RPI & train fares

[D1039]

This has been to some extent covered by the "
Filling Gwyneth's boots?

" thread but it was reported on BBC Radio 4* that (a) RPI is expected to be
negative by July and (b) DfT have said "they expect" TOCs to reduce fares if
the formula says they should.

Regards

Patrick

*PM programme 17/02/09 (Business news, around 1740 for those that want to
check the i-player)

[1501]

On 17 Feb, 18:08, "D1039" <patrick.he...@virgin.net> wrote:
> DfT have said "they expect" TOCs to reduce fares if
> the formula says they should.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[Jonathan Stott]

naked_draughtsman wrote:

> Anybody know of any cases where the AP fare is only just cheaper than the
> walk up fare and might go the other way?!

Whenever I've looked for AP tickets (Bournemouth to Birmingham) on the
day or two around when I've wanted to travel (not too fussed about time
usually), there have only ever been tickets one way and not the other.
Therefore an AP single one way and a normal single the other will always
work out at more expensive than a normal return.

Quite often I've checked one day and there are AP singles going north; I
then check another day and the only AP singles are going south!

Breaking the tickets at Banbury and using my Gold card up to there is
almost always cheaper than two AP singles if they are available when
making a return journey.

Jonathan

[Roland Perry]

In message <uvOdnaohZd5VmAbUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>, at 12:45:28 on
Tue, 17 Feb 2009, naked_draughtsman <usenet3@petereverett.co.uk>
remarked:
>Anybody know of any cases where the AP fare is only just cheaper than the
>walk up fare and might go the other way?!

The most expensive AP fares on the Midland Mainline cost more than half
a Saver now.
--
Roland Perry

[dtren-deja.com]

On Feb 17, 6:45*pm, naked_draughtsman <usen...@petereverett.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:29:23 -0800, 1501 wrote:
> > On 17 Feb, 18:08, "D1039" <patrick.he...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >> DfT have said "they expect" TOCs to reduce fares if the formula says
> >> they should.
>

>
> Anybody know of any cases where the AP fare is only just cheaper than the
> walk up fare and might go the other way?!
>
> peter

I know of at least one case where the AP is MORE than the walkup fare.

Cheltenham Bristol £7.30 off peak single

An £8 AP is often offered on the same trains.

[Mizter T]

On 17 Feb, 22:14, james...@***********.uk wrote:
> I suspect the lawyers will have a field day with this. *If the
> contracts specify that fares can INCREASE by rpi +1% it could be
> argued that if rpi is negative then the TOC are not obliged to reduce
> the price of tickets, just leave them as they are.

Hmm, I don't think so somehow - the contracts will be watertight, in
this regard at least, as the intention is for regulated fares to track
RPI whether it's increasing or decreasing - however unlikely the
latter may have seemed at the time, there's simply no chance that the
SRA/DfT lawyers would have let an obvious omission such as that slip
through.

[Mizter T]

On 17 Feb, 22:02, dt...@my-deja.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 6:45*pm, naked_draughtsman <usen...@petereverett.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Anybody know of any cases where the AP fare is only just cheaper than the
> > walk up fare and might go the other way?!
>
> > peter
>
> I know of at least one case where the AP is MORE than the walkup fare.
>
> Cheltenham Bristol £7.30 off peak single
>
> An £8 AP is often offered on the same trains.

Most odd. I had thought that perhaps the £8 fare was offered on some
peak-time trains, but on checking it would appear not.

[Mizter T]

On 17 Feb, 21:04, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <uvOdnaohZd5VmAbUnZ2dneKdnZydn...@pipex.net>, at 12:45:28 on
> Tue, 17 Feb 2009, naked_draughtsman <usen...@petereverett.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
> >Anybody know of any cases where the AP fare is only just cheaper than the
> >walk up fare and might go the other way?!
>
> The most expensive AP fares on the Midland Mainline cost more than half
> a Saver now.

The London to Edinburgh Anytime Single fare is £135.50 - looking at
early northbound trains on this coming Thursday (18 Feb) there are
Advance Singles offered for £125.00! As NXEC pocket all the cash from
such fares I'm guessing that this is what that booking clerks are
encouraged to offer to passengers who show up on the day - by the time
they're at KX at least those passengers are likely to have a fairly
good idea of what train they're getting on after all - and if they're
not breaking their journey then they're unlikely to turn down the
offer of saving a tenner if it was proffered to them.

Going southbound direction from Edinburgh (also Thu 18 Feb) there are
cheaper Advance fares of £109.00 offered for the first two trains,
nothing on the third and then £125.00 on the fourth - but the fourth
train is also the first on which the £107.80 Off-peak Single is valid
on... so, the $64million, er, I mean £17.20 question is why NXEC even
offer the latter on that train? Just to add to the gaiety of the nation
(s) and maintain the appropriate level of confusion regarding rail
fares perhaps...

[Andy]

On Feb 18, 12:46*am, Mizter T <mizte...@**********> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 22:14, james...@***********.uk wrote:
>
> > I suspect the lawyers will have a field day with this. *If the
> > contracts specify that fares can INCREASE by rpi +1% it could be
> > argued that if rpi is negative then the TOC are not obliged to reduce
> > the price of tickets, just leave them as they are.
>
> Hmm, I don't think so somehow - the contracts will be watertight, in
> this regard at least, as the intention is for regulated fares to track
> RPI whether it's increasing or decreasing - however unlikely the
> latter may have seemed at the time, there's simply no chance that the
> SRA/DfT lawyers would have let an obvious omission such as that slip
> through.

Hmm, you have more faith than I do in the SRA/DfT. The regulated fares
where put in to prevent TOCs increasing fares much over the RPI and
not to necessarily to force reductions. Remember that the TOCs will
have costs that may not be deflating (such as staff pay, I don't
imagine that Bob Crow would take kindly to his members having a pay
cut) and the TOCs will have had lawyers checking the contracts as
well. So, any fare reductions may have to be paid for by DfT and they
might not be willing to find the cash.

[Mizter T]

On 18 Feb, 01:18, Andy <andyp...@**********> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 12:46*am, Mizter T <mizte...@**********> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Feb, 22:14, james...@***********.uk wrote:
>
> > > I suspect the lawyers will have a field day with this. *If the
> > > contracts specify that fares can INCREASE by rpi +1% it could be
> > > argued that if rpi is negative then the TOC are not obliged to reduce
> > > the price of tickets, just leave them as they are.
>
> > Hmm, I don't think so somehow - the contracts will be watertight, in
> > this regard at least, as the intention is for regulated fares to track
> > RPI whether it's increasing or decreasing - however unlikely the
> > latter may have seemed at the time, there's simply no chance that the
> > SRA/DfT lawyers would have let an obvious omission such as that slip
> > through.
>
> Hmm, you have more faith than I do in the SRA/DfT. The regulated fares
> where put in to prevent TOCs increasing fares much over the RPI and
> not to necessarily to force reductions. Remember that the TOCs will
> have costs that may not be deflating (such as staff pay, I don't
> imagine that Bob Crow would take kindly to his members having a pay
> cut) and the TOCs will have had lawyers checking the contracts as
> well. So, any fare reductions may have to be paid for by DfT and they
> might not be willing to find the cash.
>

If the contracts do only allow for fare increases, then that would be
the result of an SRA/DfT policy decision as opposed to a contractual
overight (aka legal blunder). The few bits and pieces I've picked up
so far suggest that regulated rail fares are configured to track RPI
down as well as up, but I've no idea what the actual situation really
is. Can anyone *definitively* say one way or the other? (As opposed to
offering conjecture, as I've just been doing!)