Rail staff 'quote higher fares'

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8210465.stm

Poor advice from rail staff means some travellers pay more than double the cheapest fare, reports Which? magazine.

Enquiries to ticket office staff and the National Rail Enquiries Service (NRES^▸ (National Rail Enquiry Service)) found prices quoted higher than the lowest fare in 27 out of 50 cases. Two in three station clerks and two in five NRES staff did not offer the cheapest fares and some offered tickets over twice the cost of the cheapest.

Train company representatives said the report was "seriously misleading".

[Henry]

 I cannot speak for NRES^▸ (National Rail Enquiry Service), any other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) but I have always found FGW^▸ (First Great Western) really good.

 Personally I am not always convinced by Which reports, they fail to say some of the cheapest fares are subject to availability.

[inspector_blakey]

I suspect this is the annual survey where Which go and ask booking office staff for some incredibly esoteric journeys suggested by Barry Doe of Rail Magazine; there's usually a subtle catch in each enquiry that could trip up an unwary booking clerk (e.g. someone might say they wanted to make two very long journeys in the course of a week, with the result that a week's all-line rover ticket would actually end up being the cheapest option. The clerk would therefore be criticized if they didn't immediately offer this).

If it is a similar survey to previously, some of the questions are so complicated I don't think you can consider it a representative sample of day-to-day business at the ticket office window (and in fact I'd be impressed if staff got those questions right 50% of the time). It certainly does not mean that half of passengers end up paying more than they should at the ticket office window, and much as it pains me, I almost find myself agreeing with ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)...

[Tim]

It is difficult to critise the staff without knowing what the questions were (and my experience of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) booking office staff has been pretty good), but one can't help drawing the conclusion that if staff can't fully understand the system then perhaps it is too complicated. 

[IndustryInsider]

I think a previous 'Which?' report was discussed on here, and the questions set were done so by Barry Doe (the fare's expert), and were by no means a 'typical' set of questions that the average NRES^▸ (National Rail Enquiry Service) clerk gets in a day, but more ones designed to be obscure, such as a 7-day season ticket being cheaper than two open returns in one example.

It could be argued that the fares system shouldn't allow such discrepancies, but it's incredibly difficult to do. The articles that are published as a result in the national press give the impression that it is a representative sample and that you stand more of a chance of being given wrong information than right. That simply isn't true.

[Tim]

It could be argued that the fares system shouldn't allow such discrepancies, but it's incredibly difficult to do.

Not difficult at all to simplify some of the obsurities.  For example, how about making all seasons 4 x the open return price.  A simple univeral rule that the booking office staff would learn. 

Personally I think that TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) should not be allowed to set their own fares (with the possible exception of AP).  They have demonstated that they cannot be trusted to do this simply, honestly or fairly.  And the current regulation system just throws up more annomolies and loop holes.

fares could be left to a central body (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) or ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)?) who would set them with regard to capacity, demand quality of service, speed etc and with a much simply set of restrictions etc.  TOCs would know exactly what their fares would be when they bid for the franchise and would price their bid accordingly. 

[paul7575]

Not difficult at all to simplify some of the obsurities.  For example, how about making all seasons 4 x the open return price.  A simple univeral rule that the booking office staff would learn. 
///
fares could be left to a central body (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) or ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)?) who would set them with regard to capacity, demand quality of service, speed etc and with a much simply set of restrictions etc.  TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) would know exactly what their fares would be when they bid for the franchise and would price their bid accordingly. 

A standard multiplier for weekly seasons is sensible, but they've painted themselves into a corner in my area (South Hants) where a rise from just less than 2x, up to 4x would be very difficult to implement. All because seasons are regulated and full price day tickets aren't, as it's a SE commuter TOC. As Barry Doe pointed out recently, the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) long distance commuters are most vocal in their criticism of their fares, but never stop to think how much less they pay than casual travellers.

In terms of a suitable central body though, ATOC would be a complete waste of time. They have no regulatory authority as they are a trade/membership organisation for TOCs - i.e. they aren't independent.  They really just organise cross industry services , exemplified by the Rail Settlement Plan, and the 'National Rail' website etc.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

I suspect this is the annual survey where Which go and ask booking office staff for some incredibly esoteric journeys suggested by Barry Doe of Rail Magazine; there's usually a subtle catch in each enquiry that could trip up an unwary booking clerk (e.g. someone might say they wanted to make two very long journeys in the course of a week, with the result that a week's all-line rover ticket would actually end up being the cheapest option. The clerk would therefore be criticized if they didn't immediately offer this).

If it is a similar survey to previously, some of the questions are so complicated I don't think you can consider it a representative sample of day-to-day business at the ticket office window (and in fact I'd be impressed if staff got those questions right 50% of the time). It certainly does not mean that half of passengers end up paying more than they should at the ticket office window, and much as it pains me, I almost find myself agreeing with ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)...

I must apologise for basically repeating everything you said in your post a couple of hours later! Tired eyes must have somehow missed your reply!

[inspector_blakey]

No worries! I've been guilty of exactly the same in the past 

[Tim]

A standard multiplier for weekly seasons is sensible, but they've painted themselves into a corner in my area (South Hants) where a rise from just less than 2x, up to 4x would be very difficult to implement.

alternatively  they could put down their prices of their open returns.  IIFR, Vacman has commented that on some London-Cornwall trains their might be only 2 or 3 people on open returns (everyone else AP) so on that flow at least there wouldn't be much loss of revenue (and perhaps an increase if some switch from dirt cheap AP to medium prices open returns).

The mistake (of government) was to regulate the wrong fares.  They shoudl have regulated the most expensive open fares and let cheaper fares slot in underneath, instead they regulated mid-priced fares which allowed the unregulated high priced fares to skyrocket and TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to mess about with teh ticket restrictions to undermine the mid-priced saver fares,