If you are agreeing with me that it's unworkable then great. But if you think it is workable, I'd like to hear what you think an appropriate price could be. It's one thing talking about theoretical principles that sound good on paper, but quite another when example pricing is given.
I am actually not clear what you're asking, but I'm going to assume it's about selling tickets for individual trains up to departure, including on routes where there are frequent trains and several operators. Is that workable? Well, it's not impossible. I actually suggested a way to do it - pay as you go with check in and out on the train, plus information on fares for that specific train on the platform departure board (and in smart phone apps, etc).
Is it impossible? No.
Is it workable? Well... it's certainly difficult and there are lots of ways in which it could fail badly.
Is it a good idea? No.
But that could be fixed by other means. The failure of Virgin to have sensible loadings and pricing, when LNER manage, does not mean the entire system is broken.
I have never said the entire system is broken, although I am interested in ideas, including radical ideas, to improve or replace it. But this (the 350 pounds return on a half empty train on one of Europe's busiest railways) is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. And like it or not, if a solution is to work *and* be revenue neutral, some people will have to pay more and some people will have to pay less.
Me and anyone who is with me!
I think they have had success in seeing the rate of increase kept to a minimum compared to what it may otherwise have been. See earlier discussion regarding the cost of some Seasons compared to Anytime Returns.
I will follow your progress with interest.
Most seasons ticket prices - like many off peak tickets - are regulated. Their price has still gone up faster than inflation - and earnings - in recent years, and the prices are often eye-wateringly high compared to similar journeys in other countries. For many commuters, season ticket prices are a major drag on their quality of life. This is why I have more sympathy with commuters than leisure travellers, and if we have to help one group of people over another, I prefer that we help commuters.
I don't know what you are saying then, because statements such as "please don't treat businesses as a magic money tree to fund your days out" in response to my concerns about the proposals resulting in fare rises for such journeys appears to give that impression. Perhaps you can make your view clearer.
I am not asking for the fares to be perpetually "frozen" but to only increase in line with inflation. If you disagree with me, that is your right, but at least make it clear what your views are. You appear to be disagreeing with me then instantly denying it!
You wrote in post 158 "
They want to rob Peter (a leisure customer on a tight budget) to pay Paul (who is on expenses). Madness!" My point has, all the way through this thread, is that I don't agree with that view, furthermore, that it's based on a false premise. Please do not repurpose my opinion to say that I'm in favour of a large set of proposals covering many different things from the RDG.
Firstly, Paul, our business traveller or commuter (please include commuters in your arguments), is already paying much more than Peter, the leisure traveller, into the railways - both in total and in many cases on a journey by journey basis too. Paul is much more important to the railways than Peter. That doesn't mean we don't want Peter to travel, but his needs are secondary and if we have to make one of them unhappy, it's going to be Peter.
Secondly, your premise is that businesses and their expenses are a magic money tree that can pay any price rise. I don't know what kind of businesses you have worked in, but in fact companies (and charities, government departments, NGOs, etc) don't have infinite resources. They are also not stupid and will find ways to travel using the cheaper fares (which is very very bad for leisure travellers because the higher fares that subsidise their travel will no longer be paid) or not use the railway at all.
What it comes down to is this - to repeat a highly simplified example I wrote in post 65:
For example, it might be that we can raise leisure fares by 10%, while only losing 5% of passengers. (The price of the leisure journey I make most often has more than doubled in the least ten years, and I still buy the ticket just as often). Let's say a fare is 10 pounds, then a train of 100 passengers brings an income of 100*10 = 1000 pounds before the price rise, and after the price rise, the train of 95 passengers paying 11 pounds brings in 95*11 = 1045 pounds. So we have 45 pounds (4.5%) extra income we can use to cut the price of peak time travel, or for other investment.
Of course, whether this works depends on the effect of the price rise on leisure passenger numbers. If a 10% price rise caused a 20% fall in passenger numbers, it wouldn't be worth it.