I don't think that hugely matters, as except to those of us with a specific interest in fares structures, Advances are purchased like easyJet fares - you do your search and find a train priced at an acceptable price, there is no need to actually understand the fares structure. easyJet still has fares buckets like other airlines do, they're just hidden because all of them have the same T&C.
As far as Advance tickets are concerned, this is very much the case now. No-one complains that air fares are "too complicated" and so I don't see a big need to reform rail fares unless there were no disbenefits to doing so.
Walk-up fares are quite different (and more difficult) because it is necessary for the users of them to understand their validity in order to get the most from them.
I agree that the area where people may be concerned about not "understanding" fares only really applies to walk-up semi-flexible (ie. Off Peak) fares, however any attempt to make these easier to understand will increase "splitting" opportunities.
The idea that a simpler structure can go hand in hand with avoiding the need to "split" is flawed.
The point I have repeatedly made is that these are Government contracts; where government has not regulated fares it is not because they have decided to let the TOC 'get away' with higher fare increases, it is because they have deliberately chosen to encourage fares to be priced up to reduce the subsidy or increase the premium paid.
I agree that it's DfT policy that has led to companies like TPE and XC increasing their fares at a higher rate than other TOCs, and that has in turn led to "anomalies" and a need to "split".
But those companies did take the decisions to actually cause the fares to change in a way that has caused the current structure to come under the spotlight. Where I have concerns is if those companies are unhappy about people "splitting" and then try to place the blame on BR, the truth does need to be exposed. If those companies wish in turn to blame the DfT for forcing them to set prices that have caused the issues, they are welcome to release press releases doing so
I am not arguing with anything you say about what has happened; the point is that these are all ultimately the consequences of government decisions.
True.
That includes turning a blind eye to the rise of split ticketing until it cannot be ignored.
I don't see why it can't be ignored. What else can they do? They are not going to admit they were wrong to require the likes of XC, TPE etc to raise their fares to get to this point.
For what it's worth, the answer certainly does not lie in simply relaxing the existing regulations - it is much more about fundamentally rethinking what 'we' (society/government) is trying to achieve with rail fares and ensuring that the fares system and associated regulation is structured to deliver it. The Williams review is pretty critical to this process too.
That all sounds well and good but there is no way a fares system can be re-structured in a manner that is both "revenue neutral" and acceptable to passengers. I'm warning that we are not going to allow changes to take place if it results in any fares rising, and the DfT therefore need to accept that if subsidy isn't going to increase (and I accept it isn't) they need to do nothing and not increase our fares.
There's a lot of TOC and RDG-bashing in this thread.
Do people not realise that the DfT stands behind all these high fares and onerous restrictions (while not directly setting many of them)?
Yes I do realise this. But there are quotes in various media outlets where RDG or TOC spokespeople appear to be 'blaming' BR and I need to respond to that as these claims are untrue and misleading.
Each franchise demands certain premiums to the DfT, and the ratchet works so that extra revenue benefits the DfT as much as the TOC.
True.
The fares may be too high, but the object from the DfT's point of view is to achieve or beat the premium targets in order to fund investment in future services.
It's how the franchise money-go-round works.
How do people think all the new trains on order are afforded?
I am not prepared for fare rises to pay for trains that are less comfortable than the ones they replaced, but this is really for a different topic.
If XC is one of the worst for price hikes and time restrictions, it's because pricing people off their trains is a deliberate policy, as a decade ago there was no scope to increase the capacity and a big deficit to eliminate (which I think Arriva has done).
This is true, but the idea that Reading to Manchester passengers using the 0915 train have to pay nearly £200 is a flawed methodology, and is easily circumvented by splitting. Yes the DfT's actions encouraged Arriva XC to raise their fares and to add restrictions to fares that were unrestricted under BR and Virgin XC but no-one made XC implement these specific changes and it was entirely foreseeable what would happen as a result.
From a purely fares and fairness angle, and the curse of split-ticketing, I can understand the anger at the customer level.
I do not see how it is a 'curse' but I would argue that there should be more availability of split ticketing and the TOCs should embrace it rather than resist it.
But it's only the result of several commercial and capacity-management policies set by the DfT in franchise agreements, and implemented by the TOCs.
Similar policies give us ultra-cheap fares where there is spare capacity, typically on well-equipped long-distance services.
Yield management isn't going to go away. The idea that we should have a new structure where it is both simple (with fewer fares available) and not cheaper to split, and based on 'fairness' rather than yield management is absurd and completely at odds with reality. We could have one of these things, but not all of them at the same time.
e.g. some people want all off peak fares to have the same restriction eg. "valid after 0900" or "valid after 0930"; if we had that then all longer distance journeys commencing before that time would need to be "split" at the first station called at after that time.
Some people want splitting to be made redundant, but this would require more complexity and would be impossible to completely achieve.
