Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076183/Good-Samaritan-threatened-arrest-organising-train-whip-round-pensioners-115-penalty-fare.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076183/Good-Samaritan-threatened-arrest-organising-train-whip-round-pensioners-115-penalty-fare.html)

Simple: the VT staff should have printed her a "valid" ticket, at Manchester before she boarded.

Or they should have told the GUARD (not train manager) before the train left.

Doesn't anyone have an ounce of common sense? I do not blame the guard, by the way, for fining.

About the "begging" - not sure....

It sounds a shocking story, but I would like to here the TM's side of the story as well before I launched into lots of silly comments like the readers of The Daily Mail love to do at a moments notice!

Firstly lets get one thing clear, it's not a fine or a penalty fare, it's a new ticket.
When you buy an Advance ticket it is clearly stated that you must stick to your booked train, as for the staff saying she could get on the next train who know's? she may have just said "whens the next train to London" without mentioning tickets, I see it every day, I've had people get on at places like Hayle (which is unmanned) and people have said "the man at the station said I could get this train"!! I'm sure fellow TM's and Conductors and revenue staff on this forum can recall many similar stories!!

It can be difficult to cut passengers a 'bit of slack', particularly when they are faced with exit barriers at destination.  Discretion is all very well between say Westbury and Avoncliff, but far more difficult between Temple Meads and Bath Spa. 

Vacman is spot on with his comment above and given the inherent unreliability of such Daily Mail expos^s, I feel that it would be wise to await the story from the TM's point of view, particularly re the 'begging'  aspect of this tale.

Edited for typos :'(

As for the "begging", it gets on my tit's when other people but in, the worst one is when you've got some scroat with no money and some dogooder offers to pay for them!

Yes, vacman, I do sympathise with you regarding 'scroats' - but here, we're apparently talking about some dear old lady of 75:


Just by way of comparison, a colleague and I travelled back to Bristol from Manchester by XC on Wednesday.  Some chump jostled his way into my colleagues seat, claiming he had a reservation for it.  However, it soon transpired that he did have a reservation for that seat - but on the Sheffield train.  When the train manager asked for tickets, and the chump explained that he was on the wrong train, the train manager merely observed, "Well, you'll have to get off at Stockport and make alternative arrangements, then!"

 ;) :D ;D

Loving the comments at the bottom. Like one or two people boycotting Virgin is going to make any difference  :D

The most interesting thing to me about this story is why did the ticket say 10:45 and the itinerary 10:15?  I thought they are produced at the same time.

Note the mail only printed the ^115 ticket.

However it does highlight the problem with advanced tickets and a frequent service, more than one train an hour. People are likely to arrive early at the station to avoid missing the train which hopefully the booking clerk has told them is the one to catch and matches their ticket.  They then see a train to their destination displayed or ask where's the X train  and assume it's their train.  They don't realise that there might be earlier trains to their destination. As far as they are concerned their train is the only train to their destination because that's the one they've been booked on.

It's actually a disguised compliment to those TOCS that run frequent, more than one an hour services, that incidents like this can occur. Had it been an hourly service this lady would probably had no problems because there wouldn't have been a 10:15 to catch.

As an aside DB are experimenting with new cashless ticket machines. We used them in Dresden Hbf last year admittedly under supervision as they were brand new.

You put your journey requirements into the machine and it gives you your journey possibilities.

You select the servie you require any reservations etc and it gives you the times price etc. It can price ICE/IC/EC and RE/RB. It can also deal with Lander tickets which are go anywhere in the Lander on RE/RB for 5 people after 09:00 around 26 Euro. It is also able to issue two Lander tickets (Saxony Berlin  Brandenburg) to cover RE from Dresden to Berlin.

Having selected your journey it prints out the details including the platform you start fromand  arrive at and the platforms at the chaging staion together with a bar code. You take this to another machine to pay. The second machine reads the barcode  you pay by cash or card and it prints the tickets. You can print several itineries to study beofer chosing one as the barcode remains valid for a couple of hours.

Thus five of us travelled from Dresden to Berlin for 10.40 Euros each instead 35 E each on the EC. It took slightly longer but far less crowded. Double deck coaches push pull electric one same platform interchange.

Thinking about it's exactly how on line booking works with National Rail Enquiries, except you don't have the nonsense of chosing a TOC to issue tickets. I recommend Chiltern  (the least worse TOC) excellent service tickets usually arrive next day and they get 9% even if your journey goes nowhere near their line.

Perhaps a system where by on the internet you select a ticket and a reservation is sent to you and you then pay the full balance on the train?

How about even a system where you pay fully online if you wish and print out your own ticket? National Express can do it on their coaches, and it's standard practice with the airlines. There's a bar code on the ticket ... readable by devices that various staff have, and no doubt it could be read by the barriers at stations too.    You'd have the ability to print out train details on the same sheet as the barcode, make TAILORED references to how it could and could not be used - so it would be more understandable for the irregular traveller, and more efficient too - freeing up revenue collection / protection staff to help the confused, and ensure that the "try-not-to-pay" brigade found their attempts less fruitful.

Seems to me this was the train company's error, not the passenger, by printing her the wrong itinerary against the train she was booked onto.

Although it quite clearly states on the advance tickets that you need to stick to the trains allocated, my parents were travelling back from Bristol Temple Meads to Cardiff Central one Saturday evening and because they arrived at the station quite early they were told there was no problem them getting on an earlier train to the one they were booked onto since it would get them home quicker. So its entirely up to the train manager.

If we get requests on the platform, we always refer them to speak to the TM/Conductor as ultimately they will make the decision on the ticket being valid or not.  If a genuine cock-up/disruption has occurred, we will speak to the TM personally to make sure it's ok.

Trust me, age means nothing, some of the most awkward customers are senior citizens, there is a regular fare evader in the west who is over 70, forever making excuses, no money-ticket, one thing you learn on the railway and that is never judge a book by it's cover, i've come across "chavs" who have been polite and helpful, the very worst dodgers are men between 20-30 in suits and highly paid! a colleague of mine was assaulted by a 68 year old bloke the other day who was refusing to pay!

Fair comment, vacman - point taken!   ;)

How do we know whether or not this itinerary she had printed was actually given with the ticket that she purchased originally?

That may not be the perceived view, but I can totally appreciate it and believe it.  Picture a pair of sprightly older people walking along the pavement in Torquay - a busy road with just room for the two of them. Coming the other way, a mother with a young child; the OAPs did not give way (go single file) but kept on walking and forced mother and child off pavement and nearly under a lorry.

We see so much, we forget so many things and incidents.  But thinks like this stick in the mind; it was August 1998, I saw it for myself - and I can still picture people involved, the type of lorry.

Off-topic, but here is another reason not to trust those OAPs  ;D

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Granny_jailed_for_mobility_scooter_drug_bust&in_article_id=340195&in_page_id=34

Being "younger" I am often forced off the pavement for people who think that because of the stereotypical view of young people, I am as inconsiderate as they are acting. Then again, at least most older people are able to board the train. Always love it when people are mystified on HSTs with the concept of a handle.

Doesn't always work though. When I returned from Brussels recently on a through ticket, I managed to cross London in 30 minutes, in time to catch the 1930 to Nailsea. But my through ticket had (reasonably) allowed more time and booked me on the 2000 to Bristol. I asked whether I could board the 1930 and was told not without buying a new ticket. So with a change at Bristol I ended up in Nailsea an hour later than I could have done.

Next time I won't buy a through ticket, but buy the London CIV ticket which is valid on any service, assuming that is still available  now we have through ticketing. 

At least you were given correct honest info!

It's still available.

Thanks Ollie!

Its dangerous to make comments without both sides of the story but:

1, the lady's age is irrelevant
2, Whilst she may have been confused or mislead by staff at the station, the customer is ultimately responsible for checking her own ticket. 
3, The guard is not in a position of being able or willing to argue the toss on the train.  If she has a complaint about the TOC she ought to contact customers services and explain everything to them.  As a paying passenger, I'd be anoyed if Guards only targetted "chavs" and let old ladies get away with afre evasion. 
4 ^115 for a ticket is extortionate.  ^10.50 for the ticket is rediculously cheap.  Neither price is really justafiable.  If you are an occasional traveller who has a ^10 ticket you probably won't realise just how expensive an open fare is and when the Guard tries to impose a ^115 fare on you, you are likely to see it as a punative and perhaps even a vendictive act.  as such you are unlikely to have warm feeling towards the man with the ticket machine.  I can't help feeling that a lot of ill feeling is generated between passengers and TOCs (and unfortunately the Guards are often on the sharp end of this) is exacerbated by the high price of open returns and the huge gap between the advance fares and the open fares.  If you could pay ^30 to upgrade a ^40  advanced fare to a ^70 open fare, plenty of people would do this before they boarded rather than try-it-on on the train.  I am not defending anti-social or criminal behaviour but is a fact of life that the more that there is at stake the more inclined people are to be argumentative and agresive over the issue.
5, To gather ^115 from a train of people you have to be fairly "pursuasive" in asking for the money.  If the "good Samaritan" was hassling other passengers for money then I can see how the "begging" analogy might work.

You make a good point over the prices...

Is it fair for the fares to be so different when bought at different times?

I think it's dangerous to start saying there is to much of a gap between advance and open fares (as christian wolmar has in latest rail) as the TOC's will only raise advance fares to close the gap! At the end of the day if you don't like the terms of your advance ticket then don't buy one and just pay over the odds for an open ticket! if you want to save money then buy advance and don't moan when you don't catch your booked train! it's simple! some people cant see a bargain when it kicks them in the boll**ks!

Just out of idle curiosity, have you ever thought of working in marketing, vacman?   ;) :D ;D

I can see a similar analogy with a simple point

In the UK, with what I do, I have a choice between exploiting all the tax loopholes and netting 80% of gross or paying up and netting 40% (mainly driven by the protection of temp workers I dont want to be included in - i'll protect myself)

But I am about to take a contract in switzerland where I will go on the payroll - if I stay jumping through hoops I will net 80%  but I can use their system and net 70% - the differential is not worth the hastle

Maybe if the difference between advance purchase and open wasnt so big , there wouldnt be the problems they cause

Most of TOC income probably come from rush hour and open commuters - if they lost 50% of the advance market would it cause that much of an issue  if it resolved most of this hastle

Already available on Chiltern and Wrexham & Shropshire websites. You can print out a barcode, or get it sent to your mobile phone as a text message. Conductors have hand-held scanners and I believe the ticket gates at Marylebone are suitably equipped as well.

For Eurostar, London CIV tickets are available from all stations - there's still only a limited number of FGW stations where the through fares are available, although Chiltern seem to offer them from every station they serve - go figure.

Was on a XC service the other day and the family in front of me had been sold advance tickets and been given an itinerary at the station (somewhere in the North) that did not match-up.

Whether or not it was genuine, I couldn't tell but the Guard came down on the side of it being legitimate after much scrutiny.

Personally, I don't find the system confusing at all and I fail to see how anyone can find it confusing with all the warnings and information banded about regarding ticket restrictions. Only those that keep their head buried and don't read all the restrictions (which are on a separate web page that you are forced to view) would find themselves in a situation where their ticket is not valid. Unless of course, they were given wrong information. From my experience, whenever I have had any issues with advanced tickets (cancellations etc), the first question I have been asked is "What ticket are you travelling on?".

It might be a gross over-generalisation but the vast vast majority of problems with advance tickets are caused by customers who are incapable of reading the information they are given several times (even on the ticket itself!).

No sympathy whatsoever. People should learn to take responsibility for themselves rather than pin it on other people.

As to the price of advance tickets - I travel on them a lot and so think they are great! I do think a full price ticket is expensive (Peak), definitely so if there is more than one person travelling. I'm even selling my car as it cannot compete with the average rail fare of my most common journeys. Get rid of advance tickets and there will be a far higher deamnd for road traffic. TOCs would shoot themselves in the foot.

I recently wrote about an experience where a FGW employee on duty gave totally misleading information to a customer about the validity of their ticket - stating that because it had a seat reservation it was only valid on that specific train. Yet it was an Anytime Return. Although this was advice the opposite way around, it does show that when employees of the railway struggle to understand ticket validities, maybe we should not be surprised when some customers fail to get it right either.

In the Financial Services Industry the regulator has, over the last few years, been concentrating on something called Treating Customers Fairly (instead of ensuring that our banks were soundly managed as it turns out). This means ensuring that customers have very clear information to understand the products they are buying, not punishing them financially for innocent mistakes, complaint handling, etc.

I would suggest that if the TCF environment applied to fares then it would accept that sometimes people miss their train through no fault of their own. If you do, then you would be entitled to change your ticket in advance of boarding the train to one sold at the normal rate for that service, less what you've already paid (Maybe with a small admin fee.) Similarly if you get on an earlier train by mistake, you give them the option of getting off (if possible), or doing the same.         

   

I don't think it would be a bad thing for the very cheap advanced tickets to be raised a bit.  If at the same time the very expensive fares were lowered I think that on-balance you would have an improvement.  The problem with very cheap fares is that some people will start to think that more moderately priced fares are expensive.  The problem with expensive walk on fares is that you force a significant number of people into advanced fares this means that they are denied the flexibility to choose their time of travel which is a huge advantage rail has over other modes such as planes (its all very well saying if you don't like the terms of advanced tickets them don't buy them, but if the price differential is ^100 some people will genuinely not have the choice).   The huge open fares also give the press a stick with which to beat the railway.  In reply to such criticism I recall FGW claiming that the high open fares didn't matter because very few people travelled on them - if that were true then they wouldn't loose much revenue by lowering their prices.

There is also the issue of fareness.  A passenger paying ^115 for his fare is effectively subsidising the ^10 fare. 

I don't think FGW would loose any money overall if they lowered their open fares and raised their advanced fares.  I would predict that fewer people would buy the advanced fares (there must be plenty of moderately comfortably off passengers who would be willing to pay say 20 quid more for a more flexible fare but who would baulk at a ^100 differential - I'd place myself in this category).  fewer people would be scared off the railway by the huge headline fares.  With fewer advanced fares the Guards job would be easier and he might be able to check the whole train's tickets (I reckon that the reason ticket checking has declined in recent years is that the guard is wasting time arguing with passenegrs often over advanced ticjkets rather than stamping tickets).

I think BR got it about right with Apex fares priced about 1/3 less than savers.

This is an option availiable now, if you want to change your ticket before you should have travelled then you can pay the difference between your advance fare and the Anytime/off peak ticket + a ^10 admin charge!

taking the prices quotes in the newspaer as example, less than honest passenger thinks  .... 

"So I've got a ^10.50 fare that I want to upgrade to a ^115 fare.  the cost of doing this at the booking office is ^115+^10 admin - ^10.50 refund = ^114.50.  If I need to buy a ticket on the train the cost will be ^115, but I might not have to pay if I don't get checked or if I hide in the toilets or if I argue with the Guard or played the confused little old lady in the hope of getting away with it.  I think I'll go with the second option" 

Vacman, wouldn't your job be easier (and perhaps safer if the mental process went thus?...

"So I've got a ^40 fare that I want to upgrade to a ^70 fare.  The cost of doing this at the booking office is ^70+^5 admin - ^40 refund = ^35.  If I board without a valid ticket, I'll need to buy one on the train for ^70 + ^10 "commision" or penalty or what ever you want to call it.  Cost is ^80 and the risk of getting my ticket checked is high because the guard can do the whole train because there are not as many fare dodgers as there used to be to slow him down.  I'll think I'll go for the first option.

The second senario is more pleasant for everyone, more civilised, less annoying to the passenger and less hassle for the staff. 

It is dependent on three things. 1,  a reduction in the huge differential between open and advanced fares; and 2, an admin fee to change a fare set at a sensible level to so as not to discourage people sorting out their tickets before they get on the train.  3, a system which lightens the load on the Guard so that he has the time to check evryone's tickets every time.

The majority of advance fares are actually the higher priced ones e.g. Plymouth - Padd ^34.00 etc so the deterrent is already there.

You are right of course.  the example in the paper are at the extreme of things

But the open single for that route is ^117.50.  That is still a huge differential (the difference in price plus the admin fee to change the ticket properly before boarding would be ^93.50 versus ^117.50 to buy a new ticket on the train.  The cost of "trying it on" is not suffiently higher than the cost of being honest for it to be a deterent). 

Whichever way I look at it a ^10 admin fee (presumably ^20 for two singles) can't be justified.  Why not have the price closer to what the costs actually are to process the transaction (the cost must be similar to something like making a bike reservation which is ^3).  I'm not excusing fare dodging but it is perverse to effectively put a tax on "doing the right thing" which is what the admin fee is.  Also, how many passengers know that they can change an advanced ticket and how many know that it is cheaper to do this before boarding?  If you buy an airline ticket the upgrade options and penalties are usually printed on teh ticket itself. 

I'm all for cracking down on fare dodgers but at the same time there must be a framework which is supportive of passengers who are or are trying to be honest.

I didn't realise they could be changed, and yes the ^20 fee for a return sounds a lot. And if you miss your train on the return journey then it works out even more expensive, as you have to pay effectively the same as a single, rather than half twice the return fare.

eg Bristol to London (I'll use round numbers and old style fare names for ease of comparison).

Say you've booked two ^15 legs, saving ^20 on a saver return of ^50.

If you miss the first leg, you can cash in both legs, get ^10 back after the ^20 admin fee), and buy a return at ^50. Total cost ^70.

If you miss the return leg, you cash that in, get ^5 back and buy a saver single (as was) at ^49.  Total cost ^74. Not much difference in this case, but it could be much more if the tickets you bought were much closer to the cost of the fare.

I also wonder how many tickets they sell where the cost of the two Advance legs comes to more than a Off Peak return???       

More than a few, I'd think.  The whole system is a mess.  To my mind fares need to be set according to one of the following principles:  1, cost+profit margin, or 2, "how much are most people willing to pay".  At the moment you have neither.  I don't think the current system is best for passengers or operator revenue.

The recent "simplification" was merely a rebranding exercise and didn't help.

In July Kelly annunced an inquiry into fares to see if more extensive changes need to be made (see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080708/debtext/80708-0003.htm - scroll down) .  I predict that the answer will be yes but that changes will be very difficult to make because evry change whether it has positive or negative impact on reveue will potentially need franchsies renegotiated.

IIRC you cant 'cash it in' if you've already missed the train, the tickets no good at all then???

I think we're missing the point here folks, and Advance ticket is great value, no-one can argue with that, if you want that saving then book advance, if you want flexibilty then don't book advance, most people who book advance get a good deal and have a good journey on their booked train, it's only a minority that seem to think the rules don't apply to them. in the latest Rail mag i think Barry Doe hits the nail on the head, it's out on wednesday!

I don't disagree with you Vacman, but the creeping reduction in availability of "saver type" walk on fares is making advance tickets the only realistic option in many cases. eg the recent restriction in saver tickets on Cross Country which means if you want to get to your destination before half the day is gone, an advance is the only sensible option.

The advance ticket with its restrictions also increased the journey length considerably, as you have to build in a good margin of error to ensure you catch your train. Bristol Parkway is a good example. How long would it take to traverse the congested motorway network in the morning, and then the queues around Filton, and then find a parking space, etc. I've no idea, but probably ages. Someone who isn't familiar with the area would probably either misjudge it and miss the train, or leave so much margin for error that they arrive far too early. Either way, the restriction increases the potential for the journey to be a high stress experience, rather than the relaxing alternative to the car. Which is a shame.     

Some excellent points there John. I use Advance tickets all the time and they are indeed great value if you know you when you are travelling and can book in advance. But its sad that for long distance journeys we have lost being able to turn up and buy a reasonably priced rail ticket on the day which was something that you could do before Supersaver tickets were abolished.

A very good point, John - the problems with parking at Bristol Parkway have been raised here before, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2675.0  ::)

I don't disagree with either Vacman or Barry Doe in principle.  On other threads I have stated that it is important, morally for people and companies to stick to the conditions of a contact whether it is a contact for carriage or a franchise agreement.

Two points still stand I think - it ought to be significantly easier and cheaper to change tickets or buy replacements at the booking office than on the train.  Until it is people will continue "try it on" and travel with an invalid ticket (I know some folks will try it on regardless).   To my mind the whole policy of only selling full price (open) fares on the train in flawed.  I can see the logic behind it but the problem is that having to buy a full price fare isn't much of a deterent on services where only full price fares are valid anyway.  Would't it be easier to do what some other countries do and sell all tickets on the train but charge a (say) ^10 commission on all tickets brought on the train.  The deterent of boarding without a ticket would be there for all journeys.  The Commission sould be just about swallowable by the occasional passenger who arrives at the station late and has a train that they just can't afford to miss and the Guard could keep the commission (or a percentage of it) rather than a percentage of the fare sold.  This would free the on-train staff from accusations (such as that made by Nigel Harris in this fortnight's rail) that Guard's discretion can be skewed by the incentive to get a percentage of high priced tickets and merely incentivise the staff to sell an appropriate ticket to every passenger. 

My second point is that neither very high fares nor very low fares can be justified on a railway that is supposed to be a public service.  I accept that some kind of "demand management" should be used to encourage people onto lightly used trains but a ^10 fare for a 150+ mile journey is to my mind indefensible especially on a railway that consumes tax-payer subsidy.  It is just wrong that tax payers and other passengers shoudl effectively subsidise someone on an extremely cheap fare.   The ^100+ fares are also difficult to justify. Why on earth should any journey of only a few hours in the Uk cost more than a flight?  The high fares do immense damage to the railway's reputation because it is perceived as extortionate.  FGw is particularly bad with selling tickets at the extremes of prices.  Their open returns are more expensive per mile than almost any other journey, and you can bet that it is the open fares that will be quoted by the papers when they want some "knocking copy".   On the other hand their cheap fares do not seem to be used soley for demand management as they are often available on peak time trains.  It would be a shame if affordable walk on fares ceased to be availabel for the majority of services.  I think that we are creeping in that direction.  I think that some TOCs would like to adopt an airline ticketing stucture where pricing forces the vast mojority of passengers to travel on tickets valid on only a simgle service.  When we reach that point we will have thrown away one of the advantages that rail has over flying which will be a disaster for teh passenger, the companeis and the environment. 

I think you are spot on with this analysis. As I mentioned elsewhere Virgin have stated that they are going to fill up all their additional capacity on the WC route with very cheap tickets. Which seems to defeat the point of spending squillions to remove the overcrowding if you're only going to fill it up with pax travelling at unrealstic prices. And yes, on many routes, we are more than creeping towards single service only for affordable tickets, most notably AXC since they imposed stringent restrictions on cheap walk on tickets in May. 

Apparently VT are cutting the cheapest Advance prices on B'ham to London to just ^5!

I wonder whether this is to draw people back from Chiltern (cheapest ticket ^4)?

But it is mad. Why can't we have turn up and go tickets that are cheaper. We can't always plan ahead, and some of these ^100 + fares are daylight robbery...

We also need Advance tickets on all Long distance routes (i.e. Cotswolds).

There is a fine line at what can be done. If Advance fares were made more expensive and walk on fares were slightly lower you wouldn't get hoards of leisure travellers filling up your off peak trains whilst peak trains would be more overcrowded. Cheap walk on fares only seem to work in small areas. Devon+Cornwall show that cheap fares are a success. Although of course, you can't lower fares when there isn't the capacity for these extra people, which is true for much of the network. The WCML with its ridiculous timetable means there is ample room off peak to get people onto the trains for pretty much anything. The problem I find with advance fares which really hacks me off though, is how your outbound ticket might be ^5 but the return will be ^20. I can't remember the last time I travelled using advance fares. They are simply too inflexible!

OBVIOUSLY PEAK fares should remain high, but even walk on off peak fares are bad. It is those that should be reduced.

Playing devils advocate........

Why should peak fairs remain high?

These are people who are contributing to the economy - off peak fairs are probably students/leisure/retired/unemployed - who didly squat in these hard times

Cut the service and subsidize the peak - make it easier for people to get to work

Erm ... excuse me, but the reason I use off peak fares on my way home from my jaunts to London is that I have blown half my department's travel budget, just getting up to London in the morning!  ::)

Journey from BTM to PAD in the early morning = ^75.00

Journey from PAD to BTM in the mid afternoon = ^13.50

... and, by the way, the train is crammed, both ways!  ::)

Yes, I can see your point, but fare drops at peak times would result in critical overcrowding, even at Finstock! ;)

Cutting services off peak is not a good idea. Staff with nothing to do. Rolling stock lying around. Stations empty, but staffed or with CCTV and lights. Tracks maintained to the same level, but for less traffic. Would be a disaster.

The main reason for low off peak fares is to make commuter lines worth running. The mad rushes in the peaks may seem huge, but do NOT guarantee that a line makes profit, or even breaks even.

Beeching mentioned these issues when he reluctantly kept commuter lines open.

Quote from the Beeching Report :

There is a danger that dropping fares on peaktime services will lead to overcrowding but I don't think it is a simple equation.  The fare that I ought to use most often is the ^130+ Bath-London anytime (open) return (in actual fact I usally do a Swindon or Didcot rebooking to lower the cost).  I would argue that lowing the price of that ticket would not lead to overcrowding.

Firstly, I am travelling on business expenses for journeys which cannot be avoided.  If the fare was ^200 I would still travel (the extra cost would just have to be absorded by my company or our clients).  

Secondly. the trains I travel on have people travelling on advanced tickets (typically at about ^40 single), people on 7 day season tickets (about ^180 per week or ^32 per day if spread over 5 days - realively speaking this is n absolute bargain and not one I am sure can be justified - but that is another argument) and people on rebooked tickets.  I reckon that a small minority are actually on the ^130 open return.  In responding to press cirticism over its high fares I recall a FGW spokenwoman once saying that the high open return prices quoted by the journalist didn't matter because very few people used them.  Even if that statement were true, and I suspect that it migth be, it misses the point.  The huge headline fares do significant damage to the railway.  They make them look greedy; they encourage bad press and most importantly they discourage customers, particularly people who have not used the train before (we all know people who drive everywhere and whouldn't even think about using a train - those are the kind of people who are an untapped market for the railway but the kind of people who belive that all train fares are at the ^100+ level)

the problem of course is partly due to the way tickets are regulated (savers are but open returns are not, which of course is stupid - if you are only going to retulate one ticket type then it ought to be the most expensive) and partly to the railway companies using teh on-train sales of high open returns as a way to punish ticketless travel where penalty fares or a "on train commision system - see my post above" would be less of a blunt instrument)

Yes, but more people might be drawn to the service if the fare is lower.

But if you want to price people off a service, doesn't it make more sense to raise the price of the bargin seasons or advance tickets rather than the extortionate open fares?