Can Everyone use Split Tickets?

[Topological]

Spinning out of the ticket office thread is another question. Users of this forum will be well versed in the benefits of split ticketing to reduce prices. There are many sites offering the search facility including the ticket engine on here. However, what of those who do not know of the benefits?

The immediate cry is for a level playing field of tickets, where prices are per mile (or similar) and perhaps graded according to the speed of service (Faster premium intercity* trains carrying a higher price per mile than the local all shacks). That sounds appealing and resolves all issues of splitting because the distance would be identical.

It may be we stop there. However, there are some open questions that bring split ticketing back:

1. Day returns - These are offered for shorter journeys, often as ways to capture common car trips at sensible prices. Off peak day returns even more so. Combining multiple day returns can be the best way to do a longer day trip
2. Advances - Brilliant if they exist between the station pairs you want to travel, but there can be parts of the journey with advances still available. Advances could be removed, but then how do you promote rail to the occasional traveller who wants to make a reasonably priced long distance trip?
3. Operator specific promotions - Perhaps the easiest to get rid of, but it would be hard to tell operators they were not able to create promotions without the agreement of all others. Transport for Wales has had some very useful 50% sales, TransPennine used to do their senior tickets and there are many others. Can the promotional effect those have be ignored?

No doubt there are many more cases where the single price does not make sense. Many of these cases will also make the case for split ticketing being cheaper.

And so the question returns, how does everyone get to enjoy the cheapest journey for the trip they will make?

Personal opinion is that we will see more AI based automated processes whereby customers can interact with the computer and make the right choices for them. It is not that far from where those in the know use the internet after all.

 

[Snow1964]

I think virtually everyone knows the journey (start and finish) if not an exact time of day. Don't really get people saying I have £25 where can I get to and trying to search that way.

Of course if anyone can do it at home, there is no reason why a TVM or ticket office with broadband connection can't get same prices. The only limiting factor is time taken to search and dither about which train if prices are similar, or if should revise time if prices are significantly different.

But there is probably a case for some iPad style touch screens in waiting rooms at interchange stations to let you book next journey (assuming can make them vandal proof)

 

[yorkie]

Spinning out of the ticket office thread is another question. Users of this forum will be well versed in the benefits of split ticketing to reduce prices. There are many sites offering the search facility including the ticket engine on here. However, what of those who do not know of the benefits?

Anyone who doesn't know, can simply be told the website address. Anyone without an internet connection could use a facility such as their local library or ask a friend.

The immediate cry is for a level playing field of tickets, where prices are per mile (or similar) and perhaps graded according to the speed of service (Faster premium intercity* trains carrying a higher price per mile than the local all shacks). That sounds appealing and resolves all issues of splitting because the distance would be identical.

What would that price per mile be?

For example if you go with 30p, that would put Sherburn to Whitby up to £29.50 each way (currently £21.30 return, off peak), while a peak time single from Reading to Paddington reduces from £29.20 to only £10.80.

If you assign each piece of track a rate per mile, how is that simple? How do you grade York to Leeds, which has a range of stopping and fast services?

Many countries which previously priced per mile are moving to market based pricing.

It may be we stop there. However, there are some open questions that bring split ticketing back:

• Day returns - These are offered for shorter journeys, often as ways to capture common car trips at sensible prices. Off peak day returns even more so. Combining multiple day returns can be the best way to do a longer day trip

Indeed; train companies withdrew many long distance day returns in order to ensure that those people who are not price sensitive pay more; those who are price sensitive can still pay the lower price by splitting. Overall this increases revenue.

• Advances - Brilliant if they exist between the station pairs you want to travel, but there can be parts of the journey with advances still available. Advances could be removed, but then how do you promote rail to the occasional traveller who wants to make a reasonably priced long distance trip?

I can't see Advance fares being removed.

• Operator specific promotions - Perhaps the easiest to get rid of, but it would be hard to tell operators they were not able to create promotions without the agreement of all others. Transport for Wales has had some very useful 50% sales, TransPennine used to do their senior tickets and there are many others. Can the promotional effect those have be ignored?

The only thing that needs to change here is for all promotions to be retailable by all retailers; this is simply adherence to the law!

No doubt there are many more cases where the single price does not make sense. Many of these cases will also make the case for split ticketing being cheaper.

And so the question returns, how does everyone get to enjoy the cheapest journey for the trip they will make?

Everyone in the population who takes the train, no matter how infrequently, has heard of split ticketing.

Some purchasers are content to pay a premium; those who are price sensitive can get to enjoy the cheapest journey by using a split ticket site.

The only caveat at present is that some transport providers/organisations are preventing some tickets being bought online; that clearly needs to change.

I think virtually everyone knows the journey (start and finish) if not an exact time of day. Don't really get people saying I have £25 where can I get to and trying to search that way.

That does happen but it is a minority persuit.

Of course if anyone can do it at home, there is no reason why a TVM or ticket office with broadband connection can't get same prices.

That won't happen because if TOCs made splitting the default, it would mean those people who are currently content to paying a premium would no longer be paying that premium, resulting in a shortfall in income.

The only limiting factor is time taken to search and dither about which train if prices are similar, or if should revise time if prices are significantly different.

But there is probably a case for some iPad style touch screens in waiting rooms at interchange stations to let you book next journey (assuming can make them vandal proof)

There are already touch screens which do journey planning at some stations.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Everyone in the population who takes the train, no matter how infrequently, has heard of split ticketing.

How many places are split tickets advertised? In terms of the kind of environment most people would be in I've only ever noticed trainline's ads.
Outside of those ads I've seen it on youtube (mostly with TFL journeys), trainsplit and on these forums, but those aren't an encounter most passengers would see.

 

[yorkie]

How many places are split tickets advertised? In terms of the kind of environment most people would be in I've only ever noticed trainline's ads.
Outside of those ads I've seen it on youtube (mostly with TFL journeys), trainsplit and on these forums, but those aren't an encounter most passengers would see.

Split ticketing is known through media articles, videos, blogs, word of mouth etc.

I am yet to encounter anyone who does any sort of travelling by train (or even not by train!) who has not already heard of split ticketing when it's been mentioned.

 

[Topological]

I will confess to knowing about split ticketing but not really knowing how to go about it. I actually used to search the sites myself to see how much I could save with logical splitting points (like Cheltenham between Birmingham and Bristol/Cardiff) but it is only recently I used split ticketing sites. Turned out I had been making many right choices.

The issue at the moment is that if someone comes into a ticket office and says I want to go from Cardiff to Birmingham they get offered a ticket from Cardiff to Birmingham. That person may be thinking about any number of things and then accept the price given. Now there are two perspectives here. Firstly, the person is willing to pay the quoted price and therefore the train company is right to extract the rent from that person. Alternatively, the person is simply a victim of imperfect information and is not therefore making their best choice when accepting the price. In this case the vendor of the ticket knows about the split but is witholding their additional information to gain rent from the passenger.

This thread is to ask whether a) the railway is right not to offer split ticketing by default or b) whether we can move to a widely accessible way for those without the internet to obtain the same price as those of us who do use the internet. Both speak directly to the future of ticket offices since one argument for offices is to correct the information asymmetry and because the ticket office offers the digitally excluded a route to tickets.

For the reasons @yorkie raise I cannot see per mile charges, not even with market adjustments. They produce anomalies and neglect the already understood local demands on services. Therefore the question of split ticketing is a very real one.

 

[yorkie]

I will confess to knowing about split ticketing but not really knowing how to go about it. I actually used to search the sites myself to see how much I could save with logical splitting points (like Cheltenham between Birmingham and Bristol/Cardiff) but it is only recently I used split ticketing sites. Turned out I had been making many right choices.

The issue at the moment is that if someone comes into a ticket office and says I want to go from Cardiff to Birmingham they get offered a ticket from Cardiff to Birmingham. That person may be thinking about any number of things and then accept the price given. Now there are two perspectives here. Firstly, the person is willing to pay the quoted price and therefore the train company is right to extract the rent from that person. Alternatively, the person is simply a victim of imperfect information and is not therefore making their best choice when accepting the price. In this case the vendor of the ticket knows about the split but is witholding their additional information to gain rent from the passenger.

This thread is to ask whether a) the railway is right not to offer split ticketing by default

OK let's say that the TOCs should implement the system behind the forum's site (which is used by various other sites too) and also offer split tickets. That's fine but would the electorate be happy to pay the increased subsidy? I personally am happy to pay more tax to lower rail fares, but I suspect many aren't.

or b) whether we can move to a widely accessible way for those without the internet to obtain the same price as those of us who do use the internet.

What proportion of the population in the UK do you think has no internet access?

Both speak directly to the future of ticket offices since one argument for offices is to correct the information asymmetry and because the ticket office offers the digitally excluded a route to tickets.

For the reasons @yorkie raise I cannot see per mile charges, not even with market adjustments. They produce anomalies and neglect the already understood local demands on services. Therefore the question of split ticketing is a very real one.

I don't think split ticketing can ever be abolished; the question is whether the TOCs start offering it by default, which in turn could only happen if the Government agrees to increase subsidy (which in turn likely requires an increase in taxes). This is unlikely to happen.

The biggest purchases of expensive through-fare tickets are probably businesses (either directly or through individuals claiming expenses).

Not only that, but if the result is an increase in passenger numbers, how would the Government afford the cost of increasing rail capacity at the busiest times?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see cheap fares for any journey, every fare being the sum of the cheapest Advances but valid on any train, everyone paying the equivalent of the Railcard price but without needing a Railcard and so on and so forth, but is there any possibility of anything like that actually being funded?

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Do we need to simplify things? I'm 50/50 on that.

I for one use three different apps for my ticketing, work book my longer journeys on GWR, I use Trainline for longer distance personal journeys as it tells me about splits, and TfW for commuting as I can get 12 returns for the price of 10, which are actually singles, allowing to get the train to work and the bus home whilst saving money vs either mode individually.

I would argue the current system works of you want to look and feel that ticket offices make zero difference, although my local one (independent) saying they're always cheapest is actually false advertising.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Trainline for longer distance personal journeys as it tells me about splits,

Unless you like something specific about Trainline, their fee can be annoying, I find using trainsplit and then buying through whatever source (in your case likely TfW or GWR) can lead to the best value travel, at slightly more inconvenience.

 

[Topological]

OK let's say that the TOCs should implement the system behind the forum's site (which is used by various other sites too) and also offer split tickets. That's fine but would the electorate be happy to pay the increased subsidy? I personally am happy to pay more tax to lower rail fares, but I suspect many aren't.

What proportion of the population in the UK do you think has no internet access?

I don't think split ticketing can ever be abolished; the question is whether the TOCs start offering it by default, which in turn could only happen if the Government agrees to increase subsidy (which in turn likely requires an increase in taxes). This is unlikely to happen.

The biggest purchases of expensive through-fare tickets are probably businesses (either directly or through individuals claiming expenses).

Not only that, but if the result is an increase in passenger numbers, how would the Government afford the cost of increasing rail capacity at the busiest times?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see cheap fares for any journey, every fare being the sum of the cheapest Advances but valid on any train, everyone paying the equivalent of the Railcard price but without needing a Railcard and so on and so forth, but is there any possibility of anything like that actually being funded?

I think the issue here is an ideological one.

If the higher price is charged for flexibility, for a premium service, or even just as a penalty for not taking time to think about a purchase then that is fine. However, I think there is something wrong with simply defaulting to a higher price unless people are willing to look for cheaper.

If the answer were that everyone has internet access then we would not be having a discussion about ticket offices closing, they would already be closed. I think the sole argument for keeping ticket offices is to help those who cannot easily buy online.

There is another analogy here. For a long time the best way to get public transport information was a specialist website. I found it and benefitted when travelling to watch my team play away matches if I wanted Good Beer Guide pub into the mix. That lasted for a year or so and everyone would email me asking for advice. Suddenly Google did public transport and sure enough the specialist site closed (from memory it was linked to travelline but wasn't actually them - we are talking 15+ years ago). If Google got into ticket prices...

Unless you like something specific about Trainline, their fee can be annoying, I find using trainsplit and then buying through whatever source (in your case likely TfW or GWR) can lead to the best value travel, at slightly more inconvenience.

Same. Trainsplit should put adverts on the site to get some revenue, they get a lot of traffic from me but never get their fee.

That said I did buy from them this week. They found an advance from Swansea to Heathrow changing at Reading and Hayes & Harlington. I could get it at a different time from GWR but not for the train I wanted. I tried a few others, specifying routes and everything but for the specific departure from Swansea GWR would only offer a much more expensive ticket via Paddington. I do not like booking fees, but on this occasion. (Sorry that is off topic)

 

[yorkie]

Do we need to simplify things? I'm 50/50 on that....

I am all for it, providing no prices go up as a result.

(Sadly this isn't realistically going to happen)

I use Trainline for longer distance personal journeys as it tells me about splits...

But you will be charged a booking fee, unless you are buying through the app on the day of travel.

I think the issue here is an ideological one.

If the higher price is charged for flexibility, for a premium service, or even just as a penalty for not taking time to think about a purchase then that is fine. However, I think there is something wrong with simply defaulting to a higher price unless people are willing to look for cheaper.

There are many yield management techniques; it's a subject well worthy of some research if you are interested in this sort of thing.

If the answer were that everyone has internet access then we would not be having a discussion about ticket offices closing, they would already be closed.

I doubt it's true to say that everyone who uses a ticket office doesn't have an internet connection, if that's what you are saying.

Some people have told me they use ticket offices out of habit or as a way to effectively hark back to the good old days. Others are wanting products that are not (yet/widely) available online, such as Rovers and Day Rangers.

I think the sole argument for keeping ticket offices is to help those who cannot easily buy online.

I don't agree but this has been addressed in other threads and we don't want to go over other topics in this thread.

There is another analogy here. For a long time the best way to get public transport information was a specialist website. I found it and benefitted when travelling to watch my team play away matches if I wanted Good Beer Guide pub into the mix. That lasted for a year or so and everyone would email me asking for advice. Suddenly Google did public transport and sure enough the specialist site closed (from memory it was linked to travelline but wasn't actually them - we are talking 15+ years ago). If Google got into ticket prices...

Unless Google appointed some fares experts, they'd still not beat the forum's site by doing their own searches, trust me on that!

Same. Trainsplit should put adverts on the site to get some revenue

I don't think retailers should be putting adverts on their sites.

they get a lot of traffic from me but never get their fee.

Trainsplit do not charge a booking fee; I asume you mean you avoided the finders fee by adding each ticket into your basket manually. Nothing to stop you doing that, though if everyone does that, the site would no longer be able to break even, as there is no way to profit from commission alone, especially if you want to provide any sort of customer service for when things go wrong.

That said I did buy from them this week. They found an advance from Swansea to Heathrow changing at Reading and Hayes & Harlington. I could get it at a different time from GWR but not for the train I wanted. I tried a few others, specifying routes and everything but for the specific departure from Swansea GWR would only offer a much more expensive ticket via Paddington. I do not like booking fees, but on this occasion. (Sorry that is off topic)

It's not a booking fee; it's 15% of the saving, but I can assure you it goes to a good cause. It keeps the forum going, it keeps several forum members in a job, and keeps a service going that results in anyone who has zero knowledge of rail fares who simply uses the site to pay a lot less than train companies want people to pay.

 

[Topological]

The particular ticket was not actually a split, it was an advance from Swansea to HXX (which is called Heathrow Terminals 123 on most systems despite 1 not existing). Therefore, there was no split ticket saving so no share of the saving for Splitticketing (https://book.splitticketing.com/). I just could not get that fare on that train from GWR so paid my £1 that it asked for.

If Trainsplit do have the algorithm sufficiently patented then it may take google time, but sadly I feel Google will probably come along at some point soon and integrate split ticketing in the way they have airfares or whichever. Ideally in the way Google does flights and hotels by pointing to vendors. In the case of split ticket savings it would be good if Google addressed split ticketing by pointing to Trainsplit though

I note by the way the actual search part is exactly the same on both Splitticketing and Trainsplit.

I like the fact these sites have grids of outward and return options, that is something I do not think the operator sites do quite as well.

This is all a bit off topic though, because the question is the extent to which everyone should be able to get access to the cheapest ticket (or combination of tickets) for their journey, including information about their choices.

The aim was also not to take it into a detailed discussion of who uses ticket offices, since ticket offices are the subject of the big thread and do not promote split tickets. To me only the question of whether ticket offices should show split options to passengers is on topic to this thread. Hence we got to whether people who used ticket offices were going to have had access to the internet to check sites like Trainsplit when informing their choices. If so great, then the ticket office sells the passenger what they ask for. If the passenger had not got internet access then... To that end the question was really whether people without internet were excluded from splitting, rather than whether everyone who uses ticket offices was digitally excluded (if that makes sense).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I note by the way the actual search part is exactly the same on both Splitticketing and Trainsplit.

https://book.splitticketing.com/
https://tickets.railforums.co.uk/
and https://trainsplit.com/
Are all Trainsplit, scroll down and look in the bottom left, they all say the same, but with different colour themes

 

[yorkie]

The particular ticket was not actually a split, it was an advance from Swansea to HXX (which is called Heathrow Terminals 123 on most systems despite 1 not existing). Therefore, there was no split ticket saving so no share of the saving for Splitticketing (https://book.splitticketing.com/). I just could not get that fare on that train from GWR so paid my £1 that it asked for.

Sorry yes I didn't read your post properly; yes Trainsplit is also good at finding cheap itineraries. Splits is what it's known for but there is a lot more to it than that. The underlying system was built based on suggestions from forum members; there is nothing to stop TOCs from using that underlying system if they want to. The likes of WMT and Northern in particular could really benefit from this as it would show their services when cheaper than faster TOCs such as Avanti and TPE.

If Trainsplit do have the algorithm sufficiently patented then it may take google time, but sadly I feel Google will probably come along at some point soon and integrate split ticketing in the way they have airfares or whichever. Ideally in the way Google does flights and hotels by pointing to vendors. In the case of split ticket savings it would be good if Google addressed split ticketing by pointing to Trainsplit though

If anyone from Google is reading this, get in touch with us and we can point them in the right direction!

I note by the way the actual search part is exactly the same on both Splitticketing and Trainsplit.

Trainsplicketing.com and the forum's site are basically re-brandings of Trainsplit.
Trainsplit is a website owned by Raileasy however it is far superior than the Raileasy.com website (which is not run by Raileasy)
Trainsplit uses an underlying system which any other retailer can use.

If you use the forum's site, it's the same as using Trainsplit but we get a little bit of the commission; it's actually worth a few hundred quid a year to us, so we do appreciate people using it and, among other things, we use the proceeds to pay for members to have forum meals paid for by the forum.

I like the fact these sites have grids of outward and return options, that is something I do not think the operator sites do quite as well.

This is all a bit off topic though, because the question is the extent to which everyone should be able to get access to the cheapest ticket (or combination of tickets) for their journey, including information about their choices.

Everyone who either has an internet connection of their own, or who can get access at a library or any other location or through a friend, can access it.

There's nothing to stop a TVM operator offering it if they wanted to, but nearly all TVMs are run by TOCs. In general most TOCs want people to pay a higher fare for the fastest journey, rather than offering lower fares for cheaper journeys, so aren't interested.

The aim was also not to take it into a detailed discussion of who uses ticket offices, since ticket offices are the subject of the big thread and do not promote split tickets.

Agreed.

To me only the question of whether ticket offices should show split options to passengers is on topic to this thread.

It's not practicable for them to do that; it would be far more practicable for TVMs to offer it, and for staff to be on hand to assist with the TVMs. The customer can see for themselves the options displayed on the screen.

Hence we got to whether people who used ticket offices were going to have had access to the internet to check sites like Trainsplit when informing their choices. If so great, then the ticket office sells the passenger what they ask for. If the passenger had not got internet access then... To that end the question was really whether people without internet were excluded from splitting, rather than whether everyone who uses ticket offices was digitally excluded (if that makes sense).

Again I don't think there are any rail passengers who have no access to the internet whatsoever.

https://book.splitticketing.com/
https://tickets.railforums.co.uk/
and https://trainsplit.com/
Are all Trainsplit, scroll down and look in the bottom left, they all say the same, but with different colour themes
View attachment 139267View attachment 139268View attachment 139269

Yes that's correct; Trainsplit owned by Raileasy which is a trading name of the legal entity called Ferries Trains Planes Ltd.

Sites such as the forum's are affiliate sites. In general I'd say to avoid an affiliate site and book direct with Trainsplit, but with the forum there is no reason not to, as the forum doesn't add a booking fee (I'm not sure if it's still the case but certainly in the past some sites did) and you will get the same level of support as Trainsplit. Furthermore, I am happy to give up some of my time where possible/practicable if anyone is mistreated as a result of following an itinerary booked through the forum's booking site, in addition to any support/rights etc people are entitled to automatically.

 

[Topological]

Thank you for all the clarifications, very much appreciated.

Perhaps access to the internet is an oversimplification, since access and use are not the same thing. See for example this paper from Cambridge (interestingly acknowledges support from a railway use project): Link to article

My concern is that there are some who think nothing of quickly jumping online, identifying the right website, sticking in where they would like to travel and following what it says. But not everyone falls into that category, and in my profession we would see that as a market failure that a government would have some interest in correcting. (See for example Manchester: Manchester Digital Exclusion Agenda)

 

[Adam Williams]

I'm not sure if it's still the case but certainly in the past some sites did

It's still the case that some of these affiliate sites charge a booking fee, and still the case that some of them have a different (more expensive) share-of-split saving percentage calculation.

I note by the way the actual search part is exactly the same on both Split Ticketing and TrainSplit.

This is correct. There is no benefit to booking through an affiliate site, and in the case of the affiliates that don't fall into the same category as RailUK Tickets - only disbenefits.

 

[Topological]

It's still the case that some of these affiliate sites charge a booking fee, and still the case that some of them have a different (more expensive) share-of-split saving percentage calculation.


This is correct. There is no benefit to booking through an affiliate site, and in the case of the affiliates that don't fall into the same category as RailUK Tickets - only disbenefits.

Thank you for the further clarification.

The cheapest way remains to use one of the train operator sites having found out which is the best split, but I do appreciate that does not pay the bills of the people who are running the split sites. This is why I was looking at ways that the providers of the information could make money from everyone and not just those who then are kind enough to buy from the site itself.

Whilst I am being a little controversial, I do not see why the correction of asymmetric information to reduce the market power of the rail service providers should not be available to everyone without fee.

 

[yorkie]

Thank you for all the clarifications, very much appreciated.

Perhaps access to the internet is an oversimplification, since access and use are not the same thing. See for example this paper from Cambridge (interestingly acknowledges support from a railway use project): Link to article

My concern is that there are some who think nothing of quickly jumping online, identifying the right website, sticking in where they would like to travel and following what it says. But not everyone falls into that category, and in my profession we would see that as a market failure that a government would have some interest in correcting. (See for example Manchester: Manchester Digital Exclusion Agenda)

What do you mean by the "government correcting"? It's a free market and people can buy where they like.

In theory you could say the Government should mandate that all rail retailers use this system and do not charge any fees; this would put all retailers out of business (unless their owners are bankrolling them) and the resulting shortfall in revenue would have to be covered by an increase in taxis, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. In reality that just isn't practicable.

Thank you for the further clarification.

The cheapest way remains to use one of the train operator sites having found out which is the best split,

That's not correct; Trainsplit does not charge a booking fee, so it's not cheaper to buy each ticket from the relevant train operator than from Trainsplit*

Furthermore, I think this is unfair and akin to visiting one shop, trying items out, then buying from another. Very underhand.

(* The exception is where rogue TOCs are selling tickets at a lower price from their own websites exclusively; in this case you need to book a journey for multiple TOCs from multiple retailers which causes all sorts of other issues; this practice is an anticompetitive and unlawful however the TOCs know that a legal challenge is unlikely)

but I do appreciate that does not pay the bills of the people who are running the split sites. This is why I was looking at ways that the providers of the information could make money from everyone and not just those who then are kind enough to buy from the site itself.

Adverts just aren't practicable.

Unfortunately there isn't a lot that can be done about unscrupulous people who scrape the findings and buy elsewhere.

Whilst I am being a little controversial, I do not see why the correction of asymmetric information to reduce the market power of the rail service providers should not be available to everyone without fee.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this or how you think this can be achieved.

 

[etr221]

I think the issue here is an ideological one.

I would suggest it is actually one of that oft quoted British quality: fairness.

There was a joke many years ago on the Two Ronnies: that British Rail were replacing their current fare system - with an unfair one. And I think that that is very much where we are ending up. That the fares passengers are paying are approaching the point of becoming random, with those 'playing the game' getting away with paying an unfairly lower price; and others, attempting or intending to pay the 'right' fare, being stung with penalty fares when they are deemed to have got it wrong.

I have seen ads saying 'it's only fair that we all pay the right fare', and would suggest that most people would agree with it: but it does depend on there being a 'right fare' that most people pay. And another saying "No ticket? No excuse", which again I think would generally be agreed - as long as the railway doesn't provide an excuse. But many recent changes in the way that fares are charged, or tickets are sold (or not) are making people think 'this isn't fair' - going against the sense of fairness that is one of the pre-reqs for them to be content paying their fares.

 

[AlterEgo]

Split ticketing is also not the only strategy you can use to legitimately reduce the cost of trips. In fact it’s an entry-level way of doing so!

You can demand ticket offices search for simple splits but I can guarantee you that they still won’t find the best value fare or combination of fares in all circumstances.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Split ticketing is also not the only strategy you can use to legitimately reduce the cost of trips. In fact it’s an entry-level way of doing so!

The only other "strategy" I can think of is railcards, which are advertised (unlike split tickets) throughout train stations, I'd consider them even more entry-level.
Maybe also ranger/rovers, which I guess may in some cases be usable for split ticketing, but that does fall under the same category of "split ticketing".

 

[yorkie]

I would suggest it is actually one of that oft quoted British quality: fairness.

Travel prices across most modes and especially when comparing modes are not "fair" and can never be entirely fair; if nothing else because market based pricing is here to stay and "fairness" is subjective.

There was a joke many years ago on the Two Ronnies: that British Rail were replacing their current fare system - with an unfair one. And I think that that is very much where we are ending up. That the fares passengers are paying are approaching the point of becoming random

Random? Are you sure you're not talking about the cost of (in particular low cost) airlines? At least we have fares regulation to ensure there is some sort of ceiling (even if that doesn't apply at all times of day).

with those 'playing the game' getting away with paying an unfairly lower price

You could say it's unfair that someone can travel from Sheffield to Essex via Berlin at a lower price than travelling directly*, because they "played the game" and found the price to be cheaper.

Blogger says flying via Berlin was cheaper than Sheffield to Essex train

Jordon Cox claims he saved cash via unorthodox route – but admits it’s not an environmentally friendly journey

www.theguardian.com

Jordon Cox, 18, who blogs as the Coupon Kid for MoneySavingExpert.com, wrote on the website that he travelled an extra 1,017 miles last week and saved £7.72 by getting back to Essex from Sheffield via Berlin....

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/...-longest-direct-flight-doha-auckland-santiago
You could also say it's unfair that Jersey, Inverness, Dublin etc to the USA via London can be cheaper than London to the USA.

Bus fares, taxi fares, Uber fares, you name it, can be unfairly priced in many cases.

But if someone happens to get a good value fare, for any of these modes, how is that "unfair"?

and others, attempting or intending to pay the 'right' fare, being stung with penalty fares when they are deemed to have got it wrong.

There is no such thing as the "right" fare; there are valid fares and invalid fares.

You are quite right that people who attempted/intended to pay for a valid ticket should not be issued a Penalty Fare for a mistake, but that's surely a whole new topic; feel free to create a thread and I'll absolutely back you up.

I have seen ads saying 'it's only fair that we all pay the right fare', and would suggest that most people would agree with it: but it does depend on there being a 'right fare' that most people pay.

It's a nonsense thing to say; it would be better to say "we all have a responsibility to buy a valid ticket", though I do think the rail industry goes overboard with tickets that are invalid due to a technicality, but that's beyond the scope of this topic.

And another saying "No ticket? No excuse", which again I think would generally be agreed - as long as the railway doesn't provide an excuse.

Quite!

But many recent changes in the way that fares are charged, or tickets are sold (or not) are making people think 'this isn't fair' - going against the sense of fairness that is one of the pre-reqs for them to be content paying their fares.

If you are referring to split ticketing, anyone who thinks it's unfair to pay a premium to pay the through fare can simply use a website such as the forum's site.

If you are referring to something else, what? (It may be more suited to a separate thread)

The only other "strategy" I can think of is railcards, which are advertised (unlike split tickets) throughout train stations, I'd consider them even more entry-level.
Maybe also ranger/rovers, which I guess may in some cases be usable for split ticketing, but that does fall under the same category of "split ticketing".

Be careful; any calls for "simplification" could see such products go! Similarly, requests for fares to be "fair" and resentment for people getting "good value" could also see such products face the chop.

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!)

 

[lkpridgeon]

The only other "strategy" I can think of is railcards, which are advertised (unlike split tickets) throughout train stations, I'd consider them even more entry-level.
Maybe also ranger/rovers, which I guess may in some cases be usable for split ticketing, but that does fall under the same category of "split ticketing".

Over-distance tickets being the first other method that comes to my mind can also provide quite good savings esp when mixed and matched with splits. Also can help solve routing inflexibilities/restrictions.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only other "strategy" I can think of is railcards, which are advertised (unlike split tickets) throughout train stations, I'd consider them even more entry-level.
Maybe also ranger/rovers, which I guess may in some cases be usable for split ticketing, but that does fall under the same category of "split ticketing".

Overdistance tickets allowing BOJ, strategies involving change of route excesses, combining two or more overdistance tickets, overlapping rangers and conventional fares, splitting using some season ticket fares, knowing convoluted but permitted routes on conventional tickets, I could go on.

Just splitting two conventional tickets with a neat join is definitely not always the cheapest way to legitimately make a trip.

 

[Energy]

Split ticketing has come about because its really difficult to charge people the "correct fare" no matter the method, as shown by the price by distance example by yorkie above.

Common tricks in the airline industry as well by booking connecting flights.

 

[Topological]

I feel this may have got a bit distracted. For reference split ticketing means using any combination of tickets to complete a journey from A to B on valid tickets other than the simplest fare from A to B.

I am not sure it is unscrupulous to visit a shop and find information before then buying somewhere else. That has been going on for a long long time. Indeed most shops these days actively say "we can order that online for you", essentially admitting they are more like show rooms than actual stores. It is off topic anyway because there is nothing at all stopping another website opening with a lower split % fee or advertising based model.

Going back to my transport example. It was a great website when I first found it, but because it was great it only took a short time before someone provided it for free and now searchable public transport timetables are as common as anything else.

So in that case should Trainsplit information be proprietory?

 

[yorkie]

I feel this may have got a bit distracted. For reference split ticketing means using any combination of tickets to complete a journey from A to B on valid tickets other than the simplest fare from A to B.

Yes but it's not going to be possible to retail anything other than non-overlapping combinations.

I am not sure it is unscrupulous to visit a shop and find information before then buying somewhere else. That has been going on for a long long time. Indeed most shops these days actively say "we can order that online for you", essentially admitting they are more like show rooms than actual stores.

It is unscrupulous in not just my opinion but many others too; this has been debated before on this forum.

Also I note you didn't disagree with my correction, so I will draw a line under that.

I do hope the myth that booking individually through a retailer that wanted you to pay more is "cheaper" isn't perpetuated further.

It is off topic anyway because there is nothing at all stopping another website opening with a lower split % fee or advertising based model.

Yes if any retailer wants to use the underlying system with a lower percentage, they just need to contact the company that provides that data (FastJP). The cheaper/slower TOCs (Northern, WMT etc) could really benefit from this.

For an independent retailer, it wouldn't be possible to not charge either a share of savings fee or a booking fee, as commission on online fares sales is insufficient to cover costs. Sites like Railsmartr clearly must make a loss and the purpose must be to demonstrate a product available to TOCs to purchase .

Going back to my transport example. It was a great website when I first found it, but because it was great it only took a short time before someone provided it for free and now searchable public transport timetables are as common as anything else.

So in that case should Trainsplit information be proprietory?

I'm not sure what you actually mean by this?

Split ticketing has come about because its really difficult to charge people the "correct fare" no matter the method, as shown by the price by distance example by yorkie above.

Exactly.

Common tricks in the airline industry as well by booking connecting flights.

And yet I don't see threads saying the system needs to change for airlines.

 

[Topological]

I believe that a service should be provided that searches train tickets and informs people on the best combination of tickets. There is clear benefit to passengers from such a scheme, but equally there are costs to rail companies as people will no longer pay more than they need to.

Often there are pioneers who provide the service and a debt is certainly owed to them. However, with some services the public provision is more optimal.

Given we have identified that there will always be short distance day returns, advances and other discounts the probability is that combining tickets is better than a single long distance fare. Which makes the question very simple. Should all people be able to pay the face value of those cheaper tickets?

This is not a debate on the morality of using information. The question is whether even those who cannot/do not/will not search online train booking engines should be able to pay the lower price.

(I realise that it is very easy to spin this to a discussion of the morals of anyone looking up fares on splitticket and then buying exactly the fares it recommends from a website which does not charge the % of the saving - we agree to disagree on that one)

 

[pokemonsuper9]

splitting using some season ticket fares,

That is something I was actually planning to do, all depends on where my unpaid labour (sorry "work experience") is.

 

[lkpridgeon]

I believe that a service should be provided that searches train tickets and informs people on the best combination of tickets.

The service is already available to all operators/retailers by us (FastJP) and other TIS suppliers such as Trainline for a nominal service fee. Splits are a more expensive service due to higher overheads in research, maintenance and operation. So operators and vendors often choose to retail point to point fairs only or a limited selection of splits where they get a higher/full share of the ticket price (LNER) to avoid charging additional fees over the paltry retail commission.