Luton Airport Parkway - Ashford International (again)

[Edvid]

Now that a few off-peak high-speed services to/from AFK are in motion, I have another query. Also note that all prices include 16-25 Railcard discounts.

According to Southeastern [WebTIS], a CDR from London Terminals to AFK costs either £13.75 NOT VALID ON HS1 or £16.45 PLUS HIGH SPEED. From WHP, there is just the NOT VALID ON HS1 routeing (presumably with †) at a price of £15.25.

From LTN however, there is only the ANY PERMITTED † routeing at a price of £15.20 which according to WebTIS is good for the HS1 services too despite what looks like a fares check failure (that said it appears to be the shortest route). Is that correct?

 

[dan_atki]

From LTN however, there is only the ANY PERMITTED † routeing at a price of £15.20

At a risk of driving this thread off topic madly before it's started...

If Avantix is to be believed there is both a +Not Valid on HS1 (set by FCC) and a +Any Permitted (set by SET).

All is fine you'd think until you realise that the same fare types are available for each. Not so bad. All fares are the same for each as are restrictions... Considering these are set by different companies how is that possible without them discussing fares with each other?

Before HS1 started along with NFM03, the fare was +Any Permitted (set by FCC) - which makes sense. The routeing would change to disallow HS1 but that doesn't answer the question as to why ALL of the fares are the same. There's coincidence and then there's 'coincidence'. Rather suspicious I think.

Back on topic, to answer your question we have this age old problem with the fares check here (confirming my suspicions that there's foul play with the new SET fares north of WHP* - whether that's down to ATOC or SET we will probably never know). The shortest route or a direct train would be fine - and I'm fairly certain HS1 is the shortest route.

* Why would the same company set a fare 10p cheaper (base CDR) to a location significantly further up the line? That makes no sense at all.

 

[glynn80]

If Avantix is to be believed there is both a +Not Valid on HS1 (set by FCC) and a +Any Permitted (set by SET).

All is fine you'd think until you realise that the same fare types are available for each. Not so bad. All fares are the same for each as are restrictions... Considering these are set by different companies how is that possible without them discussing fares with each other?

Before HS1 started along with NFM03, the fare was +Any Permitted (set by FCC) - which makes sense. The routeing would change to disallow HS1 but that doesn't answer the question as to why ALL of the fares are the same. There's coincidence and then there's 'coincidence'. Rather suspicious I think.

The FRPP has exactly the same fares listed.

The only possible explanation I had for the above, was that the fares were in the transition stage of being transferred from the current lead operator (FCC) to a new lead operator (SET). Whether this is actually the situation or not I am unsure, but something about the fares for these and similar flows just doesn't seem right.

 

[dan_atki]

The FRPP has exactly the same fares listed.

Thanks for confirming!

but something about the fares for these and similar flows just doesn't seem right.

Exactly my thoughts. After posting, I came to the conclusion that one thing that could have happened was SET copied the FCC fares from NFM02 for use in NFM03. For some reason I have a niggling doubt this was actually the case - why would SET price a more 'premium' route at the same price and not higher? Why did they want the FCC fare made redundant?

I suspect these are 'temporary fares' - at least until NFM05 when they should be reviewed! Part of me also wants to say they weren't actually set by SET but by ATOC (under SET's name for some reason) as a temporary measure. It certainly doesn't make sense for SET to price a faster flow at the same price as the slower one, whatever has happened.