Proposals for "simpler fares"

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rail-franchising-to-face-the-axe-in-2020.193480/ one of the proposals is for "simpler fares".

This has, of course, been done to death before. But as it's topical, we may as well have another discussion on the subject

Edit: Here are some links to previous discussions:

• Rail operators call for leisure fares (especially day returns) to increase [Feb 2019]
• Should time restricted fares be abolished? [Oct 2019]
• Do rail fares need to be made simpler? [2017]
• Simpler fares summit [2016]

And for a bit of history...

Back in September 2008, the fares were - at least according to the Association of Train Operating Companies - simplified. See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/railtalk-mag-article-simplification-of-fares.19030/ ; also a year later a forum member explained how the exercise made things more complicated for them https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/simple-fares-the-new-ticket-naming.21724/

So, given the 2008 fares Simplification made fares more complicated AND was used as an excuse to increase the cost of some journeys, what assurances do we have that any proposed 2020s fares Simplification does not end up either more complicated and/or result in fares increases? At present, I see no such assurances, so it's a firm NO from me.

Jorge Da Silva said:

Simplified fares

Click to expand...

ie much more expensive and less flexible ones for some passengers.

JonathanH said:

ie much more expensive and less flexible ones for some passengers.

Click to expand...

I have heard a smartcard system like London and it will be more flexible so the end of the old 55 million different ticket options, end of split ticketing sad times

Jorge Da Silva said:

I have heard a smartcard system like London and it will be more flexible so the end of the old 55 million different ticket options, end of split ticketing sad times

Click to expand...

It will not be more flexible - it means the end of stopping short / break of journey / off-peak fares in the evening peak (where currently available). Extension of the London model to higher value fares is not a good thing for all passengers.

For flexible, read regimented. Some love this idea, especially peak travellers, but given it has to be revenue neutral (or positive) for the operators there are winners and losers.

Currently very popular with politicians who think Oyster / Contactless in London is 100% popular and can be applied easily on a wider basis.

See previous discussions
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...es-especially-day-returns-to-increase.178399/

When they say simplified ticketing system. Makes me think they will drive up prices with the only benefit being it would be easier to buy tickets. They will still go up every January no matter what

As far as I'm concerened, any 'fares simplification' that has to be revenue neutral, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Shall I translate from Tory to actual English?

○ Simplified fares and ticketing to create a modern railway to promote innovation and customer-focussed improvements across the network, including the further roll out of pay-as-you-go.

Click to expand...

That will mean more expensive train fares as simplification means removing the cheapest fares and ensuring only 2 really expensive fares called single or retrun are available.

The current system is as complicated as you want to make it for yourself.

Virtually every journey has a price. The complications come when people make a voluntary, conscious decision to increase the value of their purchase.

The simpler things are made, the more restrictive and thus expensive tickets become. People need to be careful what they wish for.

yorksrob said:

As far as I'm concerened, any 'fares simplification' that has to be revenue neutral, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Click to expand...

However, if franchises were to become management contracts, then they wouldn't need to be 'revenue neutral', relative to today. If (and it is a huge if) government have recognised that better, more affordable public transport is the only way to meet 'climate emergency' challenges, then fares policy becomes very different. There will probably still need to be some form of demand management, to spread demand a bit, possibly between 'fast' and 'slow' trains on the same route as well as different times of day/days of week, but the overall incentive would be about getting more people onto public transport, not maximising revenue for an individual TOC, which drives the plethora of fares today.

There's a lot of talk about "revenue neutral".

The big problem with "revenue neutral" is that it often means smoothing the fares out so that there are fewer discrepancies - which means that the already packed commuter trains will bring in lower revenue (because all seats are already taken, so a lower "peak" price just translates as money lost to the railway) whilst increasing the price of the cheapest current tickets (e.g. off-peak) will price those passengers out of the market (either onto buses/coaches, into cars, or they'll decide that the leisure journey is too expensive and do something else instead).

"revenue neutral" sounds lovely in theory but it only works if the same number of each ticket continue to be sold - if raising the prices of some reduces demand for those services then that's lost revenue. If people who *have* to travel at a certain time (e.g. to be at work during office hours) now find that their tickets are cheaper then that's a saving to them but it doesn't mean that more people will be able to cram onto the trains. So in both cases, the revenue may go down, however well intentioned the idea is behind it.

The question is how you introduce cheaper fares to attract new passengers without them just being bought by existing passengers. For example, if I can buy a return to Manchester for £10 rather than £20 then that may encourage me to do the journey more often, but if most of the people buying that new £10 ticket are people who were previously buying the full £20 fare then that's a loss of overall revenue (with the side-effect that the trains may be busier because any new passengers will be taking up room on services that were already packed).

Part of the problem is that a lot of people always go with the theory that demand is quite elastic - i.e. a 10% cut in fares will increase revenue by over 10% and therefore bring in more money. Whether that's true in all circumstances or not, it's not like digital downloads (where there's no problem with increased demand) - all of those additional passengers need capacity - how do you provide that capacity on services that are already over-stretched?

If your "revenue neutral" changes bring in additional passengers but you end up having to extend existing services to cope with the demand then the "income" may be neutral but the "expenditure" certainly won't be.

I'd like to see people's workings (more than I'd like to see them use a well intentioned phrase that could be double-edged)

"Revenue neutral" is complex, but basically means the TOC makes no more or less money than before regardless of the impact of the changes on passenger numbers etc (this was the idea of the ENCTS payments for bus travel - the bus company was essentially meant to carry the extra passengers at cost price, though it didn't really work like that). A lot of that is conjecture until you actually do it, of course.

Dr Day said:

more affordable public transport is the only way to meet 'climate emergency' challenges

Click to expand...

...and the problem with that is that while you are right that moving travellers from cars to public transport might help meet 'climate emergency' challenges, encouraging more journeys overall is not good for the environment. Ideally you would ration or otherwise control car travel to encourage people onto public transport, matching demand to supply, while at the same time ensuring that people minimise, as far as possible, the length of their commute so that they could walk or cycle.

Encouraging people to work from home is a double edged sword if it means that people use more domestic heating than they would if they were working in an office.

Revenue-neutral is a meaningless phrase.

If I sold four tickets at £50 but then decided to up the price to £200, only selling one ticket to a disgruntled but captive passenger, who had no choice but to pay, it'd be revenue neutral.

This is similar to Virgin Trains' model. Sell one ticket at £220 instead of four at £50.