I haven't worked with fares data, but I have worked with large data sets.
For any walkup/flexible fare defined between A and D, it's not too difficult to identify all the B-C pairs of stations it's valid between. For each of those B-C pairs, if the A-D fare under consideration is cheaper or offers greater validity than any known fare for the B-C pair, it's either a new fare for B-C (and gets added to the list of known fares for B-C) or it displaces an existing B-C fare.
Applying that to every fare which is DEFINED in the new fares structure would generate a list of fares to be OFFERED by the retailer.
The number of fares in existence is in the tens of millions; you are basically suggesting that any itinerary that is generated has to be checked for validity against this
entire list in realtime?
So a journey enquiry that may generate perhaps twenty itineraries has to have each of these checked against many millions of fares.
If you forced the rail industry to do that (even if it was practicable, which it isn't), I suspect they'd be tempted to just introduce a term that you couldn't start or finish short on any ticket!
The amount of processing could be reduced by looking for sparsity in the defined fares, replication where the same fare applies to several A-D pairs and symmetry, where fares for D-A are the same as A-D, and/or C-B the same as B-C.
It's still going to be a huge amount of processing.
I'm really unsure what "looking for sparsity in the defined fares" is supposed to mean though!
It would be a significant amount of processing and generate a lot of data. But that data would simply be a look-up table of B-C fares. More fares than exist in the DEFINED fares structure, for sure, and not something you would want to print, but a set of static data nonetheless. So the significant amount of processing would not need to be done for each fares query. It would be done once after each fares review.
For every possible itinerary? I think you mean each time the timetable data changes, ie every day!
Also every possible itinerary from every station to every other station via any station at any time is a LOT of itineraries; effectively it's an almost infinite amount.
A fares query for a given B-C ticket would simply look up the OFFERED fare(s) which match the customer's time/route preferences, and where appropriate, the DEFINED (A-D) fare from which it is derived.
Ah it's
that simple is it?
So, just to check this isn't technobabble, can you tell me what fares you would check for a journey from, say, East Croydon to Clapham Junction?
I get where you’re coming from but this type of thing happens all the time in everyday life.
Utility suppliers
Phone contracts
Holidays
Supermarket pricing
Bank accounts and mortgages
Insurance
Are all examples of where people can pay different rates for the same item or service.
Those who are prepared to do their research can be rewarded with a saving. I choose to research rail fares and benefit from this but in other areas of my life I’m not as well organised and potentially pay more than I need to for goods and services.
That’s life I’m afraid.
This is unfair. All should be simplified; customers should be told where it is cheaper to buy a product priced by another supplier that would meet the customers needs. A full comparison of all products should be made for each enquiry
Anyone can buy any fare, but they need to know which fares to buy to get the best value for the journey they want to make. How do they know?
Retailers are required to show the best value fare for the journey but without splits. Some retailers choose to offer splits. No retailer is going to recommend starting/finishing short!
Yotu run fares workshops to explain to those who want to be "in the know" how to find the better value fares. Don't you?
We cover whichever topics people wish to cover. There is nothing to stop you attending one.
I'm not familiar with the Dringhouses bus route, but I'm not suggesting that rail fares should be fixed such that they're the same regardless of the stop/station you start from to reach your destination. It's probably not a direct analogy in any case, as I'm prepared to guess that the bus tickets on that route don't allow break of journey, so it's not actually possible to buy a ticket for the fare corresponding to the end of the route but use it to board at Tesco.
They won't sell a fare from a previous stop but there is nothing to stop you finishing short.
It sounds like you are unhappy that some people being aware that it is cheaper to buy a ticket for a longer journey and using it for a shorter one, as this is perceived to be unfair.
What's less clear to me is whether that unfairness applies where people are not allowed to start short, or whether it applies where people are not allowed but can get away with it, or whether it applies where people are allowed to do it. If you can elaborate, I'd be interested to know.
If you are unhappy at people doing it when it's not allowed, then any proposal to get train companies to show such fares is not workable.
So perhaps you are only unhappy at people doing it when it is allowed, in which case the rail industry can easily 'fix' this perception of unfairness by disallowing starting/finishing short! (notwithstanding any practicalities of any such decision)
That observation actually leads quite naturally to your point about market pricing. I support market pricing, in principle, though I can't pretend the train companies are operating in an ideal market when they are not paying the full cost of the infrastructure they use to run their businesses.
I don't think that even higher fares would be "ideal"
That aside, if you want to price according to the market you have to explain how you manage a situation where the market for A-B-C-D means the A-D fare has to be fixed at a level lower than that of B-C yet the A-D fare can be used in lieu of the B-C fare. It seems to me you cannot differentiate B-C within that market and retain the break of journey rules. Unless, of course, you take great care to not make B-C customers aware of the A-D fare and how it can be used.
Simple. Passengers from places like Shotton to London are not prepared to pay as much as passengers from Crewe to London, therefore Virgin can make more money by pricing them accordingly. It's not fundamentally any different to what occurs with buses and planes.
One of the principles of operation of an ideal market is that buyers and sellers have complete knowledge of all the prices. That, in essence, is all I'm suggesting in relation to fares.
Anyone can look up any of the many millions of fares available if they wish to do so. In practice few people are prepared to do that. It would not be desirable to have a situation where everyone has in their brains knowledge of all prices in the fares database in my opinion.
The difference is that when the rail industry was privatised, part of the deal was that the private operators would have to accept inter-available tickets and wherever sold, sell them impartially. None of the other businesses you mention are obliged to sell each others products in a comparable way.
So the solution is for each leg to be individually priced and for no through ticketing to be available, resulting in fare rises for many people, but at least it means people wouldn't be able to pay less than you, so that'd be deemed a successful outcome, right?
Or have I misunderstood your point?