Cotswold Line 90% fare increases from 17 May 2015

[whole diary]

[PhilWakely]

And why shouldn't fares be based on a similar pence-per-mile cost?

Not sure whether this is a valid example of fares disparity for similar (distance) journeys, but Exeter to London comparisions (SWT^▸ (South West Trains) - 3hrs 30mins, 179 miles v FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 2hrs 20mins, 182 miles via Newbury)...

Anytime single: FGW ^123.50 (std)  ^194.00 (1st);
                       SWT ^70.80 (std)     ^116.80 (1st).

So, as I believe should be the case, the better the 'quality' of the journey, the more expensive the cost should be.

but, if you then look at off-peak fares
                       FGW   ^50.10 (std) ^n/a (1st);
                       SWT   ^65.20 (std) ^n/a (1st).

[JayMac]

And why shouldn't fares be based on a similar pence-per-mile cost?

Agree. More than happy to see Swindon fares drop to match those of the Cotswold Line. 

And Exeter to London via Taunton to match via Honiton...
And London to Birmingham on Virgin to match Chiltern/London Midland...
And London to Southampton on SWT^▸ (South West Trains) to match Southern...

[ChrisB]

Dream on.....everyone else posting here has agreed the Cotswold Line fares have been held back

[PhilWakely]

And why shouldn't fares be based on a similar pence-per-mile cost?

Agree. More than happy to see Swindon fares drop to match those of the Cotswold Line. 

And Exeter to London via Taunton to match via Honiton...

Dream on.....everyone else posting here has agreed the Cotswold Line fares have been held back

Or, as I prefer to say......... "Oink, oink, flap, flap, plummet!"

Seriously, though, thinking about Exeter to London via Taunton/Honiton........... During the closures of the Exeter to Castle Cary via Taunton route and the subsequent diversions via Yeovil Junction, I took the opportunity to ride to Castle Cary. Early last year the cost of a return to Cary from Exeter via Yeovil was ^10 whilst the return via Taunton was ^24. During the flood disruption, the ^10 return was valid on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as the restriction was 'via Honiton'. However, earlier this year, the ^10 return price was not available and the restriction was 'FGW Only'

[JayMac]

Dream on.....everyone else posting here has agreed the Cotswold Line fares have been held back

Or have been held at a price that reflects the service provision.

Whatever the prices were, I see little justification, other than craven money grabbing, for such huge increases.

I've forwarded details of the price rises to various press outlets. Real world examples from those in the area affected would add colour. PM me if interested.

[John R]

Looks like the press have indeed taken an interest in this.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/21/rail-fare-rise-cotswolds-uk-david-cameron-pledge-freeze-prices

This comment made me laugh out loud

First Great Western said the changes would standardise the ticket prices at the request of passengers on the line

Yeh, right.  "Please, oh please can you increase our fares by 90%."   Think what they actually asked for was advance fares.

[JayMac]

You'll also note that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) mention an IT error for not having the Advance fares in place from May 17th.

They should have held back on the walk-up ticket price gouge until that was fixed.

[Southern Stag]

I've seen a brief regarding the IT error preventing Advance Purchase fares being shown. It seems the error is because the National Reservation System has a limit of 99 ticket types for each flow, and if there are any more than that it doesn't work and won't be able to search for reservations. This error was previously unknown, presumably because 99 ticket types for one flow is a huge number which has never been exceeded before.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Not since the millennium, and all of that "y2k nonsense", possibly? 

[ChrisB]

You'll also note that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) mention an IT error for not having the Advance fares in place from May 17th.

They should have held back on the walk-up ticket price gouge until that was fixed.

No we won't - you misread....the IT error prevents Advances being available *now* for travel on or after May 17th. It should be fixed by the end of this week. So both will be available for May 17th onwards by that date.

[didcotdean]

This comment made me laugh out loud

First Great Western said the changes would standardise the ticket prices at the request of passengers on the line

Yeh, right.  "Please, oh please can you increase our fares by 90%."   Think what they actually asked for was advance fares.

My guess is that this 'request' referred to the current lack of availability of advance fares. The full consequences though might not be as the 'requesters' intended.

[Tim]

And why shouldn't fares be based on a similar pence-per-mile cost?

because that would involve tearing up the fares book and starting again.  No-one wants to bite that bullet although eventually someone will have to.

There are of course arguments against pence per mile because it doesn't take into account expensive infrastructure (Severn Tunnel?) nor differences in service quality (frequency/speed/comfort) between routes, nor differences in demand (ie pricing off overcrowded routes) nor differences in ability to pay (fares in poor versus wealthy places)

BUT for many journeys the competition is the road where the costs of running a car  do approximate to pence per mile.

Personally, I would like to see a pence per mile cap on fares (ie no more than xp per mile - very short trips could be excluded) with freedom for the ToCs to offer cheaper fares below the cap.  Set the cap quite high so that when introduced only the weirdly anomalous extortionate fares would be caught by it, but then progressively lower it (RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector, or Retail Price Index, depending on context)-1%? per year??). Seems fairer than the current system of fare regulation which protects some users but not others. 

[Richard Fairhurst]

And why shouldn't fares be based on a similar pence-per-mile cost?

So 100 miles on a Pacer stopping service should be charged the same as 100 miles on a non-stop Pendolino?

When the Cotswold Line is 125mph throughout, with four eight-carriage trains an hour, upcoming electrification, and with extensive facilities at the stations, then maybe yes, it should have the same fares and restrictions as Swindon.

At present, it's ~100mph or so with one stopping train per hour, five-carriage trains (one of which is standing room only day in, day out), and it's still single-track from Charlbury to Wolvercote, never mind any hope of electrification. It is so flaky that I have just spent the night in Worcester, rather than getting home to Charlbury as I intended, due to the near-48-hour collapse of the service this week.

[ChrisB]

5 carriage trains? The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) have eight, don't they?

[Fourbee]

And why shouldn't fares be based on a similar pence-per-mile cost?

Not sure whether this is a valid example of fares disparity for similar (distance) journeys, but Exeter to London comparisions (SWT^▸ (South West Trains) - 3hrs 30mins, 179 miles v FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 2hrs 20mins, 182 miles via Newbury)...

Anytime single: FGW ^123.50 (std)  ^194.00 (1st);
                       SWT ^70.80 (std)     ^116.80 (1st).

So, as I believe should be the case, the better the 'quality' of the journey, the more expensive the cost should be.

but, if you then look at off-peak fares
                       FGW   ^50.10 (std) ^n/a (1st);
                       SWT   ^65.20 (std) ^n/a (1st).

By the way the FGW fares quoted PhilW include the ^3 tube single add on (i.e. destination of "Zone U1* Londn" in Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains) Traveller). I am not sure whether that was included in your mileage/timings or not.

Your original point stands of course (I am not trying to be a pendant!). I believe WebTIS (probably Trainline back end as well) booking engines can do this when a specific London Terminal is entered (presumably "London Waterloo" in this case instead of "London Terminals").