Online fares unfair, new carriages stalled

[MIG]

On 19 May, 12:38, "Capt. Deltic" <e...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> On 19 May, 12:11, trackmi...@*************** wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 May, 10:08, "Capt. Deltic" <e...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 May, 09:46, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...**********.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 May, 09:36, "Mortimer" <m...@************> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Alistair Gunn" <palmerspe...**********m> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org...
>
> > > > > > disgoftunwells twisted the electrons to say:
> > > > > >> I think they lost the plot when they state
> > > > > >> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
> > > > > >> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...
>
> > > > > > If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
> > > > > > intending to travel anyway? *In the case of someone who wants to travel
> > > > > > on particular days but isn't too picky about the time, then National
> > > > > > Express East Coast's website had a "find me the cheapest" tickets button
> > > > > > to click on.
>
> > > > > No, no, no. "Not too picky about time" isn't good enough. The whole concept
> > > > > of committing your travel plans in advance is fundamentally wrong and the
> > > > > absence of it is what makes trains and buses (and cars!) much better than
> > > > > planes.
>
> > > > If the flexibility makes trains better than planes, then you won't
> > > > object to paying more than a "plane" fare to get from London, to say
> > > > Manchester, at any time of the day?
>
> > > > You can't have it cheaper, and more flexible, and more comfortable,
> > > > and more convenient. Can you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Meanwhile what about the Tony Miles question? *What is the point of
> > > three trains an hour if you have to specify your train days in
> > > advance?
>
> > Did I ask that?
>
> > The answer given is - "plenty of people are buying tickets that allow
> > them to make a choice - including whetever Savers are called now - and
> > that the market seems to have accepted that you pay for choice or pay
> > less for no choice."
>
> > I refer you to answers to that question by senior directors of Virgin
> > in the current (just) Modern Railways - where I effectively asked the
> > question Roger quotes (and which many on this group wanted asking!.
> > The answers are verbatim - in the pieces I was asked to write. If you
> > don't agree then either write to the Editor explaining how you would
> > sell tickets differently that bring in no less revenue and which allow
> > more flexibility but which don't see services at certain times jammed
> > to standing and passengers on the highest fares turned away. A
> > reasoned piece, thoroughly backed up with properly researched
> > statistics, at the level of expertise shown by Ian Walmsley when it
> > comes to "better ways to run and replace rolling stock" would
> > certainly be welcomed.
>
> > I think we are critical of the current system because we obviously
> > could do better - but have never actually looked at the revenue that
> > has to be raised, the need to encourage some people to travel off peak
> > and the need to fill the less popular trains by selling bargain
> > tickets so they don't run empty... A long time retired railwayman from
> > BR days assures me that lowering peak fares, when tested, increased
> > ridership BUT also lowered the total revenue earned.. raising ticket
> > prices lost passengers but did increase the revenue overall. So,
> > unless franchises are let on a very different basis the ticket
> > structure that exists at the moment will stay. As one current TOC MD
> > reminded me recently (not from VT) "selling one open ticket to a
> > business traveller for £200 is better for us than selling nine £20
> > return tickets to leisure travellers...."
>
> > Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Quite.
>
> But are we reaching a point where travellers are learning how to
> 'game' the *AP system so that it has started to reduce, , rather than
> increase, revenue, compounding the effects of the recession?
>
> Just a thought.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"The ability to turn up at the station with a maximum of twenty
minutes to wait beats the odd few minutes that a 140 mph top speed
would shave off the schedule." MR advertising spin article, May 2009

Trouble is that you either have to travel at the expensive time, in
which case you have an appointment and don't have a choice, or you
want a cheaper ticket, in which case you don't have a choice because
you have to book in advance.

So no one is ever really likely to be in the theoretical position of
being able to turn up and get any old train, making the frequency
irrelevant.

[Mizter T]

On May 19, 2:07*pm, s...@johnband.org wrote:

> On May 19, 1:47*pm, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "The ability to turn up at the station with a maximum of twenty
> > minutes to wait beats the odd few minutes that a 140 mph top speed
> > would shave off the schedule." *MR advertising spin article, May 2009
>
> > Trouble is that you either have to travel at the expensive time, in
> > which case you have an appointment and don't have a choice, or you
> > want a cheaper ticket, in which case you don't have a choice because
> > you have to book in advance.
>
> > So no one is ever really likely to be in the theoretical position of
> > being able to turn up and get any old train, making the frequency
> > irrelevant.
>
> ...except that the SVR to Manchester only costs gbp60ish, so you can
> actually turn up and get most trains.
>
> If they'd abolished SVRs and created a structure that was *solely*
> gbp200 walk-up fares and cheap advance fares, you'd have a point.
>

Indeed - though you do have to fathom out the windows in which Off-
Peak (return) tickets (i.e. SVRs) are valid. IIRC at times in the past
TOCs have produced leaflets which outline this - not sure if this
still occurs.

[Alistair Gunn]

Roland Perry twisted the electrons to say:
> In message <gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org>, at 08:26:42 on Tue, 19 May 2009,
> Alistair Gunn <palmersperry**********m> remarked:
> >If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
> >intending to travel anyway?
> People build travelling time into their schedule. They don't expect to
> spend an hour (on top of that) buying the ticket.

They are presumably expecting to spend at least *some* time buying the
ticket though? And "click here for cheapest tickets" is hardly the sort
of link that takes an hour to load ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Mizter T]

On May 19, 3:16*pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <f49e2331-5678-4122-b1a2-7dece0473...@z19g2000vbz.************.com>, at
> 06:38:28 on Tue, 19 May 2009, s...@johnband.org remarked:
>
> >I was trying to think of a reason why people might choose not to have
> >them, and tinfoil was the only one that came to mind.
>
> [credit cards] *Some people don't trust themselves not to run up the
> debt more than they can afford.

Misunderstanding alert - John B was referring to *prepaid* cards, and
emphatically *not* referring to credit-cards. Re-read what he says.

[David Buttery]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 14:51:59 +0100, John Geddes wrote:

> If these are prepaid cards are indeed accepted by TOC online systems,
> that is almost useful.
>
> HOWEVER, given the 2.95% user fee for each purchase, the person who
> already holds a Debit Card will only want to use the prepaid card for
> purchases where their Debit Card is no good. For many people that would
> only be train tickets. So buying a train ticket would involve:
>
> * buying this special card (£10 once) * activating it (mention of
> photocopies of passports needed) * working out how much you want to
> spend on rail travel (which can be tricky if you are planning to buy an
> Advance ticket where you won't know the cost of purchase until time of
> travel) * then going to a bank to put an appropriate amount of money on
> the card. Or, for 99p extra, a Post Office. (Tuxedo say that they will
> offer to put value on from a Debit/Credit Card "soon" for another 3% on
> top)
>
> That's a lot of hassle to impose on a potential passenger just to make
> up for the laziness of TOCs who appear unwilling to do the work
> necessary to have their websites accept Debit Cards.
>
> John Geddes

There used to be a Maestro card branded by, of all people, TalkSPORT
radio, that avoided most of those hassles. It certainly didn't require
photocopies of passports or any such thing. (That would be a strange
requirement in any case for a card advertising itself to those without
bank accounts, of whom you'd think many would not have passports in the
first place!) Nor did it have a transaction fee *at all* for purchases
within the UK. It did have a topup fee of, I think, 3%.

It was quite a nice card, but has now been spoilt by the introduction of
a monthly fee. Not a large one, but for the small balances most people
who use it are likely to keep, it's going to make it significantly less
attractive.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

[Mizter T]

On May 19, 4:20*pm, David Buttery <rabbit...@**********> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 May 2009 14:51:59 +0100, John Geddes wrote:
> > If these are prepaid cards are indeed accepted by TOC online systems,
> > that is almost useful.
>
> > HOWEVER, given the 2.95% user fee for each purchase, the person who
> > already holds a Debit Card will only want to use the prepaid card for
> > purchases where their Debit Card is no good. For many people that would
> > only be train tickets. So buying a train ticket would involve:
>
> > * buying this special card (£10 once) * activating it (mention of
> > photocopies of passports needed) * working out how much you want to
> > spend on rail travel (which can be tricky if you are planning to buy an
> > Advance ticket where you won't know the cost of purchase until time of
> > travel) * then going to a bank to put an appropriate amount of money on
> > the card. Or, for 99p extra, a Post Office. (Tuxedo say that they will
> > offer to put value on from a Debit/Credit Card "soon" for another 3% on
> > top)
>
> > That's a lot of hassle to impose on a potential passenger just to make
> > up for the laziness of TOCs who appear unwilling to do the work
> > necessary to have their websites accept Debit Cards.
>
> There used to be a Maestro card branded by, of all people, TalkSPORT
> radio, that avoided most of those hassles. It certainly didn't require
> photocopies of passports or any such thing. (That would be a strange
> requirement in any case for a card advertising itself to those without
> bank accounts, of whom you'd think many would not have passports in the
> first place!) Nor did it have a transaction fee *at all* for purchases
> within the UK. It did have a topup fee of, I think, 3%.

I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that no-bank account equals no
passport!

>
> It was quite a nice card, but has now been spoilt by the introduction of
> a monthly fee. Not a large one, but for the small balances most people
> who use it are likely to keep, it's going to make it significantly less
> attractive.

[rail]

In message <13f499c7-b7e4-4d07-9cee-9caeede93c9c@s28g2000vbp.************.com>
Mizter T <mizter.t@**********> wrote:

>
> On May 19, 3:16*pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <f49e2331-5678-4122-b1a2-7dece0473...@z19g2000vbz.************.com>, at
> > 06:38:28 on Tue, 19 May 2009, s...@johnband.org remarked:
> >
> > >I was trying to think of a reason why people might choose not to have
> > >them, and tinfoil was the only one that came to mind.
> >
> > [credit cards] *Some people don't trust themselves not to run up the
> > debt more than they can afford.
>
> Misunderstanding alert - John B was referring to *prepaid* cards, and
> emphatically *not* referring to credit-cards. Re-read what he says.

The original para he was commenting on is also confusing, it starts by
talking about Debit cards and then refers to Credit cards.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.*************/rail>

[David Buttery]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 08:49:14 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

> I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that no-bank account equals no
> passport!

Okay, fair enough - and vice versa, of course. But I did say "many"
without a bank account wouldn't have a passport, rather than "most". I
confess that I originally wrote "most", but edited that before posting as
it seemed overdone.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

[Ianigsy]

> "It is "unacceptable" that low-cost rail fares are easily
> available only to those with internet access, MPs say."

I was pleasantly surprised a couple of months ago to find that my
local public library provided free internet access- in fact it's so
popular that they have separate machines for those people who just
want to check emails and others for more extensive surfing.

But I don't think there's a perfect solution to the fact that selling
tickets online has far fewer overheads than staffing ticket offices
and the train operators can offer more attractive fares by using it as
a selling point.

[Mizter T]

On May 20, 8:29*pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:

> On Wed, 20 May 2009 07:44:16 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Again raising the issue of the semi-mythical rule that all tickets must
> >be available from all stations, except experimental ones.
>
> Megatrain is classed as an experimental service, AIUI. *They tweak it
> around the edges often enough to allow it to continue.
>

Paul Scott's reply upthread effectively contradicts this.

There's no chance it's still running under some get out clause of
being experimental. Anyway, if there is this notion of there being
'experimental ticketing systems' then sooner or later one or other
such system must surely cease being an experiment and start being 'for
real' - otherwise what's the point in there being the experiment in
the first place?

There is obviously a mechanism of some sort whereby the DfT can
approve non-universal ticketing systems such as Megatrain.