Philosophy for a future fares system

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Poll to measure the views of forum members as we consider the "fares consultation" which is summaries [here]. Please refer to that thread for further details, and look at the official consultation [here].

[Oxonhutch]

It is a little too black or white for me to answer truthfully as my gut feel is for something between A and B

[4064ReadingAbbey]

The hidden assumption behind the question is that the total income raised from fares remains essentially the same - the only question is how the price is varied between different journeys/times/groups/etc.

It seems that fares tied to a specific train tend to cause more than their share of issues for a variety of reasons. As access to a specific train is not generally policed the system is programmed to cause aggravation.

A major issue with reduced price tickets is the huge range of different restrictions which are, or could be, applicable. A very important part of any fares simplification would be the removal of these hidden - hidden to most customers that is - restrictions.

[chuffed]

I think you can 'take a p' out of the the subject thread, grahame. And no, I am not taking the proverbial.....

[grahame]

I think you can 'take a p' out of the the subject thread, grahame. And no, I am not taking the proverbial.....

I have edited the original post and the title in this answer ... hopefully there should be a reduction of p hereon.

[ellendune]

I want discounted tickets but I want the discounting to be the same in every area.  So a season ticket is the same discount off the standard ticket regardless of where it is.

[grahame]

The hidden assumption behind the question is that the total income raised from fares remains essentially the same - the only question is how the price is varied between different journeys/times/groups/etc.

That's my error in simplifying the polls.   The official consultation, and indeed the thread that I refer readers to for more details, says

In answering these questions please assume that:
• The overall average rail fare remains the same as now.

Not quite the same thing as static income - if the new structure encourages 10% passenger growth, then the income per fare could be 9% lower.

It is a little too black or white for me to answer truthfully as my gut feel is for something between A and B

Agreed ... not an option offered on the consultation, which I have mirrored here.   Personally, I would like to have seen various things on the consultation somewhat different, but that might have made the thing more complex to the extent that the public were put off replying.

[Bmblbzzz]

I've voted Option A but it's a bit all or nothing. "No discounts" would be my preference if it refers to advance-purchase discounts and limited-train discounts. I wouldn't like to do away with discounts for season tickets and specific railcard holders.

[broadgage]

None of the options reflect my preferred system of only 3 fares for any given journey.
The fare payable should be determined by how busy the train is likely to be, and NOT by how far in advance the ticket is purchased.

I see no merit in charging a punitively high fare for last minute travel on a lightly used service.
Neither should discounted tickets be sold for trains that are known to be very busy.

I would allow the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) to decide which of the three fares is payable for each train, and to alter this as they see fit, subject to two overriding rules.
Firstly, changes may only be made at timetable changes, not in between.
Secondly, the lowest fare must be available on at least 25% of services, and the highest fare be charged on no more than 25% of services.

[grahame]

If I were a cynic, I would suggest that the available answers were designed to come up with a glorious mix of votes for a very limited number of options ... headed for a conclusion that "no one option seemed to please everyone", a tick for the "we consulted" box, and a decision to go ahead with what the RDG^‡(resolve) feels is best for them us.

Of course, I am not really allowed to by cynical these days. 

[eXPassenger]

If I were a cynic, I would suggest that the available answers were designed to come up with a glorious mix of votes for a very limited number of options ... headed for a conclusion that "no one option seemed to please everyone", a tick for the "we consulted" box, and a decision to go ahead with what the RDG^‡(resolve) feels is best for them us.

Of course, I am not really allowed to by cynical these days. 

Realistically I think that is going to happen.  Simplification will require so many changes that the screams of the losers will dwarf the screams from the May 18 timetable change.  Politically it will not work.

[grahame]

Poll result / comment at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19894.msg243639#msg243639