighton to Southampton fare being used for that journey, and therefore people buying Clapham Junction to Southampton journeys can rest assured that they are getting the best fare, is that correct?

What are you on about? The best fare for Clapham Junction to Southampton journey should be an appropriate Clapham Junction to Southampton Anytime/Off Peak/Return/Single etc ticket. What has Brighton got to do with anything?

Should a Brighton to Southampton fare be allowed to be used via Clapham Junction, I'm inclined to say no on the basis there are direct trains and other itineraries available by changing along the coast at Havant that are 1/2 hour quicker than via Clapham Jnc.

For nearly all practical purposes, the best fare to Stratford upon Avon can be obtained by anyone simply using a split ticket website such as Trainsplit.

Why would you want to split tickets? How about using one of the many TOC websites? A straightforward ticket from Station A to Stratford upon Avon would be nice at the proper price. Rather than having to game a broken system.

• How can I get "the best fare" for a bus journey between two places that are not served by the same bus company? (and how can I be sure if a multi operator ticket is better than individual singles)

No idea, bus fares are a complete mess. The singles\returns if you can find out what they are appear to be a complete ripoff. And multi operator tickets either don't exist, aren't valid on all operators or seem to be confusingly similarly named, explorer, wayfarer etc, to operator specific multi-journey tickets. Is it that surprising that no one uses a bus.

• How can I get "the best fare" to fly from London to the US or Australia or anywhere else? (and how can I be sure it's not cheaper to go via Ireland, Iceland or Inverness or anywhere else)

I would probably look at either individual airlines websites or one of the comparison sites for a long haul flight. I prefer to fly direct as changing flights can be a hassle and as living at least an hour to 1 1/2 hour from the nearest airport I prefer to spend my quota of hassle getting to the airport.

• How can I get "the best fare" from a bus served origin in Zurich to a tram served destination in Basle including the train between the two?

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with Swiss ticketing arrangements. Do they have a Ov-chipkaart/Oyster style card?

With the above questions are you trying suggest that the grass isn't necessarily greener on other modes\in other countries? And I should be happy with our excellent system on the railways?

It's the solution to a concept that doesn't really exist in the eyes of most people.

What solution to what concept?

The only reason you are keen to prohibit break of journey is because otherwise someone could buy a ticket for a longer journey and use it for only a section of the route, which undercuts the higher priced fare?

I don't want to prohibit break of journey. This is your mischaracterisation. What I probably want is to abolish it as a restriction on all tickets as most people don't use it/ignore it/it isn't enforced/it is unenforceable.

This insinuation that I want to put up fares or force people to pay more just isn't the case.

Now fares reform may mean that a number of individuals do pay more, due to removing anomalies and simplification, so that the majority may pay less or get better value.

For example on split ticketing, I would be more minded to reduce the A-D fare than to increase or put restrictions on the A-B-C-D fares.

Or for example on zonal fares, in the West Midlands there is the N Network?(Centro/WMPTE) daytripper multi mode tickets. Now the price of these zonal tickets in comparison to equivalent point to point fares tends to be a bit higher. Now If you 'forced' people to buy these by abolishing P2P they would pay a bit more but gain access to buses and trams. Having gained this access they may in future use the bus in favour of a car journey or taxi, saving them money overall and reducing congestion\pollution.

Any reductions in revenue I would hope to gain back by future fares being seen to be fairer, more convenient and better value.

These things would need to be considered, hopefully with some independent\parliamentary oversight, in any reforms.

Well the evidence that people do things like rambling/hiking between stations, or pub crawls etc clearly exists by real world evidence. What sort of survey did you have in mind?

What real world evidence? A few anecdotal posts on this forum? I have done a bit of googling about the TP Ale Trail and looking at the various sites and articles info on fares seems somewhat lacking. What I have found are numerous posts on this forum, tripadvisor and elsewhere, asking what tickets someone should buy if going on the trail. If everyone just knew about and used their BoJ right why would they need to ask? Oh look at post 65 above!

As regards ramblin'n'hiking, taking Wales as an example. If you look on the TfW website there are various explorers\rangers\rovers advertised inviting you to explore Wales it doesn't suggest you avail yourself of your BoJ rights and buy a Birmingham to Pwllheli SVR and on the return portion to hike your way around the Mawddach estuary. Are there any routeing tricks due to the now closed Ruabon–Barmouth line? That would be fun!

​

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what you're saying is that break of journey should be allowed on all tickets.

I agree, so to ensure that right is offered and staff don't make up restrictions that don't exist, the NRCoT should specifically permit it. If it just doesn't mention it anywhere, there will always be nuisance staff who say it isn't allowed.

For Advances it'd probably be best to specifically state something like this: "If you wish, you can make only part of the booked journey, and may leave platforms/stations during booked connections, provided any travel is only on the booked train services. However if you board at a different location than your reservation(s) start, your reserved seat may not be available and so you should take any unreserved seat instead".

 

[yorkie]

Stop saying I'm proposing a ban break of journey. As I have repeatedly have said that was a contrarian reply to another thread attempting to point out the absurdity of the fares system.

I'm confused; I thought you said it would be easier if there was no break of journey allowed? I agree it's contrarian; most people would probably not want share that view.

What are you on about?

I'm trying to figure out what you are "on about" but you aren't making it easy.

The best fare for Clapham Junction to Southampton journey should be an appropriate Clapham Junction to Southampton Anytime/Off Peak/Return/Single etc ticket. What has Brighton got to do with anything?

Well again I'm confused; you appeared to be suggesting that passengers can get a cheaper fare by buying to the 'wrong' destination; if you weren't suggesting this, can you clarify what you meant?

Should a Brighton to Southampton fare be allowed to be used via Clapham Junction, I'm inclined to say no on the basis there are direct trains and other itineraries available by changing along the coast at Havant that are 1/2 hour quicker than via Clapham Jnc.

Are you suggesting that route options should be removed from customers? Only the shortest route or direct trains or the fastest route should be permitted?

After 2100, the fastest route is via Clapham Junction; what then?

Why would you want to split tickets?

You were referring to passengers getting the "cheapest fare"; that's generally achieved by doing exactly that.

How about using one of the many TOC websites?

This would often cost more because they will generally only offer through fares.

A straightforward ticket from Station A to Stratford upon Avon would be nice at the proper price.

What is that?

Rather than having to game a broken system.

You don't need to "game" anything for rail fares any more than for bus fares or plane fares.

In fact with train fares it's more transparent than any of the others.

No idea, bus fares are a complete mess. The singles\returns if you can find out what they are appear to be a complete ripoff. And multi operator tickets either don't exist, aren't valid on all operators or seem to be confusingly similarly named, explorer, wayfarer etc, to operator specific multi-journey tickets. Is it that surprising that no one uses a bus.

Can the same be said of trains?

I would probably look at either individual airlines websites or one of the comparison sites for a long haul flight.

But would this tell you if it was cheaper to split or pay less for a longer journey?

I prefer to fly direct as changing flights can be a hassle and as living at least an hour to 1 1/2 hour from the nearest airport I prefer to spend my quota of hassle getting to the airport.

But you can't deny that people can "game the system" with air fares, and to an extent that absolutely blows any rail fare issues out of the water.

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with Swiss ticketing arrangements. Do they have a Ov-chipkaart/Oyster style card?

I bought my tickets through an app but you can also get paper tickets. I don't know if a smart card is an option.

As you don't know the answer does that mean the Swiss system has to be abolished until a new system can be devised that means there is no longer any need to split?

With the above questions are you trying suggest that the grass isn't necessarily greener on other modes\in other countries?

All systems have their flaws.

And I should be happy with our excellent system on the railways?

If you think a better system is possible I am interested to hear how it would work and what the fares would be .

What solution to what concept?

Looking back, I really just don't understand what you were saying; it sounds contradictory to me. But I don't think many people see this in the way that you do.

I don't want to prohibit break of journey. This is your mischaracterisation.

You were the one who said it; you admit it's a rejection of the popular view.

I'm wondering if you didn't mean to use the term "contrarian" (someone who opposes the popular view) and meant to say something else?

What I probably want is to abolish it as a restriction on all tickets as most people don't use it/ignore it/it isn't enforced/it is unenforceable.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Are you saying break of journey should be allowed or disallowed?

This insinuation that I want to put up fares or force people to pay more just isn't the case.

If you can clarify what your proposal would look like that would be helpful.

Now fares reform may mean that a number of individuals do pay more, due to removing anomalies and simplification, so that the majority may pay less or get better value.

I would be reluctant to support a system that puts some fares up; how could we be sure the majority would pay less?

Also the Government does not currently appear to be minded to introduce a system whereby most people pay less; they want a "revenue neutral" scheme and there are rumours that one of the key aims would be to reduce the cost of the really expensive fares typically only paid by people on business expenses. For every really expensive fare you reduce, that's going to take a lot of cheaper fares to go up in order to match the shortfall. That results in most people paying more.

If you abolish the most expensive fares, it becomes harder to avoid putting up the price of many more of the cheaper fares.

People often say there should be an easy fix but no-one has yet come up with a workable plan.

For example on split ticketing, I would be more minded to reduce the A-D fare than to increase or put restrictions on the A-B-C-D fares.

That sounds good but there is no current government proposal to do this and it goes against their "revenue neutral" stance.

Or for example on zonal fares, in the West Midlands there is the N Network?(Centro/WMPTE) daytripper multi mode tickets. Now the price of these zonal tickets in comparison to equivalent point to point fares tends to be a bit higher. Now If you 'forced' people to buy these by abolishing P2P they would pay a bit more but gain access to buses and trams. Having gained this access they may in future use the bus in favour of a car journey or taxi, saving them money overall and reducing congestion\pollution.

Maybe, but if people are forced to pay more it may put people off, if the train would have been convenient without the extra unwanted costs.

Any reductions in revenue I would hope to gain back by future fares being seen to be fairer, more convenient and better value.

If the fares are simple, does that mean removing ticket types or having less peak time differentiations? For example there are currently Super Off Peak / Off Peak / Anytime period returns as well as Off Peak Day returns for some journeys. Would some of these go? If there are multiple route options, would some of those go too?

The curious thing is that some people think simplicity is to have one fare valid on an reasonable route whereas other people think it is simpler to have no fare valid on all routes and make people choose the exact route and then be prescribed a fare tailored for that.

No-one can universally agree on what is "simple"; everyone has their own ideas!

These things would need to be considered, hopefully with some independent\parliamentary oversight, in any reforms.

True but any changes which are detrimental will be opposed strongly by many people including myself.

What real world evidence? A few anecdotal posts on this forum? I have done a bit of googling about the TP Ale Trail and looking at the various sites and articles info on fares seems somewhat lacking.

Have you seen the crowds and been on the trains?

What I have found are numerous posts on this forum, tripadvisor and elsewhere, asking what tickets someone should buy if going on the trail. If everyone just knew about and used their BoJ right why would they need to ask? Oh look at post 65 above!

People who are new to anything will generally need to ask once! Then they know and don't usually ask again.

As regards ramblin'n'hiking, taking Wales as an example. If you look on the TfW website there are various explorers\rangers\rovers advertised inviting you to explore Wales

Rangers / Rovers are not always available and not always the best option for many journeys, especially if you are only doing an out and back trip and not multiple journeys.

it doesn't suggest you avail yourself of your BoJ rights and buy a Birmingham to Pwllheli SVR and on the return portion to hike your way around the Mawddach estuary.

No but some people will do things like that; it really isn't as uncommon as you think. How much travelling do you do on the railway? Have you made many journeys on tourist oriented lines such as the Settle & Carlisle line, and seen hikers who walk between stations? They very much do exist and on some trains at some times of the year can be the majority of customers on certain trains!

 

[tomuk]

Firstly I apologise for the format of the reply but the forum software won't quote my post and your replies

I'm confused; I thought you said it would be easier if there was no break of journey allowed? I agree it's contrarian; most people would probably not want share that view.

As I have repeatedly said I said that was a contrarian, or maybe better said a flippant, remark to point out the absurd complexity of the ticketing system which forced a complex reply to the simple query made by the OP on that thread. It is not necessarily my view as expanded on in the posts above in this thread.

Well again I'm confused; you appeared to be suggesting that passengers can get a cheaper fare by buying to the 'wrong' destination; if you weren't suggesting this, can you clarify what you meant?

Are you saying that it is not the case that you can save money on a journey from A-B by buying a ticket from say A-D and finishing short?

Are you suggesting that route options should be removed from customers?

I would support removing route options from customers if said options are little used or provide little benefit to customers.

For example I assume for historical reasons journeys from stations in the Midlands and North West to London are valid via Banbury into Paddington as well as by the Chiltern route and WMCL. Travelling via Chiltern and WMCL only provides the passenger a choice of speed and price. Avanti v LNR v Chiltern. Why do they need to retain validity into Paddington? Going that way is neither cheaper or faster.

Only the shortest route or direct trains or the fastest route should be permitted?

Possibly I've not formed a definitive view but there are surely many better options than the current National Routing Guide with its myriad rules, instructions, lookup tables and maps.

After 2100, the fastest route is via Clapham Junction; what then?

Well maybe there should be later trains on the more direct route along the coast. In terms of ticket validity it would be reasonable to allow passengers to travel via Clapham Jnc later in the evening when it is the fastest/only route.

You were referring to passengers getting the "cheapest fare"; that's generally achieved by doing exactly that.

Why should passenger have to jump through the hoop of splitting tickets to get the cheapest fare. If you have to do that the system is wrong.

This would often cost more because they will generally only offer through fares.

So a 'working' system is one where buying tickets from the TOC website means you pay more. The system is broken.

You don't need to "game" anything for rail fares any more than for bus fares or plane fares.

In fact with train fares it's more transparent than any of the others.

Can the same be said of trains?

But would this tell you if it was cheaper to split or pay less for a longer journey?

But you can't deny that people can "game the system" with air fares, and to an extent that absolutely blows any rail fare issues out of the water.

I bought my tickets through an app but you can also get paper tickets. I don't know if a smart card is an option.

As you don't know the answer does that mean the Swiss system has to be abolished until a new system can be devised that means there is no longer any need to split?

All systems have their flaws.

Just because the fares system on other modes or in other countries is just as bad or worse than the current system on the railway is no reason not to fix it.

If you think a better system is possible I am interested to hear how it would work and what the fares would be .

I'm sorry but I don't need to propose a better system to complain about the current one.

Are you saying break of journey should be allowed or disallowed?

As my posts above have expanded, my view is that Break of Journey as currently defined should be abolished. On tickets were BoJ is prohibited it isn't enforced or is unenforceable and passengers repeatedly do break their journey. On tickets where it is permitted I believe only a minority of passengers use it. In practice this would mean break of journey would be allowed on all tickets.

If you can clarify what your proposal would look like that would be helpful.

Again I don't need to provide a proposal to be critical of the current system.

I would be reluctant to support a system that puts some fares up; how could we be sure the majority would pay less?

So your view is that any reform isn't possible if anybody has to pay more? I'm not sure the aim is for the majority to pay less just that

Also the Government does not currently appear to be minded to introduce a system whereby most people pay less; they want a "revenue neutral" scheme and there are rumours that one of the key aims would be to reduce the cost of the really expensive fares typically only paid by people on business expenses. For every really expensive fare you reduce, that's going to take a lot of cheaper fares to go up in order to match the shortfall. That results in most people paying more.

If you abolish the most expensive fares, it becomes harder to avoid putting up the price of many more of the cheaper fares.

How many of these expensive fares are actually bought? I known my former MD, who could of just expensed a first open return, loved to search out a bargain first advance, much to the chagrin of his secretary.

On the one hand if people are willing to pay a high fare then you'd be stupid to charge less. But if these high fares put of the wider public then getting rid maybe best. You could always try and retain the business expense market by offering say a high Pullman fare. It is a question of proper segmentation. Personally I'm not a fan of first outside the traditional IC routes.

People often say there should be an easy fix but no-one has yet come up with a workable plan.

Well lets all just go home then.

That sounds good but there is no current government proposal to do this and it goes against their "revenue neutral" stance.

Well trying to do proper reform while also aiming to be revenue neutral is a non starter. To me the whole point is that by reforming and simplifying the fares you attract more passengers so any upfront loss of revenue id made up for in the longer term.

Maybe, but if people are forced to pay more it may put people off, if the train would have been convenient without the extra unwanted costs.

In the example I gave , n network daytrippers zonal tickets, the price difference in most cases is 30 to 50p but you gain inter-availability with buses etc. I don't believe this to be a unbearable imposition plus you would need to market it properly as an new additional benefit.

If the fares are simple, does that mean removing ticket types or having less peak time differentiations? For example there are currently Super Off Peak / Off Peak / Anytime period returns as well as Off Peak Day returns for some journeys. Would some of these go? If there are multiple route options, would some of those go too?

Yes some of these ticket types would go and not just the name. In terms of Anytime/Off Peak I think the definitions and restrictions should be standardised. If were going to have an evening peak lets have one definition that everyone can understand. In terms of the super off peak could that additional discount not be covered by advances?
In terms of route options I would not be opposed to losing some as long as an appropriate choice remained, as above Avanti v LNR v Chiltern.

The curious thing is that some people think simplicity is to have one fare valid on an reasonable route whereas other people think it is simpler to have no fare valid on all routes and make people choose the exact route and then be prescribed a fare tailored for that.

No-one can universally agree on what is "simple"; everyone has their own ideas!

Intuitively I would be inclined to go with the any reasonable route the issue though is defining what that would be or least what's unreasonable. Deeming everything as invalid apart from those precribed fares/routes maybe easier.

True but any changes which are detrimental will be opposed strongly by many people including myself.

You are free to do so but I would caution to not 'Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'

Have you seen the crowds and been on the trains?

People who are new to anything will generally need to ask once! Then they know and don't usually ask again.

Rangers / Rovers are not always available and not always the best option for many journeys, especially if you are only doing an out and back trip and not multiple journeys.

No but some people will do things like that; it really isn't as uncommon as you think. How much travelling do you do on the railway? Have you made many journeys on tourist oriented lines such as the Settle & Carlisle line, and seen hikers who walk between stations? They very much do exist and on some trains at some times of the year can be the majority of customers on certain trains!

I'm not denying that people go on pub crawls like the Pennine Ale Trail or that hikers use trains whether that be the Settle and Carlisle or the Heart Of Wales. But I do dispute is that they are making these journeys using their right to BoJ on open/unrestricted tickets. If they were why bother to offer the various explorers\rangers\rovers. The pricing of a lot of these is very competitive with unrestricted tickets.

Having said all of the above in a world that appears to be moving towards more advance tickets\demand based pricing on longer flows and contactless\zonal fares locally who will still be buying Anytime/Off Peak etc tickets?

I know when I'm planning a trip to London a One Day Travelcard is the base from which I work from and compare it with any available advances and contactless capping.

 

[Hadders]

For example I assume for historical reasons journeys from stations in the Midlands and North West to London are valid via Banbury into Paddington as well as by the Chiltern route and WMCL. Travelling via Chiltern and WMCL only provides the passenger a choice of speed and price. Avanti v LNR v Chiltern. Why do they need to retain validity into Paddington? Going that way is neither cheaper or faster.

Perish the thought that a passenger might want to choose. I might be meeting a friend or colleague at Reading, or my ultimate destination might be easier to reach than from Paddington. Next week I'm making a journey from Glasgow to Stevenage, I need some flexibility and haven't (and won't decide until around an hour beforehand) whether to travel with Avanti via Euston or via Edinburgh and then LNER. If the times work out I might even travel via Carlisle and Leeds for the view. Are you saying I shouldn't have this sort of flexibility?

Why should passenger have to jump through the hoop of splitting tickets to get the cheapest fare. If you have to do that the system is wrong.

Ideally they shouldn't but there will always be anomalies in any fares system.

I'm sorry but I don't need to propose a better system to complain about the current one.

It's all very well saying something's broken or not working but without an laternative your argument lacks credibility.

So your view is that any reform isn't possible if anybody has to pay more? I'm not sure the aim is for the majority to pay less just that

The thing is the Treasury/DfT/Train Companies do not have a good record on this. What they say and what happens will end up as two different things. My thread of contactless (and a not disimmilar one on Hertford) paint a picture into people thinking they're getting cheaper fares when in fact the complete oppiosite is true, especially for travel at leisure times. All of this remember in the Transport Secretary's own constituency!

How many of these expensive fares are actually bought?

I don't know the exact figures but more than you'd think. Remember fares like London to Manchester Anytime Return at an eye watering £369.40 is unregulated. Avanti could make it cheaper today if they wanted. The fact that they've choosen not to do so indicates that they believe it is priced appropriately. The Off Peak Return is a more paletable £98.10 thanks to fares regulation. I wonder how much it would be if it wasn't regulated.

In terms of Anytime/Off Peak I think the definitions and restrictions should be standardised.

Sounds ideal. What evening restrictions would apply to an Edinburgh to London ticket? What about Mallaig to Glasgow?

If were going to have an evening peak lets have one definition that everyone can understand.

If I was travelling from Stevenage to Bristol leaving mid-afternoon would I be able to use an Off Peak ticket even though I might be using a train departing Paddington in the evening peak? What about rural lines that might only get one or two trains a day?

If I'm travelling from Bedford to Brighton on a direct train could I leave at 15:00 using an off peak ticket as the journey would take me into the barred time? Or would I have to get off somewhere and continue my journey later?

In terms of the super off peak could that additional discount not be covered by advances?

The thing is there is no transparancy around Advance tickets, prices can rise and fall at the behest of the TOCs. Passengers think Advance fares are cheap (and some are) but there is nothing stopping the train companies reducing the number of fares available at each price tier which is a hidden price rise. Also, to get a decent price I don't want to have to book 12 or 26 weeks ahead - it becomes a lottery.

 

[Watershed]

I would support removing route options from customers if said options are little used or provide little benefit to customers.

For example I assume for historical reasons journeys from stations in the Midlands and North West to London are valid via Banbury into Paddington as well as by the Chiltern route and WMCL. Travelling via Chiltern and WMCL only provides the passenger a choice of speed and price. Avanti v LNR v Chiltern. Why do they need to retain validity into Paddington? Going that way is neither cheaper or faster.

There are many times when going via Reading might make sense. In fact you'd only have to be travelling from Acton Main Line for it to be more convenient (1 change vs 2 in most cases), as well as potentially faster.

During engineering works or disruption on the WCML it is often fastest to go via Reading. Should people have to rely on the generosity and competence of the TOCs to be able to do so?

Well maybe there should be later trains on the more direct route along the coast.

There should be, but there aren't and there is no prospect of any being introduced. The DfT is in fully fledged cost cutting mode, they aren't going to introduce extra services to offset permitted routes being narrowed!

In terms of ticket validity it would be reasonable to allow passengers to travel via Clapham Jnc later in the evening when it is the fastest/only route.

Right, so how do you define that sort of validity? You suggest simplifying the system yet now we are adding even more complexity!

Why should passenger have to jump through the hoop of splitting tickets to get the cheapest fare. If you have to do that the system is wrong.

If that's your bar for the system "being wrong" then I'm afraid you will always be disappointed. It is almost impossible to come up with a system where splitting is never cheaper. It would essentially require that Off-Peak tickets (in all forms, whether single/return/ranger) be scrapped.

Otherwise if you said "all Off-Peak tickets are valid from 09:30" (which is broadly speaking XC's fare policy), then anyone departing before 09:30 is best off splitting at the first station call after 09:30...

Well trying to do proper reform while also aiming to be revenue neutral is a non starter. To me the whole point is that by reforming and simplifying the fares you attract more passengers so any upfront loss of revenue id made up for in the longer term.

The Treasury don't see it that way unfortunately. They would never agree to something which reduced revenue, even if it could have the potential to increase it in future.

I get that you think the current system is poor. It undoubtedly is, and it's certainly unnecessarily complex because of some of the choices that the government and the TOCs have made.

But this is not news. And unless you have realistic proposals for something better, that would be acceptable to all parties, then it's like lambasting the US Constitution. Yes, it's unfit for the modern day, but nobody can agree how to change it.

 

[miklcct]

If I was travelling from Stevenage to Bristol leaving mid-afternoon would I be able to use an Off Peak ticket even though I might be using a train departing Paddington in the evening peak? What about rural lines that might only get one or two trains a day?

If I'm travelling from Bedford to Brighton on a direct train could I leave at 15:00 using an off peak ticket as the journey would take me into the barred time? Or would I have to get off somewhere and continue my journey later?

Yes, a simple definition of evening peak trains can be one which leaves a named area (such as London) in the specified time, like how the bike policy is written, and the restriction can be as simple as that.

For example, for Thameslink, the evening peak can be defined as any northbound trains which depart St Pancras / Kings Cross between 16:00 and 19:00, and any southbound trains which depart Blackfriars between 16:00 and 19:00, with off-peak travel prohibited beyond the final London Terminal passed by the train.

Therefore, you shouldn't be able to use an off-peak ticket to travel from Bedford to Brighton at 15:00 and you will be better off to buy two tickets, an off-peak one to London and a peak one from London. This is to prevent peak / off-peak fare anomalies and to ensure that you pay for the price for travelling at the specified time.

 

[Watershed]

Yes, a simple definition of evening peak trains can be one which leaves a named area (such as London) in the specified time, like how the bike policy is written, and the restriction can be as simple as that.

For example, for Thameslink, the evening peak can be defined as any northbound trains which depart St Pancras / Kings Cross between 16:00 and 19:00, and any southbound trains which depart Blackfriars between 16:00 and 19:00, with off-peak travel prohibited beyond the final London Terminal passed by the train.

Therefore, you shouldn't be able to use an off-peak ticket to travel from Bedford to Brighton at 15:00 and you will be better off to buy two tickets, an off-peak one to London and a peak one from London. This is to prevent peak / off-peak fare anomalies and to ensure that you pay for the price for travelling at the specified time.

That would make the restriction simple and easy to understand... but in turn create a host of possible splits.

For as long as there is any sort of Off-Peak ticket, such anomalies will remain.

 

[miklcct]

That would make the restriction simple and easy to understand... but in turn create a host of possible splits.

For as long as there is any sort of Off-Peak ticket, such anomalies will remain.

I don't think a split between peak / off-peak should be an anomaly. Instead I think that we should unify the restrictions and define which trains constitute peak trains, and to encourage splitting at the peak / non-peak boundary such that the first non-peak train won't be rammed.

 

[6Gman]

Is it that surprising that no one uses a bus.

Eh?

Remarks like that, along with the idea that removing a right from the passenger makes rail travel more attractive, really do undermine whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[Watershed]

I don't think a split between peak / off-peak should be an anomaly. Instead I think that we should unify the restrictions and define which trains constitute peak trains, and to encourage splitting at the peak / non-peak boundary such that the first non-peak train won't be rammed.

This seems precisely the sort of complexity that a "simple" blanket restriction is intended to avoid... As always, things are never as simple as they might seem.

 

[camflyer]

Back when I was student we used to to do the London to Brighton pub crawl by train. Get off every few stops, have a pint at the nearest pub, then catch the next train. It was always an entertaining way to spend a day.

These days I often have a 45 minute connection at Cambridge waiting for the Ipswich train. There's nothing to do within the station so I always have to ask to be allowed through the gate line so that I can go to M&S or for a pint at the Ticket Office or Railway Tavern.

 

[yorkie]

Eh?

Remarks like that, along with the idea that removing a right from the passenger makes rail travel more attractive, really do undermine whatever point you're trying to make.

Indeed, especially as through ticketing with buses is far less widely available than it is with trains! At least with trains a through ticket nearly always does exist, but with buses, even if its the same company, you may need to split. And anomalies certainly do exist on buses too!

Firstly I apologise for the format of the reply but the forum software won't quote my post and your replies

As I have repeatedly said I said that was a contrarian, or maybe better said a flippant, remark to point out the absurd complexity of the ticketing system which forced a complex reply to the simple query made by the OP on that thread. It is not necessarily my view as expanded on in the posts above in this thread.

OK; so as I said in my previous post, it sounds to me like you aren't using the term "contrarian" to mean the actual defined meaning of the word, is that correct?

Are you saying that it is not the case that you can save money on a journey from A-B by buying a ticket from say A-D and finishing short?

You can, sometimes; are you saying that this should not be allowed?

I would support removing route options from customers if said options are little used or provide little benefit to customers.

But does that make things simpler? Would customers using lesser used routes pay an excess fare?

For example I assume for historical reasons journeys from stations in the Midlands and North West to London are valid via Banbury into Paddington as well as by the Chiltern route and WMCL. Travelling via Chiltern and WMCL only provides the passenger a choice of speed and price. Avanti v LNR v Chiltern. Why do they need to retain validity into Paddington? Going that way is neither cheaper or faster.

It was historically a cheaper route. This would mean in future people who want to travel on such journeys would need to buy a combination of tickets, or perhaps buy tickets with alternative origins/destinations to allow it. Does that make things simpler?

If you remove options like this, where is the tangible benefit, for anyone?

Possibly I've not formed a definitive view but there are surely many better options than the current National Routing Guide with its myriad rules, instructions, lookup tables and maps.

There has to be a set of rules; if anyone can come up with a new set of rules that works, I am interested to hear them. If the new set of rules results in increased fares I will oppose it.

Well maybe there should be later trains on the more direct route along the coast.

That's a whole new subject in itself but there are so many journeys where it may be quicker to take an indirect route at certain times, you cannot possibly run so many additional trains that you eliminate these.

Surely the timetable should be designed to make the best use of resources?

In terms of ticket validity it would be reasonable to allow passengers to travel via Clapham Jnc later in the evening when it is the fastest/only route.

How is it simple to say that via CLJ is a permitted route only in the evening? how would you advertise this?

Why should passenger have to jump through the hoop of splitting tickets to get the cheapest fare.

But this is the case for buses, planes and more. Yes it would be nice if there was a good value through fare for all journeys (and including all modes) which is never undercut, but how would you implement that? How would it be priced?

If you have to do that the system is wrong.

Fine but you have not got any solutions as far as I can see.

So a 'working' system is one where buying tickets from the TOC website means you pay more. The system is broken.

The solution for this is for TOCs to simply offer the same service that sites like Trainsplit do. They could do this almost instantaneously. They choose not to because their pricing is designed around market forces and yield management principles.

TOCs know that people who are really price conscious will book with splitting sites but many people are happy to pay a bit more than that. This yields the maximum revenue per customer and minimises subsidy.

Any changes you suggest to make things fairer or simpler will require one of two things (or both):
1) The most price sensitive passengers are driven away
2) Taxpayer subsidy goes up

Now if you want to argue that taxes should go up to fund fare decreases, I will be happy to do that. But I do not think the general population would agree to this.

Just because the fares system on other modes or in other countries is just as bad or worse than the current system on the railway is no reason not to fix it.

Can you name any country with the perfect system? Can you make a proposal for how the issues should be fixed?

If you want to present a theoretical view with no actual means to achieve it, that's fine, but it cannot be taken as a serious proposal until there are some details provided regarding how it could actually work.

I'm sorry but I don't need to propose a better system to complain about the current one.

If your aim is to simply complain about the current system but offer no solutions and cannot point to a model that does solve all the issues, that's fine, there is nothing further to discuss until someone else comes up with a solution.

As my posts above have expanded, my view is that Break of Journey as currently defined should be abolished.

Ok so you do want break of journey to be abolished.

On tickets were BoJ is prohibited it isn't enforced or is unenforceable and passengers repeatedly do break their journey. On tickets where it is permitted I believe only a minority of passengers use it. In practice this would mean break of journey would be allowed on all tickets.

Whether it's allowed or not, there are many instances where it cannot be stopped.

Again I don't need to provide a proposal to be critical of the current system.

You can, but the criticism is of limited value as you offer no solutions.

So your view is that any reform isn't possible if anybody has to pay more? I'm not sure the aim is for the majority to pay less just that

I don't believe those who pay reasonable value fares currently should be paying more in future.

How many of these expensive fares are actually bought?

Enough to earn the train companies a reasonable income but the exact details are deemed commercially sensitive

I known my former MD, who could of just expensed a first open return, loved to search out a bargain first advance, much to the chagrin of his secretary.

On the one hand if people are willing to pay a high fare then you'd be stupid to charge less.

That is a key principal of market based pricing yes, at least for premium routes.

But if these high fares put of the wider public then getting rid maybe best.

I believe some companies are deliberately trying to suppress demand to avoid (or reduce) potential overcrowding, especially XC.

You could always try and retain the business expense market by offering say a high Pullman fare. It is a question of proper segmentation. Personally I'm not a fan of first outside the traditional IC routes.

Well that's a whole new topic!

Well lets all just go home then.

If we aren't given a workable solution then we probably should until someone does

Well trying to do proper reform while also aiming to be revenue neutral is a non starter.

I will agree with that.

To me the whole point is that by reforming and simplifying the fares you attract more passengers so any upfront loss of revenue id made up for in the longer term.

I'm not sure about that, especially as everyone seems to have a slightly different opinion regarding what is "simple".

Are bus fares simple? Are Ryanair/easyJet style fares simple? Is it simple for peak time to be the same nationwide so everyone needs to split? Or is it simple to have a wide range of through fares so no-one needs to split?

Is it simple to allow a wide range of permitted routes or is it simple to say you must pick a route, get a bespoke priced ticket and stick to it?

In the example I gave , n network daytrippers zonal tickets, the price difference in most cases is 30 to 50p but you gain inter-availability with buses etc. I don't believe this to be a unbearable imposition plus you would need to market it properly as an new additional benefit..

Yes like in Switzerland for some journeys you have to get a Zonal ticket which is multi modal.

But does this make anomalies go away?

Yes some of these ticket types would go and not just the name. In terms of Anytime/Off Peak I think the definitions and restrictions should be standardised.

So more split ticketing then.

Splitting is simple, right? I thought you were arguing against it earlier?

If were going to have an evening peak lets have one definition that everyone can understand. In terms of the super off peak could that additional discount not be covered by advances?

Ok so what would that be? 1600 to 1800 from any station?

So you just need to split at the first station after 1800?

In terms of route options I would not be opposed to losing some as long as an appropriate choice remained, as above Avanti v LNR v Chiltern.

But how would this help anyone?

Intuitively I would be inclined to go with the any reasonable route the issue though is defining what that would be or least what's unreasonable. Deeming everything as invalid apart from those precribed fares/routes maybe easier.

But how would this actually be achieved?

You are free to do so but I would caution to not 'Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'

But can we get any agreement on what is good? Different people have very different ideas on this.

I'm not denying that people go on pub crawls like the Pennine Ale Trail or that hikers use trains whether that be the Settle and Carlisle or the Heart Of Wales. But I do dispute is that they are making these journeys using their right to BoJ on open/unrestricted tickets. If they were why bother to offer the various explorers\rangers\rovers. The pricing of a lot of these is very competitive with unrestricted tickets.

Ok but could you price a rover/ranger for every possibly without any need for anyone to split?

Having said all of the above in a world that appears to be moving towards more advance tickets\demand based pricing on longer flows and contactless\zonal fares locally who will still be buying Anytime/Off Peak etc tickets?

Some people will require flexibility especially for shorter journeys.

 

[Wolfie]

I don't think a split between peak / off-peak should be an anomaly. Instead I think that we should unify the restrictions and define which trains constitute peak trains, and to encourage splitting at the peak / non-peak boundary such that the first non-peak train won't be rammed.

Peak train times are set at least in part in response to conditions and demand. Why the hell should a quiet train running against the predominant flow be charged peak fares because to you that seems neat?

 

[yorkie]

Peak train times are set at least in part in response to conditions and demand. Why the hell should a quiet train running against the predominant flow be charged peak fares because to you that seems neat?

Exactly; those who argue against market based pricing are often keen for fares to be "fair" but the problem is that different people have a different idea of what is "fair" and if the prices don't differentiate between differing levels of demand, then it is inevitable that some trains will be overcrowded while others will be dead. That's just not sensible.

 

[mmh]

How many people partake of this feature? Particularly with the number of Advance and other tickets sold with at least a BOJ restriction on the outward leg?

I do a lot. And it's one reason I'm a convert to electronic tickets, as they allow me to do this at the two barrier lines I use where paper tickets wouldn't, with an unenforceable BOJ restriction on them (not that I've ever come across a barrier attendant who hasn't just let me through, but it's less hassle)

 

[tomuk]

Exactly; those who argue against market based pricing are often keen for fares to be "fair" but the problem is that different people have a different idea of what is "fair" and if the prices don't differentiate between differing levels of demand, then it is inevitable that some trains will be overcrowded while others will be dead. That's just not sensible.

How about full demand based pricing down to the time of departure with compulsory reservations on InterCity flows then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly; those who argue against market based pricing are often keen for fares to be "fair" but the problem is that different people have a different idea of what is "fair" and if the prices don't differentiate between differing levels of demand, then it is inevitable that some trains will be overcrowded while others will be dead. That's just not sensible.

One of the positive aspects of journey planners is that they remove much of the complication. When you add features like Trainsplit they mostly remove the anomalies, too. You set up what you want, it works out the cheapest price (give or take very niche cases like theoretically stopping short on an Advance). In many ways it then makes no difference how complex the underlying structure actually is.

But for one thing - return fares really complicate things.

Therefore, I think a move to single-fare pricing, if you changed nothing else, would basically mean nobody using a splitting site (and that's now mainstream with Trainline doing it) paid more than they need to pay. Thus that is the change that, despite it potentially disadvantaging a few people (e.g. those who wish to make multiple overnight breaks of journey who would need to split tickets to do this), I think really should happen. If it does, everything else becomes secondary.

How about full demand based pricing down to the time of departure with compulsory reservations on InterCity flows then?

Damages the ability to compete with the car too much by pricing people out of making decisions to travel/when to travel on the day, because on the day would be expensive or unpredictable in price.

I don't wholly oppose compulsory reservation done in the right way (noting that the present system of lying about it isn't the right way, and noting that CR as a wider thing is probably one for another thread) but I do oppose fully dynamic pricing and in particular any loss of the cap the Off Peak walk up fares provide. You can have one without the other. Without that, I don't doubt Manchester to London at 4pm on a Sunday would be £200, pay it or walk. Or drive, which is what I'd actually do.

 

[miklcct]

How about full demand based pricing down to the time of departure with compulsory reservations on InterCity flows then?

I will not take a train instead of a plane if it becomes compulsory reservation.

 

[py_megapixel]

I will not take a train instead of a plane if it becomes compulsory reservation.

Even if you can scan your ticket at the station or use an app on your phone and get a reservation on the next service in a few clicks?

 

[JonathanH]

Peak train times are set at least in part in response to conditions and demand. Why the hell should a quiet train running against the predominant flow be charged peak fares because to you that seems neat?

London seems happy to accept peak fares on contra flow evening trips. Yes, there is a exemption for travel into Zone 1 but £11.40 to take a single journey on Oyster / Contactless from Gatwick to Clapham Junction between 1600 and 1900 when it is £9.00 to go to Victoria is an example of what might happen in the near future on a wider basis.

Universal PAYG in the area around London will create some significant anomalies and remove break of journey as it stands today, with the only protection being Zone 1-centric capping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if you can scan your ticket at the station or use an app on your phone and get a reservation on the next service in a few clicks?

It's the risk of not being carried. If trains have the same disadvantages of planes but planes are cheaper and faster...

Personally, there are cases where CR would make me drive instead and cases where they wouldn't.