Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
For those suggesting that the Routeing Guide be abolished and that we “go back” to “any reasonable route”, did that ever exist? There was a 1952 Book of Routes that was deemed necessary. Much less complicated than the current Routeing Guide, partly because it was recursive.
Sorry, I missed out the NOT in my reply, because I think off-peak (unlike advance) should be available for short journeys! I will edit my post to make it make more sense
It isn't always as straightforward as that. For a start, journey planners won't tell you whether you can break your journey. Secondly, they are programmed to give you the quickest journey for a given departure or arrival time and/or with fewest changes. It can sometimes be impossible to get a specific train included in your journey if it doesn't tick the algorithm's boxes for being an optimal journey, even if it is permitted.
Secondly, they are programmed to give you the quickest journey for a given departure or arrival time and/or with fewest changes. It can sometimes be impossible to get a specific train included in your journey if it doesn't tick the algorithm's boxes for being an optimal journey, even if it is permitted.
It doesn't matter which specific train it is (unless relying on the direct train rule, but if you are you don't need to check the Guide anyway, all you need to know is that it's an advertised direct train between the origin and destination on the ticket), while a TOC only routeing is printed on the ticket. What matters is the route, and you can get that by putting in via points. It's how I always check it and it is very easy to do on any journey planner.
Sorry, I missed out the NOT in my reply, because I think off-peak (unlike advance) should be available for short journeys! I will edit my post to make it make more sense
I'm not entirely sure how to physically display it on tickets, but if it isn't already the case, I'd make it so that any possible changes for advance tickets are allowed, so for example changing at Lancaster or Preston would be allowed for a Barrow-in-Furness to Birmingham advance (provided that the Birmingham service doesn't overtake the Manchester one between Lancaster and Preston).
It isn't always as straightforward as that. For a start, journey planners won't tell you whether you can break your journey. Secondly, they are programmed to give you the quickest journey for a given departure or arrival time and/or with fewest changes. It can sometimes be impossible to get a specific train included in your journey if it doesn't tick the algorithm's boxes for being an optimal journey, even if it is permitted.
Even simple things like trying to force changes to be at stations where the change is easy seems to challenge the journey planner when buying advance ticket (obviously with an open ticket its not an issue) As an example if I wish to travel from Seamer to Manchester Airport I can change at York, Leeds or Huddersfield. Assuming I am lugging a suitcase or I am less mobile then the obvious change is Huddersfield as its same platform most of the time, but if I buy an advance ticket then it will have me changing at York, a long walk, and stairs or lifts. I have tried and failed to get the journey planner to give me the change I want and failed every time I tried.
Its stupid things like this which all adds to the impression that whole system is broken and unfit for purpose, surely the extra code to add a box 'Change at' or give the choice 'do you wish to change at' together with some useful pointers like 'same platform change' would not stretch anyones capabilities, I can go onto RTT and see booked platforms, all the data is there, it just need presenting in a passenger friendly format. I know in the event of disruption things can change, but I would guess in 90% of cases its going to work out as timetabled.
My own recipe for change, To have just 3 types of tickets, Anytime single, Offpeak Single and Advance singles. No Returns at all. Priced at half what the current return price is for the ticket type. No TOC complexity, if you want to manage loadings between faster and slower services on the same route you do it via Advance ticket pricing, which is tied to a specific service. No arguements about acceptance during disruption, if your train is cancelled or late running you just get the next train forward from the point of disruption. and simpler for revenue staff and passengers.
There will be winners and losers with this obviously, but for example my outward journey might be an advance, and return on an offpeak, if I am not sure on departure time, or even an Anytime if I am going to be travelling during peak time. I know where I am, when I buy my tickets its spelt out to me, Valid for chosen service only, Valid on trains departing x - y time or Valid on any service. And same for 1st class where its an option. The only change to these options would be where OA operators are involved, and thats mainly routes on the ECML.
My own recipe for change, To have just 3 types of tickets, Anytime single, Offpeak Single and Advance singles. No Returns at all. Priced at half what the current return price is for the ticket type. No TOC complexity, if you want to manage loadings between faster and slower services on the same route you do it via Advance ticket pricing, which is tied to a specific service. No arguements about acceptance during disruption, if your train is cancelled or late running you just get the next train forward from the point of disruption. and simpler for revenue staff and passengers.
My preference would be that if your booked train on an Advance ticket is cancelled or delayed by more than say 30 minutes (or will miss a connection that would cause a delay of that extent) it becomes an Anytime Day Single valid via any route. That's roughly Deutsche Bahn's policy.
I would rename Advance tickets to Value tickets (Virgin Value is what they started out as in their present form). A brand which people can associate attributes with is less confusing than something like Fixed (they aren't, you can change them) or Advance (you can buy them up to travel, and you can buy other tickets in advance), and people understand that to get something cheaper you have to compromise something so would expect them to have some restrictive features. I'm open to other brands like APEX and the likes, but it should be something that doesn't directly state a feature (most people don't know what APEX stands for - it's Advance Purchase Excursion, by the way) but is recognisable as a brand of the railway.
My own recipe for change, To have just 3 types of tickets, Anytime single, Offpeak Single and Advance singles. No Returns at all. Priced at half what the current return price is for the ticket type. No TOC complexity, if you want to manage loadings between faster and slower services on the same route you do it via Advance ticket pricing, which is tied to a specific service. No arguements about acceptance during disruption, if your train is cancelled or late running you just get the next train forward from the point of disruption. and simpler for revenue staff and passengers.
That's pretty much how I would do it. The only one change I would consider making to that is to categorize some trains as 'intercity' (or whatever you want to call it) and charge a small supplement for travelling on those trains. That's partly to ensure that people who want to continue to pay a cheaper fare to travel on slow trains can do so (LNWR London to Crewe for example), and partly to deter people from travelling short distances on long distance trains (Paddington-Reading on a train that's heading to Swansea) where there are alternative commuter trains designed to cater for those passengers. And it reflects that a train that gets you to your destination in 1 hour is actually giving you a better product than a train that takes 2 hours to make the same journey, and that does merit having to pay a bit more.
My preference would be that if your booked train on an Advance ticket is cancelled or delayed by more than say 30 minutes (or will miss a connection that would cause a delay of that extent) it becomes an Anytime Day Single valid via any route
I think an extra customer-friendly thing to do would be to allow all tickets bought for a day to be postponed to a future date in case of severe disruption without extra cost, if there isn't enough time to complete the initial itinerary.
That's pretty much how I would do it. The only one change I would consider making to that is to categorize some trains as 'intercity' (or whatever you want to call it) and charge a small supplement for travelling on those trains. That's partly to ensure that people who want to continue to pay a cheaper fare to travel on slow trains can do so (LNWR London to Crewe for example), and partly to deter people from travelling short distances on long distance trains (Paddington-Reading on a train that's heading to Swansea) where there are alternative commuter trains designed to cater for those passengers.
To be honest I would just deal with the WMT trains by offering Advances on them up to departure at a fixed, low price in near enough unlimited numbers. It's less confusing than TOC specific walk ups when you don't have TOCs.
Though a route "Not InterCity" would be reasonably understandable if IC is used as a brand.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think an extra customer-friendly thing to do would be to allow all tickets bought for a day to be postponed to a future date in case of severe disruption without extra cost, if there isn't enough time to complete the initial itinerary.
Yes, it would be a nice feature to allow the whole booking to be rescheduled to another day of the passenger's choice at no extra cost if there was a cancellation or anticipated delay in excess of say 30 minutes. Presently that entitles a refund, but for Advances the new date may be more expensive.
and partly to deter people from travelling short distances on long distance trains (Paddington-Reading on a train that's heading to Swansea) where there are alternative commuter trains designed to cater for those passengers.
I agree in principle, although in some cases that needs more capacity on local services (e.g. Doncaster – Leeds; even on Paddington – Reading there's 9 or 10 intercity tph, admittedly more 5 carriages than there should be, vs 4 tph terminating there or Didcot).
To be honest I would just deal with the WMT trains by offering Advances on them up to departure at a fixed, low price in near enough unlimited numbers. It's less confusing than TOC specific walk ups when you don't have TOCs.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting any TOC-specific fares. Simply that trains that are actually fast intercity ones should be designated as such and carry a small supplement to travel on. That has nothing to do with which TOC runs the train (for example some GWR trains are clearly 'inter-city' expresses and others are clearly local ones). I believe that's how it has been done for a long time in much of Europe.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting any TOC-specific fares. Simply that trains that are actually fast intercity ones should be designated as such and carry a small supplement to travel on. That has nothing to do with which TOC runs the train (for example some GWR trains are clearly 'inter-city' expresses and others are clearly local ones). I believe that's how it has been done for a long time in much of Europe.
If the supplement is small, I don't see it raising sufficient revenue to cover the effort required to provide it.
Let alone burdening the railway with the prosecutions etc of people travelling on intercity trains without an intercity ticket, and increases in necessary revenue protection effort on services stopping at otherwise barriered stations.
I also question just how much cheaper it is for the railway to transport someone from London to Crewe on the existing WMT trains than on the existing Intercity trains.
Market segmentation on this basis seems, in my view, to have operated as an extension of the other ORCATs raiding tactics rather than as an actual way to improve the railway's subsidy position.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting any TOC-specific fares. Simply that trains that are actually fast intercity ones should be designated as such and carry a small supplement to travel on. That has nothing to do with which TOC runs the train (for example some GWR trains are clearly 'inter-city' expresses and others are clearly local ones). I believe that's how it has been done for a long time in much of Europe.
I also question just how much cheaper it is for the railway to transport someone from London to Crewe on the existing WMT trains than on the existing Intercity trains.
Market segmentation on this basis seems, in my view, to have operated as an extension of the other ORCATs raiding tactics rather than as an actual way to improve the railway's subsidy position.
It's not about it being cheaper for the railway, it's about growing the market by offering a low cost option which is inferior in some way in order to avoid people switching to it from the premium option. Lumo does this by offering inferior accommodation (very packed in and poor legroom) and a very restrictive luggage policy. WMT does it by being slower.
As long as this model overall increases income to the railway then that's fine, even if by only a small amount. If it doesn't, then arguably it should be dropped. But I believe LM often said that their long distance services were actually quite profitable.
It's got nothing to do with ORCATS raiding because WMT is slower than Avanti so they wouldn't get much of a cut of Any Permitted fares. By contrast Lumo, Hull etc (as they're not slower) would get a cut, but on the ECML most fares sold are Advances anyway.
As long as this model overall increases income to the railway then that's fine, even if by only a small amount. If it doesn't, then arguably it should be dropped. But I believe LM often said that their long distance services were actually quite profitable.
I'd say its not about increasing overall income, it is about making net income less negative.
They might be profitable at the TOC Level, but thats largely only because of all the hidden subsidies channeled to them through Network Rail. WCML operations are, like essentially everything on the railway, net subsidy consumers after all.
The system as it exists produces all sorts of peverse incentives, so I would hesitate to trust figures like that withuot a great deal more investigation.
To summarise, providing seats on slow WCML trains costs the TOC far less than it actually should. We should question whether trying to fill the current slow trains with cheap fares is the best way to employ our fixed track and other operational capacity. I think the railway would be better served by sweeping away most of this stuff and going for simple timetables, simple(r) fares and higher operational intensity.
To summarise, providing seats on slow WCML trains costs the TOC far less than it actually should. We should question whether trying to fill the current slow trains with cheap fares is the best way to employ our fixed track and other operational capacity.
An hourly slow train is necessary on the WCML anyway. The extra marginal cost is just making it a bit longer. It's necessary on the ECML too and exists - it's just also operated by LNER and doesn't have the cheap fares on it - it's the York semifast. It also exists on the GWML but again operated by the IC operator but often with cheaper Advances - the Exeter/Plymouth semifast and the slower Bristol. Don't get hung up on the fact that on the WCML it's run by a different TOC.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think the railway would be better served by sweeping away most of this stuff and going for simple timetables, simple(r) fares and higher operational intensity.
I think that there is significant scope to reduce the number of LNWR services north of MKC, but I really don't want to derail the thread.
If you wish we can start a new thread about it.
Market segmentation seems, in my view, to be rather overrated as a way of improving the railways financial position.
Railways are bulk transport systems, if we can collapse flows down to the smallest set of the largest flows possible we should encourage this.
EDIT:
London-Crewe costs £148.50 on the intercity services and £46.90 on West MIdlands/LNWR.
I don't see any reasonably sized intercity supplement covering that!
Do we have any way of seeing how many of each tickets were actually sold?
I really don't think this is the case: in general I think your posts underestimate the extent to which people value flexibility.
Stating people don't do these journeys outside of disruption is a bit of a non-sequiter, since the railway makes it incredibly difficult to understand the current rules, and has a reputation for being inflexible - certainly compared to the car.
Why do you think contactless is so popular in London? Indeed even on heavy rail, historically BR, services and previously not in the London zones.
People just tap and go - it offers ultimate flexibility. You don't have to plan your life around the whims of the railway.
If it wasn't such a mindbending chore to figure out how you might fit in a spontaneous day trip with a friend on your way back to London (eg), people might actually make use of that flexibility. As it is, people are locked into inflexible and non-refundable fares.
Suggesting that deciding to modify your journey having booked tickets, during your journey or in between legs is a solely "enthusiast persuit" is silly.
I think that there is significant scope to reduce the number of LNWR services north of MKC, but I really don't want to derail the thread.
If you wish we can start a new thread about it.
Market segmentation seems, in my view, to be rather overrated as a way of improving the railways financial position.
Railways are bulk transport systems, if we can collapse flows down to the smallest set of the largest flows possible we should encourage this.
I think that there is significant scope to reduce the number of LNWR services north of MKC, but I really don't want to derail the thread. If you wish we can start a new thread about it. Here it is :) I completely disagree. A semifast long distance service is necessary whoever operates it -...
www.railforums.co.uk
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why do you think contactless is so popular in London? Indeed even on heavy rail, historically BR, services and previously not in the London zones.
People just tap and go - it offers ultimate flexibility. You don't have to plan your life around the whims of the railway.
Contactless is offered on trains where Advances don't exist or barely exist so these aren't comparable. The main reason to use it is quite simple - you don't need to buy a ticket so it's less faff and you don't need to get to the station an arbitrary time before travel to do so.
If it wasn't such a mindbending chore to figure out how you might fit in a spontaneous day trip with a friend on your way back to London (eg), people might actually make use of that flexibility. As it is, people are locked into inflexible and non-refundable fares.
Suggesting that deciding to modify your journey having booked tickets
I don't think it is at all. Most people take a direct train from their origin to their destination, or something very close to it, and very, very few people will suddenly, for instance, jump off a southbound Avanti at Preston and decide randomly to go via Manchester outside of there being some sort of disruption or severe overcrowding or similar. This sort of spontaneity is something required by enthusiasts when they see an opportunity to e.g. ride a specific type of traction or visit a specific station, but for most people it just isn't needed.
The majority of people using flexible tickets will travel either on their booked train or on one at a different time via the same route or a very similar one. Far more people are confused by stuff like esoteric ticket restrictions and Permitted Routes than benefit from their flexibility.
I really don't think this is the case: in general I think your posts underestimate the extent to which people value flexibility.
Stating people don't do these journeys outside of disruption is a bit of a non-sequiter, since the railway makes it incredibly difficult to understand the current rules, and has a reputation for being inflexible - certainly compared to the car.
Why do you think contactless is so popular in London? Indeed even on heavy rail, historically BR, services and previously not in the London zones.
People just tap and go - it offers ultimate flexibility. You don't have to plan your life around the whims of the railway.
If it wasn't such a mindbending chore to figure out how you might fit in a spontaneous day trip with a friend on your way back to London (eg), people might actually make use of that flexibility. As it is, people are locked into inflexible and non-refundable fares.
Suggesting that deciding to modify your journey having booked tickets, during your journey or in between legs is a solely "enthusiast persuit" is silly.
But a local trip where you're using contactless (or where contactless might become an option) is very different from one where you're booking tickets.
I'm taking a trip to Scotland in July, once I've set off, I want to get to my destination. It takes 7.5 hours as it is, I'm not messing around trying to take detours.
If I wanted to visit somewhere on the way I would have planned that into my original itinerary.
I fundamentally disagree with your general position.
I can give you two examples:
- Ticket bought by an employer for someone visiting a regional office for the week. At the weekend, they've decided to visit a National Park to go walking, since their employer has already paid for them to do most of the travel. They'll want to modify their return journey to take them via the National Park in the most cost efficient manner.
- Someone is travelling back to uni from Peterborough after visiting their parents for the weekend. Their sister suggests visiting Cambridge to go shopping on the Sunday morning. They'll need to modify their return portion to one valid via Cambridge, as opposed to just down the ECML, to avoid an expensive and inconvenient afternoon.
Both of these are dealt with by excess fares today, if they are not Advances.
Both are trivial in a car, the railway's competition.
I do not think either example is an "enthusiast" persuit and I do rather resent your labelling as such - I personally have never wanted to waste time sitting on a particular type of train.
I have discussions with friends who have absolutely no interest in trains, other than minimising their expenditure, who are well versed in split ticketing, break of journey and excess fares. It really is not that uncommon.
As another counter example, why do you think Interrail is still so popular? Even though it doesn't always represent a huge saving over standard fares, given reservation prices. Because of the ease of use and ultimate flexibility it offers.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Given the growth of contactless around London into areas previously very outside the Oyster fare zone, I'm not sure it is.
The entire Netherlands operates much like the TfL contactless zone, and that has journeys up to 3 hours. You don't have to specify where you're going - just tap in and out with your OV or bank card.
To be honest I would just deal with the WMT trains by offering Advances on them up to departure at a fixed, low price in near enough unlimited numbers. It's less confusing than TOC specific walk ups when you don't have TOCs.
My instinct would be to have flexible options for travelling on the slow train rather than just to manage it by Advance tickets – a lot of people who are most in need of cheap budget tickets are the ones who are least likely to be able to guarantee what time they will get to the station. Having flexible tickets available on the slow train at an affordable price is a way to make the railways genuinely more inclusive and to encourage people to travel who may find it difficult to do so otherwise. But I do realise that it isn't necessarily a straightforward proposition as to how to make it work effectively, with minimal risk of confusion.
I agree in principle, although in some cases that needs more capacity on local services (e.g. Doncaster – Leeds; even on Paddington – Reading there's 9 or 10 intercity tph, admittedly more 5 carriages than there should be, vs 4 tph terminating there or Didcot).
Capacity, or even existence, of local trains is definitely something to think about. I'm not keen on the idea of a hefty surcharge for passengers travelling on intercity trains, because there are a good number of flows where there is no alternative even for passengers making fairly local journeys (eg Durham to Newcastle, Swindon to Bristol), and I wouldn't want to see passengers making those journeys penalised compared with passengers from say Hexham to Newcastle or Warminster to Bristol, just because the railways don't happen to have a local service on those routes. And if the local trains are busier than the intercity trains then it would seem counterproductive to incentivise people to use them. But if they have the capacity to accommodate some price-conscious long-distance passengers and relieve pressure on intercity services by offering cheaper tickets then it's good to have that option available.
Given the growth of contactless around London into areas previously very outside the Oyster fare zone, I'm not sure it is.
The entire Netherlands operates much like the TfL contactless zone, and that has journeys up to 3 hours. You don't have to specify where you're going - just tap in and out with your OV or bank card.
To do contactless with journeys of 3 hours in the UK you'd have to set an enormous failure-to-tap-out penalty.
People aren't going to like using contactless when a failure to tap out costs you £150!
To summarise, providing seats on slow WCML trains costs the TOC far less than it actually should. We should question whether trying to fill the current slow trains with cheap fares is the best way to employ our fixed track and other operational capacity. I think the railway would be better served by sweeping away most of this stuff and going for simple timetables, simple(r) fares and higher operational intensity.
The majority of people using flexible tickets will travel either on their booked train or on one at a different time via the same route or a very similar one. Far more people are confused by stuff like esoteric ticket restrictions and Permitted Routes than benefit from their flexibility.
I think this idea that flexible tickets are difficult for people is overdone. Most people know that if they rock up at the station after ten or at the weekend they will be in the off-peak. Evening peak makes things a bit more difficult, but I would ditch that anyway.
I think this idea that flexible tickets are difficult for people is overdone. Most people know that if they rock up at the station after ten or at the weekend they will be in the off-peak. Evening peak makes things a bit more difficult, but I would ditch that anyway.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
www.railforums.co.uk
