Wrong train, wrong TM

[whole diary]

[John R]

I recently wrote about an experience where a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (Track Circuit Failure) 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.         

   

[Tim]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company)'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!

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^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (British Rail(ways)) got it about right with Apex^▸ (Advanced Purchase Excursion (fare)) fares priced about 1/3 less than savers.

[vacman]

I would suggest that if the TCF^▸ (Track Circuit Failure) 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.         

   

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!

[Tim]

I would suggest that if the TCF^▸ (Track Circuit Failure) 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.         

   

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.

[vacman]

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

[Tim]

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.

[John R]

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 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???       

[Tim]

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.

[jester]

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) you cant 'cash it in' if you've already missed the train, the tickets no good at all then???

[vacman]

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!

[John R]

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.     

[Timmer]

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.

[Chris from Nailsea]

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.    

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 

[Tim]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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. 

[John R]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)) 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^» (Arriva Cross Country - about) since they imposed stringent restrictions on cheap walk on tickets in May.