Should we have a "maximum" fare for any journey?

[zwk500]

Well, yes it does - to an extent. I'd say having a sensibly priced layer of off-peak fares is an important part of a national transport system that enables people to go about their business and is worth subsidising.

If somebody has the ability to restrict themselves to off-peak fares then they can choose a less flexible ticket, no? E.g. the Lumo & GWR only fare, available anytime single at £102, including the tube transfer. https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=BRI&dest=NCL&rte=2021&ldn=1&tkt=SDS

£102 is 26p/Km (using the direct distance). Comparable to the Netherlands's standard rate!

But we're told that barely anyone uses the overpriced anytime fares, so it won't make that much difference anyway.

The railway establishment tries to have it both ways:

"Oh, don't worry about the overpriced anytime fares, hardly anyone buys them anyway" but try and get rid of them and they scream blue murder.

It doesn't try and have it both ways, it's because you only need a few people to use them for the fares to be very valuable, whereas you need more people to use cheaper tickets to achieve the same profit. It's not having it both ways - it's maximising yield while offering a broad service.

Nine hours....probably fly in three even with a connection!! £38.80 isn't bad, but I don't think I could cope with that length of time on a coach. However I understand Flix (who probably don't do that route) allow one to buy the seat next to you if available for a reduced cost, much more bearable!

It depends how much value you place on each of your time, utility, comfort and carbon footprint. However just because you don't like a coach for that length (I do sympathise FWIW) doesn't mean you are "forced" to fly - you choose to because you place higher value on your time and comfort than your carbon footprint.
What would be an ideal solution is for XC to run longer trains on their routes, so that they can offer a greater amount of lower-priced advances while maintaining high-yield fares at the end.

 

[Howardh]

What would be an ideal solution is for XC to run longer trains on their routes, so that they can offer a greater amount of lower-priced advances while maintaining high-yield fares at the end.

Think we can all agree on that, some of the long-distance stock is woefully short, does it require more staff to run a 6-coach train than a three?? Another discussion maybe!

 

[Krokodil]

If somebody has the ability to restrict themselves to off-peak fares then they can choose a less flexible ticket, no? E.g. the Lumo & GWR only fare, available anytime single at £102, including the tube transfer.

Off Peak tickets aren’t/weren't particularly restrictive. Especially on weekends. Limit yourself to Lumo departures only and you'll find a five hour gap after the 12:51 has departed Newcastle - try and travel on weekends and they might not be running at all while other TOCs divert around possessions.

 

[yorksrob]

If somebody has the ability to restrict themselves to off-peak fares then they can choose a less flexible ticket, no? E.g. the Lumo & GWR only fare, available anytime single at £102, including the tube transfer. https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=BRI&dest=NCL&rte=2021&ldn=1&tkt=SDS

£102 is 26p/Km (using the direct distance). Comparable to the Netherlands's standard rate!

It doesn't try and have it both ways, it's because you only need a few people to use them for the fares to be very valuable, whereas you need more people to use cheaper tickets to achieve the same profit. It's not having it both ways - it's maximising yield while offering a broad service.

It really is amazing the mental somersaults that people will try to do to try and convince us that being restricted to an hour or so is no different to off-peak, with a guaranteed price that is always available throughout most of the day.

Black isn't white, the sea isn't dry and advanced purchase isn't as convenient as off-peak, and no amount of argument will make it so.

We're told that the expense account paying full price business traveller is rarer than hens teeth, so it remains to be seen how much longer they can justify carting around fresh air at peak times.

 

[zwk500]

It really is amazing the mental somersaults that people will try to do to try and convince us that being restricted to an hour or so is no different to off-peak, with a guaranteed price that is always available throughout most of the day.

I didn't say it was no different. The initial conversation was about anytime tickets, but we'd slipped to off-peak so then the argument is if you're restricting your departure times a bit for a bit lower price why is it not acceptable to have a more restrictive ticket for an even lower price?

Black isn't white, the sea isn't dry and advanced purchase isn't as convenient as off-peak, and no amount of argument will make it so.

I've never said any of these, please don't just make stuff up.

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't say it was no different. The initial conversation was about anytime tickets, but we'd slipped to off-peak so then the argument is if you're restricting your departure times a bit for a bit lower price why is it not acceptable to have a more restrictive ticket for an even lower price?

I've never said any of these, please don't just make stuff up.

This thread isn't about "not having more restrictive tickets for a lower price" its about capping more expensive fares.

 

[zwk500]

This thread isn't about "not having more restrictive tickets for a lower price" its about capping more expensive fares.

Then it's about the anytime fare and off-peak wasn't relevant, surely? Surely, if we put your 'off-peak accessibility' from upthread point together, you should support *increasing* the anytime fares to enable the off-peak flexible tickets to drop down a bit?

 

[yorksrob]

Then it's about the anytime fare and off-peak wasn't relevant, surely? Surely, if we put your 'off-peak accessibility' from upthread point together, you should support *increasing* the anytime fares to enable the off-peak flexible tickets to drop down a bit?

Good question.

I would say no, because anytime fares were generally outlandish to begin with, and the decline in expense card business travel is only making them more so.

 

[Howardh]

Then it's about the anytime fare and off-peak wasn't relevant, surely? Surely, if we put your 'off-peak accessibility' from upthread point together, you should support *increasing* the anytime fares to enable the off-peak flexible tickets to drop down a bit?

My OP specifically mentioned off-peak cap only (ret). Don't mind a higher cap on anytime fares either of course, but I think a cap on OP fares would get more onto the empty seats; at least get them booking earlier rather than finding alternative methods.

If the maximum you could pay for any return journey (standard class, off-peak) within the UK was at the most £99 (and to me that still looks a lot) regardless of distance would that look a lot better and gain more custom??

Thoughts?

 

[zwk500]

My OP specifically mentioned off-peak cap only (ret).

My apologies for having missed that part of the OP. I had inferred the title to refer to Anytime fares.

 

[Howardh]

My apologies for having missed that part of the OP. I had inferred the title to refer to Anytime fares.

Don't mind! Thought of making it OP and anytime in the title but didn't want to muddy the waters too much at first!

 

[miklcct]

The railways should put up the First Class price in order to make up the revenue from reduced affordable standard class travel. In my opinion, a First Class ticket should be at least 2x of the standard class, 3x is even better as well, as First Class should be market as a luxury product affordable by the rich only. First Class Advance shouldn't even exist below the walk-up standard class fare for the same service, to ensure that First Class passengers always pay more than a standard class passenger, reinforcing the exclusiveness of the service.

The amount of First Class carriages should also be reduced to at most 1 per train, maximising capacity on standard class in order to drive down the cost, such that the supply for First Class is only enough for those who can afford luxury fares.

 

[Howardh]

The railways should put up the First Class price in order to make up the revenue from reduced affordable standard class travel. In my opinion, a First Class ticket should be at least 2x of the standard class, 3x is even better as well, as First Class should be market as a luxury product affordable by the rich only. First Class Advance shouldn't even exist below the walk-up standard class fare for the same service, to ensure that First Class passengers always pay more than a standard class passenger, reinforcing the exclusiveness of the service.

The amount of First Class carriages should also be reduced to at most 1 per train, maximising capacity on standard class in order to drive down the cost, such that the supply for First Class is only enough for those who can afford luxury fares.

There are drawbacks; firstly as you say it takes a bit of luxury out of reach for ordinary folk and hands it to the rich and businesses - and those business tickets are ultimately paid for by their customers! The only way I would travel on cross-country from Manchester to, say, Bournemouth, is in first. Also, first class on some trains is barely better than ordinary class, such as Thameslink.

I've grown to like Avanti's three-tier system where you can get a decent seat in Standard Premium but not the full first-class service. Maybe that could be extended for all long-distance trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've grown to like Avanti's three-tier system where you can get a decent seat in Standard Premium but not the full first-class service. Maybe that could be extended for all long-distance trains?

I would very much like First Class to become SP, i.e. just a wider seat and more legroom, with other things being chargeable, and the price more reasonable like SP (150-160% of the relevant Standard walk up fare ideally, plus Advances).

Yes, that'd annoy people who like paying £10 to Seatfrog and getting a full meal, but those customers aren't making much money - they're filling unsold seats - Seatfrog price-dumping is a symptom of a problem, namely that you aren't selling the seats at a more normal fare.

 

[miklcct]

There are drawbacks; firstly as you say it takes a bit of luxury out of reach for ordinary folk and hands it to the rich and businesses - and those business tickets are ultimately paid for by their customers! The only way I would travel on cross-country from Manchester to, say, Bournemouth, is in first. Also, first class on some trains is barely better than ordinary class, such as Thameslink.

I've grown to like Avanti's three-tier system where you can get a decent seat in Standard Premium but not the full first-class service. Maybe that could be extended for all long-distance trains?

So either remove the First Class or, alternatively, give better service on these regional trains. EMR, LNR and Southeastern have all chosen to remove the First Class in order to boost capacity, maybe Thameslink should follow suit as well.

Over years, air travel has developed to the point that business class has become the old first, and premium economy has become the old economy, i.e. a raise of standard in the higher classes, and the opposite in the lower classes. Maybe train travel should do the same as well, to make standard class the cattle class with Lumo standard on all standard class long-distance trains, and to provide the ultimate British Pullman experience on First Class.

 

[Howardh]

I would very much like First Class to become SP, i.e. just a wider seat and more legroom, with other things being chargeable, and the price more reasonable like SP (150-160% of the relevant Standard walk up fare ideally, plus Advances).

Yes, that'd annoy people who like paying £10 to Seatfrog and getting a full meal, but those customers aren't making much money - they're filling unsold seats - Seatfrog price-dumping is a symptom of a problem, namely that you aren't selling the seats at a more normal fare.

I've never, ever got a seat via seatfrog for a tenner! Not even close!!

 

[eldomtom2]

On a side note, the Netherlands was brought up as a country that had fixed fares, with others saying there were issues of applicability due to the Netherlands' geography. It's worth pointing out that Japan's geography is far more comparable to the UK's, and it also has fixed rail fares.

 

[The exile]

If travel is not a "right" then what is it? Is travelling to hospital, school, work a privalidge then? I would say in a free society that freedom of movement is definitely a right and nobody should be walloped with a huge amount for needing to travel.

Unless you are currently detained at His Majesty’s pleasure, then you, like everyone else, have the absolute right to travel. What you are advocating is the right to travel at someone else’s expense, which is a very different thing. The only people for whom imho it is possible to make a case for this are those unable through age or disability to use those two travel devices available to the rest of us - their legs.

 

[Krokodil]

Unless you are currently detained at His Majesty’s pleasure, then you, like everyone else, have the absolute right to travel. What you are advocating is the right to travel at someone else’s expense, which is a very different thing. The only people for whom imho it is possible to make a case for this are those unable through age or disability to use those two travel devices available to the rest of us - their legs.

Transport should be available at a reasonable price though.

 

[deltic]

Transport should be available at a reasonable price though.

All transport - and what is a reasonable price?

 

[RT4038]

Transport should be available at a reasonable price though.

And so it is - £2 bus fares, long distance coaches, Advance tickets on the railways and low cost airlines.

 

[Krokodil]

All transport - and what is a reasonable price?

It's subjective. However I can tell you what an unreasonable price is and won't have much dissent: Manchester-London Anytime tickets.

 

[43066]

It's subjective. However I can tell you what an unreasonable price is and won't have much dissent: Manchester-London Anytime tickets.

Yet the fact those tickets exist indicates that some people are prepared to buy them; most likely those who employers cover the cost, or those for whom it’s a distress purchase. There’s nothing wrong with market segmentation, as is done all over the economy for various products and services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2024 ==

EMR, LNR and Southeastern

Since when (my bold)?

EDIT: You presumably mean the 360s, but they’re effectively a brand new service, and they’ve never had 1st class with EMR.

 

[Mikw]

Unless you are currently detained at His Majesty’s pleasure, then you, like everyone else, have the absolute right to travel. What you are advocating is the right to travel at someone else’s expense, which is a very different thing. The only people for whom imho it is possible to make a case for this are those unable through age or disability to use those two travel devices available to the rest of us - their legs.

We always travel at everyone's expense though. Passengers subsidise other passengers, road users subsidise other road users. We share the cost of the roads with higher payers subsidising lower payers.
Even leg power involves using roads that other people pay for.
I'm against people getting walloped for travelling though with sky high walk up fares - or huge increases in car insurance costs for that matter - it's taking away some people's right to travel

 

[The exile]

We always travel at everyone's expense though. Passengers subsidise other passengers, road users subsidise other road users. We share the cost of the roads with higher payers subsidising lower payers.
Even leg power involves using roads that other people pay for.
I'm against people getting walloped for travelling though with sky high walk up fares - or huge increases in car insurance costs for that matter - it's taking away some people's right to travel

And do you apply this to flights to the USA /Australia or wherever as well?
As for leg power “requiring” roads that others pay for - no it doesn’t. If someone chose two hundred years ago to develop a right of way into a metalled road that’s all very well and good, but an unmade footpath is just as good. I take the point when it comes to bridges, but that’s about it.

 

[Mikw]

And do you apply this to flights to the USA /Australia or wherever as well?
As for leg power “requiring” roads that others pay for - no it doesn’t. If someone chose two hundred years ago to develop a right of way into a metalled road that’s all very well and good, but an unmade footpath is just as good. I take the point when it comes to bridges, but that’s about it.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of foot journeys are made using pavements, which - of course - are subsidised by others. As is almost all other forms of travel.
I don't think it's fair to hit people with very high walk up fares, it's restricting freedom of movement amongst those of a low income, or too unwell to get a decent wage.
In a perfect world the need to travel should not come at financial penalty, and should not just be available to those who earn a substantial wage.
I know it's not a perfect world, but a bit more fairness wouldn't hurt - would it?

 

[Krokodil]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of foot journeys are made using pavements, which - of course - are subsidised by others. As is almost all other forms of travel.

We're not even talking peanuts here. The amount of wear a pedestrian causes on a pavement is so miniscule compared with the wear a motor vehicle causes on a road that we're probably in the region of a millionth of the cost.

 

[43066]

Unless you are currently detained at His Majesty’s pleasure, then you, like everyone else, have the absolute right to travel.

That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure there really is an absolute right to travel, and there certainly isn’t a right to travel by any particular means. By travelling we are just exercising the general freedom we all have to undertake activities not prohibited by law. Put another way, you are generally free to use train/coach/car, but there’s no right to do so if you cannot afford to pay the fares, buy the fuel, or if you’ve been banned from driving etc.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of foot journeys are made using pavements, which - of course - are subsidised by others. As is almost all other forms of travel.
I don't think it's fair to hit people with very high walk up fares, it's restricting freedom of movement amongst those of a low income, or too unwell to get a decent wage.
In a perfect world the need to travel should not come at financial penalty, and should not just be available to those who earn a substantial wage.
I know it's not a perfect world, but a bit more fairness wouldn't hurt - would it?

Trains are a mode that is relatively expensive to use due to political decisions by successive governments, particularly if you buy walk up fares, so it may well be cheaper to buy less flexible advance tickets or drive/fly/use the coach.

To some extent groups who are likely to be less able to pay rail fares are already catered for via various railcards for young/students/the disabled etc.

 

[The exile]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of foot journeys are made using pavements, which - of course - are subsidised by others. As is almost all other forms of travel.
I don't think it's fair to hit people with very high walk up fares, it's restricting freedom of movement amongst those of a low income, or too unwell to get a decent wage.
In a perfect world the need to travel should not come at financial penalty, and should not just be available to those who earn a substantial wage.
I know it's not a perfect world, but a bit more fairness wouldn't hurt - would it?

You might be surprised to be getting a resounding “hear hear” from me to your 2nd - 4th paragraphs. Now that you’re not suggesting a general right to go gadding all over the country for no direct cost, I fully support your argument for vastly increased subsidy - at least at a local level.
As for the pavements- they’re very nice to have, but the thousands of miles of unmetalled rights of way prove that they’re not actually necessary for walking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2024 ==

That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure there really is an absolute right to travel, and there certainly isn’t a right to travel by any particular means. By travelling we are just exercising the general freedom we all have to undertake activities not prohibited by law. Put another way, you are generally free to use train/coach/car, but there’s no right to do so if you cannot afford to pay the fares, buy the fuel, or if you’ve been banned from driving etc.

Exactly my point - the “right to travel” is not the same as “the right to travel to my chosen destination by my chosen form of transport at my chosen time”. In the same way, the “right to life” is not the same as “the right to live at The Savoy”.

 

[Energy]

We're not even talking peanuts here. The amount of wear a pedestrian causes on a pavement is so miniscule compared with the wear a motor vehicle causes on a road that we're probably in the region of a millionth of the cost.

Road damage follows the fourth power law.

So assuming a 1ton car (e.g a VW Polo) pays £20 the vehicle exercise duty would be:

A 60kg pedestrian would pay £0.0002592
A 100kg person+bike would pay £0.002
A 12ton articulated lorry would pay £414,720.00

Road design tends to only bother accounting for lorrys, other traffic is inconsequential compared to it for road damage.

I don't think it's fair to hit people with very high walk up fares, it's restricting freedom of movement amongst those of a low income, or too unwell to get a decent wage.
In a perfect world the need to travel should not come at financial penalty, and should not just be available to those who earn a substantial wage.
I know it's not a perfect world, but a bit more fairness wouldn't hurt - would it?

Aside from the (omitted) first line I agree with the rest of this.

The beauty of trains is spontaneity and flexibility, and I don't think Advance fares provide this. We will probably still need some restrictions to stop some trains getting packed but we need something more flexible than advances, e.g demand based "any train from xx:xx" which have prices in a reasonable range