Bang would go your Advance fares....but I agree something's necessary

10 years ago today - isn't it amazing how long it's taking to sort out fares. 

Distance related fares are something that I have supported for quite some time; the price of any service, particularly one partially funded by the tax payer, should to some extent reflect the cost of providing it. I fully understand that this is not a simple calculation, and there are a myriad of things (potential variations) to be considered before settling on an appropriate £/mile metric.

But I do not accept that just because a particular area has been benefitting from what are effectively discounted fares since the year dot that this should be allowed to continue; not that long ago cheaper Off-Peak tickets from/to Avocet^▸ (Branch line from Exeter to Exmouth) Line stations into/out of Exeter were completely withdrawn in favour of the Anytime product and I don't recall any public protests or reduction in passenger numbers.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) civil service number crunchers should be tasked to look at the current situation in terms of £/mile fare variations nationally.

A potential solution would be to taper the cost of rail travel over a specified distance.

For example:
First 150 miles x p/mile
Next 50 miles .75 x p/mile
Next 50 miles .50 x p/mile

This algorithm would be published as part of new mileage based fares.  Similarly off peak fares could be charged as a specified % of the standard fare.

I see at least two arguments a simple mileage based fare.
Firstly, local commuting should arguably be subsidised out of public funds as it is a "public good" The vast numbers of workers in London and other large cities cant all drive to work as there is not the road capacity or parking spaces. There is not sufficient housing available near enough for more than a small minority to walk or cycle to work.
Therefore train travel from say Reading to Paddington needs subsidy.
Travel from Taunton to Paddington is arguably less deserving of subsidy, living in Taunton and working in central London is a lifestyle choice, for which the user must expect to pay. Travel between Reading and London is NOT a lifestyle choice, London employers need workers, and these workers need affordable public transport from Reading, and other nearby places.

There is also a second argument, which SOMEWHAT contradicts the first one.
Running a train between London and say Penzance costs of certain sum. The two main factors to consider, are providing enough capacity to avoid standing/overcrowding on the inner part of the route to say Taunton, and also providing a reasonable service to Penzance.
Having incurred the largely fixed costs PER TRAIN it could be argued that travel to Penzance should cost no more than to Plymouth. It costs a certain amount to run enough trains, so does it really much matter how far a passenger travels?

I therefore doubt that a mileage based system would work well, keep the present system but look again at any fares that appear extremely cheap or expensive, and consider alterations unless some good reason can be found to retain apparently odd fares.

Straightaway we have, as I indicated, one potential variation which might produce a better result; Swindon to Paddington is obviously a fast 'InterCity' route whilst Scarborough (SCA)<>Goole (GOO^▸ (Guard Only Operation)) quite clearly isn't. So possibly look at a mathematical combination of distance and average speed over the route (or journey) to set fares e.g. SCA to York (YRK) via Malton (MLT) is only operated by TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) and takes c.50 minutes to cover the 42 miles while the Northern service via Kingston-upon-Hull (HUL) is roughly 105 miles / 100 minutes, giving 0.84 & 1.05 miles/minute (mpm) respectively. SWI^» (Swindon - next trains) to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) is 77 miles in 51>61 minutes at 1.26>1.51mpm. Closer to home one can travel the 28 miles between EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) & PGN with either GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) (c.65 mins) or XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) (c.41 mins) giving values of 0.43 & 0.68 respectively. For a local comparison EXD to BNP^▸ (Barnstaple) throws up a 'standard' value of 0.5mpm although early morning trains come in at closer to 0.60mpm. Better minds than mine might be able say whether this type of approach would be at all workable. 

The current confused system of "market-based" fares arrived in the 1970's when BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) started to try to fill off-peak capacity. Prior to that (and also subsequently for many years) the main offer on tickets was a normal or full fare ticket, or a cheap day return. I would hazard a guess that the single fare was around half the full return fare (please correct me if this was not so). BR did in fact taper longer distance fares to make them realistic (or affordable!). How this was done may be lost in the mists of time. Now all these fares had historic origins but very likely had some basis in being distance based.

If someone was bold enough there could be some merit in using an older BR fares manual as a template to start introducing a more logical system. Unlikely to happen since BR is still regarded as bad in many official eyes and of course, modern "marketing" is an industry in itself to create a desirable and also "profitable" product.

Split ticketing is really nothing new either. I imagine many may remember having to purchase a series of cheap day returns at each of the relevant ticket offices. This was in order to make an extended day trip more affordable since cheap day returns were generally only available for up to 50 miles and for specific routes only.