please empty your brain below
You’ve not mentioned contactless travel. Everything on that list could have been considered in 1995!

Personally, I’d favour whatever fare structure best enables contactless ticketing. So, a copy of TfL’s approach plus a premium for peak travel and advance reservation.

dg writes: Sorry, that's in Part 2 of the consultation...

Online accounts could be available which can be used for rail and other of types of public transport

...and I didn't get round to cut and pasting that.

Dan | 05.06.18 - 7:14 a.m. | #

It's annoying (but not unsurprising) they don't seem to have something like "The UK has one of the lowest % contributions / subsidies from the state towards the cost of rail travel in Europe, do you think everyone should pay slightly higher taxes in exchange for all rail travel getting cheaper", since that's part of the debate we (the UK) need to be having first on rail pricing.

(The reason the newspaper article comparisons on ticket prices UK vs rest of Europe always make us look bad is because the other governments chip in more!)

dg writes: "The proposed consultation is not about the overall balance between farepayers and taxpayers since this choice is rightly a matter for governments."

Nick Burch | 05.06.18 - 7:31 a.m. | #

A public consultation is a start, but the whole system, built up over many more decades than the 1995 date would suggest, is so hideously complex that it will take years to sort out. Doing this in a revenue neutral way (which isn't the days as neutral average fare) will be as hard. As an analogy, try untangling the most tangle ball of knitting wool without cutting it!!

There will be protagonists for and against all the categories DG quoted. Balancing all these is going to require political decisions.

Also no one will know the impact on revenue until the cbange enacted. Remember Oyster on national rail. In the end TOCs had to be forced to take it on. They had been afraid of losing revenue as some fares would fall. Revenue actually rose.

We also need to make the tickets far less complex.......TOC only tickets, can't travel in the evening peak from using an off peak ticket except for the off peak tickets where you can, and mysterious things like 'element's.

100andthirty | 05.06.18 - 7:49 a.m. | #

If there are going to be clear winners and losers, the winners will silently trouser the gain, and the loser will complain loudly, bitterly, and at length, and the whole thing will be unpopular and fail.

Andrew | 05.06.18 - 7:54 a.m. | #

The Treasury will never agree to something that's revenue negative - if fares are going to stay the same on average, I'd rather we just stuck with what we've got now with some minor changes to make things less complicated.

I know the system is far from perfect, but I still think it's a case of 'better the devil you know'.

(Signed, a non-rail enthusiast)

McTim | 05.06.18 - 7:57 a.m. | #

I had this conversation a week ago with my daughter, who travels to/from Uni by train. Her view was that train fares should be simpler and cheaper, because "they are too expensive". I tried to explain to her that any changes could only result in the the average staying the same, but she didn't think that was good enough. I also pointed out that reducing prices will mean more crowded trains, to which she said "buy more trains then".

Her other suggestion was to get rid of the private companies. I did a quick calculation against my regular fare under BR in the 1980s and found that it is cheaper now (after inflation) than it was then, so that isn't the answer either. Of course, my calculation was for a single fare, so it would be useful for the RDG or similar to do the same for a broader range of BR fares.

This discussion is too complex for the average person to understand, particularly looking at all these different options presented. Unless average fares come down, there is going to be too much protest over any change for it to be implemented.

Jimbo | 05.06.18 - 8:05 a.m. | #

I think it's going to be very hard to make any major changes to the current system. As DG says, the losers will shout much louder than the winners or the neutrals.

One thing I think needs to happen, though, is that ticket machines need to be clearer on the limitations of the ticket you're buying. When I go to a ticket machine and it offers me three different tickets, it needs to tell me when I can/can't use the ticket. When I press the button for more information, all it usually says is something like "Valid on permitted routes". Well, what are those permitted routes?

I've seen many people (especially tourists) buy the cheapest tickets, only to be told by the guard on the train that their ticket isn't actually valid for that train and they need to buy another ticket right now and claim a refund later on. Oh - and the refund can only be claimed at the larger stations.

I've tried complaining to the TOC that runs my local station about the ticket machines and just got fobbed off.

Jon Jones | 05.06.18 - 8:16 a.m. | #

I certainly don't think that the free market is the solution to all ills, but 'fares based on supply and demand with adjustments for public policy' should surely be in there somewhere?

peter | 05.06.18 - 8:40 a.m. | #

There are inequalities and illogical aspects to the current system, and obvious examples of individual operators gouging passengers, but you only get to spot this and understand what is going on if you are a regular traveller across the network, or enjoy reading rail magazines and blogs, which most of the general public don't, so a public consultation is going to be almost as bad as having chauffeur-driven civil servants decide our fate.

Max Roberts | 05.06.18 - 8:51 a.m. | #

I don't think an air line style pricing structure is appropriate....which is what the questions raised seem to be suggesting. Seeing too much red to tell you all why!

B | 05.06.18 - 8:56 a.m. | #

Andrew at 0754 has probably nailed it.

Any attempt even to move fares to a more equal basis would almost certainly remove the massive discount that most season ticket holders receive.

It's all very well for the media to trumpet that commuters spend thousands of pounds, on a per-day basis the price they pay is a fraction of what a walk-up customer pays.

Annual season ticket to London £4900. Divided by 220 days' travel, works out at a little above £22 a day. Peak day return £52.60. Trying to change that balance would, in the south east at least, be political dynamite.

dg writes: Part 2 of the consultation includes the suggestion that regular travellers have a smart card, and be price-capped (weekly, monthly or annually).

Man of Kent | 05.06.18 - 9:16 a.m. | #

Not only that, but season tickets to London can be massively discounted compared with others, proportionately double the discount for Walton-on-the-Naze to London compared with Colchester

Max Roberts | 05.06.18 - 9:49 a.m. | #

Surely the mistake is to consider rail services as a whole? I know in the UK some commutes are very long and it blurs the distinction between "Inter-City" and "Commuter" services, but the sensible approach is for IC services to use airline style ticketing (as they do in France, for a commonly used comparison) and commuter services to use flat or zonal fares.

There are a few gotchas in there, of course. Something like the Brighton-London service, for instance. Is that IC? Is it commuter? Looking at a map, it's the former. Looking at the passenger use, it's the latter.

Chz | 05.06.18 - 10:34 a.m. | #

It's about time we had the eqivalent of the German or Netherlands national annual or monthly season ticket. Valid on all national train services 24/7 anywhere in the country.

Yes plenty of people couldn't afford it but it would mean far more people would abandon cars for public transport.

In the Netherlands it's about £300 a month...

In Germany it's less than £400 a month, £4000 a year.

ap | 05.06.18 - 10:37 a.m. | #

An excellent analysis DG. I particularly think the idea of abolishing cheaper off peak tickets and having one price for all time periods is ludicrous. It would lead to more rush hour overcrowding and a drop in off peak travel as many of those journeys are price elastic. What I would aim for is twofold: 1) perhaps more price differentiation in order to spread the load, maybe different off peak prices between, say, Wednesdays and Fridays, but accompanied by 2) greater transparency so that the passenger is entirely clear about their choice. I would welcome the abolition of the fact that a return ticket is only fractionally more expensive than a single. If A makes a return journey, what is the difference between that and B making the outward journey and C the return. In terms of bums on seats, nothing. I suspect the status quo, with minor tweaks especially re the split ticketing scenario, will prevail.

Julian | 05.06.18 - 10:55 a.m. | #

I have always favoured the "Pence per Metre" travelled model with discounts for season ticket holders [eg the regular commuters]. With a fixed % discount for Off Peak day returns and an additional discount for Railcard users. This taken with special fares offers and discounts for APX/SuperApex bookings should remove the need for split ticketing.

Drew | Homepage | 05.06.18 - 11:06 a.m. | #

The current situation is a mess, but I'm struggling to think of any significant changes which wouldn't affect as many people as they benefit.

Especially when you consider regional variations such as the need to encourage non peak and discourage peak travel in London due to capacity issues AND devolved governments which may subsidise fares in their regions.

Additionally, would it be fair for someone in the southeast to pay the same for their intensive service (with billions spent on upgrades) as someone in the north who has an hourly Pacer? Or should this be a national/local taxation issue?

Mikey C | 05.06.18 - 12:49 p.m. | #

@Mikey C: Note that "a mess" doesn't necessarily mean "broken" (and thus justifies fixing).

The "broken" status would only be recognized as true if Network Rail and the TOCs found the system to have become a money-losing black hole.

Patrickov | 05.06.18 - 4:55 p.m. | #

Whatever the final option, I think the system needs to be simpler. The vast range of tickets with their various limitations is overly confusing and that's where the public in general can feel like they're losing out.

I think we probably need fewer rather than more fares, but inevitably there will be winners and losers.

In terms of ticket machines, I think as well as making clearer fare limitations of certain tickets, which are completely opaque to all but the most devoted reader of Rail Forums, we need to be able to buy a full range of tickets. I shouldn't have to go to a rail operator's website to buy one. And surely I should be able to buy advance tickets from these machines, particularly as so many ticket offices are understaffed or pretty much closed.

There probably needs to be some kind of cap between the cheapest and most expensive ticket on a given route. Should an operator really be able to charge anywhere between £19 and £169 for exactly the same route? I would argue it would be fairer if the range was brought in from both ends.

But my goodness, keeping the overall revenue cost neutral while completely overhauling it is an enormous undertaking. It'd be almost like changing the times of every train in the country one day in May and hoping nothing goes wrong!

Adam Bowie | Homepage | 05.06.18 - 5:32 p.m. | #

Ticketing websites need to remove the confusion of multiple pricing for the same journeys - it's totally unnecessary. Dated/timed Advance tickets should not be automatically reserved seating: there should be an extra charge for this privilege. Also, making reservations should be completely forbidden after a train has started its journey: there's a proposal to allow this, so causing ejection people out of seats half-way through their journeys.

NickK | 05.06.18 - 7:22 p.m. | #

The current system is broken. This so called "consultation" is merely the Rail Industry trying to guide the public to its already determined and preferred solution. This is not a genuine exercise in listening to what people want and making the necessary policy and funding changes to achieve it.

The TOCs, DfT and Treasury are addicted to the current system because it is complex and allows vast sums of money to be screwed out of passengers. I used to understand fares in the closing days of BR but not anymore. Previously sensible differentials between peak / off peak and singles / returns have been obfuscated and mangled year on year to create a shambolic, confusing mess. When you then throw on top of that the Advance tickets structure, single train compulsory reservation and the impenetrable National Routeing Guide it is no wonder everyone, barring a few experts / nerds, are confused.

As already said the premise of this exercise is wrong. Long term cross party agreed funding, policy and taxpayer / farepayer balance should be debated and determined first. Only then can you make a start of progressively tidying up / improving the structure. The consultation is only being done because a politician somewhere went "something must be done" without understanding what they may be unleashing.

I could probably create the ticketing structure without too much difficulty but it would not be universally popular. As correctly stated by DG and other commenters there will always be winners and losers.

PC | 05.06.18 - 7:44 p.m. | #

Stop state subsidies apart from deserving groups; let those who use the trains pay per mile. I don't use trains, I pay per mile in my car and I'm highly taxed for the privilege.

Darren | 05.06.18 - 8:20 p.m. | #

I have lots of opinions that the comment box is too small for.

Wolf | 05.06.18 - 9:14 p.m. | #

Generalabonnement Switzerland - (nearly) all public transport for a year for less than 3000 Pound.

With such a ticket you don't need a car.

MK | 05.06.18 - 9:19 p.m. | #

Mk - that may be a bit of a generalisation there. Possibly the discussion may have a couple of nuances.

Messiah | 06.06.18 - 4:27 p.m. | #

Darren you're taxed for emissions per mile. The deserving groups could be anyone who switches from being part of your local traffic jam onto a train. It could be a poor person who wants to get to London by 10am. It could charge extra for rich people like Finnish speeding tickets. It's too complicated to be fair especially when you start including car users.

Toby | 07.06.18 - 8:46 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy