Trainbike46
Established Member
I agree it is good that there is a range of tickets (anytime, off-peak, advance, seasons) to reflect different users and different price-points, and allow the railway to try and spread demand more evenly. But that's not really what this thread is about, is it? This is about how some stations along the MML have much higher prices per mile, which can be avoided by splitting. Are people from Wellingborough more willing to pay than people from Bedford, or people from places similar distances along other mainlines? Should they pay more? Why should people from Wellingborough go through splitting, but not people from Bedford? and more widely, why should split ticketing be a thing at all? I don't see how that achieves any of the many valid aims of having a range of tickets available (like yield maximisation, spreading demand, binding customers to the railway). So I don't think that difference should exist. If, as some people on this thread have suggested, (almost) everyone is already using the split at Bedford, then the loss of revenue from reducing the Wellingborough fare would be minimal. If the reduced fare attracts more passengers, it could even end up positive for the railway.It’s a subsidised public transport service, which promotes economic growth by transporting people. Successive governments have decided more of its costs should be funded by its users. That isn’t the railway’s fault and, of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with that approach and use your vote accordingly.
The railway could be made completely free at the point of use, with its costs borne entirely by the taxpayer. Many taxpayers might then, quite reasonably, question why they are exclusively funding a service they never use themselves.
I suppose it all depends what you mean by reasonable! A variety of ticketing options are provided to cater for different types of customer. Want to travel at peak time with the flexibility of an open return? You’ll pay a lot more than someone more cost conscious or better organised who books an advanced ticket weeks in advance. As a taxpayer I don’t have a problem with that and I certainly don’t want the railway to turn away money unnecessarily.
I took an Uber earlier and paid approximately 50% more than normal for the journey due to high demand. I found that mildly irritating, for sure, but do I have any right to feel “ripped off” by it?
Railway ticketing is arguably too complex but it is transparent. If you rock up at peak time and feel annoyed by the price of tickets you have a choice whether or not to travel. If you choose to pay the going rate how have you been “ripped off”?
Well then, as an occasional user, presumably you’re very much in favour of putting more of the cost of the railways onto fare payers!?
There is the unfortunate truth that many people believe the railway is really expensive, and because of that avoid using it. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes this is fully based on either media reports over fares almost no-one uses (such as the Manchester-Euston anytime open return), or a small number of personal experiences of fares they experienced as a rip-off. We do need to try do something about that perception, and I think a lot can be achieved without having to reduce fares at all, for example by advertising the many really good-value fares that exist (such as a Euston-Belfast anytime open return, or a Cambridge to london liverpool street advance). And in some cases the solution would be to remove the small number of fares that drive this perception of expensive and bad value for money. Does the anytime open return Manchester-Euston really need to exist? It could be abolished as part of a move to single-leg pricing. Another step would be to look at big differences in fares for similar journeys, and ask why these differences should exist. And if there is no good reason, look at how to fix the issue.