What TOC specific (or equivalent) fares should remain into GBR?

[Bletchleyite]

I'm of the view where there is capacity on slower, lower quality trains there should be a routing available for that service, but I believe that long term, 70% of UK advance ticket flows (ie all the pointless, short journey, post-2010 ones) and 90% of the TOC-only routing tickets in this country need removing.

To me they're worth keeping where there is a significant market broadening (mostly long distance, e.g. cheap, slow WMT/Chiltern vs. expensive, fast Avanti) AND where the local service has the capacity to take the extra passengers (so not on most of Northern aside from the bits where they can run long trains e.g. Manchester-Blackpool and the 6 car Cumbria diagrams).

Where there's 10p difference (e.g. most of the TPE vs. Northern ones) they are harmful because they cause confusion for basically no benefit and need to go. Similarly short distance Advances are probably harmful because they just cause arguments - it would be better to go to single-fare pricing on the regular walk-up fares and bin them off. The old situation where they were available only on trains where seats could be reserved was about right in my view (probably including in that where seats should be able to be reserved even if they can't, e.g. TfW long distance). But really all fares on Manchester area locals, say, should be Bee Network priced and probably based on singles and multimodal day tickets, not Advances.

One reason I think Northern likes Advances is that they're not refundable (reducing fraud) and they encourage advance purchase (so reducing ticket office costs - closure is obviously controversial but you can reduce hours and the number of windows without people really noticing) - but you could do this by offering walk up fares for cheaper if purchased online instead of Advances, and perhaps changing the rules on refunds so retailers aren't allowed to discount the admin fee for a refund (that Trainline offers a tapered refund fee so you always get something back even for low value tickets is probably responsible for a fair bit of refund fraud). Or you could make walk up fares only refundable up to the day before the first day of validity rather than afterwards, or fee free up to the day before then a fee on the day.

 

[Zomboid]

I've seen people kicked off an LNER train because they had a "TPE-only Anytime" ticket. Which is especially egregious because both were DfTO services.
Anytime tickets really should be valid on any train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've seen people kicked off an LNER train because they had a "TPE-only Anytime" ticket. Which is especially egregious because both were DfTO services.
Anytime tickets really should be valid on any train.

I can see us moving to a situation where it's just Advances for cheaper, slower trains and there are one, two or three* walk up single fares for any given journey, all valid via any permitted route, or at most a +LONDON and a NOT LONDON where relevant. And no TOC specific stuff on local journeys as it just makes no sense because the discounts are tiny and the grief caused far outweighs the benefits of a few people saving ten pence (five with Railcard).

* Depending on the outcome of the LNER "trial" these might be just Anytime, Anytime+Off Peak or add Super Off Peak.

 

[NCT]

Clearly the plethora of short-distance TOC only tickets should go.

However, I would temper expectations, as even within TSGN they abandoned getting rid of Thameslink only fares due to political reasons ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, I would temper expectations, as even within TSGN they abandoned getting rid of Thameslink only fares due to political reasons ...

Gatwick Express is really a bit of a pain in this regard, but EMR's branded "Luton Airport Express" seems to be able to exist without these fare differentials, and I don't *think* StanEx has ever had them.

My view would be that the London-Gatwick fares need aligning based on just averaging them out to be revenue neutral and the dedicated fares removed. We don't want to be discouraging people from using the trains that are specifically designed with the capacity and luggage space those people need, it's just nuts.

 

[Manutd1999]

I can't see any reason for keeping them tbh. Cheaper/slower journeys can be sold as Advances (albeit with less flexibility).

Longer-term I can imagine 3x broad categories:

• Integrated ticketing within certain city regions (e.g. Manchester), with flat fares and tap-in/out payments.
• A more traditional system for other regional routes, with each route having a simple peak/off-peak price, no returns and no advances.
• An airline (or LNER) type model on selected Intercity routes, where the majority of tickets are sold as advances alongside a few (expensive) flexible options.

 

[Zomboid]

I can't see any reason for keeping them tbh. Cheaper/slower journeys can be sold as Advances (albeit with less flexibility).

Longer-term I can imagine 3x broad categories:

• Integrated ticketing within certain city regions (e.g. Manchester), with flat fares and tap-in/out payments.
• A more traditional system for other regional routes, with each route having a simple peak/off-peak price, no returns and no advances.
• An airline (or LNER) type model on selected Intercity routes, where the majority of tickets are sold as advances alongside a few (expensive) flexible options.

I think there is value to route specific (so long as there's actually a saving, Oxford to London via High Wycombe isn't cheaper enough than the any route ticket to be worth buying) if it'll help to manage loading on the fastest routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think there is value to route specific (so long as there's actually a saving, Oxford to London via High Wycombe isn't cheaper enough than the any route ticket to be worth buying) if it'll help to manage loading on the fastest routes.

It wasn't always so, but these days with mostly 9 and 10-car 80x plying this route GWR is both fastest and highest capacity. Chiltern is no longer about competition but rather about connectivity - and that's how it should be. The Oxfords are now a combination of extended Wycombe stoppers/semifasts and a diversion of the former through Aylesbury via Risborough service (which was never that useful for Aylesbury itself aside from during engineering works, as it takes an hour and a half).

It's cheaper to provide more capacity on faster routes unless track capacity rules it out. Rolling stock is used more efficiently that way, and looking at the UK basically all new stock is 100+mph capable now, so it's not the case that you can get stock on the cheap by specifying 75mph EMUs or something.

 

[NCT]

Gatwick Express is really a bit of a pain in this regard, but EMR's branded "Luton Airport Express" seems to be able to exist without these fare differentials, and I don't *think* StanEx has ever had them.

My view would be that the London-Gatwick fares need aligning based on just averaging them out to be revenue neutral and the dedicated fares removed. We don't want to be discouraging people from using the trains that are specifically designed with the capacity and luggage space those people need, it's just nuts.

It's not even about Gatwick Express - it's about flows like Brighton - London Terminals vs Brighton - London Thameslink (Thameslink Only). Averaging fares to be revenue neutral means someone loses out, and traditionally our politics seems to be too scared to deal with that.

 

[JonathanH]

Averaging fares to be revenue neutral means someone loses out, and traditionally our politics seems to be too scared to deal with that.

Or simply removing the lower fares, and just charging the higher ones. At the most recent review, the weekend Thameslink only fares were increased by about 11%. Removing the differential is a way of paving the way for eventual withdrawal without having to reduce the higher fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or simply removing the lower fares, and just charging the higher ones. At the most recent review, the weekend Thameslink only fares were increased by about 11%. Removing the differential is a way of paving the way for eventual withdrawal without having to reduce the higher fare.

Another way to do it sneakily is to replace the lower ones with Advances (available in basically unlimited quantities up to departure as most Northern ones are) and slowly creep them up/mess with the quotas. The ability to do this is the main reason TOCs love them.

 

[NCT]

Can you ever police Advance fares on something like Thameslink which really operates like a quasi metro? I.e. ticket checks are done almost exclusively at gatelines and it's impossible to police you are on the right train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you ever police Advance fares on something like Thameslink which really operates like a quasi metro? I.e. ticket checks are done almost exclusively at gatelines and it's impossible to police you are on the right train.

Not particularly well, but it barely matters. The advantage to the TOC here is that they can tweak with the fares and availability over time to remove the differential on the quiet, which you can't do with walk up fares because the annual fares round is too visible.

 

[NCT]

I don't like the idea of proliferation of Advance fares on commuter operations - it dilutes the integrity of the Advance fare type. You'd expect someone like LNER to be fairly strict with passengers being on the right train - you won't want passengers being used to lax operations on GTR to give an LNER conductor grief.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't like the idea of proliferation of Advance fares on commuter operations - it dilutes the integrity of the Advance fare type. You'd expect someone like LNER to be fairly strict with passengers being on the right train - you won't want passengers being used to lax operations on GTR to give an LNER conductor grief.

Northern cast that particular ship adrift years ago.

 

[NCT]

Northern cast that particular ship adrift years ago.

Abolition of silly Northern Advance fares is the first thing I'd do. Although on longer, more rural less frequent routes like Blackpool - York Advance fares do make sense.

 

[stevieinselby]

Where there's 10p difference (e.g. most of the TPE vs. Northern ones) they are harmful because they cause confusion for basically no benefit and need to go. Similarly short distance Advances are probably harmful because they just cause arguments - it would be better to go to single-fare pricing on the regular walk-up fares and bin them off. The old situation where they were available only on trains where seats could be reserved was about right in my view (probably including in that where seats should be able to be reserved even if they can't, e.g. TfW long distance). But really all fares on Manchester area locals, say, should be Bee Network priced and probably based on singles and multimodal day tickets, not Advances.

One reason I think Northern likes Advances is that they're not refundable (reducing fraud) and they encourage advance purchase (so reducing ticket office costs - closure is obviously controversial but you can reduce hours and the number of windows without people really noticing) - but you could do this by offering walk up fares for cheaper if purchased online instead of Advances, and perhaps changing the rules on refunds so retailers aren't allowed to discount the admin fee for a refund (that Trainline offers a tapered refund fee so you always get something back even for low value tickets is probably responsible for a fair bit of refund fraud). Or you could make walk up fares only refundable up to the day before the first day of validity rather than afterwards, or fee free up to the day before then a fee on the day.

Where there is no substantial or significant difference between the services then I wouldn't object to differential fares being maintained – a couple of examples would be Coventry to London via Avanti or LNWR, or deepest Kent to St Pancras or London Bridge. In other cases, such as TPE vs LNER, Thameslink vs Southern vs GatEx, or pretty much any shortish journey, having differential fares is not tenable, especially under a nationalised operator. I would probably even rule out Reading to London because of the diversity and disparity of GWR services, and in many cases it isn't awfully clear what would count as an intercity service and what would count as a regional/local service.

I can see why operators like advance tickets:

• Not having to share revenue with other operators
• Greater incentive for passengers to buy a ticket rather than just chance it (especially if not in a penalty fare zone) so less lost revenue
• Less risk of fraudulent delay repay claims
• No refunds so they have your money whether you travel or not
• More opportunity to sting passengers for penalties

I doubt that "encourages a reduction in ticket office usage" features for Northern, given that they offer the tickets from a huge number of unstaffed stations! Although potentially it means the conductor will spend less time issuing tickets and so will have more time to check tickets.

I've seen people kicked off an LNER train because they had a "TPE-only Anytime" ticket. Which is especially egregious because both were DfTO services.
Anytime tickets really should be valid on any train.

Two separate issues there.
First, I very much doubt that the passenger had the faintest idea that TPE and LNER are both run by DFTO so that doesn't give them any mitigation.
Second, while I would like to see operator-specific restrictions significantly reduced, they are in force and there are differential prices and so it is entirely reasonable and appropriate that they are enforced. Otherwise, what is the point of an "Any Permitted" Anytime ticket if passengers are allowed to use a cheaper "TPE-only" Anytime ticket on LNER services?

 

[Zomboid]

Otherwise, what is the point of an "Any Permitted" Anytime ticket if passengers are allowed to use a cheaper "TPE-only" Anytime ticket on LNER services?

The "TPE only" fare shouldn't be available in the brave new world, at least not on an anytime ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Abolition of silly Northern Advance fares is the first thing I'd do. Although on longer, more rural less frequent routes like Blackpool - York Advance fares do make sense.

I think with services like that and the former NorthWest Express services to Barrow/Windermere you're getting into the territory of services that could have seat reservations and thus Advances, even if the reservations aren't actually there.

Manchester-Stockport on the other hand (even though I did once buy one) is silly. That should be a Bee Network multimodal fare paid mostly by contactless (but with a paper/cash option for those requiring it).

 

[NCT]

The existing plethora of TOC-only tickets are mainly from an era of TOCs playing silly ORCATS games.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The existing plethora of TOC-only tickets are mainly from an era of TOCs playing silly ORCATS games.

The ones that are 10p cheaper absolutely are, yes. And playing silly games to get people to pick them on journey planners as they appear at the top as they're cheaper.

See also Merseyrail's day tickets vs. Saveaways. The former benefit nobody but SercoNedMerseyrail's pockets, the price difference is so small. It's in my view worth the extra tenpence or so for the insurance policy that having validity on buses provides when things go awry.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The ones that are 10p cheaper absolutely are, yes. And playing silly games to get people to pick them on journey planners as they appear at the top as they're cheaper.

The fares from Manchester Airport to Manchester City centre are particularly bad for this. Not only are they only a few pence cheaper, you also lose the onward validity on Metrolink in the city centre zone when you buy the TOC-specific fare.

I’d mostly agree about the Merseyrail day ticket compared to the Saveaway, although for tourists the difference is a bit more because of the insistence on only selling it on the Metrocard. I don’t know if that insistence is Merseyrail or Merseytravel though, as Northern will sell that ticket on paper.

In general I don’t mind the Northern advances though, especially as my journeys on Northern tend to be one way. If you make singles half the price of returns then you’d have my support, but otherwise no.

 

[WAB]

I think they can be justified where capacity on longer distance services needs to be protected for long distance passengers - e.g., Leeds to York, Leeds to Sheffield.

 

[GreenFlag]

I honestly don't see the point on routes where there is only one TOC, so there isn't even a competition argument to be made - Northern seem to be particularly bad for this. I'm also not a fan of advances that only come with a 'counted place'. I'd rather advances were renamed 'Apex' for clarity and only available on longer distance routes where reservations can be made.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I honestly don't see the point on routes where there is only one TOC, so there isn't even a competition argument to be made - Northern seem to be particularly bad for this. I'm also not a fan of advances that only come with a 'counted place'. I'd rather advances were renamed 'Apex' for clarity and only available on longer distance routes where reservations can be made.

I'd go with Value or a similar brand. Trying to describe them using a simple term e.g. Fixed (you can change them) or Advance (you can buy on the day) is confusing. APEX is a dated term, though, so I'd not pick that.

 

[Kite159]

Another way to do it sneakily is to replace the lower ones with Advances (available in basically unlimited quantities up to departure as most Northern ones are) and slowly creep them up/mess with the quotas. The ability to do this is the main reason TOCs love them.

Something I can see happening with those cheaper 'Evenings/Sunday out' tickets on SWR at some point. Those flexible tickets getting replaced with booked train only advance tickets as a way to increase revenue.

The "TPE only" fare shouldn't be available in the brave new world, at least not on an anytime ticket.

I suspect the TPE only fares exist due to LNER axing return tickets on flows like Darlington/Durham to Newcastle.

----

As for TPE only fares, get rid of them on short journeys like Stockport to Manchester, reduce the cost of a single to be the sort of amount Northern charge for advance tickets. Similar get rid of advance tickets for anything under 50 miles.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The existing plethora of TOC-only tickets are mainly from an era of TOCs playing silly ORCATS games.

No - it’s the reverse. By having TOC only tickets, you effectively bypass ORCATS splits. You get 100% of the fare, not some percentage determined by the timetable and your place in it.

It’s a game of greed.