I'd travel a LOT more if I got 34% off tickets outside of the former NSE area. The railcard would also cost a fair bit more....
How much would your spending increase? If you are travelling more, but not spending more, the railway gains nothing, infact it might lose out (more people = more carriages or multiple units = more expense).
I personally do not believe that you are saying you would spend more money than you currently do if you had the railcard. What reason do you have for not spending that extra money now?
And even if we assume that you do spend more money, do you represent the majority of people?
....As fares go up at a higher rate in the next few years, there will be even more incentive to offer some sort of national railcard scheme so ATOC can say that fares are still affordable, while those who travel fairly infrequently will pay a lot more....
Fares will go up, but then other costs go up too. There may be a valid argument that lower fares incourage more use, but if the increased numbers of passenger use does not increase profit, then there is no point.
....I get the whole point that the industry could simply not bother, but why then do ANY railcards? Look abroad and you can see that not everyone thinks like that....
I think you have to look at the market being aimed at, a family's prefered method of transit is by car, which is almost certainly cheaper than rail without a railcard. For rail to get revenue from that market, lower fares are needed, hence the railcard.
....Also, the industry would have to be extremely arrogant to believe that everyone is forced to travel by train. It may be true for a lot of commuters (who can't get a railcard discount anyway due to the time) but there would come a point where people will either seek another method of transport (car, bike, coach/bus) or actually have to look for another job....
A smart traveller always looks for the cheapest, most convenient option, but whilst rail fares may rise, so does bus/tram fares, car insurance, MOT, road tax, petrol/diesel, maintenance and repairs, parking fees and probably more. Yes, some people will find cheaper ways, but reducing the cost to the regular lone traveller (probably the primary user of the railway) is probably not going to increase revenue for the railway.
....This new railcard is a nice idea, but it seems a lot of effort when a simple railcard for ONE person to get 1/3 off would have been so much easier. ATOC could have made it so that the railcard only gave a discount to the single card holder (not x number of adults/children with you), so if you did want to travel with your friend/partner they'd buy their own railcard too (or pay full price). A much, much easier way to do things.
Lets assume the fare for a single adult, off peak, is £9. Let us further assume that 1m people use that for their journey(s) for, say, 200 days a year. That is £1,800m in revenue. If we then allow a railcard (at £100) which gives one third off, that revenue could possibly fall to £1,300m (average fare now £6).
The railway would then need 385,000 more people to switch to regular rail travel at that average price, over that many days, with the railcard, just to break even.
So, to achieve it's potential, the railcard would have to be:
a ) Cheap enough to entice more travellers.
b ) Expensive or restricted enough to ensure as few current users buy it as possible.
ATOC is not here to make your life easier, it is here to make money for it's members
ATOC will have researched how many people travel as a pair (or atleast appear to do so), they will work out how many people they think would benefit from the railcard and how many more will be encouraged onto the railway. They obviously feel this will lead to more revenue.