Great Western Coffee Shop

Poll to measure the views of forum members as we consider the "fares consultation" which is summaries [here] (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19894.msg243151#msg243151). Please refer to that thread for further details, and look at the official consultation [here] (https://www.britainrunsonrail.co.uk/files/docs/English_Version_v2.pdf).

Interesting to see no suggestions at all of other factors

Fares based on what people are prepared to pay, anyone?

Fares based on economic encouragement to people to live in certain places, anyone?

I would venture to suggest that both of these factors can be found in the current fares regime. Should they be considered for the future?

No, they should not. Fares should be entirely distance based with no variations save for Season Ticket discounts, higher prices over certain sections of the network during the peak and a First Class premium.
The Fares application/database would price tickets according to the above guidelines so that ‘split ticketing’ and ‘break of journey’ queries would be rendered redundant.
Railcards should be scrapped.
In terms of the ‘Anytime’ v ‘Off Peak’ pricing issue the fare, for example, from EXD to PAD in the early morning would be calculated as EXD to NBY or RDG at the base price + NBY or RDG at the ‘Peak’ rate. The rail industry should have enough data to figure out what the base pence/mile figure should be and everything else flows from that. (This is a summary of my Fares Consultation submission - I have no expectation that the industry/government would adopt any of these ideas).

Let's look at London to Bristol and Bristol to Severn Beach.

The Anytime Single from Paddington to Bristol TM is £105.70 for a journey of 118.5 miles. A pence per mile figure of £0.89.

The Anytime Single from Bristol TM to Severn Beach is £2.00 for a distance of 13.5 miles. A pence per mile figure of £0.15.

How do you reconcile those fares to come out with a purely mileages based 'base price' that works for both? Increase the Severn Beach fare to £0.89 per mile? Instead of £2.00 it would be £12.00.

It would be unbelievably difficult to find a purely distance based 'base price' that would keep the fares take revenue neutral without hugely increasing the price of short distance commuter fares to slightly reduce the cost of long distance fares.

A guaranteed way to drive commuters off the railway and into their cars.

Indeed, there simply has to be some weighting towards four other factors that can and should affect the price:  Frequency of service; length of journey; duration of time; and (like it or not!) affluence of the area.

An example is Swindon to London and Llanelli to Llandrindod.

Both weigh in at just under 80 miles.  The off-peak fare from Swindon to London return is £48, the off-peak fare from Llanelli to Llandovery is £14.70.  However the reasons for the difference become clearer when you factor in the four or five trains an hour from Swindon to London which is about the same number that operate per day between Llanelli and Llandrindod.  Swindon to London usually takes around an hour, but Llanelli to Llandrindod takes around three times as long.

I'm sure there are other more extreme example out there.

Someone mentioned railcards ... but the questions are wider.


In extremis, are we asked whether consideration should be give to the future provision and direction of other products?

Railcards, season tickets, children's fares, free travel for the under 5s, Britrail, priv tickets, groupsave, rangers / rovers?

The one that annoys me the most is free travel for under fives (under six or seven in practice as no one checks) The theory used to be that young children sat on the lap of the owner.
These days the owner of the child expects a free seat for the child, and can be very militant in demanding this.

I was pretty disgusted when having paid the full open single fare, I was "asked" by the train manager to stand in order that a mother and child could sit (i.e. have two seats with one ticket)
The mother seemed disgusted that she had to seek the assistance of staff, and expected two seats to be an automatic entitlement.

I am also very doubtful about half price tickets for children, since the parents are very militant in expecting/demanding a seat for the child at the expense of those who paid for an adult ticket.

There is a very simple (and often used) check. Don't ask the parent how old their offspring is - Ask the child! Children of that age tend to tell the truth and can be very proud of telling somebody their age.

That is something that really needs sorting out, Broadgage. I am usually easy going an laid back but that sort of attitude from the mother and child makes me seething. I would have 'stood' my ground, from a sedentary position of course, and then followed the issue up  with the CEO of the train company, my local MP and the SoS.
Good point from Phil Wakely too.

These are excellent points, but I very much doubt that outcome actions from the current process will be a societal change, especially bearing in mind the the consultation specifically excludes much more minor changes such as changing the fare box total taking.

There is discontent at elements of the current fare system, and frustrations at its complexity. But I'm darned if I can see an alternative system that substantially reduced or removes the complexity, and at the same time gives a net reduction in the discontent elements.  At times I will post "how about" ... to test an idea; with the fares consultation, I can't really come up with a realistic idea within the constraints we have been set.

OUTSIDE the constraints ...

Remove adult fares and free travel for the under fives, and let anyone travel at what are currently child fares.  Could this eliminate railcards, groupsave, britrail and season tickets simply because the people who buy those products would almost all be making a saving at the new rates.

Reset fares based not quite on raw mileage, but rather on a set (different) charge per inter-station section.  So that the rate per mile on the Heart of Wales would average out at 7p per mile, and on the GW main line to Swindon at 21p per mile.

But I come unstuck on peak fares, on the extra admin of doing away with season tickets (impractical queues unless you use alternative technology), upset caused to groups such as school children who use season tickets each term.   And I'm pretty darned sure that such a system will end up changing economic balances - real hardship for some, probably a greater call on the exchequer, changes of balances of train loading.    We could probably come up with an excellent system for the future - but with a near-impossible task of getting to that system from where we are today.

If circumstances let you (and staff should be able), good call for the free v half fare.  By the time you'r checking half fare v adult fare, you may discover that 15, 16 and 17 year olds have lost the ability to count accurately and forget a year or two of their lives

And let's not forget that Seniors can sometimes 'forget' to renew their Railcard and can be quite indignant when caught using an out of date one.

This is 'public' transport we are talking about. To which all members of society from aged zero to 100+ have access. Outside of legal requirements toward the disabled, we do not, and should not, place a value judgement on someone's right to travel, or right to occupy a seat/space, based on what they have or haven't paid.

I've absolutely no time for the likes of broadgage when they moan about having paid 'full fare' and then express moral indignation that someone who's paid less has got a seat. So what if its a child? It's perfectly possible that the child under five has a paid for ticket if the parent/guardian is using a F&F Railcard. It could equally be one of many  other reasons why a person has got a seat ahead of you and has paid less. 'Full fare' does not equal guaranteed seat. Never has. Unless you make a reservation.

You bet, and sometimes when the parent tells the lie the kid tugs parents coat and blurts out that "I'm not 4, I'm 6".

In the case to which I refer, I had not only paid the full first class fare but had also booked a seat and had taken my booked seat, but was still asked to stand by the train manager in order that a mother and baby could have two seats.

It would seem that having a child not only gets two seats for the price of one, but also overrides a booking.

I was later refused a refund of the difference between first and standard class.

Totally agreed. But noting:

1. It's not just seniors who can forget to renew their railcards - it could be any sort of railcard holder

2. A seat reservation on a particular train should entitle you to that seat - otherwise, what's the point?  I could further suggest that if the railway fails to honour seat reservations (for example running a 2+7 when it should have been a 2+8, or an IET for an HST), the reservation holder should be entitled to a seat in preference to those without reservations.

Pragmatism, manners and common sense should also prevail. If someone is taken ill on a journey, or isn't able to stand on a service for which seat reservations cannot be made - for goodness sake let them sit.  I think that's what "priority seats" are for ...

More fool you. I would have made the mother sit next to me and have the baby on her lap or if the baby was in a carry cradle have that on her lap or on the table. Not being "flush enough" to afford First Class travel, I would have, in your circumstances, demanded the train manager give me a signed written note to customer services to confirm he had asked you to vacate you reserved seat and the reason why and used that to justify your request for a part refund and if still refused same taken the matter to the small claims court. It is surprising how a small claims court ruling suddenly wakes up big organisations, I once had a dispute over a £12 car park charge which the operator claimed was an old ticket as the strong sun had bleached the print on the ticket and the ticket must have been old for it to be so badly bleached. The part of the print which had not been bleached had the ticket number still legible and despite my telling the operator to check the date on which that ticket number was dispensed, they refused. Made online small claims court claim, duplicate £12 taken from my current account, £25 small claims court fee, 3 X £14 cost of my time preparing letters to parking company, 3 X £2.90 guaranteed delivery of letters, 21 X 10p for photocopying, total £89.80p. Had a letter from the parking company after the small claims court action started enclosing a cheque for £15 and stating that they had considered the case again and the cheque was in full and final settlement of the matter and enclosed a proforma for me to sign and return stating that I had accepted their settlement. No way, I returned their cheque with an accompanying letter, the small claims court ruled in my favour and the £89.80p was paid in full.

If more people started to use the small claims court to claim against rail companies then pigs might fly, seriously though, something might get done, take JourneyCheck snapshot and if the train you are travelling on is 5 instead of 10 and your reserved seat is in the missing 5, claim, If your train is described as full and standing and First Class is declassified and you have a First Class ticket, even able to sit in the reserved seat, claim. I could go on now I'm wound up but this is going off tangent on this thread and the pub is beckoning for my Sunday lunchtime pint or two.

On local trains or shorter journeys for which seat reservations are not available, I agree that one should consider giving up a seat for someone less able.

On a longer distance service for which one has paid a lot of money and booked a seat, I am now more reluctant to stand.
Whilst some would say "of course you should still stand for children, elderly, and other deserving cases"
That is in effect saying that someone like myself should NEVER take a seat on say the 19-03 from Paddington. There are ALLWAYS standing passengers on that service, at least in the summer, and there will ALLWAYS be among those standing some who consider that they need a seat. (Or two seats for a parent and young child)

I am opposed to air travel due to the fuel used and environmental damage done, but one can see the attraction of air versus rail.
I have never heard of an airline expecting a customer to stand in order that a parent and child may have two seats for one ticket.

If you have a booked seat and are occupying it, that should be the end of the story.

You will of course always be able to find exceptional circumstances where you might want to get out of the way.

………….and even that is becoming less and less of a guarantee!

That's not "having a child", that's "being a muppet". If I were on a train with Sebastian in this scenario, he'd be on my lap. (Although he'd rather be looking out the droplights in the vestibules... clearly an apprentice rail enthusiast.)

I'd consider myself a muppet if I gave up my reserved 1st Class seat to a passenger without a reservation. A TM asking me to move for a mother and under five to occupy two seats is not a reasonable request, and I say so. I'd happily let mum and under five sit next to me though.

In retrospect, I DO consider myself to have been a "a bit of a muppet" for complying with the train managers request.
If the situation was to arise again, I would be inclined to stand my ground. This may sound harsh, but on a popular train there will always be someone deserving standing.

It is in fact less likely that the situation will recur, for several reasons.

Firstly, I travel less than in the past.
Secondly I have become very selective about travel dates, avoiding Fridays, Thursdays, and days near holiday weekends or special events.
And finally I avoid IEPS so far as possible since reservations seem to be seldom honoured. I cant avoid the wretched DMUs forever of course, but presumably they will eventually be full length and have reservations.

In my mailbox this morning from Raileasy / Trainsplit

Grahame

What a surprise from a vested interest in the current complexity.

They do however make a valid point that in any change of this size the screams of the losers will overwhelm the purrs of the winners.

Exactly the answer I gave in the consultation without being prompted by a vested interest.

Attempts to iron out split ticket savings will result in fares increases either side of the split. Those making the savings by possessing a little knowledge are far outnumbered by those who buy the point to point tickets. Lose/lose.

I too urge anyone who has not already completed the consultation to answer the split ticketing question with 'Do not consider'.

My great fear with this consultation is it has been worded such that the outcome is predetermined. The DfT and Rail Delivery Group can then dress up fares increases by saying its what passengers wanted. I'm of the growing opinion that this consultation is a smokescreen for reducing government farebox subsidy even further.

Indeed.   However, I'm inclined to think that the elimination of savings on ticket splits should not be a consideration in its own right (whether or not you like the practise), but rather it would naturally be reduced through so many other changes that should be considered.

---

Paddington to Cardiff single on the 08:45 - £117.10; on the 09:15, £62.20 - the difference between peak and off peak fares.  But why on earth should you be expected to pay a peak fare for the Swindon to Cardiff leg of the journey on the 08:45 when the peak has passed?    Better £66.80, peak, London to Swindon and £21.80 off peak Swindon to Cardiff - total fair fare £88.60 .... but the problem is how you come up with a ticket regime to do that calculation for you automatically.  Such a splitting of fares seems only fair, and surely it's far better to come up with a proper system that eliminates the need to muck around rather that setting out to eliminate a facility.

So the solution to this would be for the fare engine to always, automatically, calculate the effect of split tickets and apply them as necessary.

This will significantly reduce overall revenue when the change should be revenue neutral.

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

I missed this poll when voting was still open, but I have something to add on over-5s travelling free, from a parent's perspective: some staff don't want to sell child tickets. In fact, IME quite a lot of staff don't. Two examples, five years and a hundred miles apart:
Severn Beach line
"One adult and one child return to Stapleton Road, please."
"Is he under five?"
"He's six."
Looks at me seriously. "Let's try again. Is he (nod) under (nod) five? (nod)"

London Underground. The child above is now 11. I can't see how to get a child option on the machine. Ask gate staff. "Oh, he's ten, he can travel free."

And perhaps that's another factor that might be taken into account; should the age at which children require tickets and the age at which they become adult for ticket purposes be levelled across the country and all modes of transport?

I would say yes the ages should be standardised, subject to the caveat that this should only apply to true public transport, and not to private railways, coach tours, special charters and the like.

Cant see it happening though.