DfT and TOCs to trial radical fares overhaul

[cuccir]

If some longer distance fares are scrapped, does that mean that passengers will have to get split tickets, or will they be offered a single ticket comprising the costs of the individual journey legs.

That is the implication of what's being said: that they'll be offered (a cheaper?) split ticket fare.

I don't understand what this trial actually means. How will this be done???

Quite! There's a lot of questions about the extent, duration, evaluation and execution of this trial! There doesn't seem to be any info out there at the moment but I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot about this.

 

[dangie]

I thought I heard it as "longer distance journeys will not cost more than a split ticket journey". How they can implement that I don't know.

If it does mean that split tickets are automatically issued, I can see fun and games when the train manager comes around for ticket inspection and a passenger drops twenty tickets onto the table and says "sort these out, I haven't a clue..."

Also a woman was on saying that vending machines can never replace a person at the ticket office who can advise on the best fare. She said rail companies should ensure that ticket offices are always open.

Well I've never found the ticket office at Rugeley Town.......

 

[Agent_c]

I thought I heard it as "longer distance journeys will not cost more than a split ticket journey". How they can implement that I don't know.

If it does mean that split tickets are automatically issued, I can see fun and games when the train manager comes around for ticket inspection and a passenger drops twenty tickets onto the table and says "sort these out, I haven't a clue..."

Also a woman was on saying that vending machines can never replace a person at the ticket office who can advise on the best fare. She said rail companies should ensure that ticket offices are always open.

Well I've never found the ticket office at Rugeley Town.......

I'm not sure I understand the proposals, but if "leg" pricing means what I think it means, then I don't think you'd end up with 20 tickets, unless you're getting 20 trains.

A leg to me is Station to Station... I remember looking for a hypothetical Glasgow-Liverpool trip some years ago, and this would require a change at Wigan North Western... A through advance ticket cost more than an advance to Wigan, and then an anytime into London.

Leg pricing would suggest to me that the Glasgow-Wigan-Liverpool price should be charged instead of the through price as there is a Glasgow-Wigan and a Wigan-Liverpool; However if there was a cheaper split at say Carlisle, as there is no Glasgow-Carlisle "leg" (You go through there, but you don't change there).

So (if I understand right) there's no change for Aberdeen-Penzance on XC, but if you had a Inverness-Penzance connecting to XC at some point, then there might be a change.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Offering a customer a 'pack of cards' of split tickets for a long journey is a recipe for disaster of lost tickets and misunderstandings. Perhaps the proposal is to issue a single ticket to the customer at the combined price of the split tickets. But what to do about the 'split' points - will the station still have to be called at and how do you explain that to passengers?

Singles at half the price of current returns would be my starting point before any removal of return fares. I would not pay £6.00 out plus £6.00 return for a current £6.20 anytime day return!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think "single leg pricing" is simply that a return is twice a single.

The other thing being played with is a change to how Advances are calculated, whereby instead of each quotaed "chunk" has to have the quota at the level of the overall ticket for one to be issued, you could sum based on what is available thus meaning splitting never makes sense.

I doubt there will be any substantial change to walk-ups other than return = single x 2.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think "single leg pricing" is simply that a return is twice a single.

The other thing being played with is a change to how Advances are calculated, whereby instead of each quotaed "chunk" has to have the quota at the level of the overall ticket for one to be issued, you could sum based on what is available thus meaning splitting never makes sense.

I doubt there will be any substantial change to walk-ups other than return = single x 2.

I would prefer 'a single is half the price of a return (at Jan 2017 prices)' and is regulated in the same way to prevent exploitation. Do not imagine for one minute that any TOC or the DfT are giving anything away here!

 

[AlterEgo]

I think "single leg pricing" is simply that a return is twice a single.

The other thing being played with is a change to how Advances are calculated, whereby instead of each quotaed "chunk" has to have the quota at the level of the overall ticket for one to be issued, you could sum based on what is available thus meaning splitting never makes sense.

I doubt there will be any substantial change to walk-ups other than return = single x 2.

One wonders how this affects published fares - in the way BRFares.com might publish them.

Will ticket prices now become "malleable"? Will the customer be offered dozens of coupons, or a through ticket on one piece of card, simply with the price reduced?

The implementation is unclear at the moment and I'm struggling to get my head around it.

 

[Smidster]

Call me a cynic but I think this is very bad news.

We all know what will happen - split tickets will be removed with the higher price always taking priority.

Doing something for singles would be fantastic but all I have seen is reference to cases where 2 singles are cheaper than a return which is useless.

All in all likely to be even less journeys I can afford to make by train.

 

[AlterEgo]

We all know what will happen - split tickets will be removed with the higher price always taking priority.

How do you think this will happen as a result of this trial?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will ticket prices now become "malleable"? Will the customer be offered dozens of coupons, or a through ticket on one piece of card, simply with the price reduced?

The implementation is unclear at the moment and I'm struggling to get my head around it.

Do you know how Advance tickets work? If you do, it helps a bit.

The way they work, AIUI, is that each route is split up into segments, and each segment has a set of quotas.

So as a simple example, we have London to Manchester. That might be split up into a segment London-MKC a segment MKC-Stafford, and a segment Stafford-Manchester. (It'll be more than that, but let's keep it simple).

Let's say each has 2 levels of Advance fares, and that means each segment has a quota A (cheaper) and a quota B (more expensive). Each contains one ticket.

So we have:-

EUS-MKC: A 1, B 1
MKC-STA: A 1, B 1
STA-MAN: A 1, B 1

Somebody comes along and buys an Advance for MKC-STA, and therefore use the A quota up for that journey. Now, we have this:-

EUS-MKC: A 1, B 1
MKC-STA: A 0, B 1
STA-MAN: A 1, B 1

Somebody then comes along and tries to buy an Advance EUS-MAN. At present, quota A is unavailable for the whole journey, so it has to come out of quota B even though quota A is available for EUS-MKC and STA-MAN.

You can see how that could cause a problem, particularly if it means no Advance available at all, or if the fare B is much higher.

The fix to this is that each segment is treated on its own, and the fares are summed into an overall Advance ticket issued on one coupon. This could be implemented in lots of ways - by splitting fares down by distance, by having a fare per segment, simply summing the fares STA-MAN at A, MKC-STA at B and EUS-STA at A and if it's cheaper than the through ticket at B using that as the fare, and probably others. I don't know which they intend to use, but I do understand that fixing this particular problem is the basis of what they are looking to do.

With regard to off-peak walk-ups, I don't think they are doing anything specific with those other than tidying routeing up and going for single-fare pricing. The problem with off-peak walk-ups is that it is basically impossible to have no anomalies. The only way to have no anomalies is therefore to abolish them - or just to say if you want to be absolutely sure you have paid the cheapest fare in a simple transaction, an Advance is the way to do it.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fix to this is that each segment is treated on its own, and the fares are summed into an overall Advance ticket issued on one coupon. This could be implemented in lots of ways - by splitting fares down by distance, by having a fare per segment, simply summing the fares STA-MAN at A, MKC-STA at B and EUS-STA at A and if it's cheaper than the through ticket at B using that as the fare, and probably others. I don't know which they intend to use, but I do understand that fixing this particular problem is the basis of what they are looking to do.

Thanks, that's the essence of what I'm trying to get my head around. I know how the quotas work and how they plan to apply that in principle. I'm more interested in how the "front end" will look for a consumer.

Some rhetorical thoughts:

It could lead to less transparency about fares (in that an end to end journey will have a much greater range of possible prices). I think what's also unknown is how filling those low quotas affects passenger behaviour - will people alter their travel patterns?

As you know, Advance tickets are not only used to extract as much revenue as possible but also to induce passengers to travel in a manner which suits the TOC.

How will short Advance flows be affected if they are routinely gobbled up by long distance passengers?

Very interesting to see the outcomes of this study. In some ways I wish I was back working for a TOC again, as this could be an exciting time. Or, perhaps, it might be a huge disappointment with any unintended consequences. I do think however that the trial is a good idea and the proper thing to do.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My immediate reaction at the thought of a return being the price of two singles is that it's a great way to disguise huge fare rises.

Maybe I'm just a cynic.

I'm guessing the XC trial will partly be related to long journeys where no advance fare exists, and partly about revising the fare down to what the "split" fare would have been, avoiding the need for a stack of tickets. That bit should be straightforward enough, both RailSplit and Money Saving Expert have software that does this already.

 

[island]

The announcement still seems to be content-free and full of rhetoric about people travelling on a whim from the likes of Georgemas Junction to St. Erth, which just isn't relevant.

Are we saying that a French-style system for intercity services should be adopted where trains are reservation only (but reservations can be obtained and changed at the last minute)?

Is someone seriously suggesting that where an SVS is currently £1 less than an SVR the TOCs will stand for the SVS being lowered to half the SVR or the pax will stand for the SVR being raised to double the SVS?

 

[OwlMan]

Details of trials from RDG press release:



The trials focus on three typical examples of the need to modernise rail fares regulations, where they create confusion and show too many different fares:

• Routeing changes will be tested between London and Sheffield where regulations date back to when the direct service was much less frequent and journeys often needed a change of train via a longer route. This means that tickets are required to be available which are not in step with actual options available now.
• Best-price through fares will be tested with CrossCountry Trains who are obliged currently by regulations to price through tickets for very long connecting journeys even where customers can beat that price by combining different types of ticket (so-called ‘split ticketing’). Train companies want to remove these expensive, obsolete through fares which in many cases nobody buys but are required by regulations which pre-date the internet and online booking.
• Single-leg pricing will be tested on the London-Glasgow and London-Edinburgh routes so that customers would always know the cheapest fare for their chosen journey, out and back. Despite train companies making online booking easier, finding the best price both ways is made harder because the regulated off-peak fare is a return fare, therefore customers are often left to calculate whether two single tickets are cheaper than a return.

Regulations were designed to protect customers’ interests but now actively create confusion on websites and ticket machines. Train companies want to work with the government to discuss how the system can be updated so that consumer protection underpins giving people fares they really need - not just those on sale since 1995.


The RDG have also released two papers about design & imp0rovements to TVMs (attahed)

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I've strolled down to Tesco and read The Times article.

So far as split ticketing goes, it is not split ticketing as we know it Jim.

It would appear that, if your journey involves a connection, and the fares for those two legs are cheaper than the through fare, you will be offered that cheaper fare. So, Manchester to Plymouth direct - through fare paid. Manchester to Plymouth with a change at Birmingham - check the through fare and the Manchester to Birmingham plus Birmingham to Plymouth fares and offer whichever is cheapest. It does not imply that splits at Cheltenham, Exeter and Totnes (or whatever is cheapest at the moment) where the trains call but you are not making a connection, will be considered and offered.

Another over-promotion and under-delivery by the RDG!

PS There is a gang of contracters in my local Tesco checking, relabeling and increasing many prices.

PPS Looking at BRFares for current prices, there are 56 (adult fares) listed for Manchester to Plymouth. Now tell me what is complicated about the fares structure and how can it be easily (and quickly) simplified. The 56 ignores any potential combinations of course.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks, that's the essence of what I'm trying to get my head around. I know how the quotas work and how they plan to apply that in principle. I'm more interested in how the "front end" will look for a consumer.

The front end will look like it does now - you search the journey planner, are quoted the fare, and if you like it you buy, if you don't you don't.

It could lead to less transparency about fares (in that an end to end journey will have a much greater range of possible prices).

I don't think Advance fares are particularly transparent anyway. That there are 10 steps on BRfares, or whatever, is of no interest or use to the random passenger - the quotas are what tell the story, and they are not publically visible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are we saying that a French-style system for intercity services should be adopted where trains are reservation only (but reservations can be obtained and changed at the last minute)?

I think that would form part of it, yes. However, Anytime Singles and Returns would remain available and unlimited in availability. I suspect also walk-up Off Peak fares would, but you would have no guarantee of not hitting an anomaly - but then again maybe not - DB by comparison have a system very similar to ours but it misses out of the off-peak walk-up step - they just have "Anytimes" (Normalpreis) and "Advances" (Sparpreis). They do of course also have the Bahncard. Could that sort of thing form the basis of a solution to off-peak walk-ups - abolish them, but introduce a National Railcard giving discount of say 50% off walk-up fares but with conditions such as no travel before 1000? Users of such cards tend to be more likely to be "experts" who would know about using one split to avoid that.

Is someone seriously suggesting that where an SVS is currently £1 less than an SVR the TOCs will stand for the SVS being lowered to half the SVR or the pax will stand for the SVR being raised to double the SVS?

Few people actually buy walk-up singles. I suspect the outcome would be return = single x 2, and single is about 55-60% of the current return. This would be a bit of a rise on return journeys but would be revenue neutral. It would, as I've said before, remove any need for excesses that aren't a simple refund-and-reissue, too. If you want to go out one way and back another, just buy two singles via the routes you want. If you change your mind, refund and reissue the single you don't want any more - or just don't buy it until you know what you do want.

It's worth noting that the move to single fares for Advances was a commercial decision by Virgin West Coast shortly after privatisation - and everybody followed!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Details of trials from RDG press release:
The trials focus on three typical examples of the need to modernise rail fares regulations, where they create confusion and show too many different fares:

• Routeing changes will be tested between London and Sheffield where regulations date back to when the direct service was much less frequent and journeys often needed a change of train via a longer route. This means that tickets are required to be available which are not in step with actual options available now.
• Best-price through fares will be tested with CrossCountry Trains who are obliged currently by regulations to price through tickets for very long connecting journeys even where customers can beat that price by combining different types of ticket (so-called ‘split ticketing’). Train companies want to remove these expensive, obsolete through fares which in many cases nobody buys but are required by regulations which pre-date the internet and online booking.
• Single-leg pricing will be tested on the London-Glasgow and London-Edinburgh routes so that customers would always know the cheapest fare for their chosen journey, out and back. Despite train companies making online booking easier, finding the best price both ways is made harder because the regulated off-peak fare is a return fare, therefore customers are often left to calculate whether two single tickets are cheaper than a return.

Those RDG quotes hint as much at worsening the situation as enhancing it.
If XC removes its long distance through fares, users will pay more for the replacement combination.
If "historic" roundabout routes are removed, the routeing choices will diminish, with fewer Any Permitted routes and more TOC-specific ones.
And then the benefit of single leg pricing all depends on whether they choose to halve the SVR or double the SVS.
I wonder if the Glasgow/Edinburgh test is simply Virgin making its "half-saver" generally available rather than only in combination with a return fare (and only on line).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The front end will look like it does now - you search the journey planner, are quoted the fare, and if you like it you buy, if you don't you don't.

I don't want to rely on the journey planner. They produce (to be charitable) spurious results based upon their algorithms. Take 'Trainline' based sites - only offering a narrow window of journey times - maximum 3, compared to 'Webtis' offering all fares and greying them out if not available at that time. I want to see the fares first and then pick my times / days accordingly, knowing that I've got the best price to meet my requirements. All the fares, up front and clear, not buried several clicks away.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't want to rely on the journey planner. They produce (to be charitable) spurious results based upon their algorithms. Take 'Trainline' based sites - only offering a narrow window of journey times - maximum 3, compared to 'Webtis' offering all fares and greying them out if not available at that time. I want to see the fares first and then pick my times / days accordingly, knowing that I've got the best price to meet my requirements. All the fares, up front and clear, not buried several clicks away.

This is why I like WebTIS. If I'm after the cheapest fare then I can click that and it'll show me the trains I can use it on across a wide period of time (and you can scroll to get it to load more if required). If I have a specific journey requirement (i.e. I must be on x train) then I can click that and it'll show me what fares I can use on that specific train. The Trainline powered site are much clunkier in that regard.

But, at the same time, for the 'normal' passenger I can see why that might be intimidating.

 

[yorksrob]

Those RDG quotes hint as much at worsening the situation as enhancing it.
If XC removes its long distance through fares, users will pay more for the replacement combination.
If "historic" roundabout routes are removed, the routeing choices will diminish, with fewer Any Permitted routes and more TOC-specific ones.
And then the benefit of single leg pricing all depends on whether they choose to halve the SVR or double the SVS.
I wonder if the Glasgow/Edinburgh test is simply Virgin making its "half-saver" generally available rather than only in combination with a return fare (and only on line).

A very good observation.

Coming back to the Sheffield - London example quoted in The Times which is currently more expensive, are they going to abolish this altogether, in which case I don't see how it will benefit the passenger, or will they make it interchangeable with the Midland Mainline route for the same price, which would be good for the passenger, but I can't see TOC's going for it.

 

[sheff1]

"At the moment passengers travelling between London St Pancras and Sheffield pay extra to travel via Grantham, for example, even though it takes longer.
Such fares date back to the pre-privatisation era of British Rail."

RDG have clearly embraced the era of 'alternative facts'.

1. There are no trains between St Pancras and Grantham.

2. If one travels from Kings Cross to Sheffield, changing onto EMT at Grantham, the walk up fares are the same as on the direct route from St Pancras.

3. In my British Rail Selective Prices Manual the prices from St Pancras to Sheffield and from Kings Cross to Sheffield are exactly the same in every case - First Open Single & Return; Second Open Single & Return; Second Period, Weekend & Day returns.

 

[yorksrob]

Regulations were designed to protect customers’ interests but now actively create confusion on websites and ticket machines. Train companies want to work with the government to discuss how the system can be updated so that consumer protection underpins giving people fares they really need - not just those on sale since 1995.

This needs to be independently evaluated as to how the changes affect passengers. It's to passengers benefit that they often have a variety of routes to chose from for their ticket. They should work on ensuring that these tickets are the best price for passengers, rather than restricting passengers travel options.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I hope this marks a reversal of the policy of TOC's to increasingly restrict the routes available to passengers between many towns. For example, the lack of a single ticket between Doncaster and Manchester which enables travel via Leeds or Sheffield.

I fear you may be incorrect.

If "historic" roundabout routes are removed, the routeing choices will diminish, with fewer Any Permitted routes and more TOC-specific ones.
.

I suspect you may end up being correct.

 

[infobleep]

Details of trials from RDG press release:



The trials focus on three typical examples of the need to modernise rail fares regulations, where they create confusion and show too many different fares:

• Routeing changes will be tested between London and Sheffield where regulations date back to when the direct service was much less frequent and journeys often needed a change of train via a longer route. This means that tickets are required to be available which are not in step with actual options available now.
• Best-price through fares will be tested with CrossCountry Trains who are obliged currently by regulations to price through tickets for very long connecting journeys even where customers can beat that price by combining different types of ticket (so-called ‘split ticketing’). Train companies want to remove these expensive, obsolete through fares which in many cases nobody buys but are required by regulations which pre-date the internet and online booking.
• Single-leg pricing will be tested on the London-Glasgow and London-Edinburgh routes so that customers would always know the cheapest fare for their chosen journey, out and back. Despite train companies making online booking easier, finding the best price both ways is made harder because the regulated off-peak fare is a return fare, therefore customers are often left to calculate whether two single tickets are cheaper than a return.

Regulations were designed to protect customers’ interests but now actively create confusion on websites and ticket machines. Train companies want to work with the government to discuss how the system can be updated so that consumer protection underpins giving people fares they really need - not just those on sale since 1995.


The RDG have also released two papers about design & imp0rovements to TVMs (attahed)

I thought they changed the routing guide restrictions anyway and DfT just ignored the fact or said yes.

 

[pdeaves]

A third pilot will revise archaic regulations which mean single journeys can cost virtually the same as return trips.

... and as soon as it's done, someone, somewhere will start a campaign to get a 'bulk buy discount', where return<2xsingle.

 

[infobleep]

I was under the impression that Cross Country trains put prices up to get a greater revenue, which is why passengers split ticketed. Is that not the case and could they not lower than long distance point to point fares to match the split ticketing? Or does regulation disallow the lowering of fares.

 

[infobleep]

Rail Delivery Group director of customer experience Jacqueline Starr said: "We know customers can find it hard to get the right ticket for their journey due to complex rules and regulations built up by governments over decades.

"There are more than 16 million different train fares, many of which nobody has ever bought.

http://news.sky.com/story/football-fans-56-ticket-rail-journey-to-save-money-on-train-fare-10751453

How do they know that many tickets have not been bought? I'd love to have an example or few of tickets that have never been purchased.

 

[ashworth]

RDG have clearly embraced the era of 'alternative facts'.

1. There are no trains between St Pancras and Grantham.

2. If one travels from Kings Cross to Sheffield, changing onto EMT at Grantham, the walk up fares are the same as on the direct route from St Pancras.

3. In my British Rail Selective Prices Manual the prices from St Pancras to Sheffield and from Kings Cross to Sheffield are exactly the same in every case - First Open Single & Return; Second Open Single & Return; Second Period, Weekend & Day returns.

For a similar journey, using the same routes from London to Nottingham the walk up fares are different. The fares from Kings Crross changing at Grantham have always been slightly cheaper than the direct EMT service from St Pancras. I think it's only currently about £1.50 cheaper for a ereturn via Grantham, but I wouldn't think anyone buying a ticket to London at the Nottingham ticket office would ever be offered that slightly cheaper fare. Does this now mean that the return fare on the direct service to St. Pancras will be reduced by £1.50 to match thre via Grantham fare?

Incidentally the Advance fares from Nottingham to London via Grantham are often significantly cheaper via Grantham, especially at weekends, but I again I doubt if the EMT ticket office at Nottingham would ever tell anyone about this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

http://news.sky.com/story/football-fans-56-ticket-rail-journey-to-save-money-on-train-fare-10751453

How do they know that many tickets have not been bought? I'd love to have an example or few of tickets that have never been purchased.

I'm going to start with this one:

http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=PIL&dest=ABC&tkt=FOR

I bet they've never sold one in the life of the XC franchise. Or the previous one.

The point being made isn't quite what I thought it would be - but it is true that there is probably little point in maintaining fares like that, when it'd be a lot easier (with Advances at least) to split them up and maintain the components instead.

If the fares database contained a set of fares between, say, about 25 key points (a good start might be the Routeing Points, though I expect there's more than 25 of those), then anything else was a local add-on, it would be a whole lot easier to maintain. I know we have "key stations" and the likes, but it isn't really transparent in how it works.