Should there be a standard fare based on mileage

[Journeyman]

You and I know that, and accept it, but unfortunately a lot of the general public, and plenty of rail enthusiasts, think it is some sort of big con and conspiracy to deprive people of 'fair fares'. Unfortunately this gives the UK rail industry a negative perception.

Well, I regularly travel from Edinburgh to London. If the fares were based entirely on distance, I'd abandon the train completely and start racking up BA loyalty points instead.

 

[takno]

Mileage based fares worked perfectly satisfactorily for over 100 years. Then BR changed to a "market-based" system, which led to cheaper fares for some, and "rip-off" fares for others. True, there would be winners & losers if GBR reverted to a mileage system.

Do faster trains really cost much more to operate than slow trains ?
True, the energy consumption will increase, but staffing costs should decline, because staff on fast services potentially work more trips per hour.

It took a few years after 1948 to settle down, but where there was not much difference in mileage, a common fare was adopted for journeys by different routes. For example, I think that it was the same fare from any of Manchester (Piccadilly or Central) to London Euston, St. Pancras, Marylebone, and possibly also Kings Cross via Sheffield Victoria & Retford.

Up to the 1950s/60s, the ticketing system was pretty simple. You basically had single tickets, ordinary return tickets, and season tickets.
(Plus regional rovers and holiday runabouts, often available only in summer.)
Ordinary returns cost double a single ticket.
1st Class was 1.5 times the 2nd (ex-3rd) Class fare.
Children (under 14) travelled at half price.

Outside London, there were no afternoon peak hour restrictions - there were no TOCs to fiddle the rules to get themselves more money.
Cheap Day Return availability varied from region to region. Often they existed only for short distance travel, to/from the nearest city or big town, or sometimes to/from coastal resorts. In the early 1960s, there wasn't even a cheap day return from Paddington to Reading (or beyond) - just a Sunday special offer, with no returning to London before late afternoon. Yet there were day returns to the Kent & Sussex coasts on the Southern, and to Cambridge (return either way) on the Eastern.

There were also sometimes limited special day returns, often outward by one or two specified trains, but return by any train. I suppose these would now be regarded as a primitive form of market forces, to attract more passengers onto specific trains. Fares were generally a few shillings dearer than the cost of a single ticket.

It worked so well that BR deliberately cut trains on some routes in order to squeeze a bit more revenue by sending the passengers a much slower and longer route around. That's one of the reasons why Beeching ended up cutting the better routes in some places - either BR had removed all the passenger trains, or they'd annoyed the potential market so much with the inferior expensive service that they'd gone elsewhere.

The notion that you should pay more for being sent the long way round is frankly ridiculous

 

[WideRanger]

The only mileage-based system I am aware of (Netherlands PAYG fares, but I am sure there are more) uses crow-flies distance to avoid many of the above pitfalls. Even if this were feasible and we were prepared to throw the entire rule book of existing fares in the bin (politically difficult), crow-flies mileage-based systems can't be implemented without a system of validators (because paper tickets holders on V-shaped routes could break their journey, whether legally or not, at the furthest point); nor that it would be sustainable in a country the size of the UK.

But if break of journey was banned, that would stop it, wouldn't it? My experience is based on Japan where you can pretty much take any route you like between your starting and ending stations, but if you turn up to the ticket gate with a ticket that is cheaper than the one you have taken, they make you pay the difference.

Fares are made up of 2 elements - a distance portion (which I believe is cross flies) and a supplement portion for premium service (which could be because of higher class, faster train or reservation) - which is linked to actual trains used. In standard class on commuter routes, the distance is generally the only bit you pay unless you go in a higher class or one of the 'express' commuter trains. But take the Shinkansen anywhere and the 'enhancement' elements are much more of the overall price.

There are a few cases where it gives undesirable results - for reasons of stock management, they try to keep all trains on a route largely uniform. And that means they rarely would fill the slowest Shinkansen (like the Kodama) on many routes. So there is a completely separate market of 'bargain fares' on those routes - often tied into packages.

It's not a perfect system, but it means there are very few anomalies. And it also means that a full pay as you go system is really easy to implement - because in much of the network, you can just touch in and out at the start and end of your journey, and buy 'premium' upgrades separately in that is what you will take (often from a vending machine on the platform).

 

[RT4038]

Well, I regularly travel from Edinburgh to London. If the fares were based entirely on distance, I'd abandon the train completely and start racking up BA loyalty points instead.

If the fares were based on a single 'pence per mile' rate then I am sure you are quite right, but if based on a mileage rate which reduced as more miles were purchased, then not necessarily.

It worked so well that BR deliberately cut trains on some routes in order to squeeze a bit more revenue by sending the passengers a much slower and longer route around. That's one of the reasons why Beeching ended up cutting the better routes in some places - either BR had removed all the passenger trains, or they'd annoyed the potential market so much with the inferior expensive service that they'd gone elsewhere.

The notion that you should pay more for being sent the long way round is frankly ridiculous

This sounds like conspiracy theory - perhaps you could give an example?

 

[tspaul26]

The main reason would be a measure of transparency and the general public's perception of fairness.

It is not apparent to me how these proposals are any more transparent than the current system of fare-setting.

And as for fairness, let’s take the Cornwall/Reading example: Cornwall is a rural area with significant levels of poverty and deprivation whereas there are many who work in London - on higher wages - and have a significantly better and more frequent train service.

Is it fair for the latter to pay less? I’m not convinced of that.

 

[PeterC]

If the fares were based on a single 'pence per mile' rate then I am sure you are quite right, but if based on a mileage rate which reduced as more miles were purchased, then not necessarily.

Exctly, "based" doesn't mean an identical pence per mile rate for any distance. That would mean either a stupidly low fare for local journeys or a stupidly high one for long distance.

There would have to be a taper on milage rates. There would also be the possibility of charging a supplimentary fare for premium services rather like the Pullman suppliment in BR days.

Regardless of this discussion I think that first class fares should be abolished and replaced with a supplimentary charge, so you simply buy an upgrade ticket for £x on top of your normal travel ticket.

 

[Watershed]

The main reason would be a measure of transparency and the general public's perception of fairness.

The only truly "fair" and "transparent" system - charging a flat rate per mile - is completely unworkable for reasons we have already explained.

As soon as you move away from that concept it no longer becomes transparent and easy to understand. You have to start asking yourself why you are calling it mileage based, when really it's just a replication of the current system, but with some people getting cheaper fares, and others more expensive ones.

Not sure why it would be impractical (aside from the howls of protest at the time of conversion to this system)?

"Apart from the need to amputate your leg, the procedure should be painless"

have little or no anomalies resulting in split ticketing or cheaper tickets for longer journeys etc.

yeah, no, I don't think so. As previously stated, if you want the system to avoid anomalies then it must be much less flexible and convenient, and effective, usable frequencies would be reduced on many journeys.

Avoiding split ticket anomalies, in a way that doesn't require increased subsidy, means massive fare increases. Is that what the public want?

Not sure why, from the general public's perception of fairness, what would be the problem with Paddington-Reading costing less than Plymouth-Penzance, due to the greater mileage of the latter.

In case it's not obvious, the demand for one journey is much higher than for the other. The service is miles better between Reading and Paddington, with 10tph fast off-peak averaging 93mph. Plymouth to Penzance has (at best) 2tph slow off-peak, averaging 41mph.

If you charged the same rate of pence per mile for both, and used the existing Plymouth to Penzance rate (14.7p per mile Anytime, 7.3p per mile Off-Peak), Reading to Paddington would cost £10.60 Anytime or £5.25 Off-Peak. Season ticket prices would of course need to be reduced accordingly.

Have you any idea of the sort of loss of revenue that this would cause across the network? Intermediate fares, in fact all fares across the country, would need to be reduced to that level. We are talking about billions in increased subsidy each year. Not to mention the incredible overcrowding that would result, with more people moving to Reading due to the commute becoming more affordable, and so on.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but it's just not happening under the current government.

Let's imagine the opposite situation - pricing Plymouth to Penzance at the same rate as Reading to Paddington. The latter currently costs 69.8p per mile Anytime and 30.4p per mile Off-Peak. Plymouth to Penzance would cost £111 Anytime or £48.30 Off-Peak.

How many people do you think would seriously consider using the train at those prices? You might as well close the line for the number of passengers you'd get. It's laughably uncompetitive given what the service is like.

Ok, so let's say you went for a middle ground, with Plymouth to Penzance increasing but Reading to Paddington decreasing. Well you'd probably have to double the cost the former, and all other 'decent value' fares, to compensate for even a 5 or 10% drop on the latter. And that assumes you kept the same number of passengers!

In short, uniform pence per mile pricing is totally unworkable given the massive difference in service quality and provision across the network.

 

[30907]

It took a few years after 1948 to settle down, but where there was not much difference in mileage, a common fare was adopted for journeys by different routes. For example, I think that it was the same fare from any of Manchester (Piccadilly or Central) to London Euston, St. Pancras, Marylebone, and possibly also Kings Cross via Sheffield Victoria & Retford.

According to 1958 timetables, fares via the ER routes were about 10% higher.
I also discovered that SR fares to Hastings, Chichester etc were higher via Brighton - that disappeared by the 70s!

Up to the 1950s/60s, the ticketing system was pretty simple. You basically had single tickets, ordinary return tickets, and season tickets.
(Plus regional rovers and holiday runabouts, often available only in summer.)
Ordinary returns cost double a single ticket.
1st Class was 1.5 times the 2nd (ex-3rd) Class fare.
Children (under 14) travelled at half price.

Midweek returns at 40% off TWThO.
Before WW2 there were holiday returns at single fare IIRC.

 

[coppercapped]

Don't many of the current disparities go back to the days of InterCity and Network South East? Compare fares from Northampton and Wellingborough to London, a similar distance but one NSE (supported), the other IC (profitable). The difference in service quality is much smaller now - a 350 or a 360. Admittedly that's just one example.

Even earlier than that. BR made the first moves to market led pricing with the electrification to Liverpool and Manchester from Euston in 1966.

 

[tbtc]

It is a bit sad that suggestions of 'mileage' based fares seem to elicit irritated confrontational detail questions from forum fare experts, why is that?

I think it's important to separate the people against the idea in theory and those against it in practice.

If you were building a rail network from scratch then maybe you'd have a simple distance-based fare system (albeit there are going to be a lot of complications with even a "simple" set up) - but I can't get over the fact that it'd be pretty much impossible (and political suicide) to implement it, which is why I'm not getting too bogged down in the details

I think we need to accept that the railway will never be "fair" - some places will exist without a station, some smaller places will have stations - sometimes a place will be "lucky" and on a main line/ trains to London - for every Diss (on the main line from Norwich to London, fast trains with First Class etc) there'll be a lot of bigger places with either no station at all (e.g. Washington) or only a local service for local people (e.g. Rotherham) - just like some lines are big enough to warrant advanced tickets/ discounted fares at certain times of day, but other routes don't have the same price elasticity

It worked so well that BR deliberately cut trains on some routes in order to squeeze a bit more revenue by sending the passengers a much slower and longer route around. That's one of the reasons why Beeching ended up cutting the better routes in some places

I think we'd need to see some evidence of busy lines that were cut specifically to force people to take longer journeys (rather than quiet lines that were closed because they were quiet lines, with any remaining passengers forced to take a longer route)

It is not apparent to me how these proposals are any more transparent than the current system of fare-setting.

And as for fairness, let’s take the Cornwall/Reading example: Cornwall is a rural area with significant levels of poverty and deprivation whereas there are many who work in London - on higher wages - and have a significantly better and more frequent train service.

Is it fair for the latter to pay less? I’m not convinced of that.

In case it's not obvious, the demand for one journey is much higher than for the other. The service is miles better between Reading and Paddington, with 10tph fast off-peak averaging 93mph. Plymouth to Penzance has (at best) 2tph slow off-peak, averaging 41mph.

If you charged the same rate of pence per mile for both, and used the existing Plymouth to Penzance rate (14.7p per mile Anytime, 7.3p per mile Off-Peak), Reading to Paddington would cost £10.60 Anytime or £5.25 Off-Peak. Season ticket prices would of course need to be reduced accordingly.

Have you any idea of the sort of loss of revenue that this would cause across the network? Intermediate fares, in fact all fares across the country, would need to be reduced to that level. We are talking about billions in increased subsidy each year. Not to mention the incredible overcrowding that would result, with more people moving to Reading due to the commute becoming more affordable, and so on.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but it's just not happening under the current government.

Let's imagine the opposite situation - pricing Plymouth to Penzance at the same rate as Reading to Paddington. The latter currently costs 69.8p per mile Anytime and 30.4p per mile Off-Peak. Plymouth to Penzance would cost £111 Anytime or £48.30 Off-Peak.

How many people do you think would seriously consider using the train at those prices? You might as well close the line for the number of passengers you'd get. It's laughably uncompetitive given what the service is like.

Ok, so let's say you went for a middle ground, with Plymouth to Penzance increasing but Reading to Paddington decreasing. Well you'd probably have to double the cost the former, and all other 'decent value' fares, to compensate for even a 5 or 10% drop on the latter. And that assumes you kept the same number of passengers!

In short, uniform pence per mile pricing is totally unworkable given the massive difference in service quality and provision across the network.

The Reading/ Plymouth question is an interesting one.

On one level, I could argue that the price per mile could be lower for Reading - London passengers, since a 260 metre train with driver and guard can accommodate a thousand passengers (and may do at rush hour, given how busy the Paddington line can be!), whereas the 40-46 metre train providing the local service from Plymouth to Penzance will have similar staffing costs (one driver, one guard) but significantly lower revenue ... so if your benchmark was something like "passengers should pay enough to cover the operational costs of the railway, but not the long term strategic investment costs" then the average Thames Valley passenger's share of the operational costs will be a lot lower than the passengers on the DMU through Cornwall

(I'm not saying it should be cheaper per mile from Reading to London than the seventy file mile journey west of Plymouth, just that the Reading train is much more efficient at carrying people yet we expect people using the most efficient bits of the railway to pay a lot more to subsidise people using the less efficient bits, which some Thames Valley passengers may get annoyed at)

 

[RT4038]

The only truly "fair" and "transparent" system - charging a flat rate per mile - is completely unworkable for reasons we have already explained.

I think you are confusing 'far and transparent' with the ultimate simplicity of a uniform rate per mile. The general public are well used to the concept of discounts for bulk buying, so a sliding scale of rate per mile reducing as the more miles that are bought would be understood. After all, there is no expectation that 2kg of sugar will cost double 1kg.

As soon as you move away from that concept it no longer becomes transparent and easy to understand. You have to start asking yourself why you are calling it mileage based, when really it's just a replication of the current system, but with some people getting cheaper fares, and others more expensive ones.

There is no system with the current system. A sliding scale of rate per mile would be a system that is understood by the majority

yeah, no, I don't think so. As previously stated, if you want the system to avoid anomalies then it must be much less flexible and convenient, and effective, usable frequencies would be reduced on many journeys.

Avoiding split ticket anomalies, in a way that doesn't require increased subsidy, means massive fare increases. Is that what the public want?

There would be little need for anything 'much less flexible and convenient' with a slidng scale of rate per mile fare system, except possibly for little used (except by enthusiasts) facilities which should be of little consideration.

Yes, I think the public want away with split ticket anomolies, and yes, they want tickets for similar distances to be at similar prices.

There may have to be a transitional period as fares are changed, but if the system is fair and transparent it will be got used too fairly quickly.

Stand back and think about how a sliding scale mileage based system could work, rather than coming up with reasons why it wouldn't, many seemingly to protect minority interests. Maybe the fares changes proposed would be politically impossible, but lets have something worked up so the full extent of the implications are known. That may then shut up the protagonists?

 

[tspaul26]

There is no system with the current system. A sliding scale of rate per mile would be a system that is understood by the majority

I think the implicit point that you keep missing is that the current system is based on a sliding scale of rate per mile, on top of which sundry adjustments are layered e.g. local PTE subsidy, premiums for more frequent services or higher quality services, market demand and so on.

In these circumstances, how does your proposal differ in substance?

 

[RT4038]

I think the implicit point that you keep missing is that the current system is based on a sliding scale of rate per mile, on top of which sundry adjustments are layered e.g. local PTE subsidy, premiums for more frequent services or higher quality services, market demand and so on.

In these circumstances, how does your proposal differ in substance?

The layers you mention are non-transparent and produce a myriad of anomolies that leads the public to feel that they are being conned. I don't believe there is any kind of system - it is pretty much based on what has historically been able to 'get away' with. The tide of public opinion is changing and it is high time that a fairer and more transparent charging regime is introduced, particularly considering the increasing sums of public money being pumped in to keep the industry afloat.

 

[david1212]

While a single rate across all services and all areas will not work there does need to be consistency.

Take this example all based on the same XC train.
Birmingham - Bristol TM.
A walk-on off peak saver return is £61.90 so ~ 32p/mile.
Birmingham - Cheltenham Spa
A walk-on off peak saver return is £28.30 so ~ 27p/mile.
Cheltenham Spa - Bristol TM
A walk-on off-peak single is £10.20 so ~ 24p/mile (GW have ended saver returns)
A walk-on off-peak day return is £10.60 so ~ 13p/mile

Totally illogical not least more per mile to Bristol than Cheltenham yet normally buying more attracts at least a small discount.

Another example is a set of four destinations all 140 +/- 5 miles from me and similar journey times.
The off peak walk on returns are
A £55 (day) so ~ 20p/mile
B £92(month) so ~ 32p/mile
C £65(month) so ~ 23p/mile
and D £82(month) ~ 29p/mile
With two splits so three day returns as against a month return B becomes £60 so ~ 25p/mile.
For C & D no significantly cheaper day return by splitting.

The occasional traveller who is trying to be attracted ( back ) to rail will probably not know about splitting and the quirks of the ticketing system. Say for a day out they travel to A and think £55 ( ~ 20p /mile ) a fair price. A week later they decide to go to B and expect a similar price. They will think £92 ( ~ 32p/mile ) which is £37 more a rip off and may well not use rail again.

Generally given the same restrictions I have never understood why a return valid for a month is charged higher than a day.

While there are many variables to the cost per mile of a car for a Ford Focus or similar covering 10,000 miles per year the cost of around 40p/mile.

My view is that for the railway anytime fare to be more than this there has to be significant advantages not least speed and comfort. The latter is something increasingly lacking on services with a high cost per mile.

Off peak many more people travel at least as a couple so then the rail fare per person has to drop to 20p / mile or again there has to be significant advantages.

 

[Watershed]

@RT4038 I admire your enthusiasm for a mileage based system, but I really think it's misplaced!

I think you are confusing 'far and transparent' with the ultimate simplicity of a uniform rate per mile. The general public are well used to the concept of discounts for bulk buying, so a sliding scale of rate per mile reducing as the more miles that are bought would be understood. After all, there is no expectation that 2kg of sugar will cost double 1kg.

I don't think anyone has a massive problem with that. The problem comes when you try to start introducing a uniform mileage rate across all lines. That simply won't work.

It would be like suggesting that property should be priced on a uniform rate across the country, with a sliding rate per sqm - it's just as nonsensical. There are good reasons why fares and properties are more expensive in some areas than others (and the two are linked in areas like the SE).

There is no system with the current system

There isn't a specific formula, no. But fares are essentially derived from much the same methods as you suggest. Why do you have to use a formula to reach a similar outcome? How many people are going to look into the formula to check their fare has been correctly calculated?

Most people will just see the fare (if they even consider the train at all), and then decide whether it's too expensive or not. They don't care how it's been calculated.

There would be little need for anything 'much less flexible and convenient' with a slidng scale of rate per mile fare system, except possibly for little used (except by enthusiasts) facilities which should be of little consideration.

So how would you price things like Sheffield to York, or Leeds to Bradford, or Bristol to Taunton then? Are enthusiasts the only people that want the ability to simply take the next train to their destination?

And whilst break of journey might be a 'niche' right, it is not something you can ban very effectively. Therefore, a pricing policy based on banning BoJ is still going to have anomalies.

Yes, I think the public want away with split ticket anomolies

Of course they do. But do they still want it when they're told it means the abolition of most Off-Peak Day Returns?

and yes, they want tickets for similar distances to be at similar prices.

Of course they do. But do they still want it when they're told it means an Anytime ticket from Plymouth to Penzance costs £100+?

There may have to be a transitional period as fares are changed, but if the system is fair and transparent it will be got used too fairly quickly.

I don't think people will just go away quietly if the cost of their fare doubles overnight.

Stand back and think about how a sliding scale mileage based system could work, rather than coming up with reasons why it wouldn't,

I would love for it to work. But introducing it under the current circumstances simply means increasing a lot of people's fares whilst cutting a handful of others. There are no two ways about that. Who exactly do you expect to volunteer to fall under the former catergory?

many seemingly to protect minority interests

Is it a minority interest to want to travel affordably, just as you might have done for the last 20 or 30 years? Is it a minority interest to want to take the next train that turns up, without worrying about which exact stations it stops at?

Maybe the fares changes proposed would be politically impossible, but lets have something worked up so the full extent of the implications are known. That may then shut up the protagonists?

You don't need to develop a full proposal to work out the implication. The problem is that the general public has the perception that rail travel is too expensive, without fully considering why that's so, and what would be needed to make it cheaper...

 

[RT4038]

I don't think anyone has a massive problem with that. The problem comes when you try to start introducing a uniform mileage rate across all lines. That simply won't work.

It would be like suggesting that property should be priced on a uniform rate across the country, with a sliding rate per sqm - it's just as nonsensical. There are good reasons why fares and properties are more expensive in some areas than others (and the two are linked in areas like the SE).

If there were certain lines that required higher (say high speed lines) or lower (say areas of deprivation) fares to travel over, a tariff mileage could be adopted rather than the actual mileage.

There isn't a specific formula, no. But fares are essentially derived from much the same methods as you suggest. Why do you have to use a formula to reach a similar outcome? How many people are going to look into the formula to check their fare has been correctly calculated?

Most people will just see the fare (if they even consider the train at all), and then decide whether it's too expensive or not. They don't care how it's been calculated.

But is this really good enough (like it or lump it) with the amount of taxpayer support to rail industry? Other posters have cited examples of near identical journeys with large fare differences ( London-Northampton or Wellingborough or London- Cambridge or Colchester) ? I would suggest it is not

So how would you price things like Sheffield to York, or Leeds to Bradford, or Bristol to Taunton then? Are enthusiasts the only people that want the ability to simply take the next train to their destination?

And whilst break of journey might be a 'niche' right, it is not something you can ban very effectively. Therefore, a pricing policy based on banning BoJ is still going to have anomalies.

My post #19 details how fares would be calculated where there are differing routes (as in your examples), without any loss of flexibility. I am unsure where you are getting the suggestion that existing BoJ rights would be affected in any way, or would need to be.
Your comment is just putting unnecessary objection to issues plucked out of the air.

Of course they do. But do they still want it when they're told it means an Anytime ticket from Plymouth to Penzance costs £100+?

I think this mythical Plymouth-Penzance fare comes from a hypothetical example of yours based on a universal fixed rate per mile, not taking into account a sliding scale rate per mile? As suggested above, lines in areas of deprivation could have their mileage artificially reduced by adoption of a tariff mileage scale.

Is it a minority interest to want to travel affordably, just as you might have done for the last 20 or 30 years? Is it a minority interest to want to take the next train that turns up, without worrying about which exact stations it stops at?


You don't need to develop a full proposal to work out the implication. The problem is that the general public has the perception that rail travel is too expensive, without fully considering why that's so, and what would be needed to make it cheaper...

Travelling affordably is quite subjective, and a political decision. I do not understand your comment about the 'minority interest to want to take the next train that turns up, without worrying about which exact stations it stops at'? The sliding scale per mile system would eliminate most if not all split ticketing possibilities, so the only possible worry about the next train would be if it used a High Speed line which would require the requisite ticket validity - an issue which is going to be present on the current practice too (and which should be reasonably understood by the public).

 

[yorkie]

As the title suggests, should there be a basic standard fare based on mileage travelled?

No. Market based pricing has been a success in terms of matching demand to capacity and is here to stay.

And if so, what would be a fair fare?

How long is a piece of string?

For starters, how would you set fares such as York to Whitby, York to Darlington, York to Middlesbrough, Thirsk to Whitby, Darlington to Whitby?

All the above are approximately 50 miles by road (they are all between 45 and 55) though the rail mileage varies considerably.

To encourage more people on to the railways to take the train rather than drive (where the service exists) does anyone have ideas on how should the train be priced?

Affordably!

The disparity between costs per mile seems to be unexplainable.

Actually they can often be explained...

Why should a ticket between London and Colchester off-peak cost so much more - for example - than London to Cambridge - even though they are similar distances?

The Off Peak Return (SVR) fares are similar:

https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=1072&dest=COL&tkt=SVR £40.80
https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=1072&dest=CBG&tkt=SVR £40.20

However there are much cheaper fares available for Cambridge to London for returning the same day and even more so if you restrict yourself to travelling on Greater Anglia only between Cambridge and London.

In a "simpler" fares structure, you could well see the cheaper fares to Cambridge be abolished.

The reasons for the discrepancies may be partly historical but are probably mostly due to the existence of 'competition' on the Cambridge route which has occurred throughout the entire period of rail privatisation.

Yes, I think the public want away with split ticket anomalies....

If people are that bothered about split tickets, they will book using a split ticket provider. There are plenty of them now, and some even allow you to choose your reserved seat from a seat selector. You can get one PDF with all the tickets on it, and the whole thing takes no longer than buying a through fare.

I don't think people are particularly keen to see the end of split ticketing per se; they would welcome the cost of all through fares to be reduced to match the cheapest combination of fares. Is anyone promising to do that? If so, I'd love to see it happen

 

[Nicholas43]

Should there be a standard fare based on mileage?
Yes. Set, and publish, the 'train miles' between every pair of stations. When the railway is a Great Way Round (eg York to Whitby), set the train miles compassionately: every station Middlesbrough to Whitby the same train miles to York. When the railway is slow, infrequent, or socially important, eg Plymouth to Penzance, set the train miles less than the geographic miles. When the railway is fast and frequent and much used, eg Reading to Paddington, set the train miles more than the geographic miles.
One and only one basic single fare between every pair of stations, rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases. One and only one peak surcharge if some or all of your journey is at a published peak time.
Group discount.
You may take any reasonable route, defined as 'takes less, the same, or up to 20% more time than the obvious route.' On the shortest, or any reasonable, route you may stop short, but not then resume your journey.

 

[takno]

Should there be a standard fare based on mileage?
Yes. Set, and publish, the 'train miles' between every pair of stations. When the railway is a Great Way Round (eg York to Whitby), set the train miles compassionately: every station Middlesbrough to Whitby the same train miles to York. When the railway is slow, infrequent, or socially important, eg Plymouth to Penzance, set the train miles less than the geographic miles. When the railway is fast and frequent and much used, eg Reading to Paddington, set the train miles more than the geographic miles.
One and only one basic single fare between every pair of stations, rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases. One and only one peak surcharge if some or all of your journey is at a published peak time.
Group discount.
You may take any reasonable route, defined as 'takes less, the same, or up to 20% more time than the obvious route.' On the shortest, or any reasonable, route you may stop short, but not then resume your journey.

This is a quite inventive approach. I genuinely hadn't thought of changing the definition of the word mileage rather than changing the fare system.

 

[pelli]

Set, and publish, the 'train miles' between every pair of stations. [...] One and only one basic single fare between every pair of stations, rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases. [...]

It's so much effort to go through all station pairs and decide what mileage to set though, so how about we pick the fares first (say, the current anytime single fare) and then just use the mileage-to-price conversion formula backwards to generate the mileage table to publish?

 

[yorkie]

Should there be a standard fare based on mileage?
Yes. Set, and publish, the 'train miles' between every pair of stations. When the railway is a Great Way Round (eg York to Whitby), set the train miles compassionately: every station Middlesbrough to Whitby the same train miles to York. When the railway is slow, infrequent, or socially important, eg Plymouth to Penzance, set the train miles less than the geographic miles. When the railway is fast and frequent and much used, eg Reading to Paddington, set the train miles more than the geographic miles.
One and only one basic single fare between every pair of stations, rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases. One and only one peak surcharge if some or all of your journey is at a published peak time.
Group discount.
You may take any reasonable route, defined as 'takes less, the same, or up to 20% more time than the obvious route.' On the shortest, or any reasonable, route you may stop short, but not then resume your journey.

Sounds good but how much would York to Sheffield cost and how do you calculate that? Would this be the same price as Poppleton to Dronfield (as at present)?

Once you've answered that, I may have further questions regarding intermediate journeys

 

[ac6000cw]

Should there be a standard fare based on mileage?
Yes. Set, and publish, the 'train miles' between every pair of stations. When the railway is a Great Way Round (eg York to Whitby), set the train miles compassionately: every station Middlesbrough to Whitby the same train miles to York. When the railway is slow, infrequent, or socially important, eg Plymouth to Penzance, set the train miles less than the geographic miles. When the railway is fast and frequent and much used, eg Reading to Paddington, set the train miles more than the geographic miles.
One and only one basic single fare between every pair of stations, rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases. One and only one peak surcharge if some or all of your journey is at a published peak time.
Group discount.
You may take any reasonable route, defined as 'takes less, the same, or up to 20% more time than the obvious route.' On the shortest, or any reasonable, route you may stop short, but not then resume your journey.

Isn't that just market pricing anyway - relative to the 'standard' mileage rate, you're selling a better product at a higher price (Reading to Paddington), a poorer product at a lower price (York to Whitby), increasing the revenue/suppressing demand (peak surcharges) and giving a discount for buying more product (rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases - ' buy 100 miles, get 20 free').

Normal retail pricing techniques to maximise income versus costs, based on what the market will bear, basically.

 

[Nicholas43]

Sounds good but 1. how much would York to Sheffield cost and 2. how do you calculate that? 3. Would this be the same price as Poppleton to Dronfield (as at present)?

1. About £10.
2. About half the present return fares, and midway between the present expensive singles and the lower end of the present 42 (I make it) advances.
3. No. Poppleton to Dronfield would be a bit more.
4. What happens if you go via Harrogate is Too Difficult for me. Please say what you would recommend!

Isn't that just market pricing anyway - relative to the 'standard' mileage rate, you're selling a better product at a higher price (Reading to Paddington), a poorer product at a lower price (York to Whitby), increasing the revenue/suppressing demand (peak surcharges) and giving a discount for buying more product (rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases - ' buy 100 miles, get 20 free').

Yes. But it's much simpler than the present morass of (often) over-priced singles and (sometimes) crazily cheap, and always annoyingly inflexible, advances. You could add the peak surcharge if you unexpectedly found you needed it, instead of playing the 'will I get a civilized excess or an extortionate penalty?' game as now.

 

[Watershed]

Yes. But it's much simpler than the present morass of (often) over-priced singles and (sometimes) crazily cheap, and always annoyingly inflexible, advances. You could add the peak surcharge if you unexpectedly found you needed it, instead of playing the 'will I get a civilized excess or an extortionate penalty?' game as now.

Fortunately, the vast majority of these issues can be solved without too much revenue loss - only a very small proportion of passengers are actually making a one-way journey and therefore "underpaying".

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, by means of a "mileage based" fare that pretty much ends up where we are now, to do that.

 

[Nicholas43]

...only a very small proportion of passengers are actually making a one-way journey and therefore "underpaying".

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, by means of a "mileage based" fare that pretty much ends up where we are now, to do that.

Don't you mean over-paying? There are many flows now where a single is nearly the same as a return.
My train-miles, and singles only, and transparent peak supplement would replace the (now) 50 or so confusing fares for each flow.

 

[takno]

Don't you mean over-paying? There are many flows now where a single is nearly the same as a return.
My train-miles, and singles only, and transparent peak supplement would replace the (now) 50 or so confusing fares for each flow.

It's certainly true that a singles-only model would radically reduce the numbers of fares and get rid of probably around 2/3rds of the difficult-to-understand anomalies. I don't think the rail "miles" idea added anything to it though tbh.

"Transparent" peak flow supplements tend to get complex or unfair really quickly, once you start to take account of people on long-distance journeys which pass through large cities at particular times. Cross-country's policy is fairly transparent for example, but makes a lot of long distance walk-up fares completely unreasonable thanks to happening to pass through an intermediate station at a busy time.

 

[yorkie]

It's so much effort to go through all station pairs and decide what mileage to set though, so how about we pick the fares first (say, the current anytime single fare) and then just use the mileage-to-price conversion formula backwards to generate the mileage table to publish?

Indeed. And are we meant to add up the cost of every section traversed e.g. Poppleton to York, plus York to Ulleskelf, plus Ulleskelf to Church Fenton etc etc...?

This could either make short journeys top cheap and/or longer journeys too expensive?

1. About £10.

OK and how is that calculated? What would the cost of intermediate journeys such as York to Moorthorpe, York to Fitzwilliam, etc be? I don't see how you can allow fares to be valid by all reasonable routes and not create anomalies.

2. About half the present return fares, and midway between the present expensive singles and the lower end of the present 42 (I make it) advances.
3. No. Poppleton to Dronfield would be a bit more.

So a return from Poppleton to Dronfield would cost rather more than the current £19.90? But how much more? If you can state your exact methodology we can work these out for ourselves.

4. What happens if you go via Harrogate is Too Difficult for me. Please say what you would recommend!

It's currently valid via Harrogate; are you proposing to make routes more restrictive?

Yes. But it's much simpler than the present morass of (often) over-priced singles and (sometimes) crazily cheap, and always annoyingly inflexible, advances. You could add the peak surcharge if you unexpectedly found you needed it, instead of playing the 'will I get a civilized excess or an extortionate penalty?' game as now.

I am not sure that your system will be simpler. But even if it is, I don't see how it can tick all the boxes, such as not creating anomalies while being simple yet affordable.

Isn't that just market pricing anyway - relative to the 'standard' mileage rate, you're selling a better product at a higher price (Reading to Paddington), a poorer product at a lower price (York to Whitby), increasing the revenue/suppressing demand (peak surcharges) and giving a discount for buying more product (rate per mile decreasing as mileage increases - ' buy 100 miles, get 20 free').

Normal retail pricing techniques to maximise income versus costs, based on what the market will bear, basically.

That's the thing; all these mileage based proposals end up admitting that it has to be market based. There is no getting away from market based pricing!

 

[Nicholas43]

It's certainly true that a singles-only model would radically reduce the numbers of fares and get rid of probably around 2/3rds of the difficult-to-understand anomalies.

Can you give a couple of examples of anomalies that it would not remove?

Cross-country's policy is fairly transparent for example, but makes a lot of long distance walk-up fares completely unreasonable thanks to happening to pass through an intermediate station at a busy time.

I don't find cross country's policy at all transparent. Their off-peak walk-up fares are normally any time after 9.30 am, and allow you to go through Birmingham in the evening peak. Their dozens of differently priced advances for every flow are utterly opaque to me. Their policy of fleecing long-distance travellers who don't know about splits is a disgrace.

Indeed. And are we meant to add up the cost of every section traversed e.g. Poppleton to York, plus York to Ulleskelf, plus Ulleskelf to Church Fenton etc etc...?

Er, no. To set a fare, you look up the engineers' miles between the origin and the destination by the shortest route. For (I hope, a small number of) quality segments, such as Paddington to Reading, and Ebbsfleet to St Pancras, you enhance that by a transparent factor, to arrive at the 'train miles', or tariff miles, or fare/fair miles for that segment. For (I hope, a small number of) Great Ways Round, such as York to Whitby, you devise a reasonable fudge, such as using the same tariff miles for all flows York to stations between Middlesbrough and Whitby. For some journeys, such as Criccieth to Bangor, you give up, decide it's the Welsh government's problem, and hope they'll introduce a well-integrated rail-replacement bus route using vehicles which take wheel chairs and cycles. For segments with sparse services, or in deprived areas, you abate the engineers' miles by a transparent factor. You set the tapering price per mile such that the single price for most flows is about the same as half the current off-peak day return, and you set a peak supplement for whatever the relevant peak time(s) are. (Unless peaks don't come back after the plague, in which case, you don't have to bother.) You allow any reasonable route.
You save the thousands of person-hours devoted to tweaking, understanding, (and failing to understand) the routeing guide, and setting, typically, dozens of advance fares for every flow. (Incidentally, you make a modest charge for seat reservations, and facilitate choosing your seat on-line.)

So a return from Poppleton to Dronfield would cost rather more than the current £19.90?

Probably, yes. Is there a social, or historical railway, reason for reckoning Poppleton to York as zero mileage? I notice that (some?) Kings Cross - Poppleton fares seem to be (slightly) more than Kings Cross - York.
I don't know whether York to Leeds via Harrogate is reasonable (although I remember that it is stunningly beautiful in parts). Doesn't it always take much longer than via Micklefield?

 

[JonathanH]

Their dozens of differently priced advances for every flow are utterly opaque to me.

Are you suggesting that there should only be one price for advance fares, on all trains, regardless of demand at that time of day?

How opaque do you consider the dozens of differently priced fares that an operator like Ryanair or Easyjet has for each of their routes? If anything, it is because information about the different tiers is openly available that you think it is opaque.

 

[Nicholas43]

Are you suggesting that there should only be one price for advance fares, on all trains, regardless of demand at that time of day?

No, I am supporting RT4038's speculation that it would be better to have no advance fares at all, on any trains, just attractively priced flexible singles with mileage-based pricing, plus a transparent supplement for travel including a peak segment (if peaks come back after the plague).

How opaque do you consider the dozens of differently priced fares that an operator like Ryanair or Easyjet has for each of their routes? If anything, it is because information about the different tiers is openly available that you think it is opaque.

The dynamic pricing that the absurdly subsidised airlines use to slightly overfill every flight is totally opaque to the traveller. (But all that is a subject for another thread, or not.)
Cross country's similar practice resulted, before the plague, in all their annoyingly short trains being over-filled by (a) miserable passengers who got a cheap(ish) advance, but suffered agonies wondering whether they would miss their booked train and find themselves having to buy a walk-up single for £192, and now can't find anywhere to put their suitcases; (b) miserable passengers who bought an expensive flexible ticket; (c) miserable passengers who have 4 separate tickets for 4 segments of their journey, but are supposed to sit in a different carriage for each leg; (d) happy passengers using a first class ticket costing £342 which someone else is paying for. This was Not Good.