Rail operators call for leisure fares (especially day returns) to increase

[anme]

Because it's not practicable, with the current setup, to change the price of the Anytime Single several times a week, in the same way that Advance fares can be changed in price.

I must admit that I can't follow your argument. Are you in favour of dynamic short term pricing? Maybe it would be easier if you explain how you think this should all work.

 

[Starmill]

FWIW I was needing to do some peak journeys from MK to Brum a few months ago, and went LNR Only because I would be embarrassed about the profligacy of claiming the outrageous Any Permitted Anytime fare

The Anytime Return at £42? How much money does your employer want you to save? If you are content to use trains which call at Rugby so all WMT plus the 0623 from Milton Keynes C, then split SDRs at Rugby comes to £28.50.

 

[anme]

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.

That was exactly my point!

I made it so many times and I'm glad someone got it. It doesn't need a new thread because it's really very simple.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

If they implement the full proposals, that's exactly what they will do. Because what they are proposing is bus style ticketing - i.e. you pay per vehicle journey. That way there needs to be no Routeing Guide, as the fare for any route you like is just the sum of the fares for each vehicle journey you are taking.

I think quite a few people here have read what they'd like to see from it (e.g. single fare pricing, i.e single = return / 2, more granularity e.g. Super Off Peaks), but haven't read what it actually says if you read it carefully - single leg pricing means literally that - a complete end to through pricing, with a through ticket simply being a sum of its parts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Anytime Return at £42? How much money does your employer want you to save? If you are content to use trains which call at Rugby so all WMT plus the 0623 from Milton Keynes C, then split SDRs at Rugby comes to £28.50.

The outrageous Any Permitted MKC-Brum Anytime Return is £95. You're looking at the rather more reasonably priced LNR Only one which I did use (£42). I will however bear the split you just suggested in mind for future use!

The timings on LNR aren't that bad if you're actually going from Bletchley, anyway. You lose a bit of time with the connection.

 

[etr221]

I very much had the impression that, except for Anytime (Day) Singles, it would be the latter. As someone else upthread said, that would absolve them of all the work of actually setting fares, because the computer would do it based on a formula.

That doesn't necessarily mean that buying just before travel would be particularly expensive - if the flight is quiet, easyJet fares even 2 hours before departure can be quite reasonable (the days of everything being £299 on the day of departure have long gone, even on Ryanair). But I would be surprised if the fares on a Friday evening and Sunday afternoon on VTWC were not reaching top whack. Which for me would mean a lot more driving for weekends away.

You may be right: but I wonder how that might work for short notice local type journeys from unmanned stations...

 

[yorkie]

If they implement the full proposals, that's exactly what they will do. Because what they are proposing is bus style ticketing - i.e. you pay per vehicle journey. That way there needs to be no Routeing Guide, as the fare for any route you like is just the sum of the fares for each vehicle journey you are taking.

So if you get a flexible fare from Penzance to Glasgow, the price and route you can take has to be based on something. Even if you print a long list of compulsory via points on the ticket (good luck with that!), the list may still be open to interpretation (e.g. York to Sheffield has a plethora of possible routes).

I also fail to see how it's any "simpler" when purchasing such a ticket to have to specify exactly which route you're taking. By the time you've done that, your intended train may have already left the station! 'Any permitted route' works and is actually simpler in practice than trying to be prescriptive!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You may be right: but I wonder how that might work for short notice local type journeys from unmanned stations...

I would not be surprised to see a move to on-board sales being only of Anytime (Day) Singles, with all discounted sales having to be either by way of PAYG (smartcard/contactless) or purchased in advance using your own equipment i.e. mobile etc.

This would not be a good thing but I suspect it is what they are thinking, as the effect of it would be potentially significantly reduced "trying it on" and being able to say "no TVMs needed, nobody uses them" - a big cost saving for a TOC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if you get a flexible fare from Penzance to Glasgow, the price and route you can take has to be based on something. Even if you print a long list of compulsory via points on the ticket (good luck with that!), the list may still be open to interpretation (e.g. York to Sheffield has a plethora of possible routes).

I also fail to see how it's any "simpler" when purchasing such a ticket to have to specify exactly which route you're taking. By the time you've done that, your intended train may have already left the station! 'Any permitted route' works and is actually simpler in practice than trying to be prescriptive!

OK, I suppose they might still need it in some form for the Anytime tickets (though I suppose they could be kilometric and therefore prescriptive). But if they implement the proposals as per the document, that will be the vast minority of journeys.

I can also see advantages for the TOC. If ticket sales ceased 5 minutes before each train departed to ensure you could always catch it if you bought a train specific ticket, that's far fewer last minute runners.

 

[Starmill]

though I suppose they could be kilometric and therefore prescriptive

... how? Unless the fare is only charged when leaving the train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

... how? Unless the fare is only charged when leaving the train?

Prescriptive routeing, i.e the ticket would have the precise route marked upon it, and if you took a different route that's a new ticket. It would be flexible by time only.

 

[yorkie]

Prescriptive routeing, i.e the ticket would have the precise route marked upon it, and if you took a different route that's a new ticket. It would be flexible by time only.

And how can you be "precise" all the way from Penzance to Glasgow?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how can you be "precise" all the way from Penzance to Glasgow?

It'd take about 10 via points, I reckon.

 

[Paul Kelly]

You really believe Virgin Trains would have chosen not to introduce the 2V restriction, just because they are nicer people than XC?

If they had retained the CrossCountry franchise I don't believe the fare-setting policies (particularly for Off-Peak fares) would have diverged as widely as they have. And as I noted in my previous post we don't really need to hypothesise, as we have the evidence of many cross-country-type journeys priced by Virgin still having an unrestricted SVR fare. But in reality I think it's quite likely that if they had proposed doing something like Arriva have done (i.e. lots of stealth fare increases by adding time restrictions to previously unrestricted fares) then they might not have lost the CrossCountry franchise to Arriva!

 

[JB_B]

Prescriptive routeing, i.e the ticket would have the precise route marked upon it, and if you took a different route that's a new ticket. It would be flexible by time only.

Wow ! That sounds like a rather drastic downside to me. So, even for dense parts of the network, you'd permit no deviation from a single predetermined route - have you really thought it through?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow ! That sounds like a rather drastic downside to me. So, even for dense parts of the network, you'd permit no deviation from a single predetermined route - have you really thought it through?

I'm not talking about what I would do (no, of course I wouldn't do that, and this thread isn't in Speculative Ideas anyway) - I'm talking about what I think ATOC are likely to be proposing when you read the document in detail and look for gotchas.

The theme of the document is that TOCs all get to set their own fares. For that to work it would need that kind of thing.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not talking about what I would do (no, of course I wouldn't do that, and this thread isn't in Speculative Ideas anyway) - I'm talking about what I think ATOC are likely to be proposing when you read the document in detail and look for gotchas.

The theme of the document is that TOCs all get to set their own fares. For that to work it would need that kind of thing.

Well if they are, it's unworkable.

Also I can't see how Leeds to York would work if the only walk up fares were Anytime Singles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well if they are, it's unworkable.

Also I can't see how Leeds to York would work if the only walk up fares were Anytime Singles.

Advance Purchase on Departure. Seriously, have a read of the document and see what it is actually proposing.

 

[adrock1976]

From a commercial point of view, that's an easy decision. One ticket sold for £100 is better than three at £25.

If, as a society, we prefer to sell more tickets for less money, that's a political decision and it's up to government to fund any shortfall. If the rail operator is a private company, we might also compensate them for lost profits depending on the circumstances.

I'm not against any of this, but you need to express your preferences at the ballot box.

The electorate of Scotland have been doing that since 1979 with the following voting patterns and results, which are below:

1979 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1983 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1987 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1992 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing in the day to the Conservatives)
1997 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2001 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2005 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2010 - Mainly Labour (with the only constituency changing hands was mine of Glasgow North East from Speaker to Labour), got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition
2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (with 56 out of the 59 constituencies, with the remaining 3 being 1 each to Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in the polling methods)
2017 - Mainly SNP (reduced to 41 constituencies), got Conservatives with some support from DUP

No matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Although I do understand the reasons how Scottish nationalism has become fashionable nowadays, I do not support the SNP's version of independence. I would like to see the whole of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland is returned back to the Irish) having progressive federalism, but this topic would be better in the General Discussion section rather than here.

Mods: I was simply picking up on the last sentence regarding expressing preferences at the ballot box, which the result may not reflect the voting patterns long term across any given part of the UK. I will add a reply about fares soon.

 

[adrock1976]

Something that has come into my mind is that could the present Anytime fares be frozen and not increase, with the Off Peak (former Saver) only increasing by inflation plus the percentage rate as at present? Also, the former Saver fares only to have restrictions on journeys into London (or any other city) for the outward leg, and none for the return?

This seems to me the only possible solution at this moment in time that would benefit both business and leisure groups.

 

[Kite159]

Most businesses will have a "that's too much" limit at some price point, even if that's higher than a non-business passenger - for some Open Return fares it would be cheaper to hire a car for a couple of days;

Same applies to clients if you're adding he travel cost to their bills;

Also for some companies, if they're paying themselves a dividend rather than a salary, there isn't really a distinction between personal and "company" money.

Or some will pay out for someone to travel to London the night before & for a hotel

 

[yorkie]

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion about voting, feel free to do so, just be sure to create a new thread first, and quote one of the above posts

Advance Purchase on Departure. Seriously, have a read of the document and see what it is actually proposing.

But it's not feasible for a journey such as York to Leeds, where you have XC and TPE trains within about 3 minutes of each other, and you won't know which one you may get until you get on it. Also journeys like Wakefield to York, where you have a frequent service to/from Leeds but usually have to change trains and won't know which onward train you are actually going to get. It's not a workable proposal at all.

 

[anme]

... how? Unless the fare is only charged when leaving the train?

That is possible with a pay as you go approach. It's what happens in London when you travel with Oyster or a contactless payment card. The final fare is only calculated when you finish the journey and leave the station. If I understand these proposals correctly, the price would potentially vary from train to train, so you would need to touch in and out when leaving the train itself, presumably using a reader at the door. This is not impossible - it is done on buses in some countries.

I am aware that pay as you go doesn't work well for long distance journeys.

 

[yorkie]

That is possible with a pay as you go approach. It's what happens in London when you travel with Oyster or a contactless payment card. The final fare is only calculated when you finish the journey and leave the station. If I understand these proposals correctly, the price would potentially vary from train to train, so you would need to touch in and out when leaving the train itself, presumably using a reader at the door. This is not impossible - it is done on buses in some countries.

I am aware that pay as you go doesn't work well for long distance journeys.

This has already been ruled out of happening on longer distance journeys nationwide. We have a separate thread for PAYG proposals: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dft-consultation-on-expanding-pay-as-you-go.177831

 

[anme]

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion about voting, feel free to do so, just be sure to create a new thread first, and quote one of the above posts

But it's not feasible for a journey such as York to Leeds, where you have XC and TPE trains within about 3 minutes of each other, and you won't know which one you may get until you get on it. Also journeys like Wakefield to York, where you have a frequent service to/from Leeds but usually have to change trains and won't know which onward train you are actually going to get. It's not a workable proposal at all.

I wouldn't say it's not feasible. You have to choose between the XC and TPE trains when you buy the ticket, and then you get that train. Same with the onward connection - although if pricing is per leg there may be no advantage of buying a through ticket. I'm not saying it's a good idea and I can think of many objections, but it is possible.

Obviously, a pay as you go approach using, for example, contactless payment cards and where the passenger touches in and out of each train would make this much easier. Then you don't have to commit to anything in advance. You might argue this is not advance purchase, but pricing can still be dynamic. Information on the fares for that train would have to be frozen some time before departure and displayed somehow on the platform so passengers can decide whether to take a specific train. I am aware that pay as you go doesn't work well for longer, higher price, journeys.

Please don't assume I'm promoting these models - I'm not - but it is interesting to kick the ideas around and see where that leads.

 

[anme]

This has already been ruled out of happening on longer distance journeys nationwide. We have a separate thread for PAYG proposals: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dft-consultation-on-expanding-pay-as-you-go.177831

I am aware of that, which is why I wrote...

I am aware that pay as you go doesn't work well for long distance journeys.

...which appeared directly above your post.

Maybe I should be clearer. I'm talking about how the TOC proposals could be implemented for some journeys, in this case shorter distance journeys. We don't necessarily need a single universal solution for all possible journeys.

 

[etr221]

I am aware that pay as you go doesn't work well for long distance journeys.

If PAYG becomes a nationally available option - or at least in multiple conurbations - then it will be used for long distance journeys, and the system will have to be able to cope - and seen to be able to fairly. And with contactless there's no possibility of distinction by card.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it's not feasible for a journey such as York to Leeds, where you have XC and TPE trains within about 3 minutes of each other, and you won't know which one you may get until you get on it. Also journeys like Wakefield to York, where you have a frequent service to/from Leeds but usually have to change trains and won't know which onward train you are actually going to get. It's not a workable proposal at all.

You buy by itinerary, and you stick to what you bought. Like you would were it France or Poland.

I don't support it, I'm just explaining what ATOC/RDG are saying in that document that they appear to want. Read the case studies as well as the text. It's quite apparent what they mean in my view.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry to pester but just a reminder the PAYG thread is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dft-consultation-on-expanding-pay-as-you-go.177831

I wouldn't say it's not feasible. You have to choose between the XC and TPE trains when you buy the ticket, and then you get that train....

But then it is incompatible with the entire premise that this makes things "simpler" and is what customers wanted. It would be the complete polar opposite of that!

It's a case of the tail wagging the dog. It's a ridiculous concept and the public won't stand for it. The negative press this would generate would be huge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then it is incompatible with the entire premise that this makes things "simpler" and is what customers wanted. It would be the complete polar opposite of that!

I'm sorry, I most strongly disagree. There is absolutely nothing complicated about "here's the price for that train", and "your ticket is valid on the train services printed on it". It is the simplest possible scenario. Nobody has any difficulty with understanding that for flights.

Making things simpler necessarily makes them less flexible - and this is certainly not flexible, but it absolutely is simple. It's also how every other mode of transport works other than taxis and local bus.