My idea to abolish market based pricing and implement pricing based on distance and train category

[miklcct]

That said, people can huff and puff about market based pricing but it's now completely embedded in our society in so many ways (many of which are not always obvious!)

My opinion is that, public services should not have market based pricing. These include water, electricity, public transport, medical system, etc., which are essential items with infrastructure.

 

[yorkie]

My opinion is that, public services should not have market based pricing. These include water, electricity, public transport, medical system, etc., which are essential items with infrastructure.

That's just an ideology without any evidence for how you could actually achieve it. But how would you remove all forms of market based pricing from public transport? Also would you include or exclude air travel?

Would you say there should be one price per mile for all rail travel in the UK? We're back to my example above comparing Sherburn to Whitby in Yorkshire with Reading to London in the South East. The implications are huge; some lines would be unviable while others would be full to bursting.

 

[miklcct]

That's just an ideology without any evidence for how you could actually achieve it. But how would you remove all forms of market based pricing from public transport? Also would you include or exclude air travel?

Would you say there should be one price per mile for all rail travel in the UK? We're back to my example above comparing Sherburn to Whitby in Yorkshire with Reading to London in the South East. The implications are huge; some lines would be unviable while others would be full to bursting.

Public transport in some other countries, such as China and Hungary, do not use market based pricing and use predefined formulas to calculate price according to distance, train category and class of travel. I will also include air travel if it is a necessity, for example flights between outlying islands and the mainland UK. (Flight prices between Taiwan main island and outlying islands are regulated)

If the lines are full, build more - if they are unviable, close them unless it is the only transport available in the region.

 

[eldomtom2]

The simple matter of fact is that the number one reason people give when asked why they don't use the railway, at least in my experience, is that it's too expensive. Now this probably won't involve completely abolishing market-based pricing, but the railway needs to get on top of this perception.

 

[yorkie]

Public transport in some other countries, such as China and Hungary, do not use market based pricing and use predefined formulas to calculate price according to distance, train category and class of travel. I will also include air travel if it is a necessity, for example flights between outlying islands and the mainland UK. (Flight prices between Taiwan main island and outlying islands are regulated)

What would your pricing structure be?

How would you categorise services between York and Leeds? You have the all stoppers via Harrogate, stoppers via Garforth, semi-fasts via Garforth; are these all the same category? What about a loco hauled TPE calling only at Garforth? Or a TPE 185 going non-stop? What about XC?

What do you do if a passenger takes a train of the wrong "category"?

How much would you charge for Sherburn to Whitby, versus Reading to Paddington, as mentioned above?

If the lines are full, build more - if they are unviable, close them unless it is the only transport available in the region.

I personally am prepared to pay more tax to fund huge fare reductions, more lines, more trains etc. But would this actually be viable, and would the wider electroate vote for it?

The simple matter of fact is that the number one reason people give when asked why they don't use the railway, at least in my experience, is that it's too expensive. Now this probably won't involve completely abolishing market-based pricing, but the railway needs to get on top of this perception.

I'd absolutely support lowering the more expensive fares to the same price as the cheaper fares and paying more tax to achieve this.

Providing no fares go up!

 

[zwk500]

My opinion is that, public services should not have market based pricing.

In principle your proposal is workable - the Netherlands has single-leg pricing based on distance with supplements for some train categories. However will your proposal involve increasing fares overall, or will you be expecting the treasury to make up the shortfall?

This is before you get to issues such as on the Brighton Main Line, where the same stock operates metro, outer suburban (Sussex Coast) and express intercity (GatEx) services. Or on the WCML where both Avanti and LNR operate non-stop services to Milton Keynes Central.

 

[deltic]

My opinion is that, public services should not have market based pricing. These include water, electricity, public transport, medical system, etc., which are essential items with infrastructure.

One challenge is that people expect some equity in charges. Would I be expected to pay the same price to travel 10 miles between A to B on a service that runs every 15 minutes as the 10 miles between C and D on a 3 times a day service?

 

[pdeaves]

Where you have more than one route between places, what happens then? Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath or via Bristol Parkway, for example (if we assume for the sake of illustration that such services are introduced again). They are different distances (in this case, not by much, but they are still different; better examples will exist). Once you have defined the price, how do you price the intermediate journeys? Per-mile fares may work well if you restrict passengers to one route or, worse, one train but they aren't so good for a varied 'walk up' railway.

 

[Starmill]

Where you have more than one route between places, what happens then? Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath or via Bristol Parkway, for example (if we assume for the sake of illustration that such services are introduced again). They are different distances (in this case, not by much, but they are still different; better examples will exist). Once you have defined the price, how do you price the intermediate journeys? Per-mile fares may work well if you restrict passengers to one route or, worse, one train but they aren't so good for a varied 'walk up' railway.

Mathematically, it'd be quite straightforward to have a distance-based capped price, and then allow the price to fall under the capped rate as necessary to remove over-booking anomalies while only charging the lower rate. You could also have a tolerance of up to 5% above the capped rate in exceptional circumstances. You could also have a fixed budget of days, say four or five per year, when the cap can be lifted by up to 5%, which operators can choose when to deploy, say for Maundy Thursday and Good Friday for example.

Now obviously this might not conform to the OP's idea of "non market-based". It'd also face the challenges set out above in that a larger ratio of public subsidy to ticket revenues would be absolutely necessary to make it work. But it is possible.

 

[jackot]

Where you have more than one route between places, what happens then? Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath or via Bristol Parkway, for example (if we assume for the sake of illustration that such services are introduced again). They are different distances (in this case, not by much, but they are still different; better examples will exist). Once you have defined the price, how do you price the intermediate journeys? Per-mile fares may work well if you restrict passengers to one route or, worse, one train but they aren't so good for a varied 'walk up' railway.

That is my thinking entirely. How about London to Exeter with either SWR or GWR? With Waterloo being the traditionally cheaper route but far slower compared to a journey from Paddington on a much faster intercity service, how would this work? Both are a similar distance, yet if priced 'per mile' would be the same price for a vastly different type of service. Then it would require additional complexity in the form of a supplement on top of the base cost for the faster GWR service, but then what does this gain from the current way of doing fares?

 

[miklcct]

What would your pricing structure be?

How would you categorise services between York and Leeds? You have the all stoppers via Harrogate, stoppers via Garforth, semi-fasts via Garforth; are these all the same category? What about a loco hauled TPE calling only at Garforth? Or a TPE 185 going non-stop? What about XC?

I think, in the context of Great Britain, two categories are enough. Intercity stock and commuter / regional stock. Intercity means GWR Intercity Express Train, CrossCountry HST & Voyager, Avanti West Coast, EMR Intercity, TransPennine Express, and LNER which attract a premium.

What do you do if a passenger takes a train of the wrong "category"?

How much would you charge for Sherburn to Whitby, versus Reading to Paddington, as mentioned above?


I personally am prepared to pay more tax to fund huge fare reductions, more lines, more trains etc. But would this actually be viable, and would the wider electroate vote for it?


I'd absolutely support lowering the more expensive fares to the same price as the cheaper fares and paying more tax to achieve this.

Providing no fares go up!

If a passenger takes a train of the wrong category, I propose that a penalty fare should be issued at £100 + price difference.

In principle your proposal is workable - the Netherlands has single-leg pricing based on distance with supplements for some train categories. However will your proposal involve increasing fares overall, or will you be expecting the treasury to make up the shortfall?

This is before you get to issues such as on the Brighton Main Line, where the same stock operates metro, outer suburban (Sussex Coast) and express intercity (GatEx) services. Or on the WCML where both Avanti and LNR operate non-stop services to Milton Keynes Central.

Yes this is what I am proposing. The fare should be set at revenue-neutral basis. On Brighton main line Gatwick Express should be abolished as there is no point having it (as there is no intercity stock anyway), and on WCML the Avanti trains should charge a premium as Intercity service.

One challenge is that people expect some equity in charges. Would I be expected to pay the same price to travel 10 miles between A to B on a service that runs every 15 minutes as the 10 miles between C and D on a 3 times a day service?

Yes, unless one of the lines warrant a premium (such as a line to London). The level of service should be proportional to the demand.

Where you have more than one route between places, what happens then? Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath or via Bristol Parkway, for example (if we assume for the sake of illustration that such services are introduced again). They are different distances (in this case, not by much, but they are still different; better examples will exist). Once you have defined the price, how do you price the intermediate journeys? Per-mile fares may work well if you restrict passengers to one route or, worse, one train but they aren't so good for a varied 'walk up' railway.

All tickets should be single and should be restricted to a geographical route. The passenger should buy a ticket according to which route the train will take.

 

[zwk500]

That is my thinking entirely. How about London to Exeter with either SWR or GWR? With Waterloo being the traditionally cheaper route but far slower compared to a journey from Paddington on a much faster intercity service, how would this work? Both are a similar distance, yet if priced 'per mile' would be the same price for a vastly different type of service. Then it would require additional complexity in the form of a supplement on top of the base cost for the faster GWR service, but then what does this gain from the current way of doing fares?

OP explicitly addresses this with 'train category' so presumably they'd have the GWR services as Intercity and having a higher fare than SWR which would be classed as Regional Express or something comparable.

 

[yorkie]

I think, in the context of Great Britain, two categories are enough. Intercity stock and commuter / regional stock. Intercity means GWR Intercity Express Train, CrossCountry HST & Voyager, Avanti West Coast, EMR Intercity, TransPennine Express, and LNER which attract a premium.

Is a 3 car 185 on TPE really a premium compared to a Northern 4-car 195? Also what price differential are you proposing? The journey time difference between xx20 and xx23 from York is minimal.

If a passenger takes a train of the wrong category, I propose that a penalty fare should be issued at £100 + price difference.

I don't think your propisal is going to be palatable to anyone... except yourself.

Yes this is what I am proposing. The fare should be set at revenue-neutral basis.

How do you figure out what is "revenue neutral"? You are also admitting many lower priced journeys will rise. How will lines like the Whitby line be remotely viable?

On Brighton main line Gatwick Express should be abolished as there is no point having it (as there is no intercity stock anyway), and on WCML the Avanti trains should charge a premium as Intercity service.

At present you can get a lower fare by restricting yourself to Avanti services in many cases; your proposed fare rise will not be welcomed by residents of the North West!

Yes, unless one of the lines warrant a premium (such as a line to London). The level of service should be proportional to the demand.


All tickets should be single and should be restricted to a geographical route. The passenger should buy a ticket according to which route the train will take.

And how do they know what route a train will take? And what if they take the wrong route?

You want on board staff to spend the journey constantly issuing excess fares?

 

[urbophile]

That's just an ideology

To misquote Maureen Lipman, everyone has an -ology. Your ideology, or Rishi Sunak's ideology, or (not that there is much difference) Keir Starmer's, or Karl Marx's.

Ideology is simply the framework for making sensible decisions. It seems to me sensible that train fares should not be dictated by a contest of brand names, or an addiction to private profit, but what is the simplest and most affordable for ordinary travellers. If the Netherlands can do it, so can we. It shouldn't be right that just because your local line is served by company A, not company B that serves the route a few miles away, you should be forced to pay more for a comparable journey.

Ideology seems to be driving the NHS,for example, down the same route of competition, and denying all but a basic service to those who are unable or unwilling to pay high fees. I wouldn't ban the right of people to choose to pay extra if they want, but the basic service needs to be universally available and adequate or better. In the same way, the basic train service ought to be better than a Victorian parliamentary train, and ought to have a regulated fares structure (albeit with a second tier for express/premium services).

 

[Starmill]

I think, in the context of Great Britain, two categories are enough. Intercity stock and commuter / regional stock. Intercity means GWR Intercity Express Train, CrossCountry HST & Voyager, Avanti West Coast, EMR Intercity, TransPennine Express, and LNER which attract a premium.

So you're saying that the service between Huddersfield and Manchester Piccadilly, calling at all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge, is to be charged at a premium? And Mirfield to Leeds will have half of services charged at premium rate and half not, despite stops and journey times being nearly the same?

I note you specifically exclude EMR Regional. So that means there's a premium for using a 185 between Sheffield and Manchester Piccadilly but not for using a 158?

Are you charging your premium rate to most but not quite all passengers who travel from Bridgwater? And a lower fare applies on the service that's run by a Turbo that is non-stop from Taunton to Bristol Temple Meads?

 

[SargeNpton]

My opinion is that, public services should not have market based pricing. These include water, electricity, public transport, medical system, etc., which are essential items with infrastructure.


Yes, unless one of the lines warrant a premium (such as a line to London). The level of service should be proportional to the demand.

You are contradicting yourself. One the one hand you want the railway to remove market based pricing and on the other hand you think that some lines warrant a premium.

 

[The exile]

I think, in the context of Great Britain, two categories are enough. Intercity stock and commuter / regional stock. Intercity means GWR Intercity Express Train, CrossCountry HST & Voyager, Avanti West Coast, EMR Intercity, TransPennine Express, and LNER which attract a premium.

You then have to ensure that the “premium” service is exactly that - not an essential part of a regular interval service. What, for example do you tell the inhabitants of Chippenham?

 

[miklcct]

You then have to ensure that the “premium” service is exactly that - not an essential part of a regular interval service. What, for example do you tell the inhabitants of Chippenham?

This is easy to solve. If a premium service runs over a line where it provides the only service, over that line it is not considered a premium service and it can be used without supplement.

You are contradicting yourself. One the one hand you want the railway to remove market based pricing and on the other hand you think that some lines warrant a premium.

Even within the Communist China the lines within Guangdong Province (a developed area) attracts a premium.

So you're saying that the service between Huddersfield and Manchester Piccadilly, calling at all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge, is to be charged at a premium? And Mirfield to Leeds will have half of services charged at premium rate and half not, despite stops and journey times being nearly the same?

I note you specifically exclude EMR Regional. So that means there's a premium for using a 185 between Sheffield and Manchester Piccadilly but not for using a 158?

Are you charging your premium rate to most but not quite all passengers who travel from Bridgwater? And a lower fare applies on the service that's run by a Turbo that is non-stop from Taunton to Bristol Temple Meads?

Sorry I forgot to exclude the class 185 service on TPE, not familiar enough with that area.

Ideology is simply the framework for making sensible decisions. It seems to me sensible that train fares should not be dictated by a contest of brand names, or an addiction to private profit, but what is the simplest and most affordable for ordinary travellers. If the Netherlands can do it, so can we. It shouldn't be right that just because your local line is served by company A, not company B that serves the route a few miles away, you should be forced to pay more for a comparable journey.

Therefore I am proposing setting up sensible train categories. Avanti and LNR services are different enough that they should be charged differently.

 

[Richardr]

Yes this is what I am proposing. The fare should be set at revenue-neutral basis.

Just to be clear, the idea is that what are currently peak time fares will fall and off peak fares will rise, to the point that the revenue overall is the same. Also current weekend and advance fares would no longer exist. I assume too that the proposal removes any concept of a return fare. I suspect that will require quite a rise in off-peak and weekend fares to make up for the gain to peak travellers. I assume too the concept of a season ticket will no longer apply.

 

[The exile]

This is easy to solve. If a premium service runs over a line where it provides the only service, over that line it is not considered a premium service and it can be used without supplement.

Thus creating the anomaly that the 20 miles in the “premium train” between A and B costs less than the 15 in the very same train between B and C simply because B - C has a sporadic non-premium service and perverse incentives for users to oppose the introduction of local trains.

 

[miklcct]

Just to be clear, the idea is that what are currently peak time fares will fall and off peak fares will rise, to the point that the revenue overall is the same. Also current weekend and advance fares would no longer exist. I assume too that the proposal removes any concept of a return fare. I suspect that will require quite a rise in off-peak and weekend fares to make up for the gain to peak travellers. I assume too the concept of a season ticket will no longer apply.

I don't oppose peak / off-peak. As long as there isn't anomaly in the definition and with the pricing well defined it's still good for use. Peak and off-peak should be defined by train (for each route, a certain time band is peak) rather than by the ticket.

I also don't oppose season ticket as long as it is a fixed multiple of the single. If there are both peak and off-peak single there should also be peak and off-peak season tickets.

I haven't really thought about Advance tickets yet. Advance tickets should definitely be available on first class with seat reservation (which can be sold out) as first class is a premium product excluded from regulated pricing. They also have a place in intercity train travel as well as a limited form of market based pricing, but capped by a reasonable regulated formula-based walk up fare. They shouldn't exist at all for non-intercity train travel, for example, not even London - Southampton / Brighton / Dover as these lines are regional / commuter railways where trains run every half-hourly or better.

 

[Starmill]

Sorry I forgot to exclude the class 185 service on TPE, not familiar enough with that area.

So the stopping services between Newcastle and Edinburgh lose their price differential and cost the same as the London - Edinburgh services do for the same journey? Reston to Berwick-upon-Tweed or Edinburgh, a local journey, is charged at premium rate? What about Chester-le-Street to Newcastle?

This is easy to solve. If a premium service runs over a line where it provides the only service, over that line it is not considered a premium service and it can be used without supplement.

What would you charge for York - Scarborough, where both train types are likely, and may be swapped around frequently?

What about the 2006 from Exeter St Davids to Dawlish Warren? Would that be charged at premium rate or local rate?

Therefore I am proposing setting up sensible train categories. Avanti and LNR services are different enough that they should be charged differently.

Well you've only got two categories, but there are five operators between Morpeth and Newcastle currently. So what would you be charging? How would you account for Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains?

 

[miklcct]

So the stopping services between Newcastle and Edinburgh lose their price differential and cost the same as the London - Edinburgh services do for the same journey? Reston to Berwick-upon-Tweed or Edinburgh, a local journey, is charged at premium rate? What about Chester-le-Street to Newcastle?

What would you charge for York - Scarborough, where both train types are likely, and may be swapped around frequently?

All the three train companies (excluding open access) between Newcastle and Edinburgh are operating intercity trains, so the line won't be charged at premium rate.

York - Scarborough is clearly non-intercity. If the route is frequently (rather than occasionally, for example, the occasional 387 services from Paddington to the West should be charged cheaper between London - Didcot) operated by non-intercity stock then it isn't an intercity route.

 

[miklcct]

How would you account for Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains?

They are open access operators so they are free to create their dedicated fares, but they are intercity for interavailable fares based on their rolling stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

The simple matter of fact is that the number one reason people give when asked why they don't use the railway, at least in my experience, is that it's too expensive.

In my experience, the number one reason people give when asked why they don’t use the railway is that the railway doesn’t go close enough to where their journey is.

 

[yorkie]

To misquote Maureen Lipman, everyone has an -ology. Your ideology, or Rishi Sunak's ideology, or (not that there is much difference) Keir Starmer's, or Karl Marx's.

Ideology is simply the framework for making sensible decisions. It seems to me sensible that train fares should not be dictated by a contest of brand names, or an addiction to private profit, but what is the simplest and most affordable for ordinary travellers. If the Netherlands can do it, so can we. It shouldn't be right that just because your local line is served by company A, not company B that serves the route a few miles away, you should be forced to pay more for a comparable journey.

Ideology seems to be driving the NHS,for example, down the same route of competition, and denying all but a basic service to those who are unable or unwilling to pay high fees. I wouldn't ban the right of people to choose to pay extra if they want, but the basic service needs to be universally available and adequate or better. In the same way, the basic train service ought to be better than a Victorian parliamentary train, and ought to have a regulated fares structure (albeit with a second tier for express/premium services).

OK but how would you propose to achieve this?

This is easy to solve. If a premium service runs over a line where it provides the only service, over that line it is not considered a premium service and it can be used without supplement.

York to Doncaster wouldn't be premium then, despite being charged at a premium today.

You will charge a discount for travelling via Darlington between York and Middlesbrough (the opposite of today)?

That makes York to Sheffield via Leeds a lot more premium than via Doncaster?

Can you give us any examples of what the actual fares would be and/or how they would be calculated? I suspect not as I don't think you have actually thought it through properly.

Sorry I forgot to exclude the class 185 service on TPE, not familiar enough with that area.

So 185s aren't premium but 80x are? How do you know which will operate any given service?

Therefore I am proposing setting up sensible train categories. Avanti and LNR services are different enough that they should be charged differently.

So you won't charge a premium for any service operated by West Midlands Trains, so a fast train from Rugby/Milton Keynes to London is going to be (much?) cheaper than a stopping train which calls additionally Watford Junction operated by Avanti?

All the three train companies (excluding open access) between Newcastle and Edinburgh are operating intercity trains, so the line won't be charged at premium rate.

But the West Coast Main Line can be done entirely on non-premium services (albeit on very slow trains), so it would be cheaper to go from London to Glasgow via the ECML than the WCML?

York - Scarborough is clearly non-intercity.

Even if you get a 68+Mk5s? How are they any less "Intercity"-like than 80x units?

If the route is frequently (rather than occasionally, for example, the occasional 387 services from Paddington to the West should be charged cheaper between London - Didcot) operated by non-intercity stock then it isn't an intercity route.

How is frequently defined/determined?

 

[Russel]

The simple matter of fact is that the number one reason people give when asked why they don't use the railway, at least in my experience, is that it's too expensive. Now this probably won't involve completely abolishing market-based pricing, but the railway needs to get on top of this perception.

I agree with this, railway ticket pricing just isn't competitive with driving, if you have access to a car.

Even during the dark days of 2022 when petrol was almost £2 a litre, I was on holiday in Devon with my partner and child, driving was still a much cheaper option.

 

[Richardr]

I don't oppose peak / off-peak. As long as there isn't anomaly in the definition and with the pricing well defined it's still good for use. Peak and off-peak should be defined by train (for each route, a certain time band is peak) rather than by the ticket.

I also don't oppose season ticket as long as it is a fixed multiple of the single. If there are both peak and off-peak single there should also be peak and off-peak season tickets.

I haven't really thought about Advance tickets yet. Advance tickets should definitely be available on first class with seat reservation (which can be sold out) as first class is a premium product excluded from regulated pricing. They also have a place in intercity train travel as well as a limited form of market based pricing, but capped by a reasonable regulated formula-based walk up fare. They shouldn't exist at all for non-intercity train travel, for example, not even London - Southampton / Brighton / Dover as these lines are regional / commuter railways where trains run every half-hourly or better.

So to summarize the above, you agree with market based pricing.

 

[156421]

What if trains are diverted e.g. ECML closures so LNER uses WCML and travels further distance? Does the ticket price go up due to the extra distance travelled?

 

[RT4038]

In my experience, the number one reason people give when asked why they don’t use the railway is that the railway doesn’t go close enough to where their journey is.

Quite! People will often cite the cost of train tickets, when the real motivation is the convenience of the car at the start, during, and at the destination of the journey. And this is quite understandable.