Call for rail fare simplification

[whole diary]

[grahame]

3) So as not to penalise round trips, returns should be twice the single fare.

That worries me.  There are cases where buying a return is much more expensive that 2 singles - such cases as out in the peak, back off peak, or where people buy two advance singles, and it would be good to cap the return fare at the sum of those singles.  However, day and period returns in the same "peakiness" offer a saving and it would be a shame for them to rise to twice the single.

[didcotdean]

Riddle me this. Didcot to Oxford, Reading, & Swindon are pretty similar in journey time around 15 minutes, and in the same rolling stock, at least for many services. The price though is wildly different:

Anytime day return
OXF^» (Oxford - next trains): £8.60
RDG^‡(resolve): £12.50
SWI^» (Swindon - next trains): £59.40 (the 7 day season fare is only (!) £97.40)

Off peak day return
OXF: £7.90
RDG: £7.80
SWI: £15.70

Now there are a few accidents of history that have combined to produce this state of affairs, but it has no underlying logic.

[ellendune]

3) So as not to penalise round trips, returns should be twice the single fare.

However, day and period returns in the same "peakiness" offer a saving and it would be a shame for them to rise to twice the single.

Why should a period or day return offer a saving.  What if (in a revenue neutral way) the cake was cut a different way so that the single was a less and those who had the benefit all these years for no apparent reason pay a bit more (though not twice as much). 

[grahame]

Why should a period or day return offer a saving.  What if (in a revenue neutral way) the cake was cut a different way so that the single was a less and those who had the benefit all these years for no apparent reason pay a bit more (though not twice as much). 

1. The cost of any purchase comprises a transaction and packaging cost and the cost of the goods. Two singles is two transactions each for a smaller amount of goods.  I think I read that 90% of journeys are returns - though the ticketing via advance fares may have muddied that, so "singles only" in the days of paper tickets and ticket offices was a much more expensive thing for the railways to provide.   And with ticket machines only offering (may be changing) tickets from the station at which the machine is located, singles-only would have meant queuing at a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) before your return journey too.  They should offer a saving because they are cheaper for the railway to provide.

2. In places where revenue protection has been an issue, having a singe ticket priced quite high compared to the return means that the revenue loss is reduced.  Taking one of our local "classics", Dilton Marsh to Warminster - return fare £4.60 or £4.00 off peak, single £3.30.  No TVM and Dilton Marsh and insufficient time to collect all the fares before arrival in Warminster - at least the railway gets £3.30 if it manages to collect a fare in one direction!

3. Marketing and what people will pay before they decide not to make the trip.  Single journeys tend to be necessities and people will pay rather more ... they will pay less (per leg) for a return and even less per leg for a day return.

To some extent I am quoting industry [excuses/explanations] there.  But they need to be considered and I would tend to suggest period returns at 160% of a single and day returns at 130%.   That's a starting point for negotiation.

[ellendune]

Why should a period or day return offer a saving.  What if (in a revenue neutral way) the cake was cut a different way so that the single was a less and those who had the benefit all these years for no apparent reason pay a bit more (though not twice as much). 

1. The cost of any purchase comprises a transaction and packaging cost and the cost of the goods. Two singles is two transactions each for a smaller amount of goods.  I think I read that 90% of journeys are returns - though the ticketing via advance fares may have muddied that, so "singles only" in the days of paper tickets and ticket offices was a much more expensive thing for the railways to provide.   And with ticket machines only offering (may be changing) tickets from the station at which the machine is located, singles-only would have meant queuing at a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) before your return journey too.  They should offer a saving because they are cheaper for the railway to provide.

2. In places where revenue protection has been an issue, having a singe ticket priced quite high compared to the return means that the revenue loss is reduced.  Taking one of our local "classics", Dilton Marsh to Warminster - return fare £4.60 or £4.00 off peak, single £3.30.  No TVM and Dilton Marsh and insufficient time to collect all the fares before arrival in Warminster - at least the railway gets £3.30 if it manages to collect a fare in one direction!

3. Marketing and what people will pay before they decide not to make the trip.  Single journeys tend to be necessities and people will pay rather more ... they will pay less (per leg) for a return and even less per leg for a day return.

To some extent I am quoting industry [excuses/explanations] there.  But they need to be considered and I would tend to suggest period returns at 160% of a single and day returns at 130%.   That's a starting point for negotiation.

I do not buy these arguments, especially as in my (admittedly limited) recent experience no-one ever tried to check my ticket so they clearly don't care about revenue collection. 

However, if they are true why are day returns not offered everywhere at that sort of discount?  That drives the rank unfairness in the Oxford/Swindon comparisons quoted above. 

[grahame]

I do not buy these arguments, especially as in my (admittedly limited) recent experience no-one ever tried to check my ticket so they clearly don't care about revenue collection. 

However, if they are true why are day returns not offered everywhere at that sort of discount?  That drives the rank unfairness in the Oxford/Swindon comparisons quoted above. 

Fare enough - I believe there is a valid and significant reason in the marketing argument.  The other two have struck me as perhaps being the industry looking for a reason.

My understanding of the amazingly high Swindon to Didcot fares is that it dates back to the introduction of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) on the Paddington to the West, Bristol and South Wales routes.  A premium service, long distance traffic only (or at least dominant).  Since that time, much more local traffic but still long distance dominated and the anytime fare is not a regulated one, so First and their predecessors have been able to charge what they want - maximising profit not journeys.  The clue is in the regulated season ticket costs.

Given a directive to maximise income the system could be hugely improved.  I had a very very interesting discussion with the RDG^‡(resolve) fares consultation team a few years back when they were trying to square the circle and they asked for fare ideas that would at least maintain their revenue.  They were not happy when I proposed a scheme that would have brought fares down by x% but raised passenger numbers by 2x%, arguing they would need to provide more or longer trains.  Apparently they had no interest in the consultation in anything that actually grew demand like that!

[simonw]

Surely rail fares should be transparent and clear to understand

For example

• Peak Time surcharge for Origin, Through or Destination stations
• Distance, say £0.75 per mile, £0.50 per km
• Per ticket charge for local, regional or national journeys
• Per ticket charge for speed of journey

There are obviously other ways to determine price of rails, the current anomaly of split tickets shows that the current price model is crazy. Why is Bath Spa to Bristol TN twice the cost of Yate to Bristol TM^‡(resolve)? They are the same distance.

[ellendune]

I believe the Oxford/Swindon (and some other places) issue has been made worse by the different regulated fares rules in the former network south east area and elsewhere.  IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) in the former NSE^▸ (Network South East) area the day return is the regulated fare elsewhere it is  something else so that the anytime return is not regulated.  Can anyone fill in the detail or correct me?

[grahame]

I believe the Oxford/Swindon (and some other places) issue has been made worse by the different regulated fares rules in the former network south east area and elsewhere.  IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) in the former NSE^▸ (Network South East) area the day return is the regulated fare elsewhere it is  something else so that the anytime return is not regulated.  Can anyone fill in the detail or correct me?

I am also wooly but ... from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

About 45% of fares are regulated, meaning they are directly influenced by the government.

These include most season tickets, travelcards, some off-peak returns, and anytime tickets around major cities.

You'll note that the season tickets are regulated, as are the London to Didcot ANYTIME fares ("around a major city") and the London to Swindon OFF-PEAK fares (not being around a major city).   Where an anytime fare is regulated, it acts as a ceiling under which off-peak fares must be set (or no-one will buy them!).  But where the off peak fare is regulated, it acts as a floor not a ceiling and the fare-setting TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) can set very much higher anytime fares.

[didcotdean]

There is another historical effect with the Didcot to Reading & Oxford fares in that there was a one off reduction in the early 2000s when these were set by Thames Trains which has been baked in subsequently for the next 20 years. Otherwise they would probably be pushing towards £10.

It isn't strictly comparable being a somewhat shorter journey but Swindon to Chippenham is more in line being  £11.60 anytime, £8.80 off peak.

[ellendune]

So here is LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about)'s view of fares simplification what do we make of that:



Super off-peak fare abolished to Waverley. So results in a fare increase - but not for Haymarket so there is a money saving offer. 

[grahame]

So here is LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about)'s view of fares simplification what do we make of that:

I worry that simplification and value for money are not the same thing.

[grahame]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67993208

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) -

LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about): Train fares simplified in bid to boost passenger numbers

There is an example quoted of 23 different fares on LNER trains between Edinburgh and London being reduced to just 6. 

It is true that the 181 (I just counted them) Melksham to London fares is such a complex morass of opportunities that it scares people away.  If simplified to just six fares, it probably would reduce that fear, and encourage more people to ask, but simplification is not better value and it could well be that the change in system resulted in an increase in the amount paid (or asked of) many. 

The six fares remaining are to be 3 first class and 3 standard class.  Ignoring the first class fares (we don't have first class on any trains calling at Melksham; these tickets are rarely sold), two of the current fares would remain:
** Any time single, via any permitted route: £117.80 (current price)
** Advance single, booked train only: £102.50 (highest current advance price)
** a new in between fare which you buy in advance for a booked train, but you can then travel up to 70 minutes earlier or later.
For Melksham, with a train every 2 hours that third fare is  about as useful as a chocolate teapot (
(ok - you can book the 07:21 and switch to the 08:02 and vice versa).

If I'm headed to London at the weekend at present, I'm likely to do so by train for £70.50 (or £46.50 with a senior railcard) to include my Transport for London journeys while in London too. With just 3 fares, I would be looking at around £215.00 for 2 advance singles plus my journeys within London.

I would suspect that the new fare would come with marketing from the ministry, telling us that they are holding (or even reducing) the fares so "fares across the board are down by 10%".  With Messrs Harper, Sunak, Shapps and others trumpeting it on TV. Whether anyone would "buy" that or them? I don't know.  What would happen to
a) Passenger numbers
b) Revenue from passengers
c) Loading distribution

[Mark A]

So here is LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about)'s view of fares simplification what do we make of that:
...snip...

Direction of travel: grim?

Fares reform on a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)-by-TOC basis doesn't lead to simplification across the rail system as they'll all do their own thing so complexity explodes, which is not what's needed, UK^▸ (United Kingdom)-wide.

LNER's model come across, unsurprisingly, as being designed with long distance travel between major centres in mind.  For one thing, it isn't an easy fit for shorter distance travel and their abandonment of return fares some time ago has curtailed flexibility for travellers.

That 70 minute flex ticket's a bit of a monster that perhaps doesn't offer the advantage to the traveller or perhaps the TOC that LNER represents it as doing - and also the flex ticket, like an advance ticket, is non-refundable and quota controlled.

Brfares.com has the range of fares offered from February 5th. Looking at Edinburgh to Kings Cross options, I now have a migraine aura. I didn't realise there was such a mish mash of TOC-specific fares, this has turned a bit 'Gatwick to Londony', and the same goes for a shorter haul such as Berwick to Edinburgh.

https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EDB&dest=KGX&period=20240205

Mark

[Mark A]

A read on LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about)'s flex fare, from 'Diamondgeezer'.

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2024/01/lner-70min-flex-tickets.html

Mark