Super off peak returns at present though don't really work. For example, people wait to go from Bristol TM to London at 1000. 1 hr 38, soon to be quicker. They're not going to be ready though to come back at 1500. But they'll make the 1630 so end up getting an off peak return anyway. Conversely if you go up off peak at 0830 but come back before 1500, SVS up and SSS back exceed the SVR.
To be fair, genuine single leg pricing would solve these issues. Unfortunately the proposals appear to preclude halving the cheapest return fare for each flow. So, while I am positive about the general principle of single leg pricing, I refuse to accept it done in the manner suggested.
Yes, except Germany still has through fares everywhere. The loss of true through fares is something I don't want to even contemplate. It will only lead to ever greater levels of fragmentation.
Yes. It's unclear what would happen, but if through fares for longer distance journeys are abolished, with only shorter distance fares priced, this would potentially make journeys that do not go city centre to city centre unattractive by rail. Problem is, we do not know how they are going to do this, but there is no way to achieve what they want to achieve without increasing the price people like us pay, which I refuse to accept.
The thing about through fares is that the proposal to abolish them is purely down to the RDG having an obsession with eliminating split tickets. The need for them could, of course, be eliminated by simply lowering long-distance fares. But the RDG wouldn't even consider that, would they.
Yes, they do seem to be obsessed with eliminating split tickets, as I posted recently. However some individual train companies are more than happy to recommend split tickets to passengers who enquire about making journeys involving more than one operator where only one operator is open for Advance bookings. Funny that, isn't it? I am sure RDG will blame it on the DfT being anti split ticketing too. But if the DfT are against it, that'll only be because TOCs like XC will probably be (unfairly and incorrectly) blaming split ticketing for not meeting their revenue targets.
The issue I take away from this is that the main goal of the RDG or more accurately the TOC that it represent is to reduce the amount of control the government has over some fares due to fare regulation..
Indeed. For the train companies, it's about 'taking back control'. Each company wants to be in control of the prices on its trains and they do not want to be constrained within the regulated fares; they want to go higher than that. Equally they do not want good value fares, priced by other companies, to be undercutting their fares.
The soundbites about reducing fares are just that, meant to make people who only read the headline news or brief articles think that it is a good idea.
Absolutely. It fools some people but it doesn't fool us.
To mention one key advantage of what they're proposing (among the many downsides) - the Routeing Guide goes completely as it would serve no purpose, and it would be possible, as it should be, to issue a through ticket from Penzance to Dover Priory via Wick, if you so happen to wish.
You will always need rules for routeing. If RDG wishes to create a new Routeing Guide, it will either be unworkable, no less simple, or massively reduce our rights. The idea that it can just be abolished is absurd.
On another note it doesn't necessarily eliminate splitting, because while it does break down fares by "vehicle journey" like buses do (though issuing them all on one ticket), what it doesn't do is work out that while taking a through trip from London to Manchester in the same seat on the same Pendolino, you might save a few quid by purchasing two separate tickets to cover it.
From reading the document it appears very much not to propose Super Off Peaks/Business Savers/whatever all over the place. It proposes the abolition of off-peak flexible tickets entirely.
I think some train companies would like the idea that there are no affordable flexible fares, and that everyone will need to get their phone out immediately prior to departure, try to work out which train they have enough time to catch, then purchase a ticket valid on that train only. And if you underestimate the time to purchase the ticket and get to the platform and just miss it, you have to buy another one. I do not think this is a good idea.
Having looked at the document, my instant comment is that while it makes proposals as to the features that the new system should have, it doesn't actually set out any proposal for what that system will or might look like, let alone how it will work. Bletchleyite's summary may or may not be accurate, but is more concise than the consultation document - which has a lot of lines to read between.
No decisions have been made yet; these are just suggestions that the train companies want. It's completely unworkable to get all of that stuff in a new structure and for that structure to be politically acceptable.
There are two particular underlying principles that underlie any fare system (for Britain as a whole) that don't seem to be addressed:
(1) is (or to what extent is) the railway system an integrated whole, or one formed of individual train services?
(2) should the fare system look more a 'tramway' one, where everyone pays more or less the same, based perhaps just on distance and (to a crude system) and time of day, or an 'airline' system, where everyone is likely to pay something different, based on train taken and time of booking?
The train companies want to portray the idea that everyone will be paying the same price and that the price will be affordable. But clearly that is not going to happen. They want to encourage people onto train specific tickets, so putting up the cost of walk up travel at off peak times is a big part of their plans.
So why don't they reduce the price? Or what else should they do?
The price is set at a level that the company feels gets them the most revenue, but if this particular issue is to be explored in detail it is best discussed in a new thread.
The only assertion I would make is that they probably have better information than the people on this forum..
Given that many of the top experts at RDG
are on this forum, I am not sure how that can make sense!
- myself included. Also, let's be honest, almost all posters here have vested interests, and many of the arguments are not very objective.
I am not just posting from the point of view of my own interests but from the point of view of someone who works with fares and understands what products people buy, what journeys people make, what difficulties people encounter and what their priorities are.
We should appreciate that yield management is difficult.
True, and the train companies realise it would be easier for them if they were unconstrained by the existing fares regulation which limits how high certain fares can go.
For me, all these arguments criticising train operating companies for maximising short term profits are aimed at the wrong target. Of course franchised operators maximise short term profit. To be more precise, they maximise profit over the term of the franchise, which I believe is usually seven years. Long term thinking is thus actively discouraged.
If we don't like this, we need to change the system. Complaining that TOC revenue management is bad is like moaning about the scratch marks on the Titanic.
I do
not think we should change the system
unless there are certain guarantees in place that ensure good value fares continue to exist.
No such guarantees are forthcoming, and worse than that, it's effectively guaranteed that the best value fares would not continue to exist under the proposals.
The solution is not to increase good value fares! If that's their only solution, then we are better off sticking with the current system.
