Would fares reform be acceptable if it led to price increases?

[yorkie]

From another thread:

I'm very clear that rail under GBR must be able to innovate and develop good value pricing that is random or confined to certain routes with historically low fares pegged to regulation.

Fares need to be easy to buy and use, and the principle of the walk-up railway maintained whatever additional incentives exist for pre-booking.

I agree that fares do need to be easy to buy and use, but right now by far the biggest barrier to that is TOCs such as Scotrail, Merseyrail, TfW etc not allowing e-tickets to be issued. This could be fixed almost overnight!

The price is a separate concept to that, in my opinion...

The only issues I think cause potential friction are
a) that to be economically viable, some fares on some routes at some times will need to be adjusted upward over time to remove some of the more extreme distortions. This doesn't mean jacking them right up and pricing people off, just a recognition of the reality; and

I reject this.

Some fares in Great Britain are good value, and while these are the minority (e.g. Sheffield to Derby CDR @ £12.90 which is roughly ~35 miles by road, or Sherburn to Whitby CDR @ £19.90 which is ~65 miles by road) it is absolutely vital that these, and other reasonable value fares, do not increase in cost.

If single leg pricing is introduced, then an off peak single must be HALF the cost of the current returns. No ifs, no buts. No increases to make things "simpler" (!)

Fares that are more expensive per mile than these are the ones that should be revised downward, if fares are to change.

Any attempt by GBR or anyone else to put the good value fares up will be met with huge resistance; it will be a massive PR own goal, the media will be all over it, and it will be political suicide.

The only form of fares reform that can happen is one that preserves the good value fares.

By all means re-name the fares, make them easy to buy (as e-tickets!), make a single priced at half the cost of a return, all that is fine, but the price must not go up.

b) whilst there will always be some anomalies somewhere (BR had a fair few), the conflicting rules over validity, routeing, break of journey and price that create a two-tier system allowing those with expertise to manipulate the price of a journey whilst most people pay the 'regular' rate will need to be resolved.

The only way to resolve this would be to reduce the cost of the more expensive fares, but if the aim is to abolish "anomalies" this is futile; as you say anomalies will remain.

By all means change the prices of fares to be more consistent, but this must only be done by reducing the fares which currently poor value, to match those of the fares that are reasonable value.

If this cannot be done, then the whole concept of fares reform is dead.

Customer research amongst ordinary (i.e. non-enthusiast) users has continuously shown that the biggest problem the industry has with fares is the total lack of trust amongst many that they are paying the best price for their journey.

The biggest concern I think most people have is that many fares are poor value for money.

If you ask people 'would you like fares to be simple?' they will, of course say "yes".

But if you ask people 'would you like fares to be simple, if it meant good value fares will go up?' they will say "no"!

But the sort of surveys that the likes of the DfT and RDG would like would never ask such a question; this is done deliberately to try to convince us that "simplification" or "reform" has to be about being "fair", to enable the price of affordable fares to go up, when the reality is we want all fares to be good value!

Most people appear to think fares are bad value for money, and that's because most fares are too high.

For example, see this survey:

Public opinion on train fares in the United Kingdom 2023 | Statista

In October 2023, just under three-quarters of survey respondents believed that train fares in the United Kingdom were either fairly bad or very bad value.

www.statista.com

Stance of survey respondents on whether train fares are good value in the United Kingdom 2020
Fairly bad 39%
Bad 32%
Don't know 16%
Fairly good 12%
Very good 1%

It may not be totally representative, but 71% saying fares are either "fairly bad" or "bad" is pretty damning and I think most (not all) fares are bad value and I think most others would agree.

This is not solved by simply selling them whatever Byzantine combination of tickets and/or itineraries gets them the cheapest fare (not least because it still means wildly differing prices for otherwise comparable journeys) - it means a much more straightforward and honest pricing structure - one that is likely will be heavily digitally based and will therefore be accurately focused on the journeys actually made.

I can get cheap fares right now by using a site such as Trainsplit. Providing the TOCs aren't being difficult (as stated above), I will get one PDF for the whole journey. It's easy to make the transaction and I can choose to print the PDF if I want, but equally I can show it on any device. It cannot get any easier than that; anyone can do it.

If there is to be a change in the fares structure, then the price people pay must not be higher than the price currently available on such a simple to use website.

That means the cost of the more expensive fares would have to decrease to match the cheaper fares.

There is absolutely no way the public will accept the good value fares (such as a Sheffield to Derby CDR) to go up, just so that a poor value fare (such as a Manchester to London Anytime Return) can go down in price, so that someone can tick a "this is simpler/fairer" box.

If anyone has any proposals for how fares reform could actually work, and what some sample actual fares would be, I'd be interested to hear the proposals! Providing the proposals don't increase the good value fares, then they're fine by me

 

[Joe Paxton]

To answer the question that is the subject of this thread - yes, I think some price increases are an acceptable result of fares reform. I'd go further and say that some price increases are actually an inevitable result of a more comprehensive fares reform process. Whether a comprehensive fares reform process is what will actually happen is another question.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Yes, if it's to remove an anomaly such as a ticket from A - C via B costing £15, but the same ticket from B - C costs £20.

 

[Alfonso]

There's both the economic argument to consider: what fares maximise revenue, minimise road congestion or pollution or whatever other public policy were trying to meet, and the reputation/political argument as Yorkie mentions. The media will pounce on any headline worthy increase.
I don't get why people think having many train fares is confusing and bad, but having many types of car, engine size, trim levels, and optional extras, or many kinds of breakfast cereal is not confusing but a wide choice

 

[jthjth]

There's both the economic argument to consider: what fares maximise revenue, minimise road congestion or pollution or whatever other public policy were trying to meet, and the reputation/political argument as Yorkie mentions. The media will pounce on any headline worthy increase.
I don't get why people think having many train fares is confusing and bad, but having many types of car, engine size, trim levels, and optional extras, or many kinds of breakfast cereal is not confusing but a wide choice

A car purchase is a very infrequent event, where you get plenty of time to decide what you want. Also, you get different things for your money. For a train journey you get the choice between standard and first class only, but a huge range of ticket prices for the same journey.

What the non enthusiast/industry insider doesn‘t really appreciate is the totally corrosive effect that the high walk on fares have on perception. From where I live, an Anytime return to London, 100 miles, 1 hour and a few minutes, is around £165 in standard. That’s the figure that floats around in mind of many people I talk to, both inside and outside of work. So the upshot is that the train is considered to be very expensive and is not even contemplated for *any* journey. Even if you have the money most people don’t like to feel they are being ripped off. I was chatting to a retired lawyer friend the other day. He can easily afford the train, but because of the perceptions mentioned above, there is no way that he will contemplate using it.

 

[Harpers Tate]

@Alfonso I'd venture to suggest
- if you buy the "wrong" car then you may well regret the omission of some feature but you can still use it wherever and whenever you want (*)
- if you buy the "wrong" cereal then the worst that might happen is that you have a breakfast you don't really enjoy; or buy another at its regular price; or even exchange it on payment of any difference.
etc.

If you buy the "wrong" train ticket, you may find yourself
- having to buy another at (what is in effect) a huge premium
- subject to a draconian administration fee to change to another
- in court.

Not, IMO, a valid comparision. It is the combination of a complex fare structure placed alongside the position you may find yourself in if you err that is the issue. Or to put it another way - if we retained the existing fare scheme (for example) but always allowed the customer in error to simply pay up to what they would have paid had they got it right at the time then the issue would be far less problematic. Buy a day return; travel back tomorrow; pay the difference.

=================
(*) Exception (example): Schemes such as ULEZ do require the "right" fundamental type of vehicle to avoid paying a fee.

 

[yorksrob]

If you have two routes from A to B, the more expensive fare should automatically be valid via both routes.

There should be a return to the concept of reasonable routes. Generally if you're going from A to C via B, and there are two routes from A to B, the A to B and A to C fares should be valid via both routes from A to B.

High walk on fares seem to be the bane of the modern British railway system. It's often said that a purely distance based system would kill off good value fares and innovation. Perhaps this should exist as a maximum chargable fare. So you could still offer a cheaper day return or AP, but you wouldn't be able to charge more than the distance based maximum.

 

[hkstudent]

Yeah. But the elephant in the room is: Treasury won't be happy to pay DfT extra, to bring the overall railway fares down.
It means that, if some crazy fares are going down, there must be a prey to hunt to pay for the difference.
Sigh.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah. But the elephant in the room is: Treasury won't be happy to pay DfT extra, to bring the overall railway fares down.
It means that, if some crazy fares are going down, there must be a prey to hunt to pay for the difference.
Sigh.

Yep, as the Government will not add any subsidy simplification will inevitably lead to a few rises to offset those who pay less. This isn't nice but is necessary, and genuine simplification is vital.

 

[Ianno87]

The answer the OP: Yes, in instances where fares are generally too cheap and below the market value for them (speaking as somebody who likes to take advantage of them myself).

 

[yorksrob]

The answer the OP: Yes, in instances where fares are generally too cheap and below the market value for them (speaking as somebody who likes to take advantage of them myself).

Are those fares "really" below the market value - particularly for the train and time of day that they're available, or are they filling otherwise empty space ?

 

[bspahh]

Yeah. But the elephant in the room is: Treasury won't be happy to pay DfT extra, to bring the overall railway fares down.
It means that, if some crazy fares are going down, there must be a prey to hunt to pay for the difference.
Sigh.

Are those fares "really" below the market value - particularly for the train and time of day that they're available, or are they filling otherwise empty space ?

Similarly are expensive "How much?!!!" fares market value, if they mean the train is practically empty. They are a strong negative marketing message that trains are really expensive, so even bother to checking whether you could take a train for a reasonable price and journey time.

The treasury cares about the overall budget.

 

[yorkie]

Yes, if it's to remove an anomaly such as a ticket from A - C via B costing £15, but the same ticket from B - C costs £20.

Why shouldn't B to C be reduced to £15?

Are those fares "really" below the market value - particularly for the train and time of day that they're available, or are they filling otherwise empty space ?

No they aren't; the costlier fares are too high and drives many people onto the road (in fact we have a thread on that very subject!)

The answer the OP: Yes, in instances where fares are generally too cheap and below the market value for them (speaking as somebody who likes to take advantage of them myself).

They are not "too cheap" the fares I have examples of (there are others) are just about acceptable. Anything higher (eg. York to Leeds at over £16) is too much.

 

[35B]

Some fares in Great Britain are good value, and while these are the minority (e.g. Sheffield to Derby CDR @ £12.90 which is roughly ~35 miles by road, or Sherburn to Whitby CDR @ £19.90 which is ~65 miles by road) it is absolutely vital that these, and other reasonable value fares, do not increase in cost.

If single leg pricing is introduced, then an off peak single must be HALF the cost of the current returns. No ifs, no buts. No increases to make things "simpler" (!)

Fares that are more expensive per mile than these are the ones that should be revised downward, if fares are to change.

Any attempt by GBR or anyone else to put the good value fares up will be met with huge resistance; it will be a massive PR own goal, the media will be all over it, and it will be political suicide.

The only form of fares reform that can happen is one that preserves the good value fares.

By all means re-name the fares, make them easy to buy (as e-tickets!), make a single priced at half the cost of a return, all that is fine, but the price must not go up.


The only way to resolve this would be to reduce the cost of the more expensive fares, but if the aim is to abolish "anomalies" this is futile; as you say anomalies will remain.

By all means change the prices of fares to be more consistent, but this must only be done by reducing the fares which currently poor value, to match those of the fares that are reasonable value.

If this cannot be done, then the whole concept of fares reform is dead.

The biggest concern I think most people have is that many fares are poor value for money.

If you ask people 'would you like fares to be simple?' they will, of course say "yes".

But if you ask people 'would you like fares to be simple, if it meant good value fares will go up?' they will say "no"!

But the sort of surveys that the likes of the DfT and RDG would like would never ask such a question; this is done deliberately to try to convince us that "simplification" or "reform" has to be about being "fair", to enable the price of affordable fares to go up, when the reality is we want all fares to be good value!

Most people appear to think fares are bad value for money, and that's because most fares are too high.

For example, see this survey:

Public opinion on train fares in the United Kingdom 2023 | Statista

In October 2023, just under three-quarters of survey respondents believed that train fares in the United Kingdom were either fairly bad or very bad value.

www.statista.com

It may not be totally representative, but 71% saying fares are either "fairly bad" or "bad" is pretty damning and I think most (not all) fares are bad value and I think most others would agree.


I can get cheap fares right now by using a site such as Trainsplit. Providing the TOCs aren't being difficult (as stated above), I will get one PDF for the whole journey. It's easy to make the transaction and I can choose to print the PDF if I want, but equally I can show it on any device. It cannot get any easier than that; anyone can do it.

If there is to be a change in the fares structure, then the price people pay must not be higher than the price currently available on such a simple to use website.

That means the cost of the more expensive fares would have to decrease to match the cheaper fares.

There is absolutely no way the public will accept the good value fares (such as a Sheffield to Derby CDR) to go up, just so that a poor value fare (such as a Manchester to London Anytime Return) can go down in price, so that someone can tick a "this is simpler/fairer" box.

If anyone has any proposals for how fares reform could actually work, and what some sample actual fares would be, I'd be interested to hear the proposals! Providing the proposals don't increase the good value fares, then they're fine by me

The question that isn't asked here is "why should there be fares reform?" There are a number of possible reasons for fares reform, and what "good" looks like after a fares reform will depend heavily on which reason(s) fares reform is implemented for.

I start with the assumption that fares reform needs to avoid increasing government subsidy of the railway, so must take place within that pre-existing funding envelope. Any other assumption involves not just considering fares reform, but wider issues of transport policy - worthy in themselves, but which risk confusing discussion of the impact of fares reform.

If I look at the fares structure, what I then observe is a massive emphasis on discounted, therefore restricted, tickets to offset the headline open fares. Personally, I regard the emphasis on pre-booking as wrong headed, and counting against the railway's selling point of flexibility, so I'd want to see the emphasis on those dropped. This would also lead to a level of simplification as would be customers aren't faced with a myriad of choices to navigate through.

I also note that there are significant differences over fares policy between some areas (e.g. S Yorks), and some operators (e.g. XC). These mean that meaningful fares reform cannot avoid creating winners and losers if the objective is to try to bring prices towards a degree of consistency.

Finally, I note that the railways pre-Covid were already overloaded on some significant flows, suggesting that on an economic analysis, the fares on those flows were below their real market value. Without getting into the fairness of that concept, especially on commuter flows where customers' choices are constrained, we need to acknowledge that increasing demand in the short term on those flows would not necessarily be a positive outcome, and that fares reform would be quicker to deliver than new capacity.

Putting those together, I fail to see how fares reform can avoid increasing some fares. Even ignoring the role of some very heavily discounted AP fares in attracting marginal spend, I would expect that some fares would increase as part of the process. The question is, which ones, and why.

I agree with the idea that a move to single leg pricing should not lead to an increase in return fares - but I note in passing that if the return fare is already heavily discounted from two singles, this means not just holding the return, but reducing the single. More generally, my view would be that whatever analysis is done to underpin fares change should consider the price per mile. If (say) Sheffield-Derby is "good value", the question is how that price per mile (~18p/mile for the return by my rough maths) compares to others. If it's well below, then I'd suggest in the context of fares reform, it is underpriced.

That leads to a final thought. I've pretty well ignored price elasticity of demand, and assumed that fares reform would not (because it "should not") change customer demand. In reality, that's implausible; we know that there's a broad correlation between price and demand. I'd want to see it properly analysed, but my hunch is that a reform that led to reduced fares would drive increased use, and therefore offset the loss caused by those lower fares - so allowing the cost of the railways to the Treasury to stay flat.

Why shouldn't B to C be reduced to £15?


No they aren't; the costlier fares are too high and drives many people onto the road (in fact we have a thread on that very subject!)


They are not "too cheap" the fares I have examples of (there are others) are just about acceptable. Anything higher (eg. York to Leeds at over £16) is too much.

Viewed in isolation from other policy issues, why is £16 York - Leeds "too much"? And how would the "right" fare be defined? If £16 for that 50 mile return (32p/mile) is too much, might it not be possible that 25p/mile (so £12.50) would be "right" - meaning that your Sheffield - Derby example "should" be £17.50, and the current fare is excessively cheap?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why shouldn't B to C be reduced to £15?

It could be, but that would require additional subsidy, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Thus, the railway's choice is to make it revenue neutral (which means some increases) or not do it (which certainly advantages splitting sites and enthusiasts, but isn't an overall good thing).

 

[Watershed]

The question that isn't asked here is "why should there be fares reform?" There are a number of possible reasons for fares reform, and what "good" looks like after a fares reform will depend heavily on which reason(s) fares reform is implemented for.

I start with the assumption that fares reform needs to avoid increasing government subsidy of the railway, so must take place within that pre-existing funding envelope. Any other assumption involves not just considering fares reform, but wider issues of transport policy - worthy in themselves, but which risk confusing discussion of the impact of fares reform.

If I look at the fares structure, what I then observe is a massive emphasis on discounted, therefore restricted, tickets to offset the headline open fares. Personally, I regard the emphasis on pre-booking as wrong headed, and counting against the railway's selling point of flexibility, so I'd want to see the emphasis on those dropped. This would also lead to a level of simplification as would be customers aren't faced with a myriad of choices to navigate through.

I also note that there are significant differences over fares policy between some areas (e.g. S Yorks), and some operators (e.g. XC). These mean that meaningful fares reform cannot avoid creating winners and losers if the objective is to try to bring prices towards a degree of consistency.

Finally, I note that the railways pre-Covid were already overloaded on some significant flows, suggesting that on an economic analysis, the fares on those flows were below their real market value. Without getting into the fairness of that concept, especially on commuter flows where customers' choices are constrained, we need to acknowledge that increasing demand in the short term on those flows would not necessarily be a positive outcome, and that fares reform would be quicker to deliver than new capacity.

Putting those together, I fail to see how fares reform can avoid increasing some fares. Even ignoring the role of some very heavily discounted AP fares in attracting marginal spend, I would expect that some fares would increase as part of the process. The question is, which ones, and why.

I agree with the idea that a move to single leg pricing should not lead to an increase in return fares - but I note in passing that if the return fare is already heavily discounted from two singles, this means not just holding the return, but reducing the single. More generally, my view would be that whatever analysis is done to underpin fares change should consider the price per mile. If (say) Sheffield-Derby is "good value", the question is how that price per mile (~18p/mile for the return by my rough maths) compares to others. If it's well below, then I'd suggest in the context of fares reform, it is underpriced.

That leads to a final thought. I've pretty well ignored price elasticity of demand, and assumed that fares reform would not (because it "should not") change customer demand. In reality, that's implausible; we know that there's a broad correlation between price and demand. I'd want to see it properly analysed, but my hunch is that a reform that led to reduced fares would drive increased use, and therefore offset the loss caused by those lower fares - so allowing the cost of the railways to the Treasury to stay flat.


Viewed in isolation from other policy issues, why is £16 York - Leeds "too much"? And how would the "right" fare be defined? If £16 for that 50 mile return (32p/mile) is too much, might it not be possible that 25p/mile (so £12.50) would be "right" - meaning that your Sheffield - Derby example "should" be £17.50, and the current fare is excessively cheap?

I agree with a lot of that.

As much that the railway "shouldn't" be increasing prices to get out of the mess that has accumulated over the last few decades, that's not realistic. Ultimately if no-one is allowed to lose out, that means there can't be any reform, because the Treasury really isn't in a mood to sanction a permanent increase in railway subsidy. Thus leading to the current stalemate.

At the end of the day, the current system is deeply flawed. And whilst 'power users' (as are disproportionately found on these forums) can take advantage of it, ultimately the railway exists for the benefit of the public, not a minority of enthusiasts, so it shouldn't be necessary to know about all these 'tricks' to pay a reasonable fare.

I think one of the changes that would probably be the least objectionable would be stopping cluster-based pricing - which means that the value for money of a fare can vary significantly depending on which end of a cluster you're travelling to/from. It typically also means a massive jump from the last station where Day Returns are available. With modern computers it's no longer necessary to cluster fares to keep the data to a manageable size.

That doesn't necessarily mean mileage based pricing, which is inherently problematic on a network as complex and polycentric as the UK's. But it probably does mean that, for example, Sherburn to Whitby would cost more than York to Middlesborough.

It's difficult to envisage a sort of half-way house with fares reform - if you want to do anything more than tinkering around the edges (e.g. with largely pointless products like the "Flexi" Season) you need to go for full reform. Which, I fear, may mean moving to the continental model of the default fare being an Anytime Single, with discounts being available by way of Advance tickets and local rovers/rangers.

 

[yorkie]

It could be, but that would require additional subsidy, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Thus, the railway's choice is to make it revenue neutral (which means some increases) or not do it (which certainly advantages splitting sites and enthusiasts, but isn't an overall good thing).

Revenue neutral means charging more for affordable leisure fares, to enable the overpriced fares to reduce slightly, must be opposed, and it will be. It would be political suicide for any party to implement it.

The question that isn't asked here is "why should there be fares reform?" There are a number of possible reasons for fares reform, and what "good" looks like after a fares reform will depend heavily on which reason(s) fares reform is implemented for.

That's true; the only justifiable reason for fares reform must be to reduce the overpriced tickets so that they are in line with the reasonably priced tickets. Making it "revenue neutral" is not acceptable.

Many of the biggest obstacles, which lead to requests for fares reform, are actually possible now, without any such reform, but some TOCs are refusing to co-operate.

I start with the assumption that fares reform needs to avoid increasing government subsidy of the railway, so must take place within that pre-existing funding envelope. Any other assumption involves not just considering fares reform, but wider issues of transport policy - worthy in themselves, but which risk confusing discussion of the impact of fares reform.

But the problem with that is it's effectively a statement that the only affordable fares we have (which are more expensive than in many European countries) are "too cheap"; I reject this.

If I look at the fares structure, what I then observe is a massive emphasis on discounted, therefore restricted, tickets to offset the headline open fares. Personally, I regard the emphasis on pre-booking as wrong headed, and counting against the railway's selling point of flexibility, so I'd want to see the emphasis on those dropped.

I think the opposite is very possible with fares reform; I've heard of some proposals that in order to make things "simple" all Off Peak fares would be abolished, and everyone would be required to either book a specific train or have an Anytime fare.

This would also lead to a level of simplification as would be customers aren't faced with a myriad of choices to navigate through.

What range of fares would you make available for a journey such as Ashford to London, or Dover to Southampton?

I also note that there are significant differences over fares policy between some areas (e.g. S Yorks), and some operators (e.g. XC). These mean that meaningful fares reform cannot avoid creating winners and losers if the objective is to try to bring prices towards a degree of consistency.

There is no way you are getting away with increasing the cost of fares in urban areas (especially serving deprived areas) just so you can put the money from the increased fares into lowering the price of tickets such as Birmingham to Bristol.

Finally, I note that the railways pre-Covid were already overloaded on some significant flows, suggesting that on an economic analysis, the fares on those flows were below their real market value.

Not true; the reasonably priced fares at at an appropriate value and it is the more expensive fares that are too high.

Without getting into the fairness of that concept, especially on commuter flows where customers' choices are constrained, we need to acknowledge that increasing demand in the short term on those flows would not necessarily be a positive outcome, and that fares reform would be quicker to deliver than new capacity.

I reject the notion of pricing people off in this manner.

Putting those together, I fail to see how fares reform can avoid increasing some fares. Even ignoring the role of some very heavily discounted AP fares in attracting marginal spend, I would expect that some fares would increase as part of the process. The question is, which ones, and why.

No that is not the question.

I agree with the idea that a move to single leg pricing should not lead to an increase in return fares - but I note in passing that if the return fare is already heavily discounted from two singles, this means not just holding the return, but reducing the single. More generally, my view would be that whatever analysis is done to underpin fares change should consider the price per mile. If (say) Sheffield-Derby is "good value", the question is how that price per mile (~18p/mile for the return by my rough maths) compares to others. If it's well below, then I'd suggest in the context of fares reform, it is underpriced.

How much would you charge per mile, and what of the Whitby branch?

That leads to a final thought. I've pretty well ignored price elasticity of demand, and assumed that fares reform would not (because it "should not") change customer demand. In reality, that's implausible; we know that there's a broad correlation between price and demand. I'd want to see it properly analysed, but my hunch is that a reform that led to reduced fares would drive increased use, and therefore offset the loss caused by those lower fares - so allowing the cost of the railways to the Treasury to stay flat.

I agree that lower fares will encourage usage; I am sure more people will travel between Sheffield and Derby by train compared with equivalent places where the price is much higher.

Viewed in isolation from other policy issues, why is £16 York - Leeds "too much"?

How can anyone argue that it isn't?!

Around 12 pounds return may be considered reasonable, at the absolute most. That's still not good value compared to (say) York to Sheffield.

And how would the "right" fare be defined? If £16 for that 50 mile return (32p/mile) is too much, might it not be possible that 25p/mile (so £12.50) would be "right" - meaning that your Sheffield - Derby example "should" be £17.50, and the current fare is excessively cheap?

I reject that Sheffield to Derby is too cheap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Revenue neutral means charging more for affordable leisure fares, to enable the overpriced fares to reduce slightly, must be opposed, and it will be. It would be political suicide for any party to implement it.

I think the question of the excessively high long distance Anytime fares is a slightly separate one which might indeed require additional subsidy if it is to be addressed. By reform I'm more referring to removing confusion, duplication and pointless TOC specific fares, and single-fare pricing. These would require much smaller increases (because not many people make single journeys and don't somehow come back by train), and indeed may be able to be accommodated by way of "invisible" tweaking with Advance quotas rather than needing to increase the walk-up fares themselves.

 

[JonathanH]

If single leg pricing is introduced, then an off peak single must be HALF the cost of the current returns. No ifs, no buts. No increases to make things "simpler" (!)

Rightly or wrongly there are examples which indicate that that is not the plan. In the 'Bristol PAYG' trial area, the price of off-peak day singles was reduced to half the off-peak return, not the off-peak day return (or left unchanged on shorter flows). A off-peak day single from Bath to Bristol (£8.40 remains 10p less than the off-peak day return (£8.50) because there was no adjustment to short distance single fares.

The Sheffield to Derby fare you mention is only at the level it is because of the Derbyshire Wayfarer which I think was established in BR days. Chesterfield to Derby is not such a good value fare at only 10p less than the Sheffield fare.

A full move to single fare pricing will lead to price increases on some routes. I can't see, for example, an off-peak day single from Brighton to Southampton being priced at £8.75 (or indeed one from Ashford International) and let's not forget that at the moment I could take an hour's break in Worthing, Chichester, Havant and Fareham (and indeed many more places) for no extra cost. PAYG / single fare pricing is highly likely to do away with both break of journey and the cheap fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rightly or wrongly there are examples which indicate that that is not the plan. In the 'Bristol PAYG' trial area, the price of off-peak day singles was reduced to half the off-peak return, not the off-peak day return (or left unchanged on shorter flows). A off-peak day single from Bath to Bristol (£8.40 remains 10p less than the off-peak day return (£8.50) because there was no adjustment to short distance single fares.

The Sheffield to Derby fare you mention is only at the level it is because of the Derbyshire Wayfarer which I think was established in BR days. Chesterfield to Derby is not such a good value fare at only 10p less than the Sheffield fare.

A full move to single fare pricing will lead to price increases on some routes. I can't see, for example, an off-peak day single from Brighton to Southampton being priced at £8.75 (or indeed one from Ashford International) and let's not forget that at the moment I could take an hour's break in Worthing, Chichester, Havant and Fareham (and indeed many more places) for no extra cost.

Off Peak Day Returns do tend to be priced quite low which is awkward. You could I suppose keep those as an exception - perhaps even as single-piece tickets offering unlimited travel for the off peak day, bringing them in line with a day of a flexi-season. Yes, some people will save money by stringing them together but that is probably unavoidable.

You could even make these zonal in some ways. While I dislike the lack of Railcard validity, Merseyrail's zonal day tickets (and multi-modal ones) seem a good principle and can get extra marginal journeys out of the car.

PAYG can deal with this easily enough as it's just capping.

PAYG / single fare pricing is highly likely to do away with both break of journey and the cheap fares.

PAYG doesn't allow for break of journey because it can't, it just becomes two journeys, which is swings and roundabouts - sometimes it'll save money, sometimes it'll cost more. There is no particular reason single-fare pricing should do away with same-day break of journey, and indeed LNER's Super Off Peak Singles allow it. If anything it should allow break of journey to be allowed on all tickets, as there's near enough no scope for reuse.

 

[JonathanH]

There is no particular reason single-fare pricing should do away with same-day break of journey, and indeed LNER's Super Off Peak Singles allow it. If anything it should allow break of journey to be allowed on all tickets, as there's near enough no scope for reuse.

I agree with that, but it seems apparent that the south east will move to universal PAYG rather than to single leg paper / e-tickets which, unless there is some form of cap outside the Travelcard area, will mean higher costs for visiting multiple places.

 

[yorkie]

Rightly or wrongly there are examples which indicate that that is not the plan. In the 'Bristol PAYG' trial area, the price of off-peak day singles was reduced to half the off-peak return, not the off-peak day return (or left unchanged on shorter flows). A off-peak day single from Bath to Bristol (£8.40 remains 10p less than the off-peak day return (£8.50) because there was no adjustment to short distance single fares.

Indeed, and this is a concern. Unless they are pegged to half the cost of returns, we must not abolish return fares.

We can only justify abolishing return fares if the cost of 2 x Singles does not exceed the (current) cost of a return

The Sheffield to Derby fare you mention is only at the level it is because of the Derbyshire Wayfarer which I think was established in BR days. Chesterfield to Derby is not such a good value fare at only 10p less than the Sheffield fare.

Yes Chesterfield to Derby ought to be cheaper, though there is no harm in it being the price that it is, given it does not create any "anomalies".

A full move to single fare pricing will lead to price increases on some routes.

Any such proposals must be opposed.

I can't see, for example, an off-peak day single from Brighton to Southampton being priced at £8.75 (or indeed one from Ashford International) and let's not forget that at the moment I could take an hour's break in Worthing, Chichester, Havant and Fareham (and indeed many more places) for no extra cost. PAYG / single fare pricing is highly likely to do away with both break of journey and the cheap fares.

Indeed and if they are not going to reduce the single fare to that amount, returns must remain.

Off Peak Day Returns do tend to be priced quite low which is awkward.

Says someone on a high income

The reality is that for most people, the Off Peak Day returns are simply deemed just about acceptable in value and absolutely not "quite low"; the higher priced fares are too high.

 

[Starmill]

I think that they should be treated as two separate issues. So-called reform is about the structure, names, terms and means of delivery of tickets. These could and should be improved.

The overall price level is a different issue. The overall price level needs to come down by around 50 - 65% in the next few years in order to shift traffic away from highly polluting and carbon intensive car and air travel. Incidentally this is why we also need to increase the capital budget for railway enhancements by a factor of 2.5 - 3.5 over the next few years, to provide the capacity for this price reduction. That's what this is really about. The money raised by train fares is totally irrelevant compared to the challenge of decarbonising our transport network. The costs of failure to decarbonise quickly enough are hundreds of thousands of times greater than the money generated through train ticket sales, and are economy-wide.

Sadly Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak do not give a stuff about actually decarbonising our transport network, and they most certainly aren't interested in helping railway passengers because that won't win them more Conservative votes at the next election.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with that, but it seems apparent that the south east will move to universal PAYG rather than to single leg paper / e-tickets which, unless there is some form of cap outside the Travelcard area, will mean higher costs for visiting multiple places.

It can't move solely to PAYG because not everyone has a card/device capable of supporting it, and it's unlikely they will do their own Oyster due to the huge cost. It can't even shake off cash yet!

 

[35B]

Revenue neutral means charging more for affordable leisure fares, to enable the overpriced fares to reduce slightly, must be opposed, and it will be. It would be political suicide for any party to implement it.


That's true; the only justifiable reason for fares reform must be to reduce the overpriced tickets so that they are in line with the reasonably priced tickets. Making it "revenue neutral" is not acceptable.

Many of the biggest obstacles, which lead to requests for fares reform, are actually possible now, without any such reform, but some TOCs are refusing to co-operate.


But the problem with that is it's effectively a statement that the only affordable fares we have (which are more expensive than in many European countries) are "too cheap"; I reject this.


I think the opposite is very possible with fares reform; I've heard of some proposals that in order to make things "simple" all Off Peak fares would be abolished, and everyone would be required to either book a specific train or have an Anytime fare.


What range of fares would you make available for a journey such as Ashford to London, or Dover to Southampton?



There is no way you are getting away with increasing the cost of fares in urban areas (especially serving deprived areas) just so you can put the money from the increased fares into lowering the price of tickets such as Birmingham to Bristol.


Not true; the reasonably priced fares at at an appropriate value and it is the more expensive fares that are too high.


I reject the notion of pricing people off in this manner.


No that is not the question.


How much would you charge per mile, and what of the Whitby branch?


I agree that lower fares will encourage usage; I am sure more people will travel between Sheffield and Derby by train compared with equivalent places where the price is much higher.


How can anyone argue that it isn't?!

Around 12 pounds return may be considered reasonable, at the absolute most. That's still not good value compared to (say) York to Sheffield.


I reject that Sheffield to Derby is too cheap.

So, summarising very briefly, you assert that fares are too expensive, that they need to be normalised at the level of the lowest fares, that the justification for fares reform is that it is to be a net reduction in fares because some are “too expensive”, but you do not provide a definition of “too expensive”.

I also like having my cake and eating it, but can’t accept the premise that any change must be one way. I carefully avoided the language of “revenue neutral” because I understand both how hollow the phrase is, and how it can be used as a ratchet based on a set of modelling assumptions - which is why I have presumed that as a matter of policy the objective should about cost to the taxpayer. Personally, I’d have thought that the trade off should be between lower priced AP tickets and walk up fares, with reductions in the latter being offset by increases in and reduced availability of the former - that trade off to be calculated, yes, based on an expectation that the change shouldn’t change the operator’s income after considering the impact on demand.

If the policy were to change (say to be about modal shift), then the answers on fares might well also change - but no answer will work until the question is framed.

Meanwhile, you assert that Derby-Sheffield is fair, but Leeds-York not. As you demand change, what would your view be of a fair comparator for a price per mile?

I think that they should be treated as two separate issues. So-called reform is about the structure, names, terms and means of delivery of tickets. These could and should be improved.

The overall price level is a different issue. The overall price level needs to come down by around 50 - 65% in the next few years in order to shift traffic away from highly polluting and carbon intensive car and air travel. Incidentally this is why we also need to increase the capital budget for railway enhancements by a factor of 2.5 - 3.5 over the next few years, to provide the capacity for this price reduction. That's what this is really about. The money raised by train fares is totally irrelevant compared to the challenge of decarbonising our transport network. The costs of failure to decarbonise quickly enough are hundreds of thousands of times greater than the money generated through train ticket sales, and are economy-wide.

Sadly Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak do not give a stuff about actually decarbonising our transport network, and they most certainly aren't interested in helping railway passengers because that won't win them more Conservative votes at the next election.

And that is a fair view of one possible framework in which fares policy could be set.

 

[Starmill]

but you do not provide a definition of “too expensive”.

A definition isn't that difficult. The objective is for it to be cheaper than current car travel in say 98% of cases within five or so years. We really don't have long to sort this out now. This will also be achieved by greater focus on lowering prices for accompanied children, and groups who are bound to travel together.

 

[JonathanH]

It can't move solely to PAYG because not everyone has a card/device capable of supporting it, and it's unlikely they will do their own Oyster due to the huge cost. It can't even shake off cash yet!

It can't but I don't think we can rule out the extension of the London approach of only having anytime fares available if you still want to pay for a paper ticket / e-ticket. Extension of Contactless outside its current boundaries to a wider area of the South East seems to be government policy, perhaps not all the way to the coast.

The issue is that revenue neutral PAYG on anytime fares into London would be comparatively simple to implement, and be welcomed by commuters. With them on side, you then have PAYG replacing Travelcard into London which is also relatively easy to do with daily capping.

Where PAYG then falls down is the loss of flexibility and higher prices on the journeys in the outer area, where there is no cap and where there are currently off-peak day returns. But this group may be forgotten. This sort of fares reform got accepted in London without much fuss, even though it increased fares for people in the outer area. Extend that outer area outside London and that issue increases. This is what is worrying.

 

[yorkie]

So, summarising very briefly, you assert that fares are too expensive,

I agree with the majority of people who agree that most fares are too expensive.

that they need to be normalised at the level of the lowest fares,

If there is to be fares reform which does any 'normalisation' then yes it must be normalised to the lowest fares.

that the justification for fares reform is that it is to be a net reduction in fares because some are “too expensive”, but you do not provide a definition of “too expensive”.

See post by @Starmill above which I think is a very good starting point.

If we want people to use rail, we can't price it so high that people think it's a rip off, which currently happens a lot.

I also like having my cake and eating it,

Having affordable fares should not be looked at in such a way.

but can’t accept the premise that any change must be one way.

Then there must be no change until such a premise is accepted.

I carefully avoided the language of “revenue neutral” because I understand both how hollow the phrase is, and how it can be used as a ratchet based on a set of modelling assumptions - which is why I have presumed that as a matter of policy the objective should about cost to the taxpayer. Personally, I’d have thought that the trade off should be between lower priced AP tickets and walk up fares, with reductions in the latter being offset by increases in and reduced availability of the former - that trade off to be calculated, yes, based on an expectation that the change shouldn’t change the operator’s income after considering the impact on demand.

I wonder if similar demands are made for air fares? No, of course not!

If we want people to take the train instead of flying a range of good value fares should be offered, though we cannot completely get away from market bases pricing.

The idea that we can make fares better value by increasing affordable Advances and offset that against making Anytime fares cheaper is absurd.

If the policy were to change (say to be about modal shift), then the answers on fares might well also change - but no answer will work until the question is framed.

I do t think fares reform will happen any time soon because people cannot agree on what is desirable or acceptable so yes I agree with you on that.

Meanwhile, you assert that Derby-Sheffield is fair, but Leeds-York not. As you demand change, what would your view be of a fair comparator for a price per mile?

I do not think mileage based pricing is sensible and I have suggested a maximum of £12 return for York to Leeds, which is around the price charged by Northern.

Edit: just to add I've looked up the inter-available (any operator) York - Leeds CDR on BRfares and it's £16.90! Of course I never buy this ticket, and neither does anyone else I know of. Some people do, but they will be seriously put off rail in future. If rail was priced sensibly, the CityZap would not need to exist. Personally I would prefer a Northern Only ticket (which costs a little more than the City Zap at off peak times), though the CityZap really beats the train when it comes to groups.

 

[35B]

I agree with the majority of people who agree that most fares are too expensive.


If there is to be fares reform which does any 'normalisation' then yes it must be normalised to the lowest fares.


See post by @Starmill above which I think is a very good starting point.

If we want people to use rail, we can't price it so high that people think it's a rip off, which currently happens a lot.


Having affordable fares should not be looked at in such a way.


Then there must be no change until such a premise is accepted.


I wonder if similar demands are made for air fares? No, of course not!

If we want people to take the train instead of flying a range of good value fares should be offered, though we cannot completely get away from market bases pricing.

The idea that we can make fares better value by increasing affordable Advances and offset that against making Anytime fares cheaper is absurd.


I do t think fares reform will happen any time soon because people cannot agree on what is desirable or acceptable so yes I agree with you on that.


I do not think mileage based pricing is sensible and I have suggested a maximum of £12 return for York to Leeds, which is around the price charged by Northern.

The problem, which you duck, is how you define a desirable and practical outcome. Instead, you apply semi-random examples, as though they can provide a definition of good, but without any useful or usable way to apply those comparisons elsewhere. For all that mileage based pricing is flawed, it provides a useful yardstick to allow meaningful comparison of different journeys - using it as a rough and ready indicator suggests that it is "fair" to charge ~1/3 more per mile for Leeds/York (£12/50 miles = 24p) than Sheffield/Derby (£12.90/70 miles = 18p/mile).

I happen to agree that market based pricing is not only here to stay, but also a necessity. But I also recognise that it has introduced some of the anomalies in the current model, whether for good (e.g. SYPTE pricing) or bad (XC pricing strategies), and that this history can't avoid having an impact on how change is progressed.

If, on the other hand, we start with the premise put forward by @Starmill, then a lot else follows from that strategy - not just fares reduction, but a range of other changes that would utterly change the comparisons between road and rail journey costs. But that again takes us down the road of "why" - which taking a lot of "green" voices at face value would mean penalising long distance travel and putting the emphasis on short distance, local, travel.

Ultimately, when travelling for family reasons (as opposed to as an enthusiast or for work), my equation for a rail viable journey is simple - does the fare for the group sensibly compare with the direct cost (fuel, tolls, parking) of taking the car?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ultimately, when travelling for family reasons (as opposed to as an enthusiast or for work), my equation for a rail viable journey is simple - does the fare for the group sensibly compare with the direct cost (fuel, tolls, parking) of taking the car?

But what's also important to bear in mind is that a modern family car, particularly an electric one, is a very efficient means of transporting a family (4 people or so), possibly even more so than per-seat in something like a Voyager or mini HST. So it's getting cars with one or two people in off the roads that the railway should prioritise, which might mean the complete opposite of group discounts and Railcards, but rather getting the price down for one middle aged traveller as much as possible to get them out of their single occupancy BMWs and Mercs.