Little Progress on Fares Reform

[infobleep]

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.

I don't have a problem with a redesign as long as the outcome is financially neural in terms of profits. In other words it's not done just to remove cheap fares and boost train company profits. I'm not adverse to train companies making profits just that I wouldn't want a reform to be a desguise for doing just that. It needs to be transparent.

Would such a reform enable advanced fares across TOCs or would it still be cheaper to split because no one wants to offer an advanced fare from Guildford to Hastings?

I can see why people might be concerned by this as they see TOCs putting up season ticket prices more percentage wise for popular routes and less so for others. This way they take in more money but can still claim the average percentage rise was thus! People might be thinking they will just something similar here.

Again TOCs need to make a profit but things like this need to be transparent.

 

[Hadders]

Single leg pricing has merits if it genuinely doesn't end up costing the passenger more than the cost of making the journey today.

Although it's not perfect we do need some form of fares regulation. I get concerned that TOCs/DfT would use this as an excuse to raise prices. You only need to look at the price of the Off Peak London-Manchester return. If this was unregulated would it still be £86.90 or would it have increased at the same level as the Anytime Return which is now an eye-watering £338.

 

[Starmill]

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?

I find it bizarre that you are concerned about this but the industry at large is seemingly totally not concerned about doing anything about the vast number of cases where there are either no through fares whatsoever or where no through fares are valid on the fastest journeys. This causes booking engines to present very substandard results or no results whatsoever.

People buying Sheffield to London tickets are very, very unlikely to be confused about their permission to travel via Cambridge. People travelling from Glasgow to Leuchars are likely to be very very perplexed and confused about why they are not allowed to travel on the fastest available trains via Dundee. So why is it that there is action proposed on the former and not the latter? Why still after all of these years and several people reporting it, no fare for travel from South Milford to Scarborough? Why have you still failed so consistently to do anything about improving these? And how would removing route permissions via Cambridge help?

 

[thedbdiboy]

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.

I'll bore you with the science bit but what makes cutting the price of single fares a difficult decision is something called demand elasticity, which is lower for single journeys than for return journeys. However, when married to journey planning, it becomes possible to adjust the unit price based on the overall purpose of the journey. THat's not possible with a paper based system. I know it's really boring but the DfT are quite concerned about not damaging the industry's revenue base because otherwise the taxpayer picks up the bill. That is of course an entirely different debate......

 

[infobleep]

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

They don't but are the TOCs doing anything to right the other wrongs? In the case of the fastest trains to Farnham they are by providing a direct train from Guildford but will it deal with the last train of the night?

Apologies, I thought my post hadn't gone through but it had. So I repeated myself below.

Would a redesign offer advanced purchase tickets from Guildford to Hastings or would it still be cheaper to split on a weekday morning?

I don't object to TOCs making a profit or a redesign of the fares, providing its cost nutreal overall and I don't mean percentage nutreal.

I can see why people might be concerned. Take season tickets. Popular routes seem to rise by a larger percentage than less popular routes. The TOCs can still claim they have only raise by the average percentage allowed across the board. However with more popular tickets raising by a larger amount, they make more profit than if all the tickets had had the same average increase in percentage.

I know the additional money can also be invested back but they don't explain that they need to raise more popular tickets by a higher amount. They just try to keep that bit unsaid.

If they explained why the percentage differences are needed and were transparent, perhaps people might trust them more.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Single leg pricing has merits if it genuinely doesn't end up costing the passenger more than the cost of making the journey today.

Although it's not perfect we do need some form of fares regulation. I get concerned that TOCs/DfT would use this as an excuse to raise prices. You only need to look at the price of the Off Peak London-Manchester return. If this was unregulated would it still be £86.90 or would it have increased at the same level as the Anytime Return which is now an eye-watering £338.

Again - agreed! It is absolutely right that as a taxpayer supported business there is proper regulation of fares. We don't have that now, the current regulatory regime is baffling in the extreme to most people and arguably doesn't protect the people it should.

 

[thedbdiboy]

They don't but are the TOCs doing anything to right the other wrongs? In the case of the fastest trains to Farnham they are by providing a direct train from Guildford but will it deal with the last train of the night?

Would a redesign offer advanced purchase tickets from Guildford to Hastings or would it still be cheaper to split on a weekday morning?

I don't object to TOCs making a profit or a redesign of the fares, providing its cost nutreal overall and I don't mean percentage nutreal.

I can see why people might be concerned. Take season tickets. Popular routes seem to rise by a larger percentage than less popular routes. The TOCs can still claim they have only raise by the average percentage allowed across the board. However with more popular tickets raising by a larger amount, they make more profit than if all the tickets had had the same average increase in percentage.

I know the additional money can also be invested back but they don't explain that they need to raise more popular tickets by a higher amount. They just try to keep that bit unsaid.

If they explained why the percentage differences are needed and were transparent, perhaps people might trust them more.

Fares reform can't really be handled by TOCs alone. Not only due to the lack of trust, but the TOC structure doesn't provide the long term vision needed to plan sufficiently far ahead. However, that shouldn't preclude the wider industry taking a role in proposing with Government how it could be taken forward - and the decisions will ultimate need to be made by Ministers.

 

[yorkie]

I don't have a problem with a redesign as long as the outcome is financially neural in terms of profits.

I disagree. They are going to use the "revenue neutral" excuse to raise the good value fares. That isn't a good thing. I never touch the high business type fares, nor do most people, so most people should oppose this.

In other words it's not done just to remove cheap fares and boost train company profits. I'm not adverse to train companies making profits just that I wouldn't want a reform to be a desguise for doing just that. It needs to be transparent.

It's not so much about boosting profits, but TOCs like to be in control over what fares are valid. They do not like it when other TOCs fares are valid on their trains and they lose control. They'll never get away from that, of course, but they want to at least take back some control.

Would such a reform enable advanced fares across TOCs or would it still be cheaper to split because no one wants to offer an advanced fare from Guildford to Hastings?

They will never eliminate the need to "split" to get the best value fares. The TOCs are not keen to reduce the amount paid for through journeys; if they were, they'd use the existing technology to check for splits available now.

I find it bizarre that you are concerned about this but the industry at large is seemingly totally not concerned about doing anything about the vast number of cases where there are either no through fares whatsoever or where no through fares are valid on the fastest journeys. This causes booking engines to present very substandard results or no results whatsoever.

They could easily add permitted routes, but - as we see with the Routeing Guide updates thread - they* appear to be too busy removing permitted routes.

(I understand "they" in this context is iBlocks acting under instruction from RDG but I am not blaming a contractor for doing what they've been instructed)

People buying Sheffield to London tickets are very, very unlikely to be confused about their permission to travel via Cambridge. People travelling from Glasgow to Leuchars are likely to be very very perplexed and confused about why they are not allowed to travel on the fastest available trains via Dundee. So why is it that there is action proposed on the former and not the latter?

We know the answer to that. They could introduce a route: via Dundee fare at the drop of a hat, but they are far too busy removing routes.

RDG claim it is "confusing" if people have many permitted routes, so I wonder if RDG would consider it confusing if Glasgow to Leuchars was permitted via Dundee?

Again - agreed! It is absolutely right that as a taxpayer supported business there is proper regulation of fares. We don't have that now, the current regulatory regime is baffling in the extreme to most people and arguably doesn't protect the people it should.

Would you also agree that changing that protection should not be used as an excuse to raise any fares (including the overall cost of making a day return fare if it is replaced with 2 x singles), withdraw any permitted routes, or doing anything else that is detrimental to customers?

If you can answer yes to this, and fight for our rights, we would all be very appreciative and be far less suspicious of any potential changes.

 

[yorksrob]

I'll bore you with the science bit but what makes cutting the price of single fares a difficult decision is something called demand elasticity, which is lower for single journeys than for return journeys. However, when married to journey planning, it becomes possible to adjust the unit price based on the overall purpose of the journey. I know it's really boring but the DfT are quite concerned about not damaging the industry's revenue base because otherwise the taxpayer picks up the bill. That is of course an entirely different debate......

I would have thought that open single journeys were numerically far fewer than returns, therefore their lower demand elasticity would be far less significant.

Either way, your penultimate sentence suggests that these reforms won't result in what passengers really want - better value for money.

 

[yorkie]

.... and the decisions will ultimate need to be made by Ministers.

True. Those Ministers could do with meeting the people on this forum who understand the risks to passengers, so that we can raise objections to any arguments that have been presented by RDG thus far.

Does anyone reading this have any assurances that Ministers have seen arguments against RDG's proposals? Does anyone know of an effective way for us to make our concerns heard?

 

[yorkie]

I'll bore you with the science bit but what makes cutting the price of single fares a difficult decision is something called demand elasticity, which is lower for single journeys than for return journeys. However, when married to journey planning, it becomes possible to adjust the unit price based on the overall purpose of the journey. THat's not possible with a paper based system. I know it's really boring but the DfT are quite concerned about not damaging the industry's revenue base because otherwise the taxpayer picks up the bill. That is of course an entirely different debate......

This is an excellent post explaining just how great the risks for passengers are.

Basically, there is no way that the best value return fares are going to be available under any proposed new structure. This is because half of those return fares would be considered too cheap for a single.

The DfT therefore plans for the best value fares, used by the majority of customers, to increase in price.

Of course some very expensive fares used by business passengers will decrease and we will be told it is "revenue neutral". This term, combined with terms such as "simplified" will be banded around by DfT and RDG in order to convince the media it is not a bad thing for customers.

But it will result in people paying more. And that's in addition to the loss of permitted routes, which will cause even more hardship as the fares for someone in Yorkshire who wants to visit a relative in Cambridge and then a friend in London will be even greater.

 

[thedbdiboy]

those Ministers could do with meeting the people on this forum who understand the risks to passengers, so that we can raise objections to any arguments that have been presented by RDG thus far.

I'm really trying to move on from the theme that if RDG have suggested it, it must be wrong (without much success). Let's just play it from your angle, but I'll ask some questions. Genuinely interested in everyone's answers....

What would you advise Ministers to do with rail fares?
Do you think that any changes you suggest should be at no additional cost to taxpayers (i.e. that solutions should be self-funding), or do you thing there should be more subsidy to allow for fares reform?
Do you think people should have the opportunity to trade price for flexibility?
Would you be happy to use digital ticketing if it meant a better range of discounts extended to more people? Even if it were not necessarily a third off in every case?
Do you think that the industry should follow the example of, say. TfL in moving to cashless ticketing through technology? (assume that there will always be a requirement for it to be accessible to all, I'm talking about mainstream travel)

 

[thedbdiboy]

This is an excellent post explaining just how great the risks for passengers are.

Basically, there is no way that the best value return fares are going to be available under any proposed new structure. This is because half of those return fares would be considered too cheap for a single.

The DfT therefore plans for the best value fares, used by the majority of customers, to increase in price.

Of course some very expensive fares used by business passengers will decrease and we will be told it is "revenue neutral". This term, combined with terms such as "simplified" will be banded around by DfT and RDG in order to convince the media it is not a bad thing for customers.

But it will result in people paying more. And that's in addition to the loss of permitted routes, which will cause even more hardship as the fares for someone in Yorkshire who wants to visit a relative in Cambridge and then a friend in London will be even greater.

You can pick this up when answering post #72, but it would be really useful to debate what would be needed to protect people in the above scenario rather than why it cannot be allowed to happen.

 

[yorksrob]

For my two pence worth:

What would you advise Ministers to do with rail fares?
Do you think that any changes you suggest should be at no additional cost to taxpayers (i.e. that solutions should be self-funding), or do you thing there should be more subsidy to allow for fares reform?

Freeze them - or at least not raise them over inflation. Governments have been changing the farepayer/taxpayer ratio for years now and it has gone on for long enough. As an alternative, they could end, or trade off the fuel duty freeze.

Do you think people should have the opportunity to trade price for flexibility?

In that they already do. We already have the opportunity to choose an advance purchase over an off-peak or anytime. I think in some cases the differential is too wide.

I do believe that train companies should be able to fill up otherwise empty seats at cheaper rates with AP, however this shouldn't be at the expense of sensibly priced flexible fares. It costs a lot of public money to provide a train seat in terms of infrastructure and pathing. The emphasis should be on getting more of these filled for the good of the economy, rather than selling fewer tickets at higher prices.

Would you be happy to use digital ticketing if it meant a better range of discounts extended to more people? Even if it were not necessarily a third off in every case?

Why do we need a wider 'range' of discounts. I would rather a national railcard scheme that gave a good range of easily understood off-peak discounts for a sunk cost.

I don't agree with this idea of having special digital discounts for individual people. Its too reliant on technology and breeds distrust and anger when people think other people are being treated better than them for no good reason.

Do you think that the industry should follow the example of, say. TfL in moving to cashless ticketing through technology? (assume that there will always be a requirement for it to be accessible to all, I'm talking about mainstream travel)

I think that there should be an option for those that want it but not forced on everyone.

 

[yorkie]

I'm really trying to move on from the theme that if RDG have suggested it, it must be wrong (without much success). Let's just play it from your angle, but I'll ask some questions. Genuinely interested in everyone's answers....

What would you advise Ministers to do with rail fares?

Below is not an exhaustive list, but a few quick wins could be achieved...

Single leg pricing would be fantastic, but only if existing day return fares can be halved to become singles. If this is not possible, keep the current system!

Where faster, or sensible routes, are not permitted, create flows priced at a little more than the through fare (e.g. Glasgow to Leuchars route: via Dundee could be a couple of quid more than the existing fare) so that passengers are not inhibited by a lack of permitted routes on some flows.

No abolishment of existing permitted routes.

More commonality of T&Cs for Railcards (the price of each may need to change to reflect this), and a National Railcard for all (albeit at a high price into 3-figures).

Expansion of the Keith Brown solution to high through fares...

RAIL fares will be reduced by up to two-fifths on some journeys (41per cent) to tackle a decades-old anomaly that makes it cheaper to buy two tickets than a single fare, the Transport Minister has announced.

Steve Montgomery, managing director of ScotRail, said: "This is another example of us putting the customer first , by tackling the fare inconsistencies that are most prevalent in Scotland. Transport Scotland's welcome support means we have accelerated our efforts in this area, providing easier access to best-value rail fares."

...and an abolishment to the increase in price of shorter distance fares as has happened on some routes in England. If that is not possible, train companies should provide websites that allow "split tickets" to be purchased using existing technology.

Do you think that any changes you suggest should be at no additional cost to taxpayers (i.e. that solutions should be self-funding), or do you thing there should be more subsidy to allow for fares reform?

The latter. If this is not possible, then the good value fares must NOT rise and there must be NO change.

We will not accept price rises for the good value fares used by everyday people just so that some higher priced fares more likely to be used by business users can go down.

Do you think people should have the opportunity to trade price for flexibility?

I think providing both Advance fares and flexible fares is important.

Would you be happy to use digital ticketing if it meant a better range of discounts extended to more people? Even if it were not necessarily a third off in every case?

Potentially, but this must not be an excuse to make people who do several trips per year end up worse off.

Do you think that the industry should follow the example of, say. TfL in moving to cashless ticketing through technology? (assume that there will always be a requirement for it to be accessible to all, I'm talking about mainstream travel)

The TfL PAYG model will not work nationwide. But I think PAYG could work in the PTE areas.

 

[Starmill]

Why do we need a wider 'range' of discounts. I would rather a national railcard scheme that gave a good range of easily understood off-peak discounts for a sunk cost.

I wonder if thebdiboy knows how ideas for completely new things within the existing strucutre go down? For example how did the Two Together Railcard and 26-30 Railcards gain traction at TOCs and the DfT? Would a Weekend & Bank Holiday Railcard be considered similarly? Surely all of these ideas would be revenue positive (even if only a little bit)?

 

[sheff1]

In other words, rather than hundreds of impenetrable and hard to explain route permissions,

.. and why are there hundreds of "impenetrable and hard to explain route permissions" ? Maybe it has something do with the fact that the original Routeing Guide had 26 maps but now the Guide has over 350 !

Who introduced these hundreds of extra maps - oh, it was ATOC/RDG and they are still adding more.

I, for one, would welcome a reversion to the 26 original maps updated to include the small number of lines which have been opened/reopened in the intervening years.

 

[yorkie]

.. and why are there hundreds of "impenetrable and hard to explain route permissions" ? Maybe it has something do with the fact that the original Routeing Guide had 26 maps but now the Guide has over 350 !

Who introduced these hundreds of extra maps - oh, it was ATOC/RDG and they are still adding more.

I, for one, would welcome a reversion to the 26 original maps updated to include the small number of lines which have been opened/reopened in the intervening years.

They won't do that; the complexity has been added to reduce the routes available to us. It is ironic that those who made it complex are now trying to claim "simplification" is a good thing. Basically they increase fares massively using complexity then the simplification gets rid of the cheaper fares. It's a fairly clever plan actually as the media will be fooled. But we won't be fooled.

e.g. York to Chinley was valid under BR via Manchester. It was removed without DfT permission when Chinley was made a Routeing Point. You can go that way, and if a Guard does not like it, you can invoke the 'Disputed Route Procedure'. Given it was an illegal route and if Chinley was not a Routeing Point it would pass the NFM64 fares check, the customer should win the dispute. In reality, no-one questions it. But booking engines cannot offer it due to RDG/DfT incompetence.

That's the sort of nonsense the industry could fix without any fares "reform". So why don't they? Because that is the sort of routeing the TOCs want to remove from us.

Some train companies want to be able to charge a huge premium - far in excess of inflation - for use 'their' bit of track, and they do not want to be restricted by the fare priced by an operator that has 'only' increased its price in line with inflation. That's what it appears to be about.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder if thebdiboy knows how ideas for completely new things within the existing strucutre go down? For example how did the Two Together Railcard and 26-30 Railcards gain traction at TOCs and the DfT? Would a Weekend & Bank Holiday Railcard be considered similarly? Surely all of these ideas would be revenue positive (even if only a little bit)?

I'm sure they would. Infact I'm sure I remember railfuture's report on the national railcard that calculated that it would be revenue positive.

 

[sheff1]

Quick answers to post #72

What would you advise Ministers to do with rail fares?
Do you think that any changes you suggest should be at no additional cost to taxpayers (i.e. that solutions should be self-funding), or do you thing there should be more subsidy to allow for fares reform?

Stop inflation +x% increases.

Do you think people should have the opportunity to trade price for flexibility?

Of course. I earlier described systems used elsewhere

Would you be happy to use digital ticketing if it meant a better range of discounts extended to more people? Even if it were not necessarily a third off in every case?

Don't real understand this one. I think something along the German Bahncard model (with 25, 50 & 100 % discounts) should be available to everyone.

Do you think that the industry should follow the example of, say. TfL in moving to cashless ticketing through technology? (assume that there will always be a requirement for it to be accessible to all, I'm talking about mainstream travel)

The option of cashless ticketing should be available but not made compulsory. What is not wanted is the current proliferation of TOC-specific smartcards/apps which are often not accepted by other TOCs.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Firstly, thanks for the answers so far.

I wonder if thebdiboy knows how ideas for completely new things within the existing strucutre go down? For example how did the Two Together Railcard and 26-30 Railcards gain traction at TOCs and the DfT? Would a Weekend & Bank Holiday Railcard be considered similarly? Surely all of these ideas would be revenue positive (even if only a little bit)?

These are all the result of individual market segments being researched as 'profitable' within the existing Railcard model and structure. The issue is really how many more individual Railcards do you want to add when it would probably be easier to replace them with a single Railcard product that you could add features too. Maybe even call it a national Railcard.....this is an example of where technology really does allow a better deal for everyone.

.. and why are there hundreds of "impenetrable and hard to explain route permissions" ? Maybe it has something do with the fact that the original Routeing Guide had 26 maps but now the Guide has over 350 !
Who introduced these hundreds of extra maps - oh, it was ATOC/RDG and they are still adding more.
I, for one, would welcome a reversion to the 26 original maps updated to include the small number of lines which have been opened/reopened in the intervening years.

I agree it is daft, but the reason for this is that the original Routeing guide was a manual that was interpreted by staff. It was actually written by someone who originally worked in my team in BR but went to ATOC to write it during privatisation. Once the first electronic Journey Planners came out and were programmed with it they started finding all sorts of route permissions that were never intended by BR or OPRAF. I think this is a key point in the Routeing Guide debate - the route permissions that exist today do not protect what BR allowed, they vastly exceed it and are unintentional results of an attempt to code what 'Any Reasonable' means that has never actually worked as intended. The expansion of the maps is an attempt to try and keep on top of the unintended consequences.

 

[sheff1]

I think this is a key point in the Routeing Guide debate - the route permissions that exist today do not protect what BR allowed, they vastly exceed it and are unintentional results of an attempt to code what 'Any Reasonable' means that has never actually worked as intended.

This is, without doubt, true which is why I would not support the "no abolishment of existing permitted routes" line. Some currently permitted routes are ludicrous and would never pass the BR "reasonable route" test.

The expansion of the maps is an attempt to try and keep on top of the unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, many of the map changes/expansions seem to have been implemented without adequate impact assessment and as a result routes which were allowed under BR and are still perfectly reasonable today have been removed (some were reinstated after protest - many were not).

 

[Starmill]

Once the first electronic Journey Planners came out and were programmed with it they started finding all sorts of route permissions that were never intended by BR or OPRAF.

- the route permissions that exist today do not protect what BR allowed, they vastly exceed it

Do you have any examples of this? It's not something I have heard claimed before I don't think. And why is this perceived as causing a big problem or impediment to the noble objectives you outlined earlier?

 

[sheff1]

Do you have any examples of this?

A good example was the case, well covered on here, of a ticket from one London suburban station to another allowing travel via Scotland (I think Inverenss, at the very least via Glasgow and Edinburgh).

 

[Starmill]

The expansion of the maps is an attempt to try and keep on top of the unintended consequences.

In my experience the expansion has created a lot of new (in some cases much larger) anomalies. Principally I would guess that the reason for this is that the people amending the maps don't really understand them and are very detached from the people setting prices. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the maintenance of the maps has been pretty awful at times and I'm not quite following your line of reasoning that it's down to the "baked-in" (as you put it) 1995 fares and routing structure is to blame for that, rather than this short-term and slap-dash tampering we see several times per week.

 

[thedbdiboy]

More commonality of T&Cs for Railcards (the price of each may need to change to reflect this), and a National Railcard for all (albeit at a high price into 3-figures).

Definitely some scope for this sooner rather than later if TOCs agree, simply because Railcards are already managed by RDG (unlike fares which are directly set by TOCs)

The latter. If this is not possible, then the good value fares must NOT rise and there must be NO change.

We will not accept price rises for the good value fares used by everyday people just so that some higher priced fares more likely to be used by business users can go down.

There is no appetite for anyone to pay any more, but it is virtually impossible to make any substantial change without some winners and losers. However, to have any chance of success, there need to be a lot of winners amongst ordinary travellers - most people may not be that bothered about the fare type they use but they will want the price to be the same or less.

Potentially, but this must not be an excuse to make people who do several trips per year end up worse off. The TfL PAYG model will not work nationwide. But I think PAYG could work in the PTE areas.

With modern technology it should be possible to revolutionise the Season Ticket model - account based ticketing wouldn't have to you down to a specific journey or route.

Stop inflation +x% increases.

That is one for Government but I think the political appetite for any sort of above inflation increases is very weak

Would you be happy to use digital ticketing if it meant a better range of discounts extended to more people? Even if it were not necessarily a third off in every case? Don't real understand this one. I think something along the German Bahncard model (with 25, 50 & 100 %) discounts should be available to everyone.

For example, rather than certain groups always getting 1/3rd off, everyone would have the chance to get some money off but the discount would be higher for less busy trains and lower for more busy ones.

The option of cashless ticketing should be available but not enforced. What is not wanted is the current proliferation of TOC-specific smartcards/apps which are often not accepted by other TOCs.

It's very clear that if digital ticketing is to succeed it has to be equally or more flexible than paper tickets so the current situation will need to change and a lot of work is taking place to try and achieve this.

 

[MikeWh]

I agree it is daft, but the reason for this is that the original Routeing guide was a manual that was interpreted by staff. It was actually written by someone who originally worked in my team in BR but went to ATOC to write it during privatisation. Once the first electronic Journey Planners came out and were programmed with it they started finding all sorts of route permissions that were never intended by BR or OPRAF. I think this is a key point in the Routeing Guide debate - the route permissions that exist today do not protect what BR allowed, they vastly exceed it and are unintentional results of an attempt to code what 'Any Reasonable' means that has never actually worked as intended. The expansion of the maps is an attempt to try and keep on top of the unintended consequences.

Some on here may not agree with me on this, but I do appreciate the need to do this. The problem is the extent to which it is being done. No-one should have a problem with removing permission to travel between two SE London stations via the whole of Kent at the price of the logical SE London journey (and I'm not talking about a weird direct train here either). But where there is a problem is when unquestionably reasonable routes are removed. Sometimes this happens accidentally and is reversed once it is found, other times it appears to be an attempt by individual TOCs to stop people getting round their extortionate fares (Newark to St Pancras anyone?).

Another benefit to passengers with a variety of routes for long distance journeys is the ability to avoid disruption (and particularly RRBs) when engineering work takes place. If the ECML is closed between Peterborough and Stevenage there may be some who would be grateful for alternative options to St Pancras or Liverpool Street.

 

[sheff1]

For example, rather than certain groups always getting 1/3rd off, everyone would have the chance to get some money off but the discount would be higher for less busy trains and lower for more busy ones.

Ah, I get you now and I can see the logic. Not sure, though, why that would need a digital solution per se.

 

[MikeWh]

Do you have any examples of this?

A good example was the case, well covered on here, of a ticket from one London suburban station to another allowing travel via Scotland (I think Inverenss, at the very least via Glasgow and Edinburgh).

I think that was a buggy WebTis update rather than a routeing guide problem.

My example of SE London to SE London via the whole of Kent is a good one. I can't remember the exact stations, something like Bromley South and Orpington, but travel was allowed via Ramsgate definitely and possibly Dover too.

Another favourite involved two close North London stations via somewhere ridiculously far out (possibly Cambridge area).

 

[Starmill]

There have been a significant number of cases like this:

A good example was the case, well covered on here, of a ticket from one London suburban station to another allowing travel via Scotland (I think Inverenss, at the very least via Glasgow and Edinburgh).

They have been traced back to software errors or easements which were encoded in such a way that meant that the routes were permitted.

They were not as a result of the routing guide maps.