|
|
|
Ralph Ayres
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2023, 19:25:03 » |
|
As always, I find myself wondering if they realise that this will mean some fares increase, or do they expect the Government/tax payer/train companies (all, ultimately, funded by us when it comes down to it!) to plug the gap in fares income. In addition, though I don't dispute that there are anomalies, a difference in the cost per kilometre of flexible day return tickets from Newquay to Plymouth and from Chelmsford to London isn't to my mind necessarily surprising or wrong.
I personally doubt a real "root-and-branch reform" will ever happen; it's just too much of a political hot potato with too many people likely to end up paying more without huge levels of extra subsidy. Gradual harmonisation over several years to limit the effects would need a long term strategy and so fall foul of 5-yearly electoral terms as well as risking accusations of sneaking in high increases.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CyclingSid
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2023, 06:55:05 » |
|
My concern with this is that there is some flexibility in the existing system which might be lost in any "simplification".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2023, 10:31:38 » |
|
My concern with this is that there is some flexibility in the existing system which might be lost in any "simplification".
But surely simplicity and flexibility are opposites. Simplification would reduce flexibility. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2023, 11:25:41 » |
|
We need the broadgage simplified fares structure.
Only three different fares available for any journey.(in each class)
Peak fare---------for trains known or expected to be heavily loaded.
Super bargain---very cheap for very lightly used services, mainly early morning or late night services, possibly also rush hour trains for travel against the main flow.
Off peak------all those not included in the above.
To limit the greed of TOCs▸ , at least 25% of services must be Super bargain.
And peak fares must not apply to more than 25% of services.
Both the above to be per timetable period and NOT each day or week.
Bookings allowed for peak and off peak, for a small charge. Not needed on super bargain.
Subject to the above, TOCs could classify trains as they see fit, but only alter this at timetable changes, not every few days on a whim.
No more punitively high fares for walk up travel on lightly used trains.
And no more discounted advance tickets on overcrowded services.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2023, 11:33:12 » |
|
To limit the greed of TOCs▸ ...
You seem to have forgotten that TOCs now give all revenue collected straight to the DfT» in return for a fixed fee for operating the trains. In theory that should make your suggestion (or suggestions from others) far easier to implement now as only one body will be taking on revenue risk. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2023, 13:11:51 » |
|
To limit the greed of TOCs▸ ...
You seem to have forgotten that TOCs now give all revenue collected straight to the DfT» in return for a fixed fee for operating the trains. Ah that's why the Rail Minister aka DfT are not keen on the Andrew Haines GBR▸ simplification of fares approach, as it would reduce the amount of revenue the DfT can squeeze out of the cash cows aka passengers |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2023, 13:32:58 » |
|
To limit the greed of TOCs▸ ...
You seem to have forgotten that TOCs now give all revenue collected straight to the DfT» in return for a fixed fee for operating the trains. Ah that's why the Rail Minister aka DfT are not keen on the Andrew Haines GBR▸ simplification of fares approach, as it would reduce the amount of revenue the DfT can squeeze out of the cash cows aka passengers Agreed - and add to that the fact that "simplification" would remove many of the anomalies that save us money (i.e. put our fares up) which would not to the rail minister and his party colleagues much good at the next election. A fare goes up, people complain for years but a fare goes down and the memory of the reduction faded long before the next ballot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
WSW Frome
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2023, 15:35:07 » |
|
On potential loss of flexibility?
With the LNER» "trial" of single leg tickets, there has been comment that this leads to loss of flexibility. The examples appear to relate to journeys from South to North of England (and v/v). Previously many tickets, notably "Any Permitted" (i/c returns) would be valid on alternative routes, ie in some cases interchangeable between West Coast, Midland and East Coast routes and then alternative options Up North.
An interesting question is whether the LNER trial actually withdrew the pre-existing tickets, or simply promoted the new singles?
The further question is whether this form of simplification is a price worth paying for this lack of flexibility which would only be exercised by a few people?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
plymothian
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2023, 17:19:25 » |
|
All forgetting that in the UK▸ , the cost must be borne by the customer. We don't do public transport in its proper meaninig in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please be aware that only the first 4 words of this post will be platformed on this message board.
|
|
|
|
Mark A
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2023, 18:02:17 » |
|
On potential loss of flexibility?
With the LNER» "trial" of single leg tickets, there has been comment that this leads to loss of flexibility. The examples appear to relate to journeys from South to North of England (and v/v). Previously many tickets, notably "Any Permitted" (i/c returns) would be valid on alternative routes, ie in some cases interchangeable between West Coast, Midland and East Coast routes and then alternative options Up North.
An interesting question is whether the LNER trial actually withdrew the pre-existing tickets, or simply promoted the new singles?
The further question is whether this form of simplification is a price worth paying for this lack of flexibility which would only be exercised by a few people?
Good point. Back in the day, LNER and the LMS▸ were able to cooperate sufficiently on this to offer angloscottish return tickets that allowed outward travel by one route and back by another - and they were separate companies. Mark PS Mods, as I've actually managed to post something about a company that once served the Coffeeshop's home turf, please can I have a credit, or be thrown off the forum, or something? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Oxonhutch
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2023, 20:41:12 » |
|
Good point. Back in the day, LNER» and the LMS▸ were able to cooperate sufficiently on this to offer angloscottish return tickets that allowed outward travel by one route and back by another - and they were separate companies.
I suspect that was an arrangement, either organised or managed, by the Railway Clearing House that distributed fare revenues. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaplowGreen
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2023, 08:04:29 » |
|
As always, I find myself wondering if they realise that this will mean some fares increase, or do they expect the Government/tax payer/train companies (all, ultimately, funded by us when it comes down to it!) to plug the gap in fares income. In addition, though I don't dispute that there are anomalies, a difference in the cost per kilometre of flexible day return tickets from Newquay to Plymouth and from Chelmsford to London isn't to my mind necessarily surprising or wrong.
The taxpayer is already plugging a huge gap in income to the tune of many millions monthly as post COVID ticket revenue has not returned to expected levels and there is a major deficit in this area. Not so long ago (in fact only a few months) a lot of people were screaming for fare simplification as a precursor to closing ticket offices - maybe it has to be the "right sort" of simplification? Perhaps one of the knowledgeable people on this forum could describe what that would look like? (Sincere question, not sarcastic!) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 29, 2023, 09:30:01 by TaplowGreen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2023, 11:17:18 » |
|
Perhaps one of the knowledgeable people on this forum could describe what that would look like? (Sincere question, not sarcastic!)
Perhaps it would be easier to explain what it should do: 1) It should render split ticketing unnecessary 2) It should avoid the case where similar journeys on the substantially the same route are differently priced (e.g. Swindon to Paddington £160 (anytime return (day return not available)), Same from Oxford £77.30 (anytime day return) mostly using same tracks and trains and similar speeds) 3) So as not to penalise round trips, returns should be twice the single fare. 4) Route and time restrictions should be transparent and easy to explain (e.g. explain to me why Swindon to Birmingham not valid via Bristol Parkway when if you continue to Derby it is!) 5) Route and time restrictions should be recognisable by automatic gates so you don't have to negotiate with a ticket inspector. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
