Little Progress on Fares Reform

[thedbdiboy]

I am sure this is all true. In which case, if we forget any issue with regards to TOC profitability as you suggest, a new fares structure could have been implemented fairly swiftly to meet these ideals.

Of course, in reality, the reason why such a structure has not been implemented is, seemingly, largely down to TOC profitability issues so I am unsure why you are asking us to forget them.

It's got nothing to do with TOC profitability - the relationship between individual TOC fare regulation and general fare regulation (through the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement) is so complex that DfT officials struggle to untangle it. That is what is taking the time, not helped because they are diverted on things like Brexit and re-franchising.

The notion that TOCs are free to do what they like is fanciful - they are much more closely regulated then BR ever was - that is why BR had freedom to innovate (it just lacked the investment).

The reason I asked to put the idea of profitability aside is because there seems to be an assumption that the drive for fares reform is to increase profitability. It isn't - the drive for reform is because the current structure is out of date, baffling and untrusted, all of which stems from the interim regulatory structure put in place in 1995 having become institutionalised. This has resulted in the lack of any real evolution since the mid-1990s, with attempts to tinker with it making things worse because it is a 20th century model trying to function in the 21st century.

 

[Starmill]

The reason I asked to put the idea of profitability aside is because there seems to be an assumption that the drive for fares reform is to increase profitability. It isn't - the drive for reform is because the current structure is out of date, baffling and untrusted, all of which stems from the interim regulatory structure put in place in 1995 having become institutionalised.

I completely agree. BUT for the changes to be beneficial to passengers it's likely that there will be some lost revenue (or higher costs). If there's a way to make changes that are of genuine benefit without losing revenue... what is it? Nothing in this report hints at it.

 

[sheff1]

the relationship between individual TOC fare regulation and general fare regulation (through the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement) is so complex that DfT officials struggle to untangle it.

I might be wrong, but I thought Advance fares were unregulated.

If I am wrong, then what follows it not relevant, but if I am right this

If the best price has any restrictions, (say, non-refundable) they want to know how much extra it would cost to have refundability or how easy it is to change their plans

could be addressed by adopting a system along the lines used elsewhere, for example

Fare Category 1 (aka best price) - not refundable, can be changed for a stated fee up to xx days in advance
Fare Category 2 - not refundable, can be changed for a stated fee up to departure time of train
Fare Category 3 - refundable for a stated fee.

If that is deemed too complicated (but, as I say, it is used elsewhere) then just have either 1 or 2 along with 3.

If the reason for lack of such change is "nothing to do with TOC profitability" and nothing to do with fare regulation then what is the reason ?

 

[Envy123]

If you have a return ticket which doesn't prohibit a break of journey then you are free to continue your outward journey to Gatwick, after your break at Horley, taking into account any time and date restrictions of course.

Then you can start your return journey from Gatwick anytime you like, taking into account time and date restrictions of course.

There is a negative easement which forbids doubling-back via Gatwick to get to Horley. So, I can buy a Victoria to Gatwick ticket to allow the double-back by using the return portion and stopping short at Horley. However, on my way back, I can't double-back via Gatwick, as I used the Gatwick to Horley portion already.

It would've been a lot easier if there was a Victoria to Horley (via Gatwick) return.

 

[Hadders]

I know I'm never going to change your mind on this one, but just forget for a minute any issue with regards to TOC profitability or otherwise, or indeed whether the system is nationalised or privatised. Unfortunately your recipe above for fares bears no relation whatsoever to what an ordinary (non-enthusiast) person in the 21st century actually might want from paying for their train travel, certainly from any of the research or focus groups I've been involved with.

Customers want is to be able to understand how much a journey will cost, that they have the best deal for their requirements, and that it is easy to buy (which believe it or not for many people means being able to buy it on their phone without fiddling around collecting it at a ticket machine or queuing at a ticket office unless they need some help).

If the best price has any restrictions, (say, non-refundable) they want to know how much extra it would cost to have refundability or how easy it is to change their plans. Funnily enough they are not keen on all fares to be excessable if it means the loss of the very cheapest deals.

The routeing guide, concepts of 'routeing' , 3 miles rules etc are quite simply baffling and pointless complexity for anyone except those that want to have fun gaming the system. It is the gaming that creates the distrust.

The purpose of any trial will be to demonstrate in real life what the alternative might look like before any commitment to proceed. That gives everyone the chance to see, try and comment on ideas before there is any further rollout. It's hard to see why testing something is to be afraid of, unless the fear is that ordinary people might actually quite like it....

We have a fares system that has been made unnecessarily complex since privatisation by the train companies. Examples of this include:

- addition of evening peak restrictions to many tickets as a way of increasing TOC revenue (and therefore profit/premium to the DfT)
- the blanket 0930 off peak restriction imposed on XC priced off peak tickets
- ridiculous increase price of some tickets. For example London to Manchester Anytime Return at £338.
- over complification of the routeing guide

With things like this going on is it little wonder that passengers resort to 'gaming the system' so that they can travel at a reasonable price. For example:

- evening restrictions are simple to avoid by buying a ticket to somewhere you're not travelling to and starting/finishing short
- XC have effectively imposed split ticketing on long distance routes because of their ridiculous off peak restrictions
- We're told that no-one buys the London-Manchester SOR so why price it so ridiculously? This fare is effectively a bad publicity gift from the rail industry to the Daily Mail.
- We had a far simpler routeing guide 20 years ago. Why has it had to become so much more complicated. Routeing flexibility should be an advantage of travelling by train not something that should be removed and removal of permitted routes will ultimately make things more complicated for passengers, not simpler.

All of the above happen because the TOCs/DfT have become greedy and made the system more complicated. None of it needed to happen and reversing the above would make things far simpler for passengers at a stroke.

The rail industry says it wants to simplify things but it doesn't have a good track record. For example:

- Smart/eticketing. Great in principle but a national system is needed (to mirror the national system we have for paper tickets). Surely it can't be that hard.
- Roll out of new ticket design. Again great in principle but implemented in rather cack-handed way.
- Northern's FTP scheme/Penalty Fare scheme. If you want passengers to buy before they board then there need to be suitable facilities at every station (ideally one TVM per platform).
- Fares 'simplification'. Renaming Saver tickets (many of which had absolutely no time restrictions) as Off Peak so that passengers would 'know when their ticket is valid' was always going to be a recipe for confusion rather than simplification. The result being that many passengers buy Anytime tickets because they don't believe an unrestricted Off Peak ticket can be valid at, say, 0700.

I don't doubt that the rail industry is sincere when it says it wants to simplify things but given the track record it's hardly surprising that we are skeptical ad suspicious of any plans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To add onto the "fastest route always permitted", there should be more acceptance of doubling-back when it is genuinely faster to do so, or at the very least have a fare which allows this.

The easiest way to do that would be to make long distance fares zonal, with maybe 20 zones in the UK as a whole. It would be unusual for a double back to be useful that wasn't quite short. Having a zonal setup would remove the fare "dodge".

So for example there would be one price for "TfGM-land" to "TfL-land". You could do what you liked at each end on the day of travel.

The system already sort-of works like that anyway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

We have a fares system that has been made unnecessarily complex since privatisation by the train companies. Examples of this include:

- addition of evening peak restrictions to many tickets as a way of increasing TOC revenue (and therefore profit/premium to the DfT)
- the blanket 0930 off peak restriction imposed on XC priced off peak tickets
- ridiculous increase price of some tickets. For example London to Manchester Anytime Return at £338.
- over complification of the routeing guide

With things like this going on is it little wonder that passengers resort to 'gaming the system' so that they can travel at a reasonable price. For example:

- evening restrictions are simple to avoid by buying a ticket to somewhere you're not travelling to and starting/finishing short
- XC have effectively imposed split ticketing on long distance routes because of their ridiculous off peak restrictions
- We're told that no-one buys the London-Manchester SOR so why price it so ridiculously? This fare is effectively a bad publicity gift from the rail industry to the Daily Mail.
- We had a far simpler routeing guide 20 years ago. Why has it had to become so much more complicated. Routeing flexibility should be an advantage of travelling by train not something that should be removed and removal of permitted routes will ultimately make things more complicated for passengers, not simpler.

All of the above happen because the TOCs/DfT have become greedy and made the system more complicated. None of it needed to happen and reversing the above would make things far simpler for passengers at a stroke.

The rail industry says it wants to simplify things but it doesn't have a good track record. For example:

- Smart/eticketing. Great in principle but a national system is needed (to mirror the national system we have for paper tickets). Surely it can't be that hard.
- Roll out of new ticket design. Again great in principle but implemented in rather cack-handed way.
- Northern's FTP scheme/Penalty Fare scheme. If you want passengers to buy before they board then there need to be suitable facilities at every station (ideally one TVM per platform).
- Fares 'simplification'. Renaming Saver tickets (many of which had absolutely no time restrictions) as Off Peak so that passengers would 'know when their ticket is valid' was always going to be a recipe for confusion rather than simplification. The result being that many passengers buy Anytime tickets because they don't believe an unrestricted Off Peak ticket can be valid at, say, 0700.

I don't doubt that the rail industry is sincere when it says it wants to simplify things but given the track record it's hardly surprising that we are skeptical ad suspicious of any plans.

Most peak restrictions are now "made up" by TOC's looking to farm revenue. Theirs no consistency, VTWC have eye watering Anytime Returns in their pretend peak hours yet will happily flog AP Singles between BHM & EUS starting at £8.00 on the same trains.

Printing "Off Peak" on tickets is totally pointless and misleading as their is no such thing and therefore people make it up and assume its something that's not.

Underpinning this is of course:
A - a lack of regulation of Anytime Fares or Definition of peak.
B - The Treasury Jack and Jill book of how to privatize things says the private sector is magically more efficient so will generate more revenue which you can then tax as premium, desperate private companies then overbid and promise the earth to win franchises and then the reality is the only way to do it is to shaft the traveling public traveling at "peak times".

Both the above factors Government could have and should have addressed many moons ago.

 

[Envy123]

The easiest way to do that would be to make long distance fares zonal, with maybe 20 zones in the UK as a whole. It would be unusual for a double back to be useful that wasn't quite short. Having a zonal setup would remove the fare "dodge".

So for example there would be one price for "TfGM-land" to "TfL-land". You could do what you liked at each end on the day of travel.

The system already sort-of works like that anyway.

Easier said than done, but would remove the restrictions, I agree.

On the eastern end of the District Line, I can double-back via Upminster without trouble.

While theoretically, it can be done by Oyster to go from Victoria to Horley via Gatwick, the price will likely be ridiculous.

 

[thedbdiboy]

We have a fares system that has been made unnecessarily complex since privatisation by the train companies. Examples of this include:

- addition of evening peak restrictions to many tickets as a way of increasing TOC revenue (and therefore profit/premium to the DfT)
- the blanket 0930 off peak restriction imposed on XC priced off peak tickets
- ridiculous increase price of some tickets. For example London to Manchester Anytime Return at £338.
- over complification of the routeing guide

With things like this going on is it little wonder that passengers resort to 'gaming the system' so that they can travel at a reasonable price. For example:

- evening restrictions are simple to avoid by buying a ticket to somewhere you're not travelling to and starting/finishing short
- XC have effectively imposed split ticketing on long distance routes because of their ridiculous off peak restrictions
- We're told that no-one buys the London-Manchester SOR so why price it so ridiculously? This fare is effectively a bad publicity gift from the rail industry to the Daily Mail.
- We had a far simpler routeing guide 20 years ago. Why has it had to become so much more complicated. Routeing flexibility should be an advantage of travelling by train not something that should be removed and removal of permitted routes will ultimately make things more complicated for passengers, not simpler.

All of the above happen because the TOCs/DfT have become greedy and made the system more complicated. None of it needed to happen and reversing the above would make things far simpler for passengers at a stroke.

The rail industry says it wants to simplify things but it doesn't have a good track record. For example:

- Smart/eticketing. Great in principle but a national system is needed (to mirror the national system we have for paper tickets). Surely it can't be that hard.
- Roll out of new ticket design. Again great in principle but implemented in rather cack-handed way.
- Northern's FTP scheme/Penalty Fare scheme. If you want passengers to buy before they board then there need to be suitable facilities at every station (ideally one TVM per platform).
- Fares 'simplification'. Renaming Saver tickets (many of which had absolutely no time restrictions) as Off Peak so that passengers would 'know when their ticket is valid' was always going to be a recipe for confusion rather than simplification. The result being that many passengers buy Anytime tickets because they don't believe an unrestricted Off Peak ticket can be valid at, say, 0700.

I don't doubt that the rail industry is sincere when it says it wants to simplify things but given the track record it's hardly surprising that we are skeptical ad suspicious of any plans.

The one other element that can't be ignored is that privatisation removed the ability to REPLACE one type of fare with another. That is why the system used to be simpler. In 1985 British Rail introduced the fares structure that became the one enshrined in regulation by abolishing all Cheap Day Returns over 50 miles, abolishing all First Class Cheap Day Returns and introducing national Saver fares for all journeys over 50 miles. Since 1996 however, things have only been ADDED so no wonder it has become so complicated.

It is the inability to remove things even where legacy fares have become decoupled from the overall logic of the structure that creates perverse outcomes.

 

[yorkie]

Any examples of fares train companies want to remove?

Would that include fares which are perceived as being too good value for customers?

Sadly I can think of examples of fares that have been removed; were these changes potentially illegal?

 

[thedbdiboy]

Any examples of fares train companies want to remove?

Would that include fares which are perceived as being too good value for customers?

Sadly I can think of examples of fares that have been removed; were these changes potentially illegal?

There are fares that have been removed as not every legacy fare is regulated - but the vast majority are so there is no opportunity for any kind of joined up or logical restructuring.

In terms of what could happen (and what BR would by now have undoubtedly done if it still existed) would be to remove the high price single/discount return structure on longer distance fares in place of a single fares structure that could be combined in anyway. This would greatly simplify the calculation of best fares given the way modern booking engines work. There are many options for models that would allow price capping of a total journey so as not to exceed whatever regulated fare cap is applied.

Such a move would help a massive simplification of routeing since route permissions would no longer have to conditionally account for both the 'out' and 'back' route.

The price/value issue is controlled by government since they have to decide how much of the costs of the industry should be covered from fares, and how much should be covered by taxpayers. I think that 'full' fare levels have been pushed as far (if not beyond) what is sustainable, but below that I'm sure even you would have to agree that there is absolutely no consistency at all about the value available on different routes.

 

[MikeWh]

Any examples of fares train companies want to remove?

I'm told Southeastern would like to remove the Swanley to zones 1-6, AAA zones 7-8 travelcard as it costs more than the simple zones 1-8 travelcard, but because the Swanley to zones 1-6 travelcard is what it has become and is regulated, it can't be removed.

 

[Starmill]

Why not just reduce its price?

 

[Starmill]

The price/value issue is controlled by government since they have to decide how much of the costs of the industry should be covered from fares, and how much should be covered by taxpayers. I think that 'full' fare levels have been pushed as far (if not beyond) what is sustainable, but below that I'm sure even you would have to agree that there is absolutely no consistency at all about the value available on different routes.

But surely this is the point we are making. I understand why from your high-level view it appears this way, but the main aim is to close down fares which allow journeys to be made for a sensible price that's competitive and comparable to the best value routes. It used to be possible to get day return tickets from Manchester to York for under £20 using a string of different loophooles, each of which was progressively closed down as they were used so that it is now impossible for less than £29.60 (or is it ). TPE are currently pushing a very heavy commercial strategy based around raising every fare they can as much as they are allowed to on routes where they are not opposed, and slashing fares wherever possible on routes where there is competition. It's clearly profitable for them but it's terrible for passengers. More flexibility on fares regulation just allows this to happen elsewhere. The 'value' issue is not really controlled by the government - not for most price-sensitive customers. It's determined a lot by the cheapest Advance tickets, sale tickets and routes where there are intentionally very cheap products (like London Midland). There is really no consistency at all of course but how can regulatory reform change that other than just to make the cheapest tickets more expensive?

 

[yorksrob]

There are fares that have been removed as not every legacy fare is regulated - but the vast majority are so there is no opportunity for any kind of joined up or logical restructuring.

In terms of what could happen (and what BR would by now have undoubtedly done if it still existed) would be to remove the high price single/discount return structure on longer distance fares in place of a single fares structure that could be combined in anyway. This would greatly simplify the calculation of best fares given the way modern booking engines work. There are many options for models that would allow price capping of a total journey so as not to exceed whatever regulated fare cap is applied.

Such a move would help a massive simplification of routeing since route permissions would no longer have to conditionally account for both the 'out' and 'back' route.

The price/value issue is controlled by government since they have to decide how much of the costs of the industry should be covered from fares, and how much should be covered by taxpayers. I think that 'full' fare levels have been pushed as far (if not beyond) what is sustainable, but below that I'm sure even you would have to agree that there is absolutely no consistency at all about the value available on different routes.

And we can all guess how that will pan out. The single will end up twice as expensive.

Unless there's some sort guarantee that the return fares will be halved without the singles increasing, it will just be another price gouge for passengers.

What people really want is consistent value for money, and whilst a complicated and opaque fares system can act as a barrier to this, one where train companies are free to remove fares and impose restrictions (either at will, or by DfT diktat) is even more likely to result in a lack of value for money.

 

[AY1975]

It's hard to see how passengers will benefit at all from route "simplification" as it seems merely to restrict what route a passenger can take.

A better form of simplification would be to remove unnecessary route restrictions so that any "reasonable" route is allowed, but of course this policy is designed to make life better for train companies, not passengers.

In later BR days (i.e. mid to late 1980s and early '90s, in the days of APTIS and PORTIS ticket issuing machines), tickets used to say on the back that unless indicated otherwise they were valid via "any reasonable route". So for example, a London-Manchester ticket was valid from St Pancras via Sheffield as well as from Euston, and presumably a London-York ticket was valid from St Pancras via Leeds as well as from King's Cross. In fact, my dad once used the return portion of a London-Gleneagles ticket to break his return journey at Alfreton before continuing to St Pancras a few days later, which would probably not be allowed these days.

 

[yorkie]

In fact, my dad once used the return portion of a London-Gleneagles ticket to break his return journey at Alfreton before continuing to St Pancras a few days later, which would probably not be allowed these days.

it is allowed!

 

[yorksrob]

In later BR days (i.e. mid to late 1980s and early '90s, in the days of APTIS and PORTIS ticket issuing machines), tickets used to say on the back that unless indicated otherwise they were valid via "any reasonable route". So for example, a London-Manchester ticket was valid from St Pancras via Sheffield as well as from Euston, and presumably a London-York ticket was valid from St Pancras via Leeds as well as from King's Cross. In fact, my dad once used the return portion of a London-Gleneagles ticket to break his return journey at Alfreton before continuing to St Pancras a few days later, which would probably not be allowed these days.

Yes, to my mind this is how simplification should be achieved for passengers. Have as many routes available in broadly the right direction under the standard fare. Then if companies want to offer better value route specific tickets to entice people, so long as it is obvious on the ticket.

 

[yorkie]

RDG have made a presentation to DfT in which they tried to convince DfT that it's simpler for customers if there are fewer permitted routes for a journey.

Im not sure if DfT saw how absurd this was or if they actually believed it. I'd love to know the answer to that!

 

[infobleep]

RDG have made a presentation to DfT in which they tried to convince DfT that it's simpler for customers if there are fewer permitted routes for a journey.

Im not sure if DfT saw how absurd this was or if they actually believed it. I'd love to know the answer to that!

Anyone know what the chances are of any of this presentation being made public?

 

[thedbdiboy]

RDG have made a presentation to DfT in which they tried to convince DfT that it's simpler for customers if there are fewer permitted routes for a journey.

Im not sure if DfT saw how absurd this was or if they actually believed it. I'd love to know the answer to that!

If it's the one I'm aware of you are both scaremongering and misrepresenting the point being made. Especially for longer distance travel, the concept of permitted routes includes rights so far beyond those that are actually required as to make them meaningless. Sheffield to London Terminals route 'Any Permitted' is, for example, valid via the ECML, Peterborough and Cambridge to travel into London Liverpool Street - if you are prepared to change several times and take a very long time. Now you may know all sorts of alternative uses to which that ticket could be put, but do you think that the ordinary person who just actually wants to make a trip from Sheffield to London is going to think a) "I am impressed by the variety and versatility of this ticket" or b) "Is it quicker? No! Is it on the way to London? No! Hmm, that seems bizarre and confusing!".
Are you really saying that reducing a historic route permission dating back to when the direct service from Sheffield to London was much worse would actually make a blind bit of difference to any normal person who simply wants to make that journey?

 

[yorkie]

Do car drivers just go from their home to one place, and back and that's it?

Permitted routes should be increased, not decreased.

Why shouldn't someone going from Yorkshire to London be able to stop off in Cambridge? Not everyone just goes from home to one place and return going via nowhere else.

Travelcards are popular for a reason...

It is not confusing to be told you can stop off somewhere reasonable en-route. It is, however, frustrating and confusing to be told you can't.

 

[yorksrob]

If it's the one I'm aware of you are both scaremongering and misrepresenting the point being made. Especially for longer distance travel, the concept of permitted routes includes rights so far beyond those that are actually required as to make them meaningless. Sheffield to London Terminals route 'Any Permitted' is, for example, valid via the ECML, Peterborough and Cambridge to travel into London Liverpool Street - if you are prepared to change several times and take a very long time. Now you may know all sorts of alternative uses to which that ticket could be put, but do you think that the ordinary person who just actually wants to make a trip from Sheffield to London is going to think a) "I am impressed by the variety and versatility of this ticket" or b) "Is it quicker? No! Is it on the way to London? No! Hmm, that seems bizarre and confusing!".
Are you really saying that reducing a historic route permission dating back to when the direct service from Sheffield to London was much worse would actually make a blind bit of difference to any normal person who simply wants to make that journey?

If these permitted routes are so "meaningless", why, pray tell, are the TOC's so eager to get rid of them ?

I still don't understand why your novice passenger is going to think having a number of routes "bizarre and confusing". Surely he is more likely to just get on the direct train to St Pancras ?

"Are you really saying that reducing a historic route permission dating back to when the direct service from Sheffield to London was much worse would actually make a blind bit of difference to any normal person who simply wants to make that journey?"

If that is the case, I ask again, why are the TOC's so eager to get rid of those fares ? The truth is, in a very small number of cases people would be able to make the sort of triangular journey that the ticketing system otherwise tends to make difficult. They serve a market that the railway would otherwise serve poorly. But in the majority of cases, people would prefer the more direct route anyway, so its no skin of the TOC's nose.

 

[sheff1]

If it's the one I'm aware of you are both scaremongering and misrepresenting the point being made.... Sheffield to London Terminals route 'Any Permitted' is, for example, valid via the ECML, Peterborough and Cambridge to travel into London Liverpool Street - if you are prepared to change several times and take a very long time. Now you may know all sorts of alternative uses to which that ticket could be put, but do you think that the ordinary person who just actually wants to make a trip from Sheffield to London is going to think a) "I am impressed by the variety and versatility of this ticket" or b) "Is it quicker? No! Is it on the way to London? No! Hmm, that seems bizarre and confusing!".

It is this which is misrepresenting things.

The "ordinary" or "normal" person merely wanting to go Sheffield to London and back will neither know nor care that they can travel via Cambridge so will not be thinking about the possibility or asking questions about it. However, another "ordinary" or "normal" person who wants to stop off in Cambridge to meet friends or clients on the way to or from London will be very happy to know that they can do so without the need to buy three separate tickets at a much higher total cost.

It may surprise you to know that many "ordinary" or "normal" people do actually want to make triangular-type journeys. When I used to work in the booking office at a major station such requests were often made by people who seemed perfectly normal.

Are you really saying that reducing a historic route permission dating back to when the direct service from Sheffield to London was much worse would actually make a blind bit of difference to any normal person who simply wants to make that journey?

If it would make not a bit of difference to the person who wants to travel direct, why all the effort to try and remove such permissions and make things much worse for those who do want to make triangular-type journeys ?

 

[sheff1]

One wonders if the next step will be to remove all routes for York to London other then that via the ECML.

And now we have confirmation that this sort of thing is exactly what is being put forward by RDG.

I also note that my question in post #33 was completely ignored.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I might be wrong, but I thought Advance fares were unregulated.

If I am wrong, then what follows it not relevant, but if I am right this

could be addressed by adopting a system along the lines used elsewhere, for example

Fare Category 1 (aka best price) - not refundable, can be changed for a stated fee up to xx days in advance
Fare Category 2 - not refundable, can be changed for a stated fee up to departure time of train
Fare Category 3 - refundable for a stated fee.

If that is deemed too complicated (but, as I say, it is used elsewhere) then just have either 1 or 2 along with 3.

If the reason for lack of such change is "nothing to do with TOC profitability" and nothing to do with fare regulation then what is the reason ?

Advance fares are unregulated.

Your suggestion for fare categories is quite reasonable - but to take it forward requires the whole fare structure to be looked at. If the concept of Advance fares is to be made more flexible there is a case to revise the whole structure rather than to retain every legacy regulated fare type from 1996 and just add these on top.

 

[infobleep]

If it's the one I'm aware of you are both scaremongering and misrepresenting the point being made. Especially for longer distance travel, the concept of permitted routes includes rights so far beyond those that are actually required as to make them meaningless. Sheffield to London Terminals route 'Any Permitted' is, for example, valid via the ECML, Peterborough and Cambridge to travel into London Liverpool Street - if you are prepared to change several times and take a very long time. Now you may know all sorts of alternative uses to which that ticket could be put, but do you think that the ordinary person who just actually wants to make a trip from Sheffield to London is going to think a) "I am impressed by the variety and versatility of this ticket" or b) "Is it quicker? No! Is it on the way to London? No! Hmm, that seems bizarre and confusing!".
Are you really saying that reducing a historic route permission dating back to when the direct service from Sheffield to London was much worse would actually make a blind bit of difference to any normal person who simply wants to make that journey?

Take Aldershot to Guildford. That is not valid via Woking. The last connecting train from Aldershot to Guildford is the 23:34. That requires one to walk between Ash and North Camp. It takes 10 minutes.

There is a connection via Woking but it is always longer in time and is not allowed. I've not walked between Ash and North Camp but a female friend of mine has said North Camp is isolated with no buses and they wouldn't want to walk it late at night alone. The TOC would like them to do that it seems.

Then there is Guildford to Farnham; Bently or Alton. One of the fast lest journeys that shows up for most of the day is via Woking but the ticket isn't valid via Woking. They can actually get a faster unofficial connection at Aldershot, which only requires a platform change on the same island but that doesn't show up

Surely those kinds of things must also confuse passengers? Or is it OK to confuse passengers when it's in the railways interests to do so?

 

[thedbdiboy]

It is this which is misrepresenting things.

The "ordinary" or "normal" person merely wanting to go Sheffield to London and back will neither know nor care that they can travel via Cambridge so will not be thinking about the possibility or asking questions about it. However, another "ordinary" or "normal" person who wants to stop off in Cambridge to meet friends or clients on the way to or from London will be very happy to know that they can do so without the need to buy three separate tickets at a much higher total cost.

It may surprise you to know that many "ordinary" or "normal" people do actually want to make triangular-type journeys. When I used to work in the booking office at a major station such requests were often made by people who seemed perfectly normal.



If it would make not a bit of difference to the person who wants to travel direct, why all the effort to try and remove such permissions and make things much worse for those who do want to make triangular-type journeys ?

Because you are only seeing selective bits of some of the idea that the industry wants to explore. The argument about reducing the hundreds of permitted options on some flows actually included proposals to use the push for single leg pricing to allow triangular and circular journeys to be created as required by customers without the premium that current single fares apply.

In other words, rather than hundreds of impenetrable and hard to explain route permissions, you could have app based algorithms that create bespoke best prices for literally any journey itinerary that anyone could ever want. In other words a system that is both more flexible and easier to use.

The point I am trying to make is that the current fares structure is not fit for purpose and needs radical rethinking for the 21st century. Yet despite there being broad agreement on this forum that there is a lot wrong with it, the idea persists that the fares structure inherited at privatisation, designed before modern computing, internet retailing and journey planning, is somehow the ideal solution.

I have respect for the knowledge, passion, and enthusiasm shown here but I knew (and still know personally) many of the people who designed that fares structure, and they would be the first to reshape and redesign it given the technological capability we have today.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Take Aldershot to Guildford. That is not valid via Woking. The last connecting train from Aldershot to Guildford is the 23:34. That requires one to walk between Ash and North Camp. It takes 10 minutes.

There is a connection via Woking but it is always longer in time and is not allowed. I've not walked between Ash and North Camp but a female friend of mine has said North Camp is isolated with no buses and they wouldn't want to walk it late at night alone. The TOC would like them to do that it seems.

Then there is Guildford to Farnham; Bently or Alton. One of the fast lest journeys that shows up for most of the day is via Woking but the ticket isn't valid via Woking. They can actually get a faster unofficial connection at Aldershot, which only requires a platform change on the same island but that doesn't show up

Surely those kinds of things must also confuse passengers? Or is it OK to confuse passengers when it's in the railways interests to do so?

No - but two wrongs don't make a right!

 

[yorksrob]

Because you are only seeing selective bits of some of the idea that the industry wants to explore. The argument about reducing the hundreds of permitted options on some flows actually included proposals to use the push for single leg pricing to allow triangular and circular journeys to be created as required by customers without the premium that current single fares apply.

In other words, rather than hundreds of impenetrable and hard to explain route permissions, you could have app based algorithms that create bespoke best prices for literally any journey itinerary that anyone could ever want. In other words a system that is both more flexible and easier to use.

The point I am trying to make is that the current fares structure is not fit for purpose and needs radical rethinking for the 21st century. Yet despite there being broad agreement on this forum that there is a lot wrong with it, the idea persists that the fares structure inherited at privatisation, designed before modern computing, internet retailing and journey planning, is somehow the ideal solution.

I have respect for the knowledge, passion, and enthusiasm shown here but I knew (and still know personally) many of the people who designed that fares structure, and they would be the first to reshape and redesign it given the technological capability we have today.

You don't need 21st century technology to make single tickets around half the price of the return. You don't need to get rid of permitted routes to create an "app" that could string the said single fares together.