New here. And this is my fear!
Sounds like this is the industry's long held desire to neuter fares regulation which is getting the go ahead. Virgin Trains West Coast have in particular been quite vocal about how they percieve regulated fares as a millstone. (The problem with any such argument from VTWC is you wonder what they'd do without the restraining influence of fares regulation.)
Also, in terms of "irrational pricing" - what seems irrational in one context is rational in another. Plus I think there are always going to be anomalies when it comes to rail ticketing - though perhaps this is particularly apparent in a system where network wide ticketing exists (and it must continue to exist!), but where there are multiple train companies with differing priorities which set the ticket prices.
Just worried that the industry will take this opportunity to unleash themselves from any restraint.
I've got a bad feeling about this.........
I have a similar feeling, unfortunately.
You mean like simplification. Didn't make the fare structure more simple but was used by TOCs to put the prices up.
Let's be very clear. This will result in fare increases for the majority, loss of flexibility etc.
The DfT/TOCs cannot be trusted.
I can't see where it says they are going to reduce the price of single tickets. I am probably far too cynical, but this:
suggests to me they rather want to remove fares regulation so they can increase the price of return tickets.
I fear there is a lot of truth in this. There is no guarantee that the replacement single fares will be the equivalent to half the cost of the existing return for most passengers. Such a major re-thinking of fares needs to be overseen by a body independent of the TOC's and the DfT who are already collaborators in terms of extracting fares to the detriment of passengers.
Phew! Years and years of forum posts about how broken the fares structure is and when finally there is a possibility that a proper overhaul can start the cynics come out in force.
Please remember that virtually every issue with the current fares structure can be traced back to a hasty privatisation that simply baked the British Rail 1995 fares structure into a myriad of cross contractual regulation with no overall mechanism to let it evolve. Over 20 years on it is completely out of date, but successive governments have prevaricated over change because quite frankly they have had no idea how to manage it.
The 2008 'simplification' was the window dressing job everyone criticises because even back then the DfT and Ministers were too terrified of the complex unpicking required to oversee any meaningful update to the fares structure. This was under a Labour government; the Coalition kicked things into the long grass, and the only reason the current administration has finally acknowledged the need for reform is because the current structure is simply decaying under the advance of third party apps, split ticketing and failure to properly adapt to modern trends such as part time commuting. They are also realising that bankrolling smart ticketing systems is a complete waste of time if they continue to mandate the continued sale of the entire analogue ticketing structure designed for paper tickets.
The changes needed will have such a profound effect of the financial model of the industry that they have to be rolled out through the franchising process - but to do this properly some of the mechanisms need to be tested, hence the trials.
The project is not about simply removing regulation but instead allowing government to see how regulation might be amended to provide a more effective process. The current system absolutely bakes in fares anomalies.
Among the concepts being tested in the trials is one that actually acknowledges that rather than fighting split ticketing, the industry needs to look at pricing through tickets by means of the composite sections for long multi-segment journeys. Let's face it, the only people that ever look at the cost of, for example, a Plymouth to Fort William Anytime Return are journalists seeking to mock the industry fare structure - no-one actually buys such a ticket and yet Cross Country is required to maintain a walk up Any Permitted Anytime fare for this journey. Under the ideas being tested, you would still be able to pay one price for a ticket that would let you make this journey but it would be calculated much more intelligently than CrossCountry simply thinking of a very big number and doubling it.
Routeing is another area requiring serious reform. Until 1995 routes were regularly restructured to accommodate changes to service patterns and business needs yet since then it has barely changed - 28 July 1995 is 'date zero' where everything British Rail had done up to that point was considered sacrosanct and any change beyond that was viewed as an attack on the network - yet it takes no proper account of the many new timetabled routes and services that have rendered many such route structures in desperate need of updating.
Finally, the existence of regulated return fares with regulated restrictions has made it much harder to create simple mix-and-match self booking of out and back journeys ('single leg pricing'). Of course, because the Off-Peak (nee Saver) return is the regulated one to date no-one has dared touch it but the existing fare is not fit for purpose - often accompanied by pages of impenetrable restrictions that no TVM, online booking site (or, to be frank, even an old fashioned mark 1 booking clerk) can explain easily. Changing it does not mean removing regulation but instead means designing a new structure and an associated regulatory mechanism. The final say will belong to government and TOCs won't make any extra money - the only choice will be the balance as now between taxpayer and fare payer.
It's a big, complex job that will attract plenty of comment and criticism, but I am truly amazed if there is anyone left who thinks that what we have now is fine and should just be left alone.
BTW anyone who thinks that nationalisation is somehow an alternative is missing the point - as it stands the current system is already publicly specified and funded and exactly the same process and debate needs to happen whatever the ownership structure is.
