How can rail fares be simplified?

[DB]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rail-franchises-to-be-replaced-with-fixed-fee-contracts.209076/

A very interesting press release:

Rail franchising reaches the terminus as a new railway takes shape 

New system will end franchising model and deliver a simpler, effective model through high performance targets and simplified journeys.

www.gov.uk

Does anybody actually believe the promise of 'simplified journeys' (which presumably means ticketing)? How many times have they trotted this one out, for nothing much to change?!

 

[WesternLancer]

Does anybody actually believe the promise of 'simplified journeys' (which presumably means ticketing)? How many times have they trotted this one out, for nothing mucn to change?!

Spot on!

 

[ARIC]

Does anybody actually believe the promise of 'simplified journeys' (which presumably means ticketing)? How many times have they trotted this one out, for nothing mucn to change?!

Surely a change to ticketing being only defined by time and route, without TOC specific tickets, will be a simplification? Is there a chance we'd see them continue under a new system?

 

[Ianno87]

Does anybody actually believe the promise of 'simplified journeys' (which presumably means ticketing)? How many times have they trotted this one out, for nothing mucn to change?!

Surely a change to ticketing being only defined by time and route, without TOC specific tickets, will be a simplification? Is there a chance we'd see them continue under a new system?

Possibly code for less TOC duplication of routes....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Possibly code for less TOC duplication of routes....

I can see it being worth keeping the "LNR Only" ticketing on the WCML, as the budget long distance option genuinely grows the market from the drivers of old bangers and road coaches (and you couldn't use "route Northampton" as not everything goes that way). But stuff like "TPE Only" and "Northern only" on routes where there's basically nothing to differentiate other than whether you happen to prefer an 80x or 195, or whether you think ironing boards or Fainsa Sophias are the true spawn of the devil, really need to go.

 

[Starmill]

I can see it being worth keeping the "LNR Only" ticketing on the WCML, as the budget long distance option genuinely grows the market from the drivers of old bangers and road coaches (and you couldn't use "route Northampton" as not everything goes that way). But stuff like "TPE Only" and "Northern only" on routes where there's basically nothing to differentiate other than whether you happen to prefer an 80x or 195, or whether you think ironing boards or Fainsa Sophias are the true spawn of the devil, really need to go.

Indeed, this is complex because it would be a fundamental market adjustment to remove the LNR & WMR Only fares, that would probably need the timetable to be looked at again and capacity redeployment. It would almost certainly have big negative commercial consequences because not all of the lost 'cheaper' traffic could be made back elsewhere in the market. The best way to demonstrate this is with Atherstone to London, where removing the LNR & WMR option would lead to roughly doubling of the fare. But these travellers have no Avanti West Coast services because they don't stop at Atherstone, so what to do? Cutting the fare would leave an anomaly at Rugby and Coventry. Leaving it at the higher level would push people away from rail completely. This problem repeats itself out across other areas. It would also mean that Grand Central and Hull Trains would need a different approach, unless they retain a special deal.

The Avanti West Coast only options, nearly all of which are 10p cheaper than their next competitor now, are pointless and should go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Avanti West Coast only options, nearly all of which are 10p cheaper than their next competitor now, are pointless and should go.

Agreed. Those exist purely to make that fare appear at the top in the search, which is now pointless if the Government is getting all the income. Dedicated fares (the Chiltern/route HW ones are another good example) are only worth having when they are genuinely considered to grow the market by way of offering a "budget" or indeed "premium" service - such as long distance travel on LNR, which does compete with Avanti to a limited extent, but is more aimed at competing with Megabus and a lift in your mate's 15 year old Saxo.

In the new world a way to do these might well be to look at Germany's fare structure, where InterCity trains operate a different, higher fare structure to local ones. Route "not InterCity" is pretty clear in its meaning (provided we went back to showing IC/RR on monitors), and again with fares going all in the same pot there's not a lot of sense in bothering to differentiate between Chiltern and WMT - usually one of them will be more convenient than the other for different reasons, but the pricing isn't that dissimilar.

 

[yorkie]

Surely a change to ticketing being only defined by time and route, without TOC specific tickets, will be a simplification? Is there a chance we'd see them continue under a new system?

I get the impression some people want only two fare types:

• Anytime
• Specific train (what we now call 'Advance')

I do not think this is a good idea, however....

 

[SuspectUsual]

Hopefully at the very least all TOCs will release advances at the same time. Infuriating when they don’t

 

[crablab]

I do not think this is a good idea, however....

There was some suggestion a year or so ago that they might simplify some of the time options (eg. merging peak into off peak and averaging the fare). RDG ran a survey on it.

At the moment there is a lot of confusion about what peak, off peak and super off peak actually mean, and it varies between routes. Add in the different types of return too, plus travelcards...

I believe Peter Hendy mentioned that the railway was returning to traffic patterns reminiscent of the 50s (eg. leisure travel at weekends being the big business).

Perhaps a fare structure based on:
- Advance
- Weekend
- "Peak" (with clearly defined, consistent nationally restrictions)
- Standard (not peak)
- Anytime (peak and standard)

 

[WesternLancer]

The market that needs growing is maybe weekdays before 10am! Massive discount to that might help (if even short term only, at least for now it's not "peak" in many places) - but I actually doubt it would happen. Lots of people will no longer have a reason to travel in that time window any more....
Even post covid you can see a budget conscious business running on line meetings in the morning, face to face meetings in the afternoon.

 

[hwl]

I get the impression some people want only two fare types:

• Anytime
• Specific train (what we now call 'Advance')

I do not think this is a good idea, however....

Agreed, a very very bad idea.

This isn't an easy 1 step process, but lots of potential wins though several simplification exercises first (that don't necessarily need to roll out in January of any given year) would be a good start e.g. sorting out rail cards and their T&C's, standard peak /off peak definitions.

Plenty of issues with silly fare steps that discourage people e.g. PTE to first station outside.

Rolling out TfL contactless (non Oyster back end so without those issues) to as much of NSE land would be a big help.

TOC smart card efforts need to be improved in many cases. (this first involves admitting they are far from perfect).

Allowing XC capacity issues to set fares is a very bad idea.

 

[deltic]

Given the collapse of the peak market now may be a good time to scrap all peak fares for the next 12 months which may help encourage those who are presently now driving into work to switch back to rail. Would allow all season tickets to be scrapped - replaced by carnets with a small discount.

 

[Ianno87]

Would allow all season tickets to be scrapped - replaced by carnets with a small discount.

Or just replaced with people buying daily off-peak fares that are valid at Any Time.

 

[JonathanH]

First of all, I would rather we keep something close to the system we currently have.

BUT the opinion of RDG, DfT, Government etc all seems to be for simplification and single fare pricing along the lines of:

* the TfL Contactless structure for local journeys (say up to 50 miles around a conurbation, possibly overlapping) based on point to point single fares, blanket morning peak up to 0930 and afternoon 1600-1900 peak, no break of journey etc
* Advance fares for anything else
* a complete removal of regulation.

I don't like this but the decisions are going to be made by people who have a) seen the success of the PAYG structure in London, b) want something simple to appease complaints and c) want to maximise revenue and see they way to doing so as being to increase yield from people who still travel.

In the new world a way to do these might well be to look at Germany's fare structure, where InterCity trains operate a different, higher fare structure to local ones. Route "not InterCity" is pretty clear in its meaning (provided we went back to showing IC/RR on monitors), and again with fares going all in the same pot there's not a lot of sense in bothering to differentiate between Chiltern and WMT - usually one of them will be more convenient than the other for different reasons, but the pricing isn't that dissimilar.

That just perpetuates the (perceived) problem. If people can't distinguish between LNR and Avanti services between Birmingham and London, they won't bother to distinguish between "Intercity" and "Not Intercity" services either. A lot of this is about people seeing a cheaper fare and not understanding why the market is applying a differential between the trains. "If one operator can offer the cheaper fares why can't the other." There is an argument that says that if the LNR-only fares didn't exist, capacity on those services can be reduced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

* a complete removal of regulation.

If the Government is setting fares, taking the proceeds and paying TOCs for operating ("cost plus", basically), then all fares, even Advances, are regulated anyway!

 

[nicolaboo]

Does this…

"ending the uncertainty and confusion about whether you are using the right ticket or the right train company"

mean any ticket that is 'route valid', has to be accepted by any TOC and they can't charge for another ticket from now on?

 

[JonathanH]

Does this…

"ending the uncertainty and confusion about whether you are using the right ticket or the right train company"

mean any ticket that is 'route valid', has to be accepted by any TOC and they can't charge for another ticket from now on?

No, it doesn't, not until any changes are made. It is something they want to change in the future, not immediately.

If the Government is setting fares, taking the proceeds and paying TOCs for operating ("cost plus", basically), then all fares, even Advances, are regulated anyway!

I'm not sure it does, increases to fares which are regulated are protected by legislation. The other fares aren't regulated even if the government sets them. If the structure was simplified, it would presumably be possible to apply a common fare increase in future.

 

[Minstral25]

First of all, I would rather we keep something close to the system we currently have.

BUT the opinion of RDG, DfT, Government etc all seems to be for simplification and single fare pricing along the lines of:

* the TfL Contactless structure for local journeys (say up to 50 miles around a conurbation, possibly overlapping) based on point to point single fares, blanket morning peak up to 0930 and afternoon 1600-1900 peak, no break of journey etc
* Advance fares for anything else
* a complete removal of regulation.

I don't like this but the decisions are going to be made by people who have a) seen the success of the PAYG structure in London, b) want something simple to appease complaints and c) want to maximise revenue and see they way to doing so as being to increase yield from people who still travel.

There are two very clear areas that rail works in. Around major cities there is a commuter/Mass transit railway (probably being hit by Covid) that suits a turn up and go simple ticketing structure using contactless cards. The "TfL Contactless"/"Oyster" system based on travel zones works very well in that instance. Our local station has been isolated from "Oyster" from some time whereas many other local stations have "Oyster" - passengers just drive to where they can use Oyster, which shows how well that works. It is how mass transit works well as most passengers are turn up and go.

However along the main line routes (LNER/GWR/Avanti) these services are more akin to airlines where journeys tend not to be regular and people plan journey times carefully, there the existing system works very well. Having a selection of fares to regulate journey times is wise and busy trains can be much more expensive than off-peak ones.

The first hole in this thinking is how do you deal with rural/regional routes - they would benefit from turn up and go to encourage travel but are more suited to the longer distance pricing. The Second is how do you join these two systems together.

The Mass transit system (Oyster/Contactless) will encourage usage, which after Covid will be important for transferring travel from Car to public transport by providing ease of use for passengers. Ease of use is both paying and understanding fares.

 

[deltic]

Or just replaced with people buying daily off-peak fares that are valid at Any Time.

That would cause huge delays to people if they have to buy a ticket every time they travel on a regular basis unless the whole network goes contactless

 

[mark-h]

Surely a change to ticketing being only defined by time and route, without TOC specific tickets, will be a simplification?

In the new world a way to do these might well be to look at Germany's fare structure, where InterCity trains operate a different, higher fare structure to local ones. Route "not InterCity" is pretty clear in its meaning (provided we went back to showing IC/RR on monitors)

Reviving the Intercity brand would make this easier for passengers to understand. The services could still be operated by multiple companies, as in the current franchise system, but under a more uniform brand. Some operators, such as the current GWR franchise, would operate a mix of Intercity and non-intercity services.

 

[Starmill]

That just perpetuates the (perceived) problem. If people can't distinguish between LNR and Avanti services between Birmingham and London, they won't bother to distinguish between "Intercity" and "Not Intercity" services either. A lot of this is about people seeing a cheaper fare and not understanding why the market is applying a differential between the trains. "If one operator can offer the cheaper fares why can't the other." There is an argument that says that if the LNR-only fares didn't exist, capacity on those services can be reduced

It would at least reverse the current situation where what would become the 'intercity' service is the cheaper option and the stopping service costs more e.g. Newton-le-Willows to Liverpool TransPennine Express only or Macclesfield to Manchester Avanti West Coast only.

Of course, these are the way they are because often in this country the long-distance trains have more free capacity than the local ones. Creating an incentive for people to use the stopper all the way from Macclesfield to Manchester would have been deeply problematic (until March).

 

[JonathanH]

Reviving the Intercity brand would make this easier for passengers to understand. The services could still be operated by multiple companies, as in the current franchise system, but under a more uniform brand. Some operators, such as the current GWR franchise, would operate a mix of Intercity and non-intercity services.

Would you have Intercity and non-Intercity fares between, say, Exeter and Newton Abbot on the same operator? What happens on that stopping service from Paignton in the morning which uses an 802 and goes to Paddington? There isn't clear demarcation between Intercity and non-Intercity services once you get out of London.

Of course, these are the way they are because often in this country the long-distance trains have more free capacity than the local ones. Creating an incentive for people to use the stopper all the way from Macclesfield to Manchester would have been deeply problematic (until March).

Yes, people don't always appreciate this when saying that local passengers should use local trains. Of course, it doesn't apply with Cross Country.

 

[Ianno87]

That would cause huge delays to people if they have to buy a ticket every time they travel on a regular basis unless the whole network goes contactless

Heard of e-tickets? App with a simple button labelled "buy this ticket again" does the trick.

The olden days of queuing up for the ticket window on a Monday morning whilst the gentleman commuter in front with bowler hat, briefcase and umbrella renews his season ticket are over. As are the days of absolutely everybody travelling to work on the 07.18 with their Metro newspaper in hand.

 

[JonathanH]

Heard of e-tickets? App with a simple button labelled "buy this ticket again" does the trick.

It goes away with PAYG as well. Question is how far they are prepared to expand that facility. Grant Shapps certainly seems to be in favour.

 

[Starmill]

Would you have Intercity and non-Intercity fares between, say, Exeter and Newton Abbot on the same operator? What happens on that stopping service from Paignton in the morning which uses an 802 and goes to Paddington? There isn't clear demarcation between Intercity and non-Intercity services once you get out of London.

Indeed. The Germans do have easements for 'local transport tickets valid on ICE' in limited cases. Presumably we'd have to blanket that easement all over the place e.g. all services between Plymouth and Penzance or between Edinburgh and Dunbar.

 

[WesternLancer]

Much of this requires a national body (well at least for England) to co-oridinate and plan it.

so are DfT or RDG such a body?

And you must avoid going back to a BR type thing (because that was what Jeremy Corbyn promised)
and
You must avoid going back to an SRA type thing (because that is what Tony Blair / John Prescott had)

Politicians work hard to avoid doing things that they think their opponents did. Or look like they did. In fact it's one of their primary motivations in life, for good or bad.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. The Germans do have easements for 'local transport tickets valid on ICE' in limited cases. Presumably we'd have to blanket that easement all over the place e.g. all services between Plymouth and Penzance or between Edinburgh and Dunbar.

Not sure why such a long section Plymouth -Penzance would be necessary - there are local trains running over this route. Possibly St. Austell - Penzance where the express trains will have some spare space? However, having lots of exceptions will negate the 'simplification', and should be only where it is strictly necessary.
There would be no 'right' to have a local train on every line. Where one is not provided then only the 'ICE' fare would apply. (for example Carlisle-Lockerbie-Motherwell/Edinburgh).
Presumably this could also facilitate a move towards local funding [and decision making] of the regional services (with some kind of funding formula from central government), and also possibly move ICE services onto single journey pricing with compulsory reservation to manage fares and demand.

 

[Starmill]

Not sure why such a long section Plymouth -Penzance would be necessary - there are local trains running over this route. Possibly St. Austell - Penzance where the express trains will have some spare space?

You would have a rather bizarre, almost unusable timetable if you did. For example there would be no trains from Plymouth that stopped at St Germans between 1831 and 2147? You would remove nearly half of the service between St Austell and Liskeard for example. You would also bin connections in majority of cases for passengers travelling between Plymouth or Penzance and destinations at the end of the branchlines. To put it another way it is a timetable plainly designed so that when long-distance trains run they either replace local trains or are designed to complement them using connections, rather than being designed to take people between London or Scotland, Birmingham etc and Cornwall stations, which is a very minor part of their function.

ICE trains generally don't spend much time running at remote ends of route where there's no major city generating lots of log-distance travel demand, and unfortunately Penzance doesn't meet that criterion. Where they do e.g. Straslund, there is an exception in place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Sep 2020 ==

Where one is not provided then only the 'ICE' fare would apply. (for example Carlisle-Lockerbie-Motherwell/Edinburgh).

So you would be proposing what? Currently there's a TransPennine Express Only fare between Lockerbie and Glasgow for example. Would you be proposing to raise this by a factor of two or three?

And how would Dunbar be solved, given it's going to be near impossible to run an hourly local between Edinburgh and Dunbar? The 'intercity' fare for a short hop would need to be punitive, otherwise the whole excersise is pointless. Presumably you could run a 'regional train' that's actually a bus between Dunbar and North Berwick, but this all seems like an extraordinary amount of effort to go to.

Here we absolutely love using 'intercity' trains to run specials too, so for things like the London Paddington to Pembroke Dock trains they would need to change en route at Swansea from being 'Intercity' to 'Regional' - more confusion.

 

[RT4038]

At this stage it is proposed as a concept to 'simplify' fares, not as a hugely detailed plan to be immediately shot down on the basis of minor flows. At no point have I suggested any kind of timetable change at the time of 'simplification', so I do not know where you get your 'removing half the service between St. Austell and Liskeard' [as if there are lots of people making that journey!] . The trains would still be operating, just on a differential tariff. Likewise there will not be 60% of the service removed between Coventry and Birmingham either! Travel from Plymouth to St. Germans at 18h31 on a local train the fare is £5; at 20h16 on an Inter-City it is £7. Simplification could mean single leg pricing anyway.

Clearly there would have to be pretty clear distinctions between Local and Inter-City trains, but I don't think that would be too hard. Apparently this works pretty well in Germany.

It is inevitable, with any simplification, that there will be winners and losers. Fares are not merely going to be reduced to the lowest possible fare available now. What kind of emotion has been stirred for an assumption that the Inter City tariff would be 'two or three times' that of a local train?

As I stated, exceptions would have to be kept at a minimum, otherwise the term 'simplification' is a misnomer. Possibly Edinburgh to Dunbar is one of those which are inevitable. I certainly wouldn't envisage, in the short term at least, running additional trains or any complicated bustitution. That is just scare mongering. I see no reason why the Inter-City fare for a short hop from Edinburgh to Dunbar, in the absence of a parallel local service, would be punitive.

I would expect networks and timetables of the two train types to gradually change as the decision making evolves. This may even result in a local train service to Dunbar, possibly at the expense of fewer Inter City trains. But this is conjecture.