No? Obviously not. Any scan will be recorded though and may be visible later.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How can rail fares be simplified?
- Thread starter DB
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
markymark2000
Established Member
So it's all grouped behind the scenes but not linked on any passenger facing portals?
Also, I would ask why Haverfordwest to Whitland is a different price to Milford Haven to Whitland. If areas were zoned, surely these would be the same price? While some fares are linked, my proposal would basically be that all fares to this branch line are to the station groups whether is be Swansea to Milford Haven, Penzance to Haverfordwest or Wick to Johnston, all of these fares should be to 'Milford Haven Branch'.
It's certainly won't work widespread but even linking up some areas formally, you would be massively reducing the amount of potential fares meaning a simpler railway.
I don't think I would zone up any major interchange station so Bolton and Cambridge under their own zones because of the complexities over where you can and can't board. You'd also have people paying 1 fare and then being able to use weird and wonderful routes claiming to go to the zones. Purely for an example, someone going from Skipton to Bradford Zone could go via Leeds claiming they want Bradford Interchange (which is in the zone) instead of taking the logical route of direct to Bradford Forster Square. Terminus, Interchange and busy stations should remain as current but branch lines or sections of lesser used lines would benefit from such a change.
What would the fare from Whitland to Milford Haven Branch be, the fare to Milford Haven or to Haverfordwest? What would the fare be from Johnston to Haverfordwest?
The clustering only applies once beyond a certain distance. Local fares aren't clustered (and neither should they be for obvious reasons).
The relevant cluster is this but it doesn't apply until Port Talbot (technically Briton Ferry). http://www.brfares.com/#expert?orig=MFH&dest=PTA
Flow Origin | Q489 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster | 4069 CLARBESTON ROAD | 4083 KILGETTY | 4101 PEMBROKE | 4129 PENALLY |
4070 CLUNDERWEN | 4084 LAMPHEY | 4102 PEMBROKE DOCK | 6680 FISHGUARD & GWCK | |
4076 FISHGUARD HBR | 4094 MANORBIER | 4108 SAUNDERSFOOT | | |
4079 HAVERFORDWEST | 4095 MILFORD HAVEN | 4110 TENBY | | |
4081 JOHNSTON (PEMBS) | 4098 NARBERTH | 4111 WHITLAND |
I have a really radical idea for fares in the area: how about we have fares routed "Not via Leeds" and "Any Permitted"?
http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=KEI&dest=LMR&rte=134&tkt=CDR
http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=KEI&dest=LMR&tkt=CDR
markymark2000
Established Member
Currently, Milford Haven Branch to Whitland would be £9.40 (Currently £9.60 from Milford Haven or £9.20 from Haverfordwest). Local travel within a relevant fare zone should be set at a flat price. Perhaps £4.30 (a rough midpoint between the current local fares. Depends on how much usage there is).
Meaning passengers who don't travel long distance don't see the savings. Also, it's no good for it all to be there behind the scenes on a computer, it needs to be information readily available with the passengers whom, we must assume isn't an enthusiast looking up all their fare opportunities on BRfares. The railways having information kept behind closed doors is exactly how this mess started. No one know what is permitted, isn't permitted, what constitutes a peak and off peak train etc.
The Milford Haven Branch was just 1 example of what could be done. It was not meant to be the one and only grouping.
OR just don't link major or interchange stations? haha.I have a really radical idea for fares in the area: how about we have fares routed "Not via Leeds" and "Any Permitted"?
http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=KEI&dest=LMR&rte=134&tkt=CDR
http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=KEI&dest=LMR&tkt=CDR
Genuine Question. How many examples do I need to do so people don't question the reasonable suggestion too much? I ask since my suggestion is basically looking at grouping smaller local lines or stations which make sense to be linked because of services and people find Bradford as a counter argument.
Without doing any analysis it sounds like you are going to create points where the fare suddenly jumps, is that right? If so, isn't this going to create more "splitting" opportunities?
It's alright saying that but what are you actually proposing?
Having more consistent T&Cs would be easily possible, e.g. the rail industry could say break of journey is always allowed. They could do lots of little things like that right now without changing the structure. But they won't!
As for what constitutes peak vs off peak, what's your plan? a blanket ban on pre-0930 and 1600-1830 travel on off peak tickets or something? If so that'll just mean people need to split even more!
I am more than happy to see other examples. How about the fares between York and Sheffield?
If you can cover all the fares between York and Sheffield while making things simple and without causing large rises or anomalies, that'd be great
I don't think removal of a graduated fare structure is what is being pursued. Most people would understand why a train fare from Haverfordwest to Whitland should be cheaper than once from Milford Haven to Whitland.
I don't understand this point. What savings are you talking about? You suggested putting the fare down for passengers travelling to Milford Haven and up for passengers travelling to Haverfordwest, admittedly by a small amount. One journey is longer than the other. I don't think that fails the simplicity point. The fare information for a given journey is readily available to everyone using a booking engine and the National Rail website.
If you want to go really nuts you could suggest such 'Zone' tickets come by default with include a Day's Travel within the area of the 'Zone' by bus and rail (a sort of mash-up of PlusBus with the German CityTicket concept)
You could, but that would put the price up quite a lot - either that or you are expecting the railway or bus company to lose out. The current clusters tend to be somewhat larger than PlusBus zones - eg Q489 above covers the entirity of the network west of Whitland.
WideRanger
Member
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 364
I'm not saying it is optimal by any means, but there is a simplicity around the way most Japanese tickets are sold:
- Basic price is pretty much linked by the shortest distance by rail between the two stations. If you want to go round the houses to make the trip, that's your choice. It will only cost you more if you take a faster train that requires a supplement.
- Tickets are generally between point of entry and point of exit. So if you break your journey, you use multiple tickets. But it doesn't make much difference because of the clear link between price and distance.
- Tickets are generally pay as you go. You can pay for the whole journey up front, or you can pay when you get to the end of the journey. Most people use the equivalent of Oyster to do local journeys on heavy rail trains, subways and local buses.
- Faster trains have a surcharge - the faster the train, the bigger the surcharge. The surcharge relates to the actual route used (unlike the basic fare, which is for any route). The surcharge tickets are normally bought pretty simply (if used with the pay as you go card)
- Reservations on faster trains are free (and sometimes compulsory). And reservations can be made up until around 10 minutes before the train leaves your station (not just the start of the journey)
- There is no difference in basic fare between peak and off-peak. And it's the same price whether you book in advance or turn up and travel. But if you turn up to travel on a peak train without a reservation (or use the equivalent of first class), don't complain if you don't have a seat or any sense of personal space.
- Less popular seats on off peak trains are filled with tickets outside the normal system - for example slow trains in school holiday times can be used with very cheap rover tickets, and the slower long-distance trains are filled with promotional tickets.
markymark2000
Established Member
Yes but is does also confuse the system for passengers having so many point to point fares. The most common suggestion that I see for fare reform is zones but massive zones don't work very well because it depends on track geography on whether your train fare rises steeply. Based on your point as well, York to Milford Haven should be a different price to York to Haverfordwest on the basis that the journey time is different. Fare information on NRE doesn't show passengers they have flexibility on boarding/alighting in a cluster zone.
That wouldn't be the intention and but I can see why you think that. It would depend on the longer distance fares I suppose a bit like now. I don't feel like splitting would make any difference here really.
The point was too many different restrictions and that is what has confused people. Branch line zones which are visible to the public will show that there is flexibility between origin and departure (where zones exist) and it will give scope
I don't think I can find any logical groupings within those areas. Dead end branch lines is where it works best.I am more than happy to see other examples. How about the fares between York and Sheffield?
If you can cover all the fares between York and Sheffield while making things simple and without causing large rises or anomalies, that'd be great
Basically you are making some station groups for lesser used lines. All fares to/from these areas are set to/from the route group (Ie, York to Milford Haven Branch). For any local travel within that zone (and to the next logical mainline station outside of the area), you have a flat fare. For people travelling locally on these smaller branch lines, you then have a flat fare and for people travelling to/from these lines, you have more flexibility over where you can board or alight. In many ways, building upon the 'Manchester STNS' or 'London STNS' groupings but doing it for smaller areas and introducing the local travel fares for within that zone.
Zone example on the Cambrian line:
Pwllheli Zone (Pwllheli to Criccieth. Local travel fare available to Porthmadog)
Porthmadog Zone (Porthmadog to Llanaber. Local travel fare to Barmouth)
Barmouth Zone (Barmouth to Dovey Junction. Local travel fare to Machynlleth)
IF you travel then from Shrewsbury to any of the respective zones, you pay one fare but can alight at any of the stations in that zone. If you travel from Fairbourne to Talybont, you pay 'Barmouth Zone to Porthmadog Zone' fare. If you travel from Talybont to Machynlleth, you pay the 'Barmouth Zone Local Fare'.
Passengers get:
Better understanding for very local fares.
Visible flexibility (not hidden clusters)
Possibly cheaper fares for very local travel
For the most part, long distance fares it makes no difference. These zones make a difference for more local travel for people living along the branch lines and it helps to reduce the amount of short distance point to point fares.
Local travel fares extend 1 station in logical cases so that fares don't jump sky high. Think of it a bit like a London zone 3/4 station. You pay the relevant zonal fare if you travel to/from the station but if you travel 'through' the station, the fare jumps.
Sounds expensive!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To be fair this is because they don't necessarily have that flexibility.
Last edited:
Peter Kelford
Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 903
Going back to the start of the thread, fare complication is not I don't think necessarily always about commercial imperative but rather the ad hoc way in which the fare system has been expanded over the years, different TOCs wanting to do things slightly differently and an obscure nomenclature. A simple 2-tier system of peak and off-peak with the word 'advance' tagged on as appropriate would go a long way to help. So in short:
Advance Off-Peak
Advance Peak
Day Off-Peak Single
Day Peak Single
The term 'day single' would emphasise the fact that the passenger may take whichever train he wants to take and the terms peak and off-peak are self-explanatory. A simple, universal time metric to calculate the term 'peak' would be useful, e.g. 'If your train arrives in [Inset major cities] between 7:45am and 9:30am or leaves [insert major cities] between 4:30pm and 6:30pm'.
Advance Off-Peak
Advance Peak
Day Off-Peak Single
Day Peak Single
The term 'day single' would emphasise the fact that the passenger may take whichever train he wants to take and the terms peak and off-peak are self-explanatory. A simple, universal time metric to calculate the term 'peak' would be useful, e.g. 'If your train arrives in [Inset major cities] between 7:45am and 9:30am or leaves [insert major cities] between 4:30pm and 6:30pm'.
Ideally, needs to be comparable with the fare of a single bus journey within the 'Town' area, at most.
Going right back to basics - do we actually need fare simplification? Is there actually a fundamental problem here, and if there is are people willing to pay more to fix it (or is this just another demand the ‘state’ pays, as though the state isn’t actually taxpayers paying more tax)
I get the impression most of the noise about it comes from noisy older luddites who refuse to accept the world has moved on from their misty eyed BR nostalgia and will not bother to make the effort to learn how to use modern ways and gain from them - unfortunately these sort of silvertops have a lot of sway in the Tory party - and opportunist leftists who use it as club to batter the privatised railway with.
I get the impression most of the noise about it comes from noisy older luddites who refuse to accept the world has moved on from their misty eyed BR nostalgia and will not bother to make the effort to learn how to use modern ways and gain from them - unfortunately these sort of silvertops have a lot of sway in the Tory party - and opportunist leftists who use it as club to batter the privatised railway with.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, it's an absolute and utter mess. It's not about modern ways, it's about the fact that it's not even easy to find the best value way using a computer - that requires something quite complex like Trainsplit, and even then you've got difficult to handle elements like return fares that aren't double singles.
Why is that an utter mess? All sorts of products/services have better value for those willing to make a real effort to find them.
PS What is the principle behind returns being less than two singles? Sure I knew once but I can’t remember
I think a lot of good value fares are in the "too difficult" box for the casual traveller, which puts them off railways altogether. Given that 100% of the nation's taxpayers fund the railway, it ought not to take a "real effort" to find even reasonable value for money fares.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Doesn't make it right. It's best to be upfront with your customers and price differentiate on other, upfront means, such as a cheaper price for using the product/service when it is at low demand, or for taking a slower or less comfortable journey.
Saves ticket office staff time and reduces fare dodging (because if you try it on both ways and have to pay both ways you pay more).
Ok, assuming I accept that there is surely its just a matter of forcing the fare to be the cheapest split rather than the huge changes some are advocating?
So the Return issue only continues because someone has to lose out to fix it??
CBlue
Member
Agreed. I have friends living near the Great Eastern main line who find it cheaper to cruise over to my house on a 40 minute drive, then catch the West Anglia service to Liverpool St. Price difference for them is about £15 less each travelling on the West Anglia despite comparable distances and travel times - I understand the cheaper season tickets also caused some quite long-distance commuting to stations such as Whittlesford Parkway.
A sensible rail fares system wouldn't require such silly car journeys to take place in order to pay less.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I suspect so.
That’s like saying you can drive a few miles to Aldi and save money on your shopping - no one says ‘a sensible shopping system would have the same prices in all supermarkets’ (Well I am sure some communists say that but you know what I mean!).
The current system isn't a bad one for enthusiasts, but it's genuinely terrible for basically everyone else. That's the overwhelming case for change (which I have been making for some years here, despite the fact that whatever happens it would be likely that I personally would have to pay more to travel by train after any reform).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Supermarket analogies always fail. Supermarkets operate in an extremely competitive market. Railways are a natural monopoly.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, it's not really, because in the vast majority of cases (other than where radial lines come close together near big cities, particularly London) most journeys are only applicable to one TOC. Unlike supermarkets, public transport is a natural monopoly, and so the pricing needs to be set up respecting that. That's why on-rail competition (as distinct from price differentiation), is a fallacy, and good riddance to it.
On-rail competition is the TPE vs. Northern farce, pick the one you prefer at a similar price. Price differentiation is that you can pay a small fortune to go from London to Liverpool fast on Avanti, or pennies to do the same thing taking twice as long on WMT, meaning the railway can appeal to a wider range of "cash poor" vs "time poor" different demographics and thus grow the market. Almost all the European railways have that in some form despite being operated primarily by one organisation. Other than enthusiasts, most of the people on an Avanti train wouldn't consider the WMT option because they don't want a 4 hour journey, and most of the people on the WMT train wouldn't consider the Avanti train because it's too expensive, so it's not really competition per-se, it's two different products for two different markets - just like Aldi vs. Waitrose/Booths.
What is so terrible about it?
The railway is not a natural monopoly as there is clear competition from private cars, hire cars, coaches, airlines etc (and now arguably Zoom!).
On rail competition is good for the customers as they get lower prices, and I don’t really see the difference from price differentiation.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you're not an expert you get ripped off, basically. A poor, customer-disrespectful way to do business.
I explained the difference. Or as an alternative you could use the "not primarily abstractive" test applied to Open Access.
Ripped off how?
If the Northern v TPE is really a problem (why?) just make a franchise clause banning them having TPE only fares on certain metro journeys (I am assuming your issue is that short journeys shouldnt be on TPE??)
Usually it's that people go online and are put off because:
- The best journey doesn't show up
- No fares at all show up
- Only the highest prices show up
- They cannot even make the user interface of the website work
So they immediately give up. Alternatively they pay in a panic, feel massively ripped off, and then resolve not to use the train again. This latter one is a regular at ticket vending machines which don't make it easy to find the cheapest suitable ticket. All the while, even pre-pandemic, people were being quoted crazy fares for trains where there's actually spare capacity.
Someone recently messaged me saying that there were no results for Oxford to Brighton trains in mid October. They had spent some time on NRE getting confused because it kept saying 'no fares available'. It took me a while to determine that actually CrossCountry weren't available for reservation (now mandatory) on their chosen date. I simply advised that they should wait. They replied with annoyance that it was only a few weeks to go and asked me what prices might be. I said I had absolutely no idea because there was no way to know what Advance prices might be made available, but that it should cost no more than £52.40. Unsurprisingly this was around twice the maximum they were willing to pay for a journey that's nearly three hours and needs two changes of train. They were even more horrified that only paper tickets that you have to queue at a ticket machine for are available. As you will guess, in the end, they didn't use rail for the journey. It's not like Oxford and Brighton are small insignificant places miles apart from one another.
Last edited:
- Status