Great Western Coffee Shop

Covered on the BBC this morning too.........

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/absurd-rail-ticketing-system-needs-overhauled-charity-says/ar-AA1m4gdR

As always, I find myself wondering if they realise that this will mean some fares increase, or do they expect the Government/tax payer/train companies (all, ultimately, funded by us when it comes down to it!) to plug the gap in fares income.  In addition, though I don't dispute that there are anomalies, a difference in the cost per kilometre of flexible day return tickets from Newquay to Plymouth and from Chelmsford to London isn't to my mind necessarily surprising or wrong.

I personally doubt a real "root-and-branch reform" will ever happen; it's just too much of a political hot potato with too many people likely to end up paying more without huge levels of extra subsidy.  Gradual harmonisation over several years to limit the effects would need a long term strategy and so fall foul of 5-yearly electoral terms as well as risking accusations of sneaking in high increases.

My concern with this is that there is some flexibility in the existing system which might be lost in any "simplification".

But surely simplicity and flexibility are opposites.  Simplification would reduce flexibility. 

We need the broadgage simplified fares structure.
Only three different fares available for any journey.(in each class)
Peak fare---------for trains known or expected to be heavily loaded.
Super  bargain---very cheap  for very lightly used services, mainly early morning or late night services, possibly also rush hour trains for travel against the main flow.
Off peak------all those not included in the above.


To limit the greed of TOCs, at least 25% of services must be Super bargain.
And peak fares must not apply to more than 25% of services.
Both the above to be per timetable period and NOT each day or week.
Bookings allowed for peak and off peak, for a small charge. Not needed on super bargain.

Subject to the above, TOCs could classify trains as they see fit, but only alter this at timetable changes, not every few days on a whim.

No more punitively high fares for walk up travel on lightly used trains.

And no more discounted advance tickets on overcrowded services.

You seem to have forgotten that TOCs now give all revenue collected straight to the DfT in return for a fixed fee for operating the trains.

In theory that should make your suggestion (or suggestions from others) far easier to implement now as only one body will be taking on revenue risk.

Ah that's why the Rail Minister aka DfT are not keen on the Andrew Haines GBR simplification of fares approach, as it would reduce the amount of revenue the DfT can squeeze out of the cash cows aka passengers

Agreed - and add to that the fact that "simplification" would remove many of the anomalies that save us money (i.e. put our fares up) which would not to the rail minister and his party colleagues much good at the next election.   A fare goes up, people complain for years but a fare goes down and the memory of the reduction faded long before the next ballot.

On potential loss of flexibility?

With the LNER "trial" of single leg tickets, there has been comment that this leads to loss of flexibility. The examples appear to relate to journeys from South to North of England (and v/v). Previously many tickets, notably "Any Permitted" (i/c returns) would be valid on alternative routes, ie in some cases interchangeable between West Coast, Midland and East Coast routes and then alternative options Up North.

An interesting question is whether the LNER trial actually withdrew the pre-existing tickets, or simply promoted the new singles?

The further question is whether this form of simplification is a price worth paying for this lack of flexibility which would only be exercised by a few people?

 

All forgetting that in the UK, the cost must be borne by the customer.  We don't do public transport in its proper meaninig in this country.

Good point. Back in the day, LNER and the LMS were able to cooperate sufficiently on this to offer angloscottish return tickets that allowed outward travel by one route and back by another - and they were separate companies.

Mark

PS Mods, as I've actually managed to post something about a company that once served the Coffeeshop's home turf, please can I have a credit, or be thrown off the forum, or something?

I suspect that was an arrangement, either organised or managed, by the Railway Clearing House that distributed fare revenues.

The taxpayer is already plugging a huge gap in income to the tune of many millions monthly as post COVID ticket revenue has not returned to expected levels and there is a major deficit in this area.

Not so long ago (in fact only a few months) a lot of people were screaming for fare simplification as a precursor to closing ticket offices - maybe it has to be the "right sort" of simplification?

Perhaps one of the knowledgeable people on this forum could describe what that would look like?  (Sincere question, not sarcastic!)

It’s a pre-Covid article, but most of it still holds true:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-rail-fares-price-rise-ticket-innovation#:~:text=A%20shift%20to%20single%2Dleg,travel%20much%20simpler%20and%20cheaper.

Perhaps it would be easier to explain what it should do:

1) It should render split ticketing unnecessary
2) It should avoid the case where similar journeys on the substantially the same route are differently priced (e.g. Swindon to Paddington £160 (anytime return (day return not available)), Same from Oxford £77.30 (anytime day return) mostly using same tracks and trains and similar speeds)
3) So as not to penalise round trips, returns should be twice the single fare.
4) Route and time restrictions should be transparent and easy to explain (e.g. explain to me why Swindon to Birmingham not valid via Bristol Parkway when if you continue to Derby it is!)
5) Route and time restrictions should be recognisable by automatic gates so you don't have to negotiate with a ticket inspector. 
 

That worries me.  There are cases where buying a return is much more expensive that 2 singles - such cases as out in the peak, back off peak, or where people buy two advance singles, and it would be good to cap the return fare at the sum of those singles.  However, day and period returns in the same "peakiness" offer a saving and it would be a shame for them to rise to twice the single.

Riddle me this. Didcot to Oxford, Reading, & Swindon are pretty similar in journey time around 15 minutes, and in the same rolling stock, at least for many services. The price though is wildly different:

Anytime day return
OXF: £8.60
RDG: £12.50
SWI: £59.40 (the 7 day season fare is only (!) £97.40)

Off peak day return
OXF: £7.90
RDG: £7.80
SWI: £15.70

Now there are a few accidents of history that have combined to produce this state of affairs, but it has no underlying logic.

Why should a period or day return offer a saving.  What if (in a revenue neutral way) the cake was cut a different way so that the single was a less and those who had the benefit all these years for no apparent reason pay a bit more (though not twice as much). 

1. The cost of any purchase comprises a transaction and packaging cost and the cost of the goods. Two singles is two transactions each for a smaller amount of goods.  I think I read that 90% of journeys are returns - though the ticketing via advance fares may have muddied that, so "singles only" in the days of paper tickets and ticket offices was a much more expensive thing for the railways to provide.   And with ticket machines only offering (may be changing) tickets from the station at which the machine is located, singles-only would have meant queuing at a TVM before your return journey too.  They should offer a saving because they are cheaper for the railway to provide.

2. In places where revenue protection has been an issue, having a singe ticket priced quite high compared to the return means that the revenue loss is reduced.  Taking one of our local "classics", Dilton Marsh to Warminster - return fare £4.60 or £4.00 off peak, single £3.30.  No TVM and Dilton Marsh and insufficient time to collect all the fares before arrival in Warminster - at least the railway gets £3.30 if it manages to collect a fare in one direction!

3. Marketing and what people will pay before they decide not to make the trip.  Single journeys tend to be necessities and people will pay rather more ... they will pay less (per leg) for a return and even less per leg for a day return.

To some extent I am quoting industry [excuses/explanations] there.  But they need to be considered and I would tend to suggest period returns at 160% of a single and day returns at 130%.   That's a starting point for negotiation.

I do not buy these arguments, especially as in my (admittedly limited) recent experience no-one ever tried to check my ticket so they clearly don't care about revenue collection. 

However, if they are true why are day returns not offered everywhere at that sort of discount?  That drives the rank unfairness in the Oxford/Swindon comparisons quoted above. 

Fare enough - I believe there is a valid and significant reason in the marketing argument.  The other two have struck me as perhaps being the industry looking for a reason.

My understanding of the amazingly high Swindon to Didcot fares is that it dates back to the introduction of the HST on the Paddington to the West, Bristol and South Wales routes.  A premium service, long distance traffic only (or at least dominant).  Since that time, much more local traffic but still long distance dominated and the anytime fare is not a regulated one, so First and their predecessors have been able to charge what they want - maximising profit not journeys.  The clue is in the regulated season ticket costs.

Given a directive to maximise income the system could be hugely improved.  I had a very very interesting discussion with the RDG fares consultation team a few years back when they were trying to square the circle and they asked for fare ideas that would at least maintain their revenue.  They were not happy when I proposed a scheme that would have brought fares down by x% but raised passenger numbers by 2x%, arguing they would need to provide more or longer trains.  Apparently they had no interest in the consultation in anything that actually grew demand like that!

Surely rail fares should be transparent and clear to understand

For example

• Peak Time surcharge for Origin, Through or Destination stations
• Distance, say £0.75 per mile, £0.50 per km
• Per ticket charge for local, regional or national journeys
• Per ticket charge for speed of journey

There are obviously other ways to determine price of rails, the current anomaly of split tickets shows that the current price model is crazy. Why is Bath Spa to Bristol TN twice the cost of Yate to Bristol TM? They are the same distance.

I believe the Oxford/Swindon (and some other places) issue has been made worse by the different regulated fares rules in the former network south east area and elsewhere.  IIRC in the former NSE area the day return is the regulated fare elsewhere it is  something else so that the anytime return is not regulated.  Can anyone fill in the detail or correct me?

I am also wooly but ... from the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67784711)


You'll note that the season tickets are regulated, as are the London to Didcot ANYTIME fares ("around a major city") and the London to Swindon OFF-PEAK fares (not being around a major city).   Where an anytime fare is regulated, it acts as a ceiling under which off-peak fares must be set (or no-one will buy them!).  But where the off peak fare is regulated, it acts as a floor not a ceiling and the fare-setting TOC can set very much higher anytime fares.

There is another historical effect with the Didcot to Reading & Oxford fares in that there was a one off reduction in the early 2000s when these were set by Thames Trains which has been baked in subsequently for the next 20 years. Otherwise they would probably be pushing towards £10.

It isn't strictly comparable being a somewhat shorter journey but Swindon to Chippenham is more in line being  £11.60 anytime, £8.80 off peak.

So here is LNER's view of fares simplification what do we make of that:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD88agMW4AAv4_D?format=jpg&name=small)

Super off-peak fare abolished to Waverley. So results in a fare increase - but not for Haymarket so there is a money saving offer. 

I worry that simplification and value for money are not the same thing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67993208

From the BBC -
There is an example quoted of 23 different fares on LNER trains between Edinburgh and London being reduced to just 6. 

It is true that the 181 (I just counted them) Melksham to London fares is such a complex morass of opportunities that it scares people away.  If simplified to just six fares, it probably would reduce that fear, and encourage more people to ask, but simplification is not better value and it could well be that the change in system resulted in an increase in the amount paid (or asked of) many. 

The six fares remaining are to be 3 first class and 3 standard class.  Ignoring the first class fares (we don't have first class on any trains calling at Melksham; these tickets are rarely sold), two of the current fares would remain:
** Any time single, via any permitted route: £117.80 (current price)
** Advance single, booked train only: £102.50 (highest current advance price)
** a new in between fare which you buy in advance for a booked train, but you can then travel up to 70 minutes earlier or later.
For Melksham, with a train every 2 hours that third fare is  about as useful as a chocolate teapot (
(ok - you can book the 07:21 and switch to the 08:02 and vice versa).

If I'm headed to London at the weekend at present, I'm likely to do so by train for £70.50 (or £46.50 with a senior railcard) to include my Transport for London journeys while in London too. With just 3 fares, I would be looking at around £215.00 for 2 advance singles plus my journeys within London.

I would suspect that the new fare would come with marketing from the ministry, telling us that they are holding (or even reducing) the fares so "fares across the board are down by 10%".  With Messrs Harper, Sunak, Shapps and others trumpeting it on TV. Whether anyone would "buy" that or them? I don't know.  What would happen to
a) Passenger numbers
b) Revenue from passengers
c) Loading distribution

Direction of travel: grim?

Fares reform on a TOC-by-TOC basis doesn't lead to simplification across the rail system as they'll all do their own thing so complexity explodes, which is not what's needed, UK-wide.

LNER's model come across, unsurprisingly, as being designed with long distance travel between major centres in mind.  For one thing, it isn't an easy fit for shorter distance travel and their abandonment of return fares some time ago has curtailed flexibility for travellers.

That 70 minute flex ticket's a bit of a monster that perhaps doesn't offer the advantage to the traveller or perhaps the TOC that LNER represents it as doing - and also the flex ticket, like an advance ticket, is non-refundable and quota controlled.

Brfares.com has the range of fares offered from February 5th. Looking at Edinburgh to Kings Cross options, I now have a migraine aura. I didn't realise there was such a mish mash of TOC-specific fares, this has turned a bit 'Gatwick to Londony', and the same goes for a shorter haul such as Berwick to Edinburgh.

https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EDB&dest=KGX&period=20240205 (https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EDB&dest=KGX&period=20240205)

Mark

A read on LNER's flex fare, from 'Diamondgeezer'.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2024/01/lner-70min-flex-tickets.html (https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2024/01/lner-70min-flex-tickets.html)

Mark

Looking at the response on social media to LNER’s fare ‘simplification’ it has gone down very badly.

I’m expecting a screeching u turn on this one.

Is it a two year trial? Long enough to be reflected in stats for Haymarket.

Mark

This from Jen on Trains from YouTube posted without comment  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AQhUBLbiLM&t=2s (ftp://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AQhUBLbiLM&t=2s)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AQhUBLbiLM&t=2s

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68009768
Ticket machines at train stations charge passengers more than double than what they would cost online for some journeys, according to analysis.

Consumer group Which?'s research said same-day rail tickets were 50% more expensive on average at stations.
..............................continues.....................

Anyone surprised?

Very few of our members and regular guests are likely to be ... but I know there's a significant proportion of rail users who pay much more that they need for their journeys, and that it can be difficult or impossible to buy the best walk up fare for your journey from a machine - if you can even establish what that best fare is when you're standing at an unmanned station looking at the machine ...

If the LNER 'simplification' is a TOC-specific initiative a pox on all their houses; if it is a tester for a system wide fares update then it shows some promise but I think it could be better.

I could be wrong but I would guess that the TOC's are quite keen to know before the event how many pax are travelling on each of their 'long-distance' services. Hence the retention of Advance tickets.

Having most (all?) walk-up tickets replaced by Anytime fares seems the right way to go as long as the pricing is done sensibly.

I just don't get the reasoning behind the 70 minute Flex fare - which according to Simon Calder allows travel on the services immediately before and after the booked train - as a simplification it is not. Aside from anything else it complicates ticket validity checking by Train Managers (unless the ticket itself will actually display which 3 services it can be used on).

Yes................but not with the fares findings. More with "Which ?" using Trainline as its base line for best value.

One thing to be careful of is Trainline routinely splitting journeys after a one-time prompt about offering "split-save". At this prompt it does explain about the need for the train to call at the splitting stations, but then after that there's no reminder.

For walk up tickets, if the spit ticket the Trainline offers only allows a subset of trains to be used then the comparison Which is making is not entirely fair.

...as an aside I needed some tyres quickly the other day, I ended up paying about 1/3 more than I would have done online. I don't think it's totally unreasonable for the same product to be priced differently depending on the sales channel.

I don't think there's any need for it. TOCs should advertise the fact more that if your connection(s) into a long distance leg are delayed, you can get the next one anyway. Just amend the T&Cs for the current advances to say you can travel 70 minutes earlier if desired or allow guards/TMs to use discretion. A significant cohort of people do actually respect the advance conditions and are concerned about missing their booked train that they turn up early enough to catch the previous one.

I very rarely use a ticket with a specific train listed on it and normally that specific train is the Night Riviera. I can’t guarantee that I will make a specific train and because of that I like the Off Peak or Super Off Peak tickets. 70 minutes won’t cover it for me and what happens if the next train is cancelled and the one after that is more than 70 minutes away? That’s more then possible at the moment on the Cotswold line.

Daily Telegraph

(https://i.postimg.cc/RhNzfC7V/matt.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Same logic as the flexiseason - to meet market demand for something between a single, tight "this train only" fare and a much more expensive anytime. Much will depend on all the pricing, but there could be an expectation that this fare will very rarely be the one people end up buying. With the flexiseason I have spoken with / informed quite a few people of their options when travelling, and on only one or two occasions has it been a good solution for them.

I guess the suitability of any simplification will depend on whether the government wants to simplify fares to encourage more people to travel by train and ensure fewer people buy the wrong ticket.

Or or they want to put people off travelling by train with higher fares so they might be able to reduce the cost of the railway by reducing services and/or closing lines/stations or effectively remove the ‘walk up’ railway principle on longer distance routes.

It's interesting and somewhat ironic that recently there was much clamour for fare simplification as a precursor to closing ticket offices in recognition of the fact that around 88% of tickets are purchased by other means.

Now that efforts are being made to achieve this, enthusiasm seems to have waned somewhat, and alternative suggestions are somewhat vague/locally focussed.

I cannot imagine that the Treasury will agree to any solution that involves more of a contribution from the taxpayer given that revenue is already substantially reduced and subsidy much higher - therefore I'd suggest any large scale reform/simplification will need to be revenue neutral, or designed to generate more revenue, perhaps  the cost of flexibility will become much higher?

Sometimes I guess we need to be careful what we wish for.

I hope a solution can be reached which is as palatable as possible to all concerned.

Personal opinion – I think that all these proposals are starting from the wrong place.

Most rail passengers want to take a return journey – out and back form the same place to the same destination. They might want to reserve a seat, but probably would rate flexibility above this. If you are on a business trip, you are probably going to a meeting, and who wants to spend half the meeting worrying about whether you will miss your train? (as in my experience, many do), and if it’s a leisure trip most would welcome the flexibility of a choice of trains. Who wants to have the hassle of wondering if there’s a train 70 minutes after one nominated on a ticket?

So – make the core fare the off-peak return. I can see the merit in an additional charge for peak time travel. If you want to reserve a seat, then an option to pay for this. If you don’t make that train then you lose your payment, but if it’s because the train is cancelled or short-formed, or missed due to a late running connection, then there’s an automatic right to get a refund. No rules about not breaking your journey, short stopping (if the TOC is dumb enough to charge more for an intermediate station, the customer can buy the cheaper fare for the longer journey without penalty) and no “only valid via X” rules. Any revised permitted routing guide to have maximum reasonable flexibility. The ticket is valid for 30 days from date of first travel, to allow weekend/overnight/holiday travel.

The starting point in setting the fare under this regime should be the cheapest current off-peak return between the starting point and destination. If you do want one way only, it’s half that fare. Nothing else, save that TOCs can make special offers, but these (apart from price) to be on these terms, unless “rover tickets” giving unlimited travel in a specified area.

So – one basic fare for a return off-peak. A peak time supplement, a supplement for reserving a seat and half the fare for a one-way journey and that’s it. Apart from this, it’s valid for 30 days from first travel, and journeys can be broken at the passenger’s absolute discretion, and they can choose a route to suit them. It would still mean there would have to be the extensive lists of what is a reasonable route, but there ought to be some clear rules, such as doubling back if a stopping service is cancelled or if the stop is missed by the TOC is permitted without penalty.

Split ticketing to remain possible, to give TOCs (or whoever really sets fares) an incentive to change fares to remove such anomalies.

Is that all pie in the sky/unrealistic/fundamentally flawed/misses one or more practical problem? 

I don’t think enthusiasm has waned at all.  Most of us just want a well thought through set of proposals that are fair to as many people as possible, hopefully better for some, and not forced on train operators to implement against what they themselves might know about their markets.

In other words not an exact repeat of what happened with the rushed, ill thought out, and ultimately unworkable, ticket office closures farce to which you refer.

As a passenger, do you have any thoughts on the LNER trial?

Indeed.  So much trust in that the  "powers that be" will do something sensible has been lost that many of us start from a basis of fearing the worst whenever a proposal is put forward.   We fear a repetition of the ticket office debacle. Very sad.


Probably a very good topic for a poll amongst our (very biased because it's very well informed) membership.

Fares simplification is always going to lead to a rise one way or another, because simplification it's not simple.

Starting point: Anytime fares - always will be expensive as it's the nature of the beast.  Now there is an argument for shrinking the peak period, no journey starting at 04.30 in the morning should be classified as peak!  If "peak" became, say 07.00-09.00, then someone leaving Plymouth on the 04.55 is arriving into Paddington at 08.35, bang on peak passenger flow in a now heavily loaded train.  So do you add graduated fares that take account of this peak period? 

Similarly do we keep a (universal?) evening peak period?  Currently someone travelling to Cornwall can travel on an off-peak ticket on a "peak train" as it takes longer to get there, do we make them wait?  Do we abolish evening peak and that same person is now unable to board a train at 17.00 due to evening commuters?

Simplifying off peak.

We have 1 off peak ticket that starts at a universal time (say 09.00).  Problems:  day trips become more expensive as all OP tickets are valid for return for 30 days or longer trips become more expensive as you need to buy 2 singles as returns are only valid for 1 day. 
Someone travelling from Penzance to Scotland arrives in Scotland after 8pm as they have to start their journey later.  You can already see pitfalls in a Melksham - Paddington journey, where the 10.02 with an arrival at 11.35 jumps straight to super off-peak, as the previous train at 08.02 is peak.

1 ticket 1 journey.

Already happening where some off-peak tickets in Devon have been abolished and the only available is an Anytime.  Ticket is naturally more expensive compared to what it was.

Simplifying/abolishing routing

Currently, I can buy a ticket from Plymouth to Manchester routed Any Permitted or via Hereford.  If we abolish routing, can I then have a jolly via Southampton, Canterbury, Durham...?  Making every route any permitted would still need a routing guide to determine what is permitted and what would that be?  Any sensible route between two stations or just the quickest, in both cases cheaper fares on more round about routes would disappear?

Pence per mile

Someone travelling from Exeter to Portsmouth Arms is now paying nearly the same as someone travelling Exeter to Taunton.  And Cardiff - Holyhead is now slightly more expensive than London - Preston.  How much will the longest journey on a single train (734 miles) be?!  Admittedly, from an end-user perspective, weighting could be added to more heavily used routes and no-one would be any the wiser.

1 train, 1 journey

A frequent complaint is over-crowding and "overselling" tickets.  So do we go compusory reservations and abolish walk-up fares?  It would be a nightmare in practice but if that's what the will of the loudest people is.

As you say it's a trial so I will await to see the results against measures of success as I would with any trial  before forming an opinion - test and learn is generally a good method so I am thinking it's probably something the whole network will be looking at as a model for the future - it certainly seems to be using flexibility to determine price and doing away with dozens/hundreds of confusing options which seems to be the method most people recognise.

I think the hesitancy amongst a lot of people now that the simplification they have clamoured for is now starting to become reality may be driven by the dawning realisation that "simpler" does not necessarily mean "cheaper" - probably the opposite, especially if flexibility is required.

Suspect it will also look to get rid of the anachronisms and workarounds, split tickets etc.

I'd imagine that the TOC attitude at the moment is largely ambivalent given that the drop in their revenue is being made up by the taxpayer, and they're certainly not bothered about their customers as long as the money is coming in from whatever source, however the majority of taxpayers who use trains rarely if ever are also entitled to value for their money.

Worth bearing in mind too that whatever simplification is decided upon, it will almost certainly see the resurrection of ticket office closures given that this was one of the major reasons for postponing them.

To pick up one other point - I wouldn't support charging for reservations, but if you're going to, Train Managers would need to take a much more robust attitude to customers sitting in seats which others have paid to reserve.

I personally think that if one fare - an off-peak single - is retained with broadly current time restrictions and priced sensibly, but valid on day of purchase only, then much of the LNER scheme would make sense: Single leg pricing and four different fares, one fully flexible, one restricted to a certain train, and two in between with varying restrictions.

If that happened you’d still have a much smaller number of fares, but not a huge leap in price for the freedom to use any off-peak service.

Though I am slightly dubious as to the usefulness of the flexi fare, and very suspicious of any ideas the current government are behind.

I also very much doubt any scheme will get rid of all workarounds.

The railcards' situation is something that could realistically be tackled; perhaps all the currently available ones consolidated into a National Railcard (to the benefit of the 31-59 age group that aren't covered by the area specific/other qualifying criteria railcards). I know other suggestions have been put forward on old forum threads, but implementing them should be "easier" in the short term than sorting out the fares database.

Early government discussion called this scheme "demand based pricing" which at least was a more honest description than "simpler". There may only be three fare names but there are dozens of actual fare levels from the cheapest to the most expensive across these. With the elimination of the off peak fare, the cap on Advances & 70 min "flex" throughout the day is now the Anytime fare. Expect this to come into play at busy times.

Errr, yes. But in Which's rather crass research.
Everyone knows that TVMs are limited in the tickets that they can sell, and that they can't split tickets either.

So compare online with ticket offices, and they'll get a completely different answer.

Neither did they recognise/accept or otherwise mention that the one online resource they bothered to check (ok, admittedly the most popular) charge an admin fee that no TVM does to my knowledge - and this ought to have appeared in their report.

Which? are usually much better - their standards are definitely slipping!

No need - base the fare on the *arrival* time at the destination - 0835 in Paddington is obviously 'Peak'. The same train alighting at Newton Abbot is quite likely to be earlier than their morning peak. So set 'peak' to be arriving 0700-0930 at all stations and you have your peak time in the morning.


My bug-bear is any evening peak starting before say 1600. Sorry. And I'd finish it at 1830 too. So, set this time on *departure* times, 1600-1830.

Separate discussion on which stations attract a peak fare - many rural stations for example where there is no demand obviously don't need them. Ditto journeys made contra-peak against the flow - its only comparatively recently that they have introduced peak fares on flows against the peak flow.



Two singles - but singles become 50% of the OP return, thus 2 singles = the cost of the current OP return. Current OPDR fares are generally on shorter trips and therefore there would be a small price rise on those fares where there is a discount over the OP return. Some fares would have to rise to equate to break-even & This is my 'sacrifice'.

Off-peak is Monday-Friday before 0700, 0930-1600 & 1830-end of service plus all weekend. Further discussion on Friday peaks, (& definitely its evening peak) as to whether to continue it.

No change otherwise in Peak & OP Singles - available at those days & times, any TOC, break of journey permitted.


Not sure what you meant here - but my suggestion kills off Super off-peak fares. They don't exist everywhere now, and can be replaced by the flexi-single, but this NOT to be quota-controlled. Plus quota-controlled Advance fares as now on longer flows.

So in my world - Anytime, Off-peak (both flexible), the flexi (semi-flex) & Advance. So 4 types. Advances on flows that have them currently, so not on commuter flows & short distances. And Peak times that are the same *everywhere* that needs them. No 1500 some places & 1600 others & 1530 others.



Agreed you can't abolish routing - Brits would work out routes allowing you to visit vast chunks of the UK ::)
It's a difficult one & would need studying. The fastest route definitely, along probably with the shortest (should that be different) - plus any routes that can be shown to be majorly used currently.


It's fair way of doing this, *providing* the different areas of the UK have fares associated with that areas median earnings. That is highest in the southeast, lowest elsewhere, thus discounted down from the fares per mile in the SE.

Then Peak, off-peak, flexi all set at a specific pence-per-mile in each area, plus Advances set at TOC-decided price-points.


No. Trains are not planes where for safety, you *have* to be seated. Some better way of showing when seat reservations for any service are all taken. Those wanting a seat then see this & have to book another service if they want to guarantee a seat.

I'm also no fan of a National Railcard. If you are, then just cutting all fares by say, 30%, accounts for the discount less a tad for the cost of the card that then needs no associated admin.

If you abolish railcards and implement that in a revenue neutral way, does the holder of a freshly purchased 3-year railcard continue to get (further) discounts or (like the Covid era) you say, hard luck it's effectively expired early? Perhaps they could be refunded pro-rata at the cut-over date?

It'd have to be a (part) refund - but the national card will not happen anytime soon

Travelling into Kent from Bath in the early nineties, I seem to recall that BR imposed an evening peak restriction for tickets leaving Bath Spa, which led to an immediate modal switch from rail to road for that journey.

It can't just have been me as that particular evening peak restriction quickly evaporated, thankfully and it was back to the train - including a particularly timely service that came up from further west, left Bath at 16:10, stopped at Reading only, and, I also think I recall, took 1 hour ten minutes up to Paddington.

Something I definitely recall was around 1990, stepping aboard a morning HST at Paddington on the return half of an off-peak ticket and finding that for a (reasonable) additional charge, an at-seat full english breakfast was available to standard class passengers.

After sitting down at an unoccupied table-for-four bay, a couple sat down in the other pair of seats, they were from Essex and were making the trip at short notice and were ticketless. They bought full price return travel tickets from the train manager, not batting an eyelid at the cost of those which was considerably more than the cost of my off-peak. After which, away we all went to the West, in the company of each other, tea, and a well presented fry-up.

Mark

Sounds like the West Country Pullman which ran from May 1988 until the early 90s between London and Paignton leaving I think around mid morning with the first stop Bath. The return, to begin with, used to run non stop Bath to London around 4pm.

As time went by, more and more stops were added, the Pullman name, along with the restaurant, dropped and it became just another regular service.

Today, the morning London to Paignton and return runs via Berks & Hants and, until recently ran under the The Torbay Express name.

Without wishing to derail the thread, anyone know why GWR decided to drop naming certain train services?

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=25480.0

Strong words from Roger French today
https://busandtrainuser.com/2024/01/21/lner-are-taking-us-for-fools/
“Our Simpler Fares pilot aims to make buying tickets even easier and give customers a better experience with just three ticket types.”

That’s the pitch LNER’s marketing people are using to justify the new “70min Flex Ticket” announced on Tuesday that starts on Monday 5th February.

But what the PR and marketing hype doesn’t make clear is (a) passengers already experience “just three ticket types” (Advance; Off-peak; Anytime) and (b) what this con of a ‘pilot/trial’ involves is withdrawing the flexible and reasonably priced off-peak/super off-peak ticket and replacing it with something more restrictive, namely a ticket able to be used 70 minutes either side of a specified journey time having been purchased in advance of travel.

((Continues))

Several "Ouch's" in that, and also an eye-catching spotlight on rumoured passenger loadings on the anytime-fares-only 05:40 from Edinburgh to London.

Mark

My mum having seen the ‘Nothing beats being there’ advert and having read a piece in the paper about fare simplification being looked at, said the following:

           “I don’t find the fares complicated and it’s not them that puts me off using the train. It’s the supremely uncomfortable seats.”

I suggested the she could go 1st instead, to which she said.

          “It’s not worth it now, it’s just the same as standard but with a cup of coffee.”

To quote from the article:


If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder if the people in Whitehall (or Horse Ferry Road) actually want to offload their pesky lower value cargo onto their commercial business pals and reprivatise that way.   Sort of displace all the proles that British Airways used to carry onto Ryanair, EasyJet, Wizzair

This was so "successful", they've extended it in the North from Sept 30th.

See attached map.