• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Rail operators call for leisure fares (especially day returns) to increase

Status
Not open for further replies.

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
We don't necessarily need a single universal solution for all possible journeys.
Having yet more solutions and systems is only going to increase complexity and make people perceive the system as even more opaque. Just look at what has happened for travel with contactless/Oyster beyond the actual London Zones - for example, between Gatwick and London, quite apart from the ridiculous number of "brand" specific and London station options, you also now have to choose whether it's worth it to use contactless/Oyster, or a paper ticket. If that's to be a model for what this means in practice for travel around the rest of the country, I'm not up for it.

From this discussion it is increasingly clear that the one 'tail' wagging the entire 'dog' that is the proposed reforms, is the insistence that subsidy must remain the same. Given that the RDG is proposing serious changes to the structure of rail fares, I don't think that's a fair or even a realistic proviso. I would be much more in favour of these proposals if they came together with an increase in subsidy - meaning that there would be no price increases for anyone. Unfortunately, even considering that option appears to have been ruled out. It strikes me as the kind of thing that should be a kind of (here we go) 'red line' in any (informal) "negotiations" between the travelling public and the other stakeholders.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Making things simpler necessarily makes them less flexible - and this is certainly not flexible, but it absolutely is simple.
I dunno. Every train from here to here costs this much is far simpler than this specific train costs this much oh and by the way you're stuck with it.

Or have you managed somehow to miss the fact that flexible tickets exist in France?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I dunno. Every train from here to here costs this much is far simpler than this specific train costs this much oh and by the way you're stuck with it.

That is very true, but we are not going to get that without structural reform, i.e. total removal of TOC revenue risk.

Or have you managed somehow to miss the fact that flexible tickets exist in France?

Not on TGV/Intercites they don't.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
Making things simpler necessarily makes them less flexible - and this is certainly not flexible, but it absolutely is simple.

But this was the flaw with the consultation. The public was asked "Do you want a simpler system/easier to understand?" and they said "yes". The public was also asked "Do you want a more flexible system to allow you to e.g. buy a return ticket and travel out at peak time, back in the off-peak?" and they also said "yes". The trade off between simplicity/flexibility wasn't made clear enough. So RDG is proposing a new structure which is apparently to be both simpler and far more flexible. As soon as you scratch through to the detail it doesn't really scan that way.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But this was the flaw with the consultation. The public was asked "Do you want a simpler system/easier to understand?" and they said "yes". The public was also asked "Do you want a more flexible system to allow you to e.g. buy a return ticket and travel out at peak time, back in the off-peak?" and they also said "yes". The trade off between simplicity/flexibility wasn't made clear enough. So RDG is proposing a new structure which is apparently to be both simpler and far more flexible. As soon as you scratch through to the detail it doesn't really scan that way.

There are certainly parts of it I am massively in support of - single fare pricing for one, i.e. return = single x 2.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
I'm sorry, I most strongly disagree. There is absolutely nothing complicated about "here's the price for that train", and "your ticket is valid on the train services printed on it". It is the simplest possible scenario. Nobody has any difficulty with understanding that for flights.
At 1010 the 1108 Leeds - York was expected on time. If you bought a ticket for that, how is it any good to then be told you can't take the 1112 train and have to wait until the delayed train turns up? That's an alien concept to a day tripper making such a journey.

This is not comparable to flights; it's a high frequency service taking 20 minutes. People rarely look at the timetable and just turn up. It is simple to say 'take any train' as we have at present.
But this was the flaw with the consultation. The public was asked "Do you want a simpler system/easier to understand?" and they said "yes". The public was also asked "Do you want a more flexible system to allow you to e.g. buy a return ticket and travel out at peak time, back in the off-peak?" and they also said "yes". The trade off between simplicity/flexibility wasn't made clear enough. So RDG is proposing a new structure which is apparently to be both simpler and far more flexible. As soon as you scratch through to the detail it doesn't really scan that way.
Agreed
There are certainly parts of it I am massively in support of - single fare pricing for one, i.e. return = single x 2.
But Derby to Sheffield isn't going to be £6.15 for a walk up fare off peak, is it? Yes I'd support it if existing returns are halved. But they won't be; it's planned to massively increase the cost of a day return.

They want to rob Peter (a leisure customer on a tight budget) to pay Paul (who is on expenses). Madness!
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
There are certainly parts of it I am massively in support of - single fare pricing for one, i.e. return = single x 2.

It's simpler. But less discriminating of the ways people travel. e.g. those travelling out/back in a day can't benefit from a discount over those travelling back on a later date.

You may very well say "why should they have a discount?", but depending on where the trip is to/from, the day tripper could be weighing the rail fare versus the day hire of a car, which is available at a discount over hiring a car for a multi day trip. So there is an argument that being able to discriminate allows the railway to more keenly price the market and therefore win market share.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It's simpler. But less discriminating of the ways people travel. e.g. those travelling out/back in a day can't benefit from a discount over those travelling back on a later date.

You may very well say "why should they have a discount?", but depending on where the trip is to/from, the day tripper could be weighing the rail fare versus the day hire of a car, which is available at a discount over hiring a car for a multi day trip. So there is an argument that being able to discriminate allows the railway to more keenly price the market and therefore win market share.
In many places at the moment, the industry currently offers a far lower rate to those making two journeys, especailly if after 0930, one from somewhere to somewhere else nearby and then another back to where they came from again if on the same day.

The question is, does this actually make sense from a commercial persepective? The answer will be different all around the country, but offering a good value fare to this particular group of people only is very common nationwide at the moment.
 

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
955
Lots of interesting debates, but also quite a few comments from people who have not read the document fully and/or who are drawing conclusions that are manifestly not set out. I will just make a few general points to try and focus the discussions;

1) The document is not about train companies trying to get government to deregulate so they can do what they like. The rail system is run by the government; it contracts parts of the service for defined periods of time. 51% of the network is either currently under direct government financial control or within 1 year of franchise end. The report is designed to set out some fundamental issues that need to be sorted out in the fares system if it is to be fit for the future under any ownership structure.

2) Deriving all fares from single leg units is necessary if the fares structure is going to function properly in a digital environment. Fixed flows, routeing, restriction codes, permitted routes are all pre-digital constructs that are written into regulatory structures and have therefore had to be adapted with varying degrees of success to digital systems; but they don't work efficiently in this environment. If BR had been retained, they would have ripped up their 1980s fares structure (Saver returns and all) 15 years ago.

3) As stated in the report, this does not mean that all fares are the sum of their parts - it just means the root is the single fare, with return and multi ticket journeys capable of capping or discount factors, and premia for added value services e.g. 1st class.

4) Fares levels are a matter for Government or where applicable devolved authorities. The report uses a central case of overall revenue neutrality to establish a base for these decisions. A more effective fares structure will attract more people to travel particularly on longer distance services (by making fares more attractive, believe it or not....). This raises money to help fund commuter fare changes. Note that BR used surpluses generated from Intercity to cross-subsidise other services.

5) It does not mean one fare type, or the loss of flexible tickets. However, the flexibility of cheaper tickets would respond to those current markets rather than being based on what BR did as of July 1995. It certainly does not mean the loss of through ticketing - in fact quite the opposite. At the moment you can only buy a through ticket if a TOC has priced the necessary route combination. For example, try getting a return to Exeter out from Paddington via Taunton and back to Waterloo via Honiton. You can't, because after 1993 BR didn't price it as a single route so it didn't make it into regulation. Under these proposals the fares system would generate a fare for you.

The purpose is to create a system that is both more flexible and easier to use, because fare options can be tailored to individual requirements much more easily - and the cheapest fares can't be hidden. The downside for those that like to exploit anomalies is that it wopuld be far harder under this process to find a fare intended for one purpose and use it for another - but this to enable ordinary people to easily find the right ticket and for the right journey data to get recorded so the system can be planned and managed properly.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
The purpose is to create a system that is both more flexible and easier to use, because fare options can be tailored to individual requirements much more easily - and the cheapest fares can't be hidden. The downside for those that like to exploit anomalies is that it wopuld be far harder under this process to find a fare intended for one purpose and use it for another - but this to enable ordinary people to easily find the right ticket and for the right journey data to get recorded so the system can be planned and managed properly.

If I'm travelling from Birmingham to Nottingham and back, the right ticket (for me) is one which allows me to choose which of the permitted routes to take and whether/where to break my journey. Under the proposed system it sounds like I would have to make that choice at the point of purchase. Is that correct?
 

Randomer

Member
Joined
31 Jul 2017
Messages
314
1) The document is not about train companies trying to get government to deregulate so they can do what they like. The rail system is run by the government; it contracts parts of the service for defined periods of time. 51% of the network is either currently under direct government financial control or within 1 year of franchise end. The report is designed to set out some fundamental issues that need to be sorted out in the fares system if it is to be fit for the future under any ownership structure.
If fare regulation was abolished as proposed what mechanism would exist for the government to control pricing of routes that fall under a monopoly of one TOC or where only one TOC can set fares for a flow?

Parts of the railway have no natural competition and have already seen large price rises due to the fairs in question not being regulated. Using XC as an example only they serve the Cheltenham to Birmingham route which has gone up in real terms by over double the increase of the GWR regulated flow of Cheltenham to Bristol in the past 10 years. (Discounting the withdrawal of off peak day returns by XC which in reality was an increase by stealth.)

How would the proposals make such increases for similar journeys from the same station (even on the same trains) less likely from a regulatory point of view? Just as importantly from a financial standpoint the TOC would in all likelihood want to increase the fare further to increase profits in a captive market. Without a centralised control of fares how is the controlled?

Likewise the removal of regulation from season tickets is mentioned in the proposals but I can't see a clear rationale for doing so actually outlined. Mentioning greater flexibility in types of season ticket and availability of contactless payment isn't itself a rationale for removing the regulation from which the actual price of season tickets is calculated.

5) It does not mean one fare type, or the loss of flexible tickets. However, the flexibility of cheaper tickets would respond to those current markets rather than being based on what BR did as of July 1995. It certainly does not mean the loss of through ticketing - in fact quite the opposite.

How do the proposals increase flexibility in terms of return tickets though?

Would it actually result in any lessening of restrictions without large price increases for off peak travel?

Personally I think that this is unlikely when the examples being used by RDG in the media seem to focus on primarily reducing headline anytime prices in order to reduce the "sky high rail fares" headlines, thus making the move popular with the government, whilst actually increasing costs for people who are far more likely to be actually paying the ticket price themselves rather than on expenses.

The downside for those that like to exploit anomalies is that it would be far harder under this process to find a fare intended for one purpose and use it for another - but this to enable ordinary people to easily find the right ticket and for the right journey data to get recorded so the system can be planned and managed properly.

I acknowledge the current routing system is complicated and open to loopholes but how does the new system cope with pricing anomalies caused by different TOC setting the prices for flows dependent on the load of that service but then using a connection to another service? Surely the most sense would be to price by the most obvious route but permit any reasonable route as happened for the previous 40 years.

Indeed I can't find from the document how one flow for example set by Northern but mostly served by TPE would be priced. If the ticket is currently valid on an obvious route (a direct train stopping at the intermediate station in question and passing through both) how does removing a break of journey increase flexibility?

If for example one leg of the journey had advance tickets released for one leg but far in advance of the connecting leg would it still be available for purchase or would it cause you to have to wait until all legs were available driving up the price due to decreased availability of some legs already on sale?
 
Last edited:

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Lots of interesting debates, but also quite a few comments from people who have not read the document fully and/or who are drawing conclusions that are manifestly not set out. I will just make a few general points to try and focus the discussions ...

Fantastic post, everybody please read!

The arguments against seem to fall into two schools. there is the conspiracy theory school: "the train operators want to price all us pesky passengers off their trains" - handily forgetting they make their money by actually moving people around en mass.

Or it falls into the rail enthusiast specific concerns that forget train operators need to serve other people too "oh no, having to pre book my trains will put the kibosh on my rail based pub crawls" despite the booking office we nowadays all carry in our pockets allowing reservation of trains in real-time, whilst getting ready to leave the bar.

If there is an ulterior motive, the railways need the best data on passenger travel habits they can get to compete against other modes. By pushing people to nominate the trains they travel on they will increase the quality of data greatly, which believe it or not ought to lead to better matching of services to demand, and possibly even making connection at stations easier. In which case many here are missing the point: this reform is not to get more money, it is to get more data!
 
Last edited:

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
But Derby to Sheffield isn't going to be £6.15 for a walk up fare off peak, is it? Yes I'd support it if existing returns are halved. But they won't be; it's planned to massively increase the cost of a day return.

They want to rob Peter (a leisure customer on a tight budget) to pay Paul (who is on expenses). Madness!

Three points.

1. Assuming this is revenue neutral, there is no need to massively increase the price of a day return in order to reduce the price of a single because most tickets bought are returns.

2. Once again, please don't treat businesses as a magic money tree to fund your days out. And, more importantly, don't ignore commuters who are also on a tight budget and who are far more important to the railway and the wider economy.

3. I disagree with your premise that business travellers and commuters are more likely to buy single tickets. All the single or triangular or otherwise complex journeys the I make are made for personal reasons and I pay for them myself.

Please try to think about the wider implications of this, not just about the effect on you.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Fantastic post, everybody please read!

The arguments against seem to fall into two schools. there is the conspiracy theory school: "the train operators want to price all us pesky passengers off their trains"
Well at least it's clear whose side you're on; I will certainly bear this in mind.:lol:
- handily forgetting they make their money by actually moving people around en mass.
Are you suggesting Virgin would make more money if they filled trains departing London Euston just before the end of peak times? Clearly they don't. So, if that's what makes train operators money, why don't Virgin do it?

Or it falls into the rail enthusiast specific concerns that forget train operators need to serve other people too "oh no, having to pre book my trains will put the kibosh on my rail based pub crawls" despite the booking office we nowadays all carry in our pockets allowing reservation of trains in real-time, whilst getting ready to leave the bar.
Having witnessed crowds at York station wanting to go back on trains towards Doncaster, Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough on a Saturday night, I am not sure how many of them will be in a fit state to use a mobile device to choose the specific train of their choice upon leaving the bar.

Making it a book ahead railway, despite having a turn up and go timetable, is hardly going to be welcomed by passengers.
If there is an ulterior motive, the railways need the best data on passenger travel habits they can get to compete against other modes. By pushing people to nominate the trains they travel on they will increase the quality of data greatly, which believe it or not ought to lead to better matching of services to demand, and possibly even making connection at stations easier.
They already have loads of data, yet continue to put out trains with inadequate capacity and, in some cases, sell cheap fares for those trains.

What do you think the cost of a day tripper between Sheffield and Derby will be? And what do you think a fair price would be? It's currently £12.30 for a flexible return, with no need to worry about re-booking for the return leg, valid any time from 9am Mon-Fri or any time at weekends. It's not going to be £6.15 each way, is it?
Three points.

1. Assuming this is revenue neutral, there is no need to massively increase the price of a day return in order to reduce the price of a single because most tickets bought are returns.
I'll ask you the same question in respect of my Sheffield to Derby example.
2. Once again, please don't treat businesses as a magic money tree to fund your days out.
Look at the pricing between Derby and Sheffield; it is designed so that peak time passengers making one off journeys (not Season ticket holders) pay far more than leisure passengers making day returns. Many train companies have this sort of policy. We am not going to accept huge rises in cheaper fares typically used by leisure passengers.

Yes, we understand you are positive about the proposals because they will decrease the cost of Anytime fares paid for by businesses, but that doesn't mean leisure passengers have to accept them.
And, more importantly, don't ignore commuters who are also on a tight budget and who are far more important to the railway and the wider economy.
See discussions earlier regarding the relative prices of Seasons vs individual Anytime Returns. If you wish to explore that further, create a new thread as I'm not doing so here.
Please try to think about the wider implications of this, not just about the effect on you.
I have thought of the wider implications; I suggest you do too, rather than just supporting it because you know it will benefit business travellers at the expense of leisure passengers.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
What do you think the cost of a day tripper between Sheffield and Derby will be? And what do you think a fair price would be? It's currently £12.30 for a flexible return, with no need to worry about re-booking for the return leg, valid any time from 9am Mon-Fri or any time at weekends. It's not going to be £6.15 each way, is it?

Isn't the cost of a Sheffield to Derby off-peak day return "artificially capped" by the price of the Derbyshire Wayfarer?

The document doesn't talk about multi-journey day tickets and rovers. I assume these would be withdrawn under the framework.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Isn't the cost of a Sheffield to Derby off-peak day return "artificially capped" by the price of the Derbyshire Wayfarer?
Burton to Sheffield is £28.80 return http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=BUT&dest=SHF&tkt=SVR as it's priced by XC. There is no cap; it's up to rail operators to choose whether to be sensible or not.

The document doesn't talk about multi-journey day tickets and rovers. I assume these would be withdrawn under the framework.
That would be a huge step backwards if so. Surely not...
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
I'll ask you the same question in respect of my Sheffield to Derby example.

I wasn't asking a question so I'm not sure what you're expecting from me.

Look at the pricing between Derby and Sheffield; it is designed so that peak time passengers making one off journeys (not Season ticket holders) pay far more than leisure passengers making day returns. Many train companies have this sort of policy. We am not going to accept huge rises in cheaper fares typically used by leisure passengers.

Yes I obviously know that and I have never said that should stop. What I disagree with is tickets aimed at business travellers and commuters rising *even further* to subsidise leisure tickets *even more*. And clearly the system is broken when an anytime return between London and Manchester costs 350 pounds - *almost four times the price of an off peak return* - and the peak time trains are relatively quiet, and the off peak trains are overcrowded.

When you say "we am not going to accept huge rises in cheaper fares", who is we and how are you going to stop them? I remind you commuters - a group MPs are probably more likely to listen to than leisure travellers - have had no success with their campaigns to get their price increases reduced.

Yes, we understand you are positive about the proposals because they will decrease the cost of Anytime fares paid for by businesses, but that doesn't mean leisure passengers have to accept them.

I am not positive about the proposals! And why don't leisure travellers have to accept them? Rail fares are not negotiable - you buy the ticket and go or you don't buy the ticket and you don't go.

See discussions earlier regarding the relative prices of Seasons vs individual Anytime Returns. If you wish to explore that further, create a new thread as I'm not doing so here.

You attached someone else's name to my text. Please don't do that again. All I can say response is repeat what I wrote before: don't ignore commuters who are also on a tight budget and who are far more important to the railway and the wider economy.

have thought of the wider implications; I suggest you do too, rather than just supporting it because you know it will benefit business travellers at the expense of leisure passengers.

Who said I support it? I certainly didn't.

You appear only to care about leisure travellers and ignore commuters and businesses who contribute far more to the railway. I am not in favour of pricing leisure travellers off the railways, but I am also not in favour of freezing their fares and redistributing further wealth from businesses and commuters to them.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Well at least it's clear whose side you're on; I will certainly bear this in mind.:lol:
You no doubt wanted robust debate when you chose a provocative thread title. Can't blame people for taking the bait! On a serious note, a neutral thread title should be chosen to discuss a significant phase in the debate over fare policy.

By the way you have misattributed anme's quotes to me in your response.

Having witnessed crowds at York station wanting to go back on trains towards Doncaster, Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough on a Saturday night, I am not sure how many of them will be in a fit state to use a mobile device to choose the specific train of their choice upon leaving the bar.

People manage to hail ubers, taxis after a session, etc. If you can't buy a ticket from a machine in the station perhaps you need to rest a bit before trying to use public transport? Binge drinking to that level is like so 1990's :)

Making it a book ahead railway, despite having a turn up and go timetable, is hardly going to be welcomed by passengers.
Metropolitan areas can go for tap-in/out if they like under proposed reforms.

Are you suggesting Virgin would make more money if they filled trains departing London Euston just before the end of peak times? Clearly they don't. So, if that's what makes train operators money, why don't Virgin do it? [snip]
They already have loads of data, yet continue to put out trains with inadequate capacity and, in some cases, sell cheap fares for those trains.

Two contradictory situations under the current regime: with a reformed (freed up) ability to set fares this could be resolved, no?

What do you think the cost of a day tripper between Sheffield and Derby will be? And what do you think a fair price would be? It's currently £12.30 for a flexible return, with no need to worry about re-booking for the return leg, valid any time from 9am Mon-Fri or any time at weekends. It's not going to be £6.15 each way, is it?[/quote]

I have absolutely no idea. Lets not wait till all the "opinion formers" are satisfied till we move on. This is why Britain is unable to make bold decisions anymore.

I see no reason to doubt the official view that fares will, on average, not go up, and might even go down due to more balanced use of expensive assets. The system will generate a lot more data to inform further evolution of fares structure, I think if people were debating increased data gathering their arguments might hold water.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Having yet more solutions and systems is only going to increase complexity and make people perceive the system as even more opaque. Just look at what has happened for travel with contactless/Oyster beyond the actual London Zones - for example, between Gatwick and London, quite apart from the ridiculous number of "brand" specific and London station options, you also now have to choose whether it's worth it to use contactless/Oyster, or a paper ticket. If that's to be a model for what this means in practice for travel around the rest of the country, I'm not up for it.

I disagree. It is good for passengers to have options. For example, Oyster and contactless travel in London are fantastic. They are a great example of technology bringing a small but worthwhile improvement in quality of life. They save me maybe 30 minutes per week. That's maybe as much as a dishwasher.
But if we say any ticketing solution has to be universal and work for all journeys on the rail network, we have to abolish Oyster and contactless travel, and never again roll out a similar system, because they are not suitable for longer journeys.

Similarly, smart phone ticketing is very convenient. I use it regularly outside the UK and it's quick and easy and saves queuing up (and allowing time to queue up) to buy a ticket. But you can probably think of cases that it doesn't work well for, so it's not a universal solution and we have to abolish it.

The London to Gatwick line is a mess for various reasons, most not connected to Oyster and contactless. You might argue that it's a poor candidate for pay as you go solutions and they should be withdrawn (I would not support that). But that doesn't mean innovative solutions can't be deployed anywhere.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
I disagree. It is good for passengers to have options. For example, Oyster and contactless travel in London are fantastic. They are a great example of technology bringing a small but worthwhile improvement in quality of life. They save me maybe 30 minutes per week. That's maybe as much as a dishwasher.
But if we say any ticketing solution has to be universal and work for all journeys on the rail network, we have to abolish Oyster and contactless travel, and never again roll out a similar system, because they are not suitable for longer journeys.

Similarly, smart phone ticketing is very convenient. I use it regularly outside the UK and it's quick and easy and saves queuing up (and allowing time to queue up) to buy a ticket. But you can probably think of cases that it doesn't work well for, so it's not a universal solution and we have to abolish it.

The London to Gatwick line is a mess for various reasons, most not connected to Oyster and contactless. You might argue that it's a poor candidate for pay as you go solutions and they should be withdrawn (I would not support that). But that doesn't mean innovative solutions can't be deployed anywhere.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that smart ticketing should be rolled out, including PAYG as much as possible, but it should be ancillary to the actual decisions about the level and structure of fares. It shouldn't be like it is with the example of Gatwick et al, where it has complicated matters needlessly further.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that smart ticketing should be rolled out, including PAYG as much as possible, but it should be ancillary to the actual decisions about the level and structure of fares. It shouldn't be like it is with the example of Gatwick et al, where it has complicated matters needlessly further.

Then we are in agreement. :)

I agree that in general fares should be set independent of the means of ticketing - i.e. that a single from A to B costs ten pounds, and that's the same whether it's delivered on a paper ticket, a smart phone app, contactless pay as you go, etc. However, I wouldn't be too strict about this. Some more innovative types of ticket might only be feasible on certain delivery methods. For example, we might say carnet tickets are only available on smart cards, because they cause too many problems on paper tickets (see the Disputes and Prosecutions section of the forum).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I wasn't asking a question so I'm not sure what you're expecting from me.



Yes I obviously know that and I have never said that should stop. What I disagree with is tickets aimed at business travellers and commuters rising *even further* to subsidise leisure tickets *even more*. And clearly the system is broken when an anytime return between London and Manchester costs 350 pounds - *almost four times the price of an off peak return* - and the peak time trains are relatively quiet, and the off peak trains are overcrowded.

When you say "we am not going to accept huge rises in cheaper fares", who is we and how are you going to stop them? I remind you commuters - a group MPs are probably more likely to listen to than leisure travellers - have had no success with their campaigns to get their price increases reduced.



I am not positive about the proposals! And why don't leisure travellers have to accept them? Rail fares are not negotiable - you buy the ticket and go or you don't buy the ticket and you don't go.



You attached someone else's name to my text. Please don't do that again. All I can say response is repeat what I wrote before: don't ignore commuters who are also on a tight budget and who are far more important to the railway and the wider economy.



Who said I support it? I certainly didn't.

You appear only to care about leisure travellers and ignore commuters and businesses who contribute far more to the railway. I am not in favour of pricing leisure travellers off the railways, but I am also not in favour of freezing their fares and redistributing further wealth from businesses and commuters to them.

Your whole premise that off peak leisure travel is being subsidised by commuters is utter hogwash. The infrastructure and trains have to be provided throughout the day - not just when commuters want to travel, therefore without leisure travellers paying to use the train at off-peak times, the commuter railway would be a lot more expensive to run.

The railway industry needs people travelling off-peak, which is why NSE introduced the Network card.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
I wasn't asking a question so I'm not sure what you're expecting from me.
If you are agreeing with me that it's unworkable then great. But if you think it is workable, I'd like to hear what you think an appropriate price could be. It's one thing talking about theoretical principles that sound good on paper, but quite another when example pricing is given.
Yes I obviously know that and I have never said that should stop. What I disagree with is tickets aimed at business travellers and commuters rising *even further* to subsidise leisure tickets *even more*.
I never proposed that.
And clearly the system is broken when an anytime return between London and Manchester costs 350 pounds - *almost four times the price of an off peak return* - and the peak time trains are relatively quiet, and the off peak trains are overcrowded.
But that could be fixed by other means. The failure of Virgin to have sensible loadings and pricing, when LNER manage, does not mean the entire system is broken.
When you say "we am not going to accept huge rises in cheaper fares", who is we and how are you going to stop them?
Me and anyone who is with me!
I remind you commuters - a group MPs are probably more likely to listen to than leisure travellers - have had no success with their campaigns to get their price increases reduced.
I think they have had success in seeing the rate of increase kept to a minimum compared to what it may otherwise have been. See earlier discussion regarding the cost of some Seasons compared to Anytime Returns.
I am not positive about the proposals! And why don't leisure travellers have to accept them? Rail fares are not negotiable - you buy the ticket and go or you don't buy the ticket and you don't go.
There are various avenues we can explore. Right now, the main aim is to raise awareness.

Who said I support it? I certainly didn't.
I don't know what you are saying then, because statements such as "please don't treat businesses as a magic money tree to fund your days out" in response to my concerns about the proposals resulting in fare rises for such journeys appears to give that impression. Perhaps you can make your view clearer.
I am also not in favour of freezing their fares and redistributing further wealth from businesses and commuters to them.
I am not asking for the fares to be perpetually "frozen" but to only increase in line with inflation. If you disagree with me, that is your right, but at least make it clear what your views are. You appear to be disagreeing with me then instantly denying it!

You no doubt wanted robust debate when you chose a provocative thread title. Can't blame people for taking the bait! On a serious note, a neutral thread title should be chosen to discuss a significant phase in the debate over fare policy.
Do you deny that leisure fares are proposed to rise?
People manage to hail ubers, taxis after a session, etc. If you can't buy a ticket from a machine in the station perhaps you need to rest a bit before trying to use public transport? Binge drinking to that level is like so 1990's :)
Sadly it's the reality, but it's the example you came up with. I'll use a better example: football fans queuing for a train from stations such as Aston,. who are unsure of the length of queue and therefore unsure what trains they are going to catch. Their journey could be back to somewhere like Leeds or Swansea, so no PAYG option

Two contradictory situations under the current regime: with a reformed (freed up) ability to set fares this could be resolved, no?
Some train companies do manage to resolve it to the best extent they possibly can, given the constraints.
I have absolutely no idea. Lets not wait till all the "opinion formers" are satisfied till we move on. This is why Britain is unable to make bold decisions anymore.
So you admit that there is no way the reforms will allow someone to get a good value flexible day trip between Sheffield and Derby, along with thousands of similar flows, in future?
I see no reason to doubt the official view that fares will, on average, not go up, and might even go down due to more balanced use of expensive assets. The system will generate a lot more data to inform further evolution of fares structure, I think if people were debating increased data gathering their arguments might hold water.
"Increased data gathering" is only possible if more and more people are forced into train-specific fares. This is not what the public voted for in the consultation, yet it appears to be one of the main aspects of the proposals. This demonstrates how RDG cannot be trusted. I'd respect them a bit more if they just admitted they want what is best for the train companies, but they are misrepresenting the results of the consultation to suggest passengers want a railway where it's no longer affordable to make flexible day return journeys and booking specific trains is the only way to avoid huge rises. That is NOT what we want.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
From simply reading the proposals, I can't say whether I think it would be a better system overall, or not.

There are clearly aspects of what is being proposed that respond to criticisms of the current system of fares, which is widely perceived to be complex, difficult to understand, inflexible and unfair.

So by basing all fares on single legs, rather than point to point fares which applied at some arbitrary date in the past, some anomalies could be dealt with. But other anomalies may well arise once prices start being attached to the single legs. For what will the single leg fares be based on? In the consultation, the least popular basis for setting the level of fares was that they should cost the same, at all times of day and day of the week, so if there is a simple fixed single leg fare, applicable at all times, it will seen as inflexible and unfair. The public wants fares to be based on; time of day, distance travelled, service level, and how crowded the trains are, as well as wanting discounts for specific groups and regular travellers. While recognising everything on this wish-list, the proposal is silent on how they can all be catered for simultaneously within a simple system of pricing based on fixed legs, which is clear and easy to understand. Will there be a single fare for a fixed leg, or will it turn out that the fare for each leg is pulled from a multi-dimensional matrix, dependent on time of day, service level and applicable discounts for regular travellers, etc?

When it comes to purchasing a ticket, the proposal suggests that by breaking out from the inflexible ticket types, the fare for a journey can be customised to a customer's individual requirements. That would certainly address some of the complaints about the inflexibilty of the fares system, but can it really be described as simpler and easier to use when the fare options for a weekend leisure trip expand from just 3 or 4 ticket types to dozens when all the possible combinations of options are included?

So. I'm skeptical that the claims being made for the proposed system, that it will be simultaneously all things to all customers, flexible and fair, yet clearer, simpler to understand and easier to use, can all be met.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Sadly it's the reality, but it's the example you came up with. I'll use a better example: football fans queuing for a train from stations such as Aston,. who are unsure of the length of queue and therefore unsure what trains they are going to catch. Their journey could be back to somewhere like Leeds or Swansea, so no PAYG option

Let's take that one for a minute. If you go for all tickets train specific, they already know which one they will be getting on, and that will have "maxed out" at the calculated point for full and standing and so no additional passengers will be able to book on it. Therefore, there would be no queue. Those who are on trains arrive for their booked train or get told to get lost for half an hour, those who aren't on a train get told to get lost as they cannot be carried that day.
 

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,659
I agree very much with Silverdale. What's really missing at the moment is very much the 'how' of all this - pages 71-73 on 'next steps' don't really offer any answers. The document is strong on principles but weak on detail I think.

There are a few quotes on pages 64-65 which seem the closest to a summary:

Our proposals...
*allow people to pay fares based on the trains they actually use, with the ability to mix and match peak and off-peak fares. On long distance and regional journeys, prices better reflect demand throughout the day, helping to fill empty seats...
*are based on a single leg journey as the basic unit for the fares system. This will allow through tickets to be made from composite leg journeys with the best prices for different parts of the journey
*mean that while people are happy for cheaper booking-advance tickets to be available, it should still be possible to buy tickets on the day to travel immediately
*reflect this but allow for much greater opportunity to save money by offering a better range of fares both booked in advance and purchased on the day, with greater flexibility to change plans for people booked on a specific train

These are all great principles, but how does this cope with short-distance commuters on long distance trains? How does it cope with long-distance trains that are primarily used for local journeys? How does it cope with journeys that might be made by differing routes, which may be unknown before departing? How does it cope with trains that cross PTE zones where discounted fares may be offered? And how are the fleixble, train-specific fares offered in real time? Via apps? Via smartcards? Via ticket machines? And how is the technology to facilitate this rolled out, in a way which is fair for all users? And all of these questions to add to the many that have been posted already.

Some nice principles here but whether this is good or bad depends on how it gets implemented.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Those who are on trains arrive for their booked train or get told to get lost for half an hour, those who aren't on a train get told to get lost as they cannot be carried that day.

And then you get people extremely annoyed when the train leaves less-than-full because some of the "booked" passengers didn't turn up. I guess the rail industry doesn't care whether a passenger actually travels as long as they buy a ticket, but it does mean they don't get the extra revenue from selling the same capacity twice...
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
If you are agreeing with me that it's unworkable then great. But if you think it is workable, I'd like to hear what you think an appropriate price could be. It's one thing talking about theoretical principles that sound good on paper, but quite another when example pricing is given.

I am actually not clear what you're asking, but I'm going to assume it's about selling tickets for individual trains up to departure, including on routes where there are frequent trains and several operators. Is that workable? Well, it's not impossible. I actually suggested a way to do it - pay as you go with check in and out on the train, plus information on fares for that specific train on the platform departure board (and in smart phone apps, etc).
Is it impossible? No.
Is it workable? Well... it's certainly difficult and there are lots of ways in which it could fail badly.
Is it a good idea? No.

But that could be fixed by other means. The failure of Virgin to have sensible loadings and pricing, when LNER manage, does not mean the entire system is broken.

I have never said the entire system is broken, although I am interested in ideas, including radical ideas, to improve or replace it. But this (the 350 pounds return on a half empty train on one of Europe's busiest railways) is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. And like it or not, if a solution is to work *and* be revenue neutral, some people will have to pay more and some people will have to pay less.

Me and anyone who is with me!

I think they have had success in seeing the rate of increase kept to a minimum compared to what it may otherwise have been. See earlier discussion regarding the cost of some Seasons compared to Anytime Returns.

I will follow your progress with interest.
Most seasons ticket prices - like many off peak tickets - are regulated. Their price has still gone up faster than inflation - and earnings - in recent years, and the prices are often eye-wateringly high compared to similar journeys in other countries. For many commuters, season ticket prices are a major drag on their quality of life. This is why I have more sympathy with commuters than leisure travellers, and if we have to help one group of people over another, I prefer that we help commuters.

I don't know what you are saying then, because statements such as "please don't treat businesses as a magic money tree to fund your days out" in response to my concerns about the proposals resulting in fare rises for such journeys appears to give that impression. Perhaps you can make your view clearer.

I am not asking for the fares to be perpetually "frozen" but to only increase in line with inflation. If you disagree with me, that is your right, but at least make it clear what your views are. You appear to be disagreeing with me then instantly denying it!

You wrote in post 158 "They want to rob Peter (a leisure customer on a tight budget) to pay Paul (who is on expenses). Madness!" My point has, all the way through this thread, is that I don't agree with that view, furthermore, that it's based on a false premise. Please do not repurpose my opinion to say that I'm in favour of a large set of proposals covering many different things from the RDG.

Firstly, Paul, our business traveller or commuter (please include commuters in your arguments), is already paying much more than Peter, the leisure traveller, into the railways - both in total and in many cases on a journey by journey basis too. Paul is much more important to the railways than Peter. That doesn't mean we don't want Peter to travel, but his needs are secondary and if we have to make one of them unhappy, it's going to be Peter.

Secondly, your premise is that businesses and their expenses are a magic money tree that can pay any price rise. I don't know what kind of businesses you have worked in, but in fact companies (and charities, government departments, NGOs, etc) don't have infinite resources. They are also not stupid and will find ways to travel using the cheaper fares (which is very very bad for leisure travellers because the higher fares that subsidise their travel will no longer be paid) or not use the railway at all.

What it comes down to is this - to repeat a highly simplified example I wrote in post 65:
For example, it might be that we can raise leisure fares by 10%, while only losing 5% of passengers. (The price of the leisure journey I make most often has more than doubled in the least ten years, and I still buy the ticket just as often). Let's say a fare is 10 pounds, then a train of 100 passengers brings an income of 100*10 = 1000 pounds before the price rise, and after the price rise, the train of 95 passengers paying 11 pounds brings in 95*11 = 1045 pounds. So we have 45 pounds (4.5%) extra income we can use to cut the price of peak time travel, or for other investment.

Of course, whether this works depends on the effect of the price rise on leisure passenger numbers. If a 10% price rise caused a 20% fall in passenger numbers, it wouldn't be worth it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top