Railcards, Rovers & Rangers: Should they be means tested?

[Qwerty133]

The reduced cost of essential rail travel in the SE helps people pay for that other essential; a roof over their head.

If you can't afford to live in the most expensive part of the country it is not the railways job to allow that to happen. Rent prices in the south east are too high but it is not an issue unique to the southeast and whether you would like to believe it or not on average wages are much higher.

 

[cactustwirly]

Yes possibly an extreme example (because wow that Anytime is expensive) it must be said!

It's not exclusive to Peterborough, most anytime travelcards from the South East are eye wateringly expensive! Reading for example is £50 for 35 miles.

This is the most idiotic thread I've seen for a while. It's just going to drive people off the railways and into their cars.
Anyway, how many people actually buy rovers, rangers etc. Most of the staff in the Thames Valley haven't actually heard of any of the rangers available.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Well if you don’t have discounted tickets then people won’t find it good value to ride on trains, and they won’t.

I fit into your demographic and there’s no way I’d pay for about forty or fifty First Anytime tickets instead of under £750 for a 14 day ALR. Have you any idea how expensive Rover-style travel is if you substitute an example itinerary with single and return fares?

If the ALR was abolished I simply wouldn’t travel, and that’s £750 less for the railways.

I don't have any experience of ALR's as that isn't my idea of spending two weeks of my annual leave entitlement but each to their own of course.

 

[Starmill]

It's not exclusive to Peterborough, most anytime travelcards from the South East are eye wateringly expensive! Reading for example is £50 for 35 miles.

The Peterborough travelcard is rather more expensive per mile than the Reading one. Even a Folkestone travelcard valid on HS1 is better value for the relative distance by rail than the Peterborough one (comparing Anytime Day Travelcards), and HS1 has the reputation for being expensive.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If you can't afford to live in the most expensive part of the country it is not the railways job to allow that to happen.

However the railway can help nurses etc to get to work by offering cheap rail travel which at least helps with one significant outgoing.

 

[RichmondCommu]

This is the most idiotic thread I've seen for a while. It's just going to drive people off the railways and into their cars.
.

So why are you contributing?

 

[theblackwatch]

For those that are employed you can only make a certain number of journeys before you start running out of free time. In which case they shouldn't be a priority. Instead money should be spent on reducing season tickets.

Not if you buy your season for a week when you're on leave. Your scheme is laughable and ain't going to happen!

 

[yorksrob]

However the railway can help nurses etc to get to work by offering cheap rail travel which at least helps with one significant outgoing.

Which has nothing to do with the commercial imperative to attract off-peak leisure travel.

 

[Starmill]

However the railway can help nurses etc to get to work by offering cheap rail travel which at least helps with one significant outgoing.

An increase in the Higher Rate of Income Tax (and the Advanced Rate too, while we are at it) would help those nurses too if the money raised were spent on subsidising rail travel. Do you support that policy?

 

[RichmondCommu]

An increase in the Higher Rate of Income Tax (and the Advanced Rate too, while we are at it) would help those nurses too if the money raised were spent on subsidising rail travel. Do you support that policy?

Yes because I can afford to pay more income tax.

 

[Starmill]

You would actually support an increase in income tax to pay more money to the railways? That is definitely worth writing to MPs about.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Which has nothing to do with the commercial imperative to attract off-peak leisure travel.

I travel by train to watch Derby County play without the use of a railcard and I'm far from alone in doing that.

 

[Smidster]

While you are at it why not means test season tickets? Surely people can afford to pay the daily fare. Or let's have real price discrimination at the ticket office + take a copy of your bank statement to the counter and they come up with a price (although some may say we have that already on some routes)

I stand to benefit from the news today and can safely say that the TOCs will end up with more revenue from me than otherwise. I am lucky enough to earn a decent salary but after losing my railcard due to age the train stopped being my default for leisure travel - it can be a very expensive way to travel in the UK and for most journeys there are alternatives.

In any universal scheme there will always be the people who don't "need it" but for me I this case the benefits far outweigh the costs.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You would actually support an increase in income tax to pay more money to the railways? That is definitely worth writing to MPs about.

Yes and I'm not alone in wanting to spend more money on rail infrastructure.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Not if you buy your season for a week when you're on leave. Your scheme is laughable and ain't going to happen!

I've not suggested that the scheme would happen. It was just an idea like many other threads on your forum.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't have any experience of ALR's as that isn't my idea of spending two weeks of my annual leave entitlement but each to their own of course.

Precisely, you have no idea how much it would cost to complete many Rover style itineraries and therefore you don’t actually know how impractical it would be. If Rovers go then discretionary travel goes and the railways get less income, not more.

 

[yorksrob]

I travel by train to watch Derby County play without the use of a railcard and I'm far from alone in doing that.

I travel by train to Wigan to watch rugby without the use of a railcard, as do many others. That doesn't alter the fact that many people will be encouraged to travel more at off peak times with a discounted railcard.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If Rovers go then discretionary travel goes and the railways get less income, not more.

Unless of course you reduce the price of other products which benefit a greater percentage of the population.

 

[Llanigraham]

However the railway can help nurses etc to get to work by offering cheap rail travel which at least helps with one significant outgoing.

I travel by train to watch Derby County play without the use of a railcard and I'm far from alone in doing that.

And again, both totally irrelevent to this discussion.

 

[AlterEgo]

Unless of course you reduce the price of other products which benefit a greater percentage of the population.

How much do you think each Rover is “subsidised” (clue: it’s a round number) and how many are sold each year, compared to Anytimes or seasons for example?

 

[NSEFAN]

Unless of course you reduce the price of other products which benefit a greater percentage of the population.

I don't think you can equate the two situations.

In the peak, trains in London & Southeast are already full and standing. Most people travelling during this time have to because driving is impractical (too costly, too slow or bad parking). Reducing season ticket prices (even if revenue neutral) will only make overcrowding worse. Given there's no extra revenue, it's very hard to justify the expense of longer/more frequent trains (i.e. more rolling stock to hire or infrastructure to build).

On the other hand, off-peak rover fares encourage people to travel when trains have space that would otherwise be unfilled. Someone using a rover does not have to travel by train, as they are not under the same pressure to buy that ticket, so could instead spend their money on some other leisure activity if they felt the train is too expensive (and hence the railway ends up with less revenue). The same applies to Network Railcard fares, only valid after the morning peak. It's also why the quieter trains have more cheap advance fares.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And again, both totally irrelevent to this discussion.

Why is it?

 

[RichmondCommu]

How much do you think each Rover is “subsidised” (clue: it’s a round number) and how many are sold each year, compared to Anytimes or seasons for example?

In all fairness I've never suggested that any Rovers are subsidised. I'm not against Rovers or Railcards I just think they should be offered to a specific demographic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why should someone benefit from a highly discounted ticket when they can afford to buy an off peak ticket?

Because it creates marginal journeys on often quiet services for people doing things like the North Wales loop and such. They are not mainstream tickets. They are very much to encourage travel for travel's sake on quiet rural networks at quiet times. They are almost certainly revenue positive and do not generally cause overcrowding.

From memory I seem to remember you complaining that London Midland off peak tickets to London were too cheap. In which case what's the difference with my suggestion that Rovers are means tested?0

Advances primarily. But the reason for this is specifically the Trent Valley overcrowding. When this goes 8-car they could happily be reinstated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In all fairness I've never suggested that any Rovers are subsidised. I'm not against Rovers or Railcards I just think they should be offered to a specific demographic.

They sort of are, being mainly known about by enthusiasts who use them to make journeys for the sake of journeys and probably wouldn't otherwise.

When the ALR became well known about and started being used as a cheap long distance season ticket (thanks to Mr Portillo), it was soon restricted to prevent that.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why should someone benefit from a highly discounted ticket when they can afford to buy an off peak ticket?

So using that same logic, why should someone benefit from a highly discounted off peak ticket when they can afford to buy an anytime ticket?

If you means test you can then help other rail users who are in more need of financial assistance.

Except means testing actually costs money to implement, so it is very likely you would not "save" any money that could then be spent on other passengers.

 

[brompton rail]

So who would operate the Means Testing?

No one outside of Government Officials is empowered to demand that you complete a ‘form’ detailing your income, and compelled you to back that up with evidence. Such a database would need to be proven to be secure and huge penalties imposed for the inevitable breaches.

Any rail clerk obliged to say to a customer ( please note!) “ you want a day return Doncaster to York with a Railcard Disount? How much do you earn, please? Ah, sorry that is too much for you to get a discount..... who says? Well the jolly members of Rail UK Forums!”

I look forward to being next in the queue - bring sandwiches

 

[cuccir]

In all fairness I've never suggested that any Rovers are subsidised. I'm not against Rovers or Railcards I just think they should be offered to a specific demographic.

But the only possible rationale behind any sort of means testing is if something is getting a government subsidy. Otherwise, as so many people are pointing out, you're saying that a commercial product should be sold based on people's financial records, which is impractical (cost of bureaucracy, time taken to do it) and pointless (if the product goes or sales fall, money is lost by the TOCs).

The only way that means-testing could conceivably work for railcards is if it were done alongside some other process or eg alongside means-testing of pensions, or as part of the tax/national insurance process etc. But this would still add cost and bureaucracy.

I agree with those that a much more rational approach is to extend measures such as the pre-09:00 minimum fare for the 16-25 Railcard to ensure that they're being predominantly used on leisure travel.

 

[AlterEgo]

In all fairness I've never suggested that any Rovers are subsidised. I'm not against Rovers or Railcards I just think they should be offered to a specific demographic.

You made the point that train companies are subsidised. They are. But Rovers are not, they’re revenue positive and encourage marginal travel. As literally every other poster has explained, means testing a Rover isn’t just bonkers in practice (which you seem to accept already), it’s just a mad idea all round. You’d be basically removing the opportunity for people to travel on them, and the people affected won’t do the same itinerary using walk up tickets. Result: less money for the railways.

There’s already a (sort of) means tested railcard already out there - the JobCentre Plus Railcard: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...rt/support-to-help-with-the-cost-of-transport

4. Support for the unemployed
Jobcentre Plus Travel Discount Card
This is provided to those unemployed claiming Jobseekers Allowance or Universal Credit for 3-9 months (18-24 year olds) or 3-12 months (over 25s). Other benefit recipients may receive a Jobcentre Plus Travel Discount Card from 3 months of their claim and if they are actively engaged with a Jobcentre Plus adviser. Cardholders are entitled to a 50% discount on selected rail tickets.

 

[robbeech]

Aren't those people who are "in a position to be able to afford more money for their rail travel" already contributing more money in tax as it is?
Quite frankly i think the idea is rather daft at best, but that is just my opinion. I have benefitted financially from rover tickets on multiple occasions and if i had had to purchase the equivalent point to point tickets, even including some clever ticketing to minimise costs it would be far more expensive and i simply wouldn't do it, as seems to be the opinion of most other here.
Bread, what about bread, if you are paying in the higher tax bracket (so already paying more) you have to pay more for bread. Petrol? Beer? Unit cost on your home gas and electricity? If you have more than 3 bedrooms you have to pay an extra 10% on your gas?

Are the people who would benefit from means tested rovers not the ones that wouldn't have time to use them as they'd be busy working to earn a crust? Or, alternatively are they the people that don't have a job because its financially beneficial for them not to bother so they actually have more time on their hands to use this new discounted rail ticket that they qualify for.