Open Access to Fares

[CompactDstrxion]

It can't possibly happen. So Boundary Zone tickets are going to be abolished too, considering they are only useful as part of a ticket split? Yeah, right.

 

[Mojo]

It is known that Atoc have recently provided the DfT with a paper on the impact of split ticketing on railway revenues. I also know from speaking with a former colleague who is on secondment to the DfT that this is one of the issues which they have been investigating as part of the upcoming fares and ticketing review.

I note from 'WhatDoTheyKnow' that a recent FOI request has been sent off requesting this Atoc document. If anyone is concerned/interested then perhaps they could request further details relating to the fares and ticketing review process and work undertaken so far.

 

[LexyBoy]

Never say never... There are plenty of dubious or hard to enforce rules at the moment. I'm sure Smartcards would make such a change easier too (technically at least).

 

[Mike@Raileasy]

It is known that Atoc have recently provided the DfT with a paper on the impact of split ticketing on railway revenues. I also know from speaking with a former colleague who is on secondment to the DfT that this is one of the issues which they have been investigating as part of the upcoming fares and ticketing review.

I note from 'WhatDoTheyKnow' that a recent FOI request has been sent off requesting this Atoc document. If anyone is concerned/interested then perhaps they could request further details relating to the fares and ticketing review process and work undertaken so far.

That's a good idea, I'd like to see that doc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's the mail address if anyone is interested [email protected]

 

[mattdickinson]

I am struggling to think how split-ticketing can be effectively banned. Is the government saying that if I step off the train and finish my journey, and then reboards the same train again with another valid ticket, I will risk prosecution? Unplausible at the least I have to say.

As I understand it, the proposal is that any ticket would have to be passed through a validator at its origin station to be valid.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Ah yes I saw that mentioned somewhere on here before (maybe the person who suggested it will even chime in now). But that would rely on all tickets being a standard format. I can't see how that will work for print-at-home tickets, or tickets sold by overseas travel agencies on non-standard formats, or indeed for tickets held on mobile phones e.g. the new apps that Chiltern and CrossCountry are using.

 

[island]

I am struggling to think how split-ticketing can be effectively banned. Is the government saying that if I step off the train and finish my journey, and then reboards the same train again with another valid ticket, I will risk prosecution? Unplausible at the least I have to say.

It's already the case in Ireland, and hasn't proven controversial.

 

[bnm]

As I understand it, the proposal is that any ticket would have to be passed through a validator at its origin station to be valid.

Great! Cue scenes of chaos at Didcot Parkway as passengers try and frantically dash off the train to a ticket validator and dash back. And the cost of implementing a ticket validator system? Hardware at stations, new or re-programmed TIS for on train staff, new ticket stock..... Just as bonkers an idea as requiring people to step off and on or pass through a gateline.

In my opinion the only way to stop split ticketing is to overhaul the fares so that splitting no longer represents a saving. Any such overhaul should remain revenue neutral however, particularly for the passenger. TOCs should not be permitted to increase particular fares beyond the same percentage as that for regulated fares.

To implement this the through fare would either have to be frozen over a period of time or increased by a lesser percentage than the split fares, until the split fares 'catch up' in price with the through fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's already the case in Ireland, and hasn't proven controversial.

A much much smaller network with far fewer ticket types and relatively few places to split tickets on through trains.

 

[RJ]

It is known that Atoc have recently provided the DfT with a paper on the impact of split ticketing on railway revenues. I also know from speaking with a former colleague who is on secondment to the DfT that this is one of the issues which they have been investigating as part of the upcoming fares and ticketing review.

I note from 'WhatDoTheyKnow' that a recent FOI request has been sent off requesting this Atoc document. If anyone is concerned/interested then perhaps they could request further details relating to the fares and ticketing review process and work undertaken so far.

Oh, there's no doubt about that. Following incidents I've had on trains where I've used split tickets permitted by the CoC, I've taken the complaints up high where I've been told that the CoC is to be reworded to restrict the effectiveness of the rule. No water off my back as there are other ways to travel for more or less the same price!

 

[Greenback]

I cna see why ATOC members ar econcerned about split ticketing. It reduces their ability to fleece their customers with extortionate fares.

I can also see why a ticket validator would be an appealing idea.

However, for this to work surely every (or almost every) station in the country would need to be fitted with one? I think that the enormous cost of doing this, along with the negative publicity that such a move would bring, merely consigns the proposal to the dustbin called 'wishful thinking'.

It be far better, as DaveNewcastle suggests, to aspire to develop a system that does not encourage split ticketing as much as the current one.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I've been told that the CoC is to be reworded to restrict the effectiveness of the rule.

So they are pre-empting the outcome of the DfT's red tape consultation then? Or is the consultation just a sham and ATOC are getting their own way without question as they do with not following procedures on changes to the routeing guide?

 

[Greenback]

So they are pre-empting the outcome of the DfT's red tape consultation then? Or is the consultation just a sham and ATOC are getting their own way without question as they do with not following procedures on changes to the routeing guide?

I fear that is a far more likely possibility than the introduction of validating machines everywhere. And a more worrying one too.

 

[RJ]

So they are pre-empting the outcome of the DfT's red tape consultation then? Or is the consultation just a sham and ATOC are getting their own way without question as they do with not following procedures on changes to the routeing guide?

I think the intention of the rule in question had been established previously, but the current wording can be interpreted in such a way allows unintended use of the rule. So someone with a Zone 1-2 Travelcard may split to their heart's content on long distance express services to/from London. That certainly wasn't the intention of the rule but it's valid because of the way it is worded at present.

 

[Greenback]

I think the intention of the rule in question had been established previously, but the current wording can be interpreted in such a way allows unintended use of the rule. So someone with a Zone 1-2 Travelcard may split to their heart's content on long distance express services to/from London. That certainly wasn't the intention of the rule but it's valid because of the way it is worded at present.

I agree that was not the itnention of the rule, and if the wording is tightened up in some way I for one would not raise a very loud objection.

 

[RJ]

I wouldn't either - but so long as the wording is there, the staff have to abide by it. I've used it before and had a guard threaten to report me for intentional fare evasion if he sees me doing it again. Until the rules are changed, he's just wasting time, effort and resources of his employers who then have to waste time dealing with me objecting to any sanctions enforced!

 

[island]

I think the intention of the rule in question had been established previously, but the current wording can be interpreted in such a way allows unintended use of the rule. So someone with a Zone 1-2 Travelcard may split to their heart's content on long distance express services to/from London. That certainly wasn't the intention of the rule but it's valid because of the way it is worded at present.

Yes, I could not see any reasonable argument about that particular one being tightened up. I'm not sure how it might be worded, but something like "if your tickets are not zonal tickets, the train you are on must call at the point, if any, where you change from one season ticket to another season ticket and the point, if any, where you change from one non-season ticket to another non-season ticket".

Requiring tickets to be validated at the origin station is not viable due to the number of non-gated stations, for a start. It would also massively increase dwell time at Didcot Parkway

 

[MadProf]

I thought the contributors to this topic might like to know that ATOC admitted to having costed the impact of fare splitting at the DfT Transparency Board in November (which I am on). I then FOI'ed the info as they would not table it at the Board (whose minutes are open), and they are now stalling on the release on the grounds that it might come under an exemption. They have to decide and come back to me by 27th January...

See the correspondence at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/atoc_written_advice_to_dft_on_im

You can find out more about the campaigning I have done on open rail data on our blog
http://www.placr.co.uk/blog
and some presentations are at
http://www.slideshare.net/madprof

Any help with information that leverage out more on this topic would be appreciated. We would like to have all of the policies and protocols on fares in the public domain!

Jonathan
@Madprof

 

[RJ]

Most interesting

 

[Mike@Raileasy]

I thought the contributors to this topic might like to know that ATOC admitted to having costed the impact of fare splitting at the DfT Transparency Board in November (which I am on). I then FOI'ed the info as they would not table it at the Board (whose minutes are open), and they are now stalling on the release on the grounds that it might come under an exemption. They have to decide and come back to me by 27th January...

See the correspondence at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/atoc_written_advice_to_dft_on_im

You can find out more about the campaigning I have done on open rail data on our blog
http://www.placr.co.uk/blog
and some presentations are at
http://www.slideshare.net/madprof

Any help with information that leverage out more on this topic would be appreciated. We would like to have all of the policies and protocols on fares in the public domain!

Jonathan
@Madprof

I chased up the DfT at the beginning of this month about accessing this info under the FOI act and the DfT responded by saying it was now reviewing whether it's in the public interest to release this information.

What the point of having freedom of information if the DfT can just use this line. We're talking about train fares not defense secrets!

A rech company have used our API to produce a really quick split ticketing application for walk on fares, it will enable us to show split savings at the same time as an ordinary timetables and fares call. Just trying to work out how to make it available as quickly as possible.

 

[island]

If they decide it's not in the public interest you can appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

[Mike@Raileasy]

If they decide it's not in the public interest you can appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Thanks for this, that's very useful to know.

 

[MadProf]

I will certainly be appealing to the Information Commissioner if they do decide to invoke the Exemptions to release.

Jonathan

 

[RJ]

The right questions were asked and I suspect we already know the answers to some extent, pity about the response!

 

[bnm]

I see the DfT have now responded and indeed invoked the exemptions in sections 35 and 43 of the FoI Act.