ITN are doing a feature on railway ticketing on the News At Ten on Monday, and they want to talk to a frustrated passenger. Reporter Cxxxx Cxxx writes:

"The Rail Delivery Group is issuing the findings from its consultation on ticketing reforms on Monday. We just want a quick chat with a passenger who feels they have been disadvantaged by ticketing rules ..."

Having expressed my concerns, I will be going ahead and submitting a response.    Stating my personal background of learning and - I hope - adding a flag that they are thought through rather more deeply than most. But not claiming to be representing the full view of any organisation.   And it is worth submitting to at least indicate an appreciation that at least some views have been sought, and that I want to contribute.   It has also been very helpful to me personally to be thinking about these things as the wider picture moves forward.

Your name and email address are important to help ensure that all responses to the consultation are unique. They will not be used for any other purpose.

Another thought:


This is going further than I had thought and I support it. However it fails to point out the need for a lesser step.  FGW (as it was then) changed their fare structure so that Single Tickets were about half the return fare.  In doing so they proved it could be done while remaining revenue neutral (I assume or they would not have done it). This should be rolled out across the network so that we do not have the ridiculous situation of a return being only just more than a single. 

3. 24 hour return fares at 65% of two singles. Monthly returns at 80% of two singles.

5. There is a desire for long distance and return journeys which are only in the peak for a small proportion of the journey to only be charged at peak rates for that portion of the journey.

The way the suggestions I make further down would work would remove these anomalies - period.

Major waves in the system and perhaps the economic situation of commuters, with a lot depending on the pricing of each mileage leg. 

There is a case for pointing out those current issues by example - whether in point 8, or by adding a point 11.

Could this be qualified to highlight that the present system has created some major discrepancies in the pence per mile fares particularly between 'commuter' and 'long distance' stations and that at the very least a new system should not allow such discrepancies to worsen, but have a log term objective to reduce them.

I refer to the very high pence per mile rates for long distance anytime fares such as Paddington to Swindon or Bristol (which have not been regulated) compared to say Paddington to Reading or Oxford (which have been regulated).  These become very apparent when you look at the difference between the anytime fare and the season ticket as the season tickets have been regulated. 

8. It is understood that a straight "pence per mile" fare across the network would cause serious socio-economic changes, and that changing other metrics would also have significant impacts

... I also attended your round table discussion in Bristol, and have worked with fare experts at GWR looking at issus around local anolomolies and opportunities. My does not represent a unified view from any of those groups / organisations as there is a no general concensus - however, there are some common thoughts.

------ Common(ish) thoughts -----

1. To come up with a simpler fare system, it's very hard starting from here.

2. The current system is held in some disrepute for its complexity and for the difficult people have in getting the correct and lowest cost fares for their journy. A very big hurdle the rail industry will have with a new fare structure is to gain the trust of the travellig public that they are being offered / sold / chrged the correct amount.  Trust is going to be key

3. It is noted that a requirement of the proposed outcome is that it maintains farebox income at current levels. It is also noted that the RDG's committment is to continue to grow passenger numbers.  The implication of those two criteria together is that fares per journey can decrease in propostion to journey number incrases.  However, there is unlikly to be extra capacity available everywhere it's needed without additional (revenue) expenditure, suggesting that the proportion of each journey cost paid from the farbox will decrease; where the shortfall is made up is not clear

4. Split ticket saving are largely the result of the perversities of the current fare system, and any new and logical system should reduce their utility as a putre money saving gambit. It would be undesirable to remove the facility or change it such as it caused a safety issue (e.g. by requiring people to get off and on the train, or to exit and re-enter the station at the point they change from one ticket to another.  There is no appetite for the removal of split ticketing as a specific objective - that would simply make the train operators look greedy.

5. There is a desire for long distance and return journeys which are only in the peak for a small proportion of the journey to only be charged at peak rates for that portion of the journey.

6. There is a lack of accurate, complete and understandable information about tickets and fares for the travelling public - for example on ticket machines which offer peak and superoffpeak, you'll often find identical descriptions "cannot be used on peak trains on Mondays to Fridays" with a caveat to ask for details which is not always possible.

7. Far too many customers are overcharged in the current system because they buy a less restrictive ticket than they need (e.g. anytime when they could buy off peak) or when they are sold a ticket for their entire journey - even when they ask for the cheapest possible way to travel and that cheapest way is a split ticket.

8. It is understood that a straight "pence per mile" fare across the network would cause serious socio-economic changes, and that changing other metrics would also have significant impacts

9. Routing perversities need to be eliminated, with "any reasoanable route" being the default. "Any Reasonable Route" needs to include the fastest available journey available when you arrive at the station. For example, Melksham to Bristol Parkway is only available via Bath Spa, even though the quickest route for the journey is via Swindon. If you travel from Melksham to Swansea - through Bristol Parkway - that IS a valid route!!

10. Removal of bulk purchase systems such as season tickets (or return tickets) would require significnatly more bandwith in ticket issuing; technology might help, but current technology could not cope.  However, bulk purchase such as season tickets leave a step in the market for those for whom they just fail to do the job.

---------  Suggestions -----------

1. Base fares on a pence price between each station, adding up those fares to make a total journey fare. There is also a case for "quantity discount" on longer journeys.  Add in a fixed fee for station use at the start and end of the journey; that may be based on station facilities including the availability of buses which would be included in the price within the station's catchment.

2. Retain 3 time zones - any time, off peak and super off peak.   Close to uniformly peak for trains leaving stations beween 07:00 and 08:45, and 16:45 to 18:15. Super off peak from 10:15 to 15:15 and from 20:00 to 22:00. Which leave off peak from 22:01 to 06:59, 08:46 to 10:14, 15:16 to 16:44 and 18:16 to 19:59. Note that late night and early morning trains are off peak and not super off peak.  Where a train calls at an intermediate station, the ongoing fare is based on that schedued time of departure.

3. 24 hour return fares at 65% of two singles. Monthly returns at 80% of two singles.

4. Replace current railcards and children's fares with
   Bronze      25%   off off-peak and super-off-peak fares
   Silver      35%   off off-peak and super-off-peak fares
   Gold      35%   off all fares
   Platignum   40%   off all fares
Progrssivley more expensive to buy - but maybe special deals on railcards for specific groups

5. Retain / make universal Groupsave. Ranger, rover, advance tickets options

6. Rail tickets routinely valid for travel by parallel bus.

I've stopped paying tax for the time being.

Can't agree with that, seems a bit "I'm all right Jack" - the railways are massively subsidised by the taxpayer and as we all (mostly) pay tax, it should be a level playing field, it shouldn't favour those "in the know", fares should be transparent and easy for all to understand, be they enthusiasts or occasional travellers.

Not sure if it's been brought up, but Britain Runs on Rail are looking at changing the UK rail fare structure.

Some interesting ideas, including rail fare caps for season ticket passengers, and bringing it even higher prices for peak services and lowering further off peak services   I found it on the LNER website, Not many TOC's seem to making the public aware of it.

Here's the link for those who want to have a say.

https://www.britainrunsonrail.co.uk/fares.html

Condemn me if you wish but I did not take part in the consultation because my days of long distance rail travel looks to be a relic of the past, Glasgow is where I fledge my wings to and when I can get one way fares on Easyjet from / to Bristol for as little as £22.66 to and £24.68 from Scotlands second city then regards competing modes of transport there is "no contest".

Where did this data come from, I live in an area which is widely regarded as a dormitory town for Bristol and in the morning and evening peaks we have had "express" bus services to Bristol and from 03 September these are being extended to run all day until early evening with longer duration journeys running until a last bus from Bristol at 23.35 daily. Distance about 12 miles. I could also make a similar repeat statement regarding the town of Thornbury. We also have a, reopened in 1989, rail station from which we have been promised a half hourly rail service in the future, hourly now, how far in the future is in the "lap of the gods" knowing how long it takes the rail organisations to do what is normally viewed as a simple task.

Why change? What is wrong with the air of mystery and the fact that those of us "in the know" can play the system to our advantage? Almost the only fun in my monthly trips to Blackpool to visit my late mother in the nursing home was in seeing how cheaply I could manage the trip - usually under £25 each way. My cousin recently sent her 17-year-old son to stay with his uncle in the north of Scotland, buying a Cross Country ticket from Bicester the night before and wondering a) why it cost so much and b) why she couldn't reserve a seat for him. It wasn't a trip planned at the last minute, just badly planned in terms of transport. People like her effectively subsidise those of us who know the value of booking at least a few days in advance.

The average train journey (a few years back) was 20 miles [[not sure how that was calculated]], compared to 6 miles by bus.

Condemn me if you wish but I did not take part in the consultation because my days of long distance rail travel looks to be a relic of the past, Glasgow is where I fledge my wings to and when I can get one way fares from / to Bristol for as little as £22.66 to and £24.68 from Scotlands second city then regards competing modes of transport there is "no contest".

Grahame. You could just buy a Melksham to Oldfield Park Day Return, breaking your outward journey at Bath.

That's certainly cheaper than any combination of split tickets. Railway ticketing doesn't really cater for those whose plans change on the hoof. Nor should it without introducing more complexity.

None of the topics and polls started on this forum, nor the consultation (which I think offers nothing positive) have considered what I'd like to see. A reduction in fares across the board. Achieved through greater subsidy from central government. Oh, and by stripping out wasteful costs from a rail industry that is fractured and has too many layers. Yes. Nationalisation.

Suggestions of solutions to "solve the split ticket problem" worry me.  It feels to me that we are treating the symptoms not the underlying disease, and that if we were to treat the disease we would mitigate or cure the symptoms.  And are the symptoms in themselves really a problem?   Do we really want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Maybe tapering mileage charge less the longer the journey. That would solve the split ticket problem/solution.

A post on the Southern Electric Group's Facebook page pointed to this blog which has some interesting observations on the consultation  https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2018/06/easier-fares-consultation.html?m=1

Decades of well-intentioned but outdated regulation have led to a range of fare options that have not kept pace with technology or how people work and travel today.

Industry, with independent watchdog Transport Focus, will launch a public consultation spanning the country to establish a road-map for change to update fares regulation and make things easier for customers
Any proposals from the industry will be designed to be neutral in overall revenue terms and would require working with governments to implement
Alongside major upgrades to services, an easier-to-use range of fares is key to delivering the industry’s long-term plan for change and improvement
An easier to use range of fares will aim to maximise the benefits to customers, businesses and the economy of improvements in ticket-buying technology
Britain’s rail companies, a partnership between the public and private sectors, are launching a public consultation to seek ‘root and branch reform’ of fares and ticketing regulation.

The announcement follows new research by KPMG which shows that only one in three (34 per cent) rail customers is very confident that they bought the best value ticket for their last journey and fewer than one in three (29 per cent) were very satisfied with the experience of buying their ticket. Reform has the potential to transform the buying experience for customers, making it easier for people to be confident they are getting the right ticket.

Well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive regulations underpinning rail fares have remained unchanged from the mid-1990s, when the 1995 Ticketing Settlement Agreement spelled out how fares should be set and sold. It assumes all customers will buy their ticket by visiting a ticket office and sets out in detail how customers must be able to buy a ticket from each of the 2,500 stations in Britain to every other station in the country.

Since then, further layers of requirements have been added through individual franchise agreements, with little or nothing taken away. This means that long-standing anomalies* are becoming locked in resulting in bigger problems for customers, and there are now around 55 million different fares. As a result it has become increasingly difficult for rail companies to guarantee the right fare. Regulations have failed to keep pace with the rise of smartphone technology or how people work and travel today, with part time working and self-employment having increased by over a third in 22 years.

Updated, fit-for-purpose fares regulation would enable the right changes for the long-term. That’s why the industry will be working with Transport Focus, the passenger watchdog, to launch a public consultation next month to hear the views of businesses, passenger groups, stakeholders, employees and the public on what a future range of fares should look like.

The consultation will help the industry to establish a road map which delivers against these principles. The industry wants to then work with governments to make fares simpler, easier and more trusted while continuing to enable investment in the railway.

To help frame the consultation, the Rail Delivery Group, which brings together all rail companies, has commissioned an independent report from KPMG to identify key principles which are driven by what customers and the country need from the railway. These principles should underpin a fares offering that is fit for the future and include:

Being transparent, predictable, fair, trusted, easier to use and value for money for customers;
Offering integration with other modes of transport;
Offering personalised, flexible fares which best serve customers in different markets;
Enabling growth, innovation, efficiency and choice; and,
Providing funding for investment and avoiding the need for additional taxpayer subsidy.
A final report will be informed by the consultation and will make proposals to governments with options for fares reform. The industry’s proposals will be designed to be neutral in overall revenue terms with no change in average fares, and therefore not requiring any extra taxpayer support for the railway. A fares offering which is trusted, though, has the potential to attract more people to travel by train which would support investment in rail or give governments the option to change the balance between taxpayers and farepayers for funding the railway.

The change the industry is calling for comes on top of improvements it is already making to fares where it can, and by working with governments. These include cutting jargon, clearer information about peak and off-peak times and better information about how people can use their ticket, part of a fares action plan agreed between industry, passenger groups and government. This is alongside the on-going roll-out of smart-ticketing, which will also help make it easier for people to buy the right ticket. But these changes alone will not go far enough in making things better for customers.

Commenting, Paul Plummer, Chief Executive of the Rail Delivery Group, said:

“As part of the industry’s plan for change, we want to work in partnership to drive root and branch reform of well-meaning but out-dated fares regulation. Working together, we want to develop proposals to reform fares and regulation to make it easier for our customers to get the right ticket, enhancing trust in the system and supporting continued investment to improve the service.

“Unpicking the regulation of a £10bn-a-year fares system that underpins such a vital public service means there are no quick-and-easy solutions. The change that’s needed won’t be easy and the industry doesn’t have all the answers, which is why we want to hear views from passengers, communities and businesses in all parts of the country.

“There have already been improvements and more are on the way but this consultation will enable us to create a clear roadmap with the country so that we can make the right changes for the long-term more quickly.”

Anthony Smith, Chief Executive of Transport Focus, said:

‘Rail passengers want a simpler, more understandable and modern fares system which matches the way we now travel. Opening up the debate and looking at the pros and cons of various reform options is welcome. Transport Focus will make sure the passenger voice is heard in these debates.’

Mike Cherry, National Chairman at the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “Small business owners, their staff and customers need to know they are getting the best deals when they travel by train.

“We look forward to working with the industry to help develop proposals for meaningful reform that benefits our members and rail customers right across the UK.”

Today’s announcement is an example of the industry delivering on the commitments it made in its cross-industry plan – launched last year – to deliver simpler ticketing and better value for money for customers, and to keep changing and improving for the economy, customers, communities and employees. Examples include the start of 18-months of unprecedented improvements with the opening of London Bridge and plans for an independent ombudsman to go-live this autumn.

Jane Gratton, Head of Business Environment at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said:

“Businesses rely heavily on the rail network and will welcome this long-overdue review of the fares and ticketing system. Increasingly confusing, frustrating and unfair, the current system needs to be brought in line with the more nimble and flexible way in which firms now operate. It’s the obvious next step to ensure people gain maximum benefit from the ongoing investment in our railways.”

Notes to editors

The hashtag for the consultation will be #easierfares.

Last October, the partnership railway of the public and private sectors published a long-term plan for change – In Partnership for Britain’s Prosperity. It included a commitment to increase customer satisfaction by developing practical proposals for the reform of fares.
 
The 1995 Ticketing and Settlement Agreement can be found on the RDG website – chapters 4 and 6 set out how fares should be set and sold.
 
In addition to changes already underway as part of the fares action plan which will improve the buying experience for customers, over the next six months, the industry will be looking to run a number of trials to test options for a future fares structure.

Also, train companies will be selling more advance fares on the day of travel and more train company websites and apps will display information about when advance fares are running out. The industry will also be continuing to simplify and improve the information printed on orange tickets.
 
* Examples of some of the long-standing anomalies which are becoming increasingly apparent include:
‘Through-ticket peak-time premiums’, where a customer takes a journey involving more than one leg. The first leg is on a peak-time train and the second leg is on an off-peak service. The customer might be charged a peak-time fare for the whole journey because regulation means train companies have to offer one through-fare. For example, a passenger travelling from north to west via London can end up paying for a peak fare for their entire journey when half their trip is on an off-peak service.
Inflexible 7-day, monthly or annual season tickets, where smart ticketing could offer better products to passengers who work part time. Because smart schemes have been required to sell the same products as the paper tickets, this is often not possible.
 
The advent of digital ticketing and smartphones means there is potential to retail tickets in a way that lets more customers buy tickets where and when it suits them, and be confident they are paying the right fare. However, the inflexible nature of the current underlying fares structure and regulation limits the possibility to do this.
 
The rail industry, working with KPMG, has undertaken a detailed pre-consultation policy scoping review process to define the parameters of this ticketing and fares reform consultation which is available on the RDG website.
 
Data on self-employment and part-time working is based on ONS April 2018 labour market statistics.
 
Timeline of consultation process:
Public consultation opens – Monday 4 June
Public consultation closes – Monday 10 September
Final report – Late autumn
 
The proposed consultation is not about the overall balance between farepayers and taxpayers since this choice is rightly a matter for governments.

Thanks - will probably split thread and add consultation to calendar tonight (unless someone beats me to it)

In #Metro today. Seriously how dodgy and disgraceful is this!!! Passengers to be asked if they would pay more for better service? Unbelievable! NO is the answer.#RDG #chrisgrayling #transportfocus #anthonysmith #jojohnson #railminister
HAVE your say here - if anything the fares should be reduced at least by half
https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/EasierFaresConsultation

Dear all please read the survey carefully- the questions are structured in a manipulative way. Bottom line is they want to increase the fairs and want to manipulate passengers to agree to it

10 September.

Consultation has started here: https://www.britainrunsonrail.co.uk/fares

Haven't had a chance to read through it myself but reportedly everything is in the option mix: elimination of season tickets in favour of a cap; elimination of peak / off-peak distinction; obviation of split ticketing; fares determined by speed and/or distance ...

EDIT: there is also a pdf version: https://www.britainrunsonrail.co.uk/files/docs/English_Version_v2.pdf