Minister to consider tightening ticket rules in light of FGW's price rises

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From politics.co.uk:

In a letter to Truro and St Austell MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Matthew Taylor, Chris Mole the Government Minister with responsibility for Rail has said he will have reconsider the current timing restrictions on regulated fares following First Great Western^s recent price rises.

First Great Western used a loophole in the current legislation which allows them to change the time restrictions on certain regulated fares but not the prices to effectively increase the price of tickets. They re-named the ^Off Peak Ticket^ as a ^Super Off Peak^ ticket ^ meaning it was the same price but only available on a much more restricted timetable, whilst making some former ^off peak^ prices 20% higher.

In response Mr Taylor^s complaint about the move, the Minister said that: ^In light of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)^s (First Great Western) changes to their off-peak fares, we will consider tightening the rules in respect of timing restrictions on the regulated Protected fare.^

Commenting Matthew Taylor, MP for Truro and St Austell said: ^With this, the Minister has made it clear that First Great Western have deviously taken advantage of a loophole in the current regulations. Rebranding and changing the timing of regulated fares has allowed them to implement a 20% hike in fares on key train services. First Great Western^s changes to the availability of their cheapest fares impacted on Cornish passengers the most, simply due to the distances involved making the cheaper journey times to London impractical. Cornish customers already pay more because they^re travelling further ^ it^s not fair for them to be penalised again because they have to set off earlier too. I trust the Ministers promise to review this loophole in fare regulation will quickly lead to this sneaky price rise being reversed.^

[JayMac]

'Loopholes' and 'devious' are strong words in the context of the recent fare rise by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for regulated fares.

The rules were there in the franchise document and FGW are merely applying them at there most restrictive. Whilst this is regrettable, FGW have done nothing wrong. For MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) to start crowing about it is a bit rich; after all they are ultimately responsible for drawing up said rules. Having said that FGW have rather painted themselves into a corner, they cannot make any further changes to restricted fares timings (excepting making them less restrictive again!)

I was one of the many forum members who expressed annoyance at the fares hike, but on reflection (and a full explanation from Lord Adonis by email - no less!) I now understand that FGW did nothing wrong.

The business case for these changes may not stack up in the long term, but FGW are to be congratulated for the introduction of single fares at half the price of the returns. They didn't have to do that when introducing the new Super Off Peaks.

On a semantic point, rather than Chris Mole '.....considering tightening the rules in respect of timing restrictions....' perhaps he should consider loosening them.

[JayMac]

Having re-read my preceeding post, it does come across as though I'm working for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Public Relations.

I'm not, honest! 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.  It often seems to me that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) tend to struggle with 'public relations'.  For example, their own website news page is nothing like as 'active' as it could be, with all the good news that they could be putting out.

Indeed, it sometimes appears that FGW get more positive comment from this passenger forum than they seem to be able to produce, on their own website. 

[willc]

No, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) didn't do anything wrong in terms of the letter of the law - aka the franchise agreement - otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do it, nor would SWT^▸ (South West Trains) when it did something similar to its fare structure previously, but whether it was the right thing to do is another matter entirely. It's the job of our MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) to stand up and say when they - and the constituents who have no doubt deluged Mr Taylor with correspondence about the fare hikes - think something is wrong.

And as for congratulating FGW for making singles half the price of returns - big deal. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did that for rail tickets within its area when I was still at school in the early 1980s, as did the other PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) around the same time.

[Ollie]

And as for congratulating FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for making singles half the price of returns - big deal. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did that for rail tickets within its area when I was still at school in the early 1980s, as did the other PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) around the same time.

I think maybe the way it's being looked at is compared to some other InterCity operators, where a single tends to still be about a ^1 less then it's return. (Off Peak/Super Off Peak)

[Mookiemoo]

And as for congratulating FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for making singles half the price of returns - big deal. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did that for rail tickets within its area when I was still at school in the early 1980s, as did the other PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) around the same time.

I think maybe the way it's being looked at is compared to some other InterCity operators, where a single tends to still be about a ^1 less then it's return. (Off Peak/Super Off Peak)

Sorry I've never understood the returns being almost the same price as the single

Why should you come back for free!

Pay per mile

[Timmer]

Hmm.  It often seems to me that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) tend to struggle with 'public relations'.  For example, their own website news page is nothing like as 'active' as it could be, with all the good news that they could be putting out.

Indeed, it sometimes appears that FGW get more positive comment from this passenger forum than they seem to be able to produce, on their own website. 

I cannot understand why FGW hardly bother with their news pages anymore. Not too long ago in the distant past a new item would almost appear daily so it would appear that the decision has been taken not to keep their customers in the know as news items are no longer available in their magazine or via customer newsletters like Customer Matters which was introduced by Andrew Haines available at stations and online.

Places like this forum are now the best place to find news items (good and not so good) on all things FGW. Hang on a minute we're doing their job for them! 

[Tim]

And as for congratulating FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for making singles half the price of returns - big deal. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did that for rail tickets within its area when I was still at school in the early 1980s, as did the other PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) around the same time.

I think maybe the way it's being looked at is compared to some other InterCity operators, where a single tends to still be about a ^1 less then it's return. (Off Peak/Super Off Peak)

They are to be congratulated for reducing the price of their off peak singles  (which actaully means less revenue for FGW from me on my usual Bath-London peak time journey which I rebook at Didcot becaue I tavel out on an anytime Bath-Didcot single and back on a super off peak - so if they have fialed in raising more income from me). 

As for the price rise, yes they are within the rules and it might be slightly unfair to blame FGW (but they are big enough to look after themselves), but the good news is that Adonnis is looking at changing them. 

I am not one who argues for overall cheap train fares (not least because I suspect that as a tax payer I will be footing the bill for them), but we do need a complete overhaul to remove complexities and anomalies.  Whilst booking a ticket yesterday (single Didcot to Bath in the afternoon) the website offered me an offpeak single and an off peak day single and a super offf peak single at different prices and all apparently valid on the same trains.  What is the point of that?  All singles are day singles and surely off-peak should imply the same restrictions on a particular route regardless of whether it is a "day ticket or not"?  Now, someone will give me an answer that there are historical reasons for the difference and that in fact there are different rules about breaking my journey with each ticket or something like that - but that misses the point completely.  FGW has an overly complex ticket system and I think it has reached the point where they simply cannot be viewed as competant or honest enough to be trusted to price their own tickets 9and other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are no better).   I chose the cheapest ticket - other passangers will either do the same in which case the  more expensive tickets will never be sold and can be withdrawn or people will be sold ths wrong ticket perhaps in breach of teh vendors franchise commitments. (as was my Boss who brought her ticket for the same train on at Bath station and paid ^4 more than I did) i know Barry Doe has suggested that ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) shoudl set the fares, but they have proved themselves to be idiots as well (overseeing a "ticket simplification" in which they permitted a distinction between singles and say singles to exist is hardly an indicator of competance!).  Personally, I think that Adonis should be given the job of setting fares and TOCs whould just bid knowing what their fares will be for the next 5 years.. 

As for the FGW website - we have know for a long time that senior management at FGW have a tendancy to put style over substance

[Super Guard]

And as for congratulating FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for making singles half the price of returns - big deal. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did that for rail tickets within its area when I was still at school in the early 1980s, as did the other PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) around the same time.

I think maybe the way it's being looked at is compared to some other InterCity operators, where a single tends to still be about a ^1 less then it's return. (Off Peak/Super Off Peak)

Sorry I've never understood the returns being almost the same price as the single

Why should you come back for free!

Pay per mile

Not as simple as that... When working from Exeter to Exmouth, I see it as someone might get away with not paying for their journey in the morning, but will get caught in the evening, so although a single is then bought, FGW get a higher % and lose a lot less money than if the singles were 50% of the return price.

[Tim]

Not as simple as that... When working from Exeter to Exmouth, I see it as someone might get away with not paying for their journey in the morning, but will get caught in the evening, so although a single is then bought, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) get a higher % and lose a lot less money than if the singles were 50% of the return price.

OK, so why were CDS^▸ (Off Peak Day Single [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) less than CDR^▸ (Off Peak Day Return [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) but saver singles about te same as saver returns.  Surely ticketless travel is more likely to be stopped on longer trips.  And ticketless travel is only estimated to be 5, 7 or 10% (and teh kind of fraud you describe only a small subset of that), not enought to justify the pricing of singes very close to that of retunrs. 

[super tm]

Not as simple as that... When working from Exeter to Exmouth, I see it as someone might get away with not paying for their journey in the morning, but will get caught in the evening, so although a single is then bought, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) get a higher % and lose a lot less money than if the singles were 50% of the return price.

OK, so why were CDS^▸ (Off Peak Day Single [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) less than CDR^▸ (Off Peak Day Return [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) but saver singles about te same as saver returns.  Surely ticketless travel is more likely to be stopped on longer trips.  And ticketless travel is only estimated to be 5, 7 or 10% (and teh kind of fraud you describe only a small subset of that), not enought to justify the pricing of singes very close to that of retunrs. 

But CDS are like Saver Singles.  However usually they are only 10p less than the return.  One of the reasons for this is it reduces the amount of revenue protection you need to provide.  If the single is the same price as the return then the ticket only needs to be checked in one direction.  Lets face it if the price of the return ticket is almost the same as the single and you know you will be checked in one direction but not the other are you going to take a chance for the sake of 10p and not buy the return. 

[inspector_blakey]

And as for congratulating FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for making singles half the price of returns - big deal. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did that for rail tickets within its area when I was still at school in the early 1980s, as did the other PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) around the same time.

Actually it is a big deal. Comparing fares within a PTE region (generally low, for short local journeys) to discounted flexible intercity fares (super off-peak, off-peak) which are generally much higher and for longer journeys isn't really on.

Halving the price of these single fares overnight, at least for people whose travel patterns are like mine, makes travel much more affordable and opens up a whole range of opportunities involving booking an Advance one way and flexible ticket the other way that simply did not exist before. Although there is the slightly half-baked (no pun intended) Virgin "saver half return" scheme, FGW is to my knowledge leading the way by being the first intercity operator to make this change across the board where it prices the journey.

Criticize where it's due, by all means, but not just for the sake of it.

[John R]

I agree. My business journeys to London are now almost invariably cheaper than before, partly due to off peak fares coming available earlier in the day, and even if I do have to travel up at a peak fare, the return is now ^20 cheaper.

[willc]

Halving the price of these single fares overnight, at least for people whose travel patterns are like mine, makes travel much more affordable and opens up a whole range of opportunities involving booking an Advance one way and flexible ticket the other way that simply did not exist before.

Which is fine and dandy if you have the depth of knowledge and the time and patience to indulge in tinkering about with various combinations to find the ideal ticket selection to suit your travel patterns, but does the average passenger?

I doubt it - and a survey carried out recently by Which? using questions supplied by Barry Doe suggested that an awful lot of rail ticketing staff aren't exactly on top of the system either.

As tim correctly observes, the system is now hugely over-complicated and confusing and the ticket information thrown up by the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website is often baffling, to say the least. I especially enjoy the bit where it says 'two singles may be cheaper than a return' - no stupid machine, this is the Cotswold Line, with next to no advance fares, so it won't be.

I'm afraid that fundamentally the half-price singles are just a bit of window dressing, like the online 'offers' following the fare hike that others have criticised here. Yes, I'm sure some of you will gain, but overall the winner will be FGW's revenue stream - because they have designed the changes to achieve that result, which means a good many people will be paying a lot more for their journeys.

If FGW had gone over to half-price single tickets across the board on their network, at all times of the day, then that would be a different matter but they didn't, because it would cost them a lot of money - so I stand by my original description.