E Tickets

[melmerby]

10 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I didn’t realise they weren’t compatible.

It is/was a different system to ITSO but the card readers have read both for sometime.

e.g. an ITSO bus pass has worked on London buses for many a long year

[Oldddudders]

20 hours ago, melmerby said:

Can't you use a TOC's ticket system? No fee and free postage.

I find Trainline considerably quicker to use than SNCF's system.

[roythebus1]

20 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Often Trainline somehow ends up being cheaper, despite the booking fee, possibly because it calculates and applies split ticketing automatically. I wonder if this relates to whether your journey involves multiple operators though. It’s a little annoying to have to pay £1 to collect paper tickets from a ticket machine with them, but I suppose they are printing it where they wouldn’t otherwise have to.

I tried Trainline a couple of years ago when "commuting" from Ashford ent to Manchester weekly for a few months. In every case the booking clerk at Ashford came up with return tickets cheaper than Trainline and National Rail website.

[andyman7]

On 13/07/2024 at 14:28, rodent279 said:

Maybe the answer is a simpler ticketing system, with tickets valid on all trains on which that route runs? Suppose that would be anathema to individual TOCs who want to be attracting people to use their own offers, but as all are supposed to be run as contracts to DfT now that should not be an issue. Open Access operators could have it written into their contract that they must accept tickets that are valid on the route that they're running trains on.

 

TOCs haven't held the commercial risk for ticketing since COVID but the complete paralysis of the last Government in enacting any of their proposed transport policies meant that in practice there was no change in behaviour. Bringing the TOC operations in house will mean that this changes at some point.

 

On 13/07/2024 at 14:42, 009 micro modeller said:

How would that work on lines that have both an intercity service and a slower suburban one (e.g. WCML and ECML as far as Peterborough)? Usually the former is more expensive than the latter, and in some cases has been since before privatisation.

 

I have some professional involvement in this area, in the future it is likely that some stratification will still exist but it doesn't need different TOCs, just clear labelling of services (as, for example, in the days of Network SouthEast and InterCity)  The real gamechanger will be to link validity to journey planners so you can see at a glance what services you can use rather than having to work them out yourself.

 

On 13/07/2024 at 15:09, eatus-maximus said:

They tried 'simplification' back in 2009, it is more complex now than it was before they 'simplified'.

 

Their latest attempt at simplification is removing return tickets and going for surge pricing based on people booking specific trains only. This is to be 'revenue neutral', meaning cheaper single fares, but more expensive return journeys, and all more reliant on technology that regularly fails.

 

The 2009 project (which I was involved in) was immensely difficult because all changes had to be voluntary, there was no central method to direct changes. The one massive benefit that seems to be conveniently forgotten by everyone is that it replaced over 20 varieties of buy in advance ticket (with different thresholds for purchase, some allowing Railcards and some not) with a single consistent product type, the market share of which has grown exponentially since 2009. Of course, the idea that an exercise conducted 15 years ago should be relevant in perpetuity is daft so it is hardly surprising that the system needs reform. Technology, society, expectations have all moved on.

 

'Single leg pricing' is an absolute fundamental for modern ticketing and it is only the embedded legacy fares structure frozen by 1990s-era regulation alongside the disaggregated nature of the industry in the privatisation years that has dragged out the transition for so long. If BR existed in a parallel universe, Intercity would have moved to a single leg structure at least 15 years ago. The mechanism is a technological essential  for all modern ticketing from Pay As You Go in urban areas to longer distance journeys booked against itineraries, and doesn't itself put fares up or down - that decision is down to Government policy on fare levels and how much funding comes from taxpayers as opposed to fare payers. 

 

22 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Ah, I remember the days of getting a return from Cambrdge to London (both LST & KGX) for 6/8d (the price of a 45rpm single). No paper ticket - just an Edmunsun card ticket. Show it to the guy at at the gate at CBG, and when you got off in London.

Admitted it was an afternoon cheap rate, but 6/8d, that is about 33p in today's money.....

Travel up to KGX, behind a Baby Deltic; plenty of Pacifics to be seen after Hitchin, nice things like J52s shunting everywhere. Come back from LST (our REAL line from London); N7s everywhere in the suburbs, probably a B1 or a Brush 2 up front, comfortable Gresley coaches, .....

Fings ain't wot they used to be!

 

I've just finished reading Stewart Joy's 1973 book 'The Train That Ran Away', about BR's financial history from 1948 to 1968. He was BR's chief accountant. He makes the controversial but relevant point that BR systematically mispriced its services right through the 50s and 60s due to a complete lack of market pricing, and key intercity and city-to-city flows were substantially underpriced. Many would defend this but a more financially literate approach would have saved us from the complete devastation of line closures caused by the unsustainable losses racked up back then. Of course it didn't help that the same period also saw large sums of money spent buying locos like the Baby Deltics...

[Kylestrome]

On 16/07/2024 at 00:11, The Stationmaster said:

So Oyster could - if that still applies - simply provide journey details to a central point which then bills you accordingly.

 

That is precisely the principle behind the app that I use to travel around my local transport system here in Germany. The app covers travel throughout the whole of the Ruhr Region network, which is on a par with greater London in terms of size (if not larger) using trams, underground, trains and buses. There is admittedly, an element of 'Big Brother' involved because your journey is tracked from the point of entry until you check-out. Using the app is simply a matter of checking-in at a bus stop or station and then checking-out at your destination.

 

The distance travelled is calculated as the crow flies ie. the shortest distance between points of entry and exit, and the cost is capped at a certain amount per month, which is also quite a reasonable amount. Usually, the total I spend works out to less than if I'd bought paper tickets. If you forget to check-out, the app reminds you and makes a stab at guessing your destination based on your phone location which you can correct if it's wrong.

 

I usually have small power bank with me as insurance against having a flat phone battery.

 

 

Edited July 17 by Kylestrome

[eatus-maximus]

25 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

The 2009 project (which I was involved in) was immensely difficult because all changes had to be voluntary, there was no central method to direct changes. The one massive benefit that seems to be conveniently forgotten by everyone is that it replaced over 20 varieties of buy in advance ticket (with different thresholds for purchase, some allowing Railcards and some not) with a single consistent product type, the market share of which has grown exponentially since 2009. Of course, the idea that an exercise conducted 15 years ago should be relevant in perpetuity is daft so it is hardly surprising that the system needs reform. Technology, society, expectations have all moved on.

 

 

A consistent product?

 

The Advance fares are still quota controlled and variable by train, with some to be purchased up to 5, 10, 15, or more* minutes ahead of time, some no longer for purchase from a ticket office on the day*. Booking deadlines are more variable now than ever. When trains are late people still want those cheaper tickets because "there is more than 5/10/15/whatever minutes before the train is now due to leave".

 

They got rid of 'Geographic routes' for all Advances fares in favour of less flexible 'TOC only' fares. Now people who wish to change their travel plans, or who have been delayed en-route, are hamstrung by the TOC restriction on the ticket. Those who don't know the myriad of train companies get caught out and frontline staff are left to clean up the mess.

 

All 'simplification' did for Off-Peak tickets was shuffle the many different ticket types under one name without actually changing the conditions very much, actually, no scratch that, it was two names as sub categories of one name, "simple". Off-Peak tickets have as many, if not more, variations in restrictions than the did before simplification, but they are hidden behind a restriction code that only really good ticket clerks know off-by-heart, and usually only for the local area, guards really don't stand a chance.

 

Many of the issues I deal with each day are Off-Peak tickets being mis-sold or refused at the ticket barrier because of a restriction that, realistically, is difficult for some staff to know about or even understand properly. Indeed, a restriction on the Off-Peak fare of one train company's ticket, may not be the same as another for the very same journey!

You say they replaced 20 ticket types, but some journeys now have more than 200 possible fares*, most of those available on day one.

 

It wasn't ideal and perhaps there was a need for some sort of change, but what we got wasn't what we needed.

 

As much as you want to believe expectations have moved on, they really haven't, but sure, pat yourself on the back for a few pointless name changes and a couple of tweaks here and there.

 

 

* variable by train company.

 

26 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

'Single leg pricing' is an absolute fundamental for modern ticketing and it is only the embedded legacy fares structure frozen by 1990s-era regulation alongside the disaggregated nature of the industry in the privatisation years that has dragged out the transition for so long. If BR existed in a parallel universe, Intercity would have moved to a single leg structure at least 15 years ago. The mechanism is a technological essential  for all modern ticketing from Pay As You Go in urban areas to longer distance journeys booked against itineraries, and doesn't itself put fares up or down - that decision is down to Government policy on fare levels and how much funding comes from taxpayers as opposed to fare payers. 

 

 

Single Leg Pricing might work for the train companies and the Government, but it doesn't work for all passengers. Indeed a fair chunk of those I have to deal with every day want open returns precisely because of the flexibility that SLP removes.

 

Complexity doesn't seem to be changing much either as there already seems to be three varieties of T&Cs!

 

We could hypothosise about what Intercity might have done, but they aren't here.

 

The implementation of SLP does change prices though, it must in order to be revenue neutral, and none of the Train Companies, nor the Government, will want anything less than that.

 

These changes are never done for the benefit of the passenger, always the companies and the Government.

[andyman7]

1 hour ago, eatus-maximus said:

 

A consistent product?

 

The Advance fares are still quota controlled and variable by train, with some to be purchased up to 5, 10, 15, or more* minutes ahead of time, some no longer for purchase from a ticket office on the day*. Booking deadlines are more variable now than ever. When trains are late people still want those cheaper tickets because "there is more than 5/10/15/whatever minutes before the train is now due to leave".

 

They got rid of 'Geographic routes' for all Advances fares in favour of less flexible 'TOC only' fares. Now people who wish to change their travel plans, or who have been delayed en-route, are hamstrung by the TOC restriction on the ticket. Those who don't know the myriad of train companies get caught out and frontline staff are left to clean up the mess.

 

All 'simplification' did for Off-Peak tickets was shuffle the many different ticket types under one name without actually changing the conditions very much, actually, no scratch that, it was two names as sub categories of one name, "simple". Off-Peak tickets have as many, if not more, variations in restrictions than the did before simplification, but they are hidden behind a restriction code that only really good ticket clerks know off-by-heart, and usually only for the local area, guards really don't stand a chance.

 

Many of the issues I deal with each day are Off-Peak tickets being mis-sold or refused at the ticket barrier because of a restriction that, realistically, is difficult for some staff to know about or even understand properly. Indeed, a restriction on the Off-Peak fare of one train company's ticket, may not be the same as another for the very same journey!

You say they replaced 20 ticket types, but some journeys now have more than 200 possible fares*, most of those available on day one.

 

It wasn't ideal and perhaps there was a need for some sort of change, but what we got wasn't what we needed.

 

As much as you want to believe expectations have moved on, they really haven't, but sure, pat yourself on the back for a few pointless name changes and a couple of tweaks here and there.

 

 

* variable by train company.

 

 

Single Leg Pricing might work for the train companies and the Government, but it doesn't work for all passengers. Indeed a fair chunk of those I have to deal with every day want open returns precisely because of the flexibility that SLP removes.

 

Complexity doesn't seem to be changing much either as there already seems to be three varieties of T&Cs!

 

We could hypothosise about what Intercity might have done, but they aren't here.

 

The implementation of SLP does change prices though, it must in order to be revenue neutral, and none of the Train Companies, nor the Government, will want anything less than that.

 

These changes are never done for the benefit of the passenger, always the companies and the Government.

I'm only going to make this one reply because you have clearly made up your mind. I was part of a large number of very dedicated people working in very difficult circumstances to make things better without the power to direct any decisions, but I'm well aware that it's much easier to throw stones than to discuss reasonably.

 

The changes made to Advance fares were consistent - the 5-10-15 minute changes happened years later and are no reflection on what was done then, but do reflect technology changes since which is why the structure is in urgent need of further reform.

 

By the time of the project there were no geographic routes on Advance fares, they had gone in the years prior, the TOCs had made them all TOC specific for revenue allocation purposes. But hey, don't worry about facts. In fact, having been non-refundable, the product did have a change of journey option added for a £10 fee.

 

The reference to 20 tickets types into 1 was in relations to Advance fares. The off-peak tickets remained (and remain) too complex, but that is because the validities and conditions remained the preserve of TOCs. All I was saying is that the 2009 simplification wasn't a complete waste of time. The single biggest benefit of bringing the TOCs back in house will be the opportunity to comprehensively overhaul how off-peak restrictions are compiled and communicated because the current systems architecture is not fit for purpose. It requires £££ and a commercial case to sort out and under the TOC structure no-one would foot the bill.

 

Your comment 'As much as you want to believe expectations have moved on, they really haven't, but sure, pat yourself on the back for a few pointless name changes and a couple of tweaks here and there.'  is patronising in the extreme. I started as a booking clerk and spent  years at the sharp end before moving through the commercial ranks - I've met and worked with many wonderful colleagues but in every department there were always a few people who felt that their job would be easier if it wasn't for the idiots in every other department. The reality is it that the rail industry is a large, complex industry that consumes circa £14 billion of public money every year and that creates enormously complex and difficult relationships and decisions. Take the one on 'flexibility'. Flexibility costs money. If people can travel on any train, you need more trains, more stock in reserve, more risks of overcrowding and so on. So the big question is - what is the price of that flexibility? Would you rather have only flexible fares at higher prices, or a system that can keep prices lower by managing fares on a train by train basis? The railways don't operate in isolation - every £ in subsidy has to be justified when the pressure is to fund health, education, security, social care.

 

Front line staff have a tough job, I'm well aware. But it doesn't help to assume that everyone else is somehow sitting round trying to make life difficult - in fact quite the opposite , there are many people behind the scenes trying to make the best of the circumstances they are dealt with. Much better to work together to make things better, even if they are not perfect.  

 

 

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, eatus-maximus said:

Many of the issues I deal with each day are Off-Peak tickets being mis-sold or refused at the ticket barrier because of a restriction that, realistically, is difficult for some staff to know about or even understand properly. Indeed, a restriction on the Off-Peak fare of one train company's ticket, may not be the same as another for the very same journey!

 

If staff can't keep up with it all how are passengers supposed to figure it all out? 

[adb968008]

Mileage based fares works fine in other countries.

 

Removes all complexities, makes it honest.

 

if someone (whoever) wants to subsidize the fare on a route, do what the free market does everywhere else.. show the rrp, and the discount, and a final total… let people see what they are exactly saving, and by what means they are saving it.

 

No one values a cheap fare, because they dont understand value… but put a top price, and a discount next to it the value saving stands out… any line taking a share of that £14 bn subsidy should be included in the discount so people can see what exactly the tax payer is giving them.

 

Edited July 17 by adb968008

[Oldddudders]

14 hours ago, andyman7 said:

TOCs haven't held the commercial risk for ticketing since COVID but the complete paralysis of the last Government in enacting any of their proposed transport policies meant that in practice there was no change in behaviour. Bringing the TOC operations in house will mean that this changes at some point.

I believe His Majesty's speech today will include reference to the railways. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

I believe His Majesty's speech today will include reference to the railways. 

Reportedly it will be yet another daft idea from politicos who don't understand what they are talking about - no surprise there then.  As someone who had to work with it I think one of the best things to come out of UK rail privatisation was the 'protection' afforded to your access rights  and train paths by a contract.  Something which was long overdue plus the thing many in the industry had been crying out for for decades - a clear separation between infrastructures costs and train operating costs and revenue.  

 

Only a  naive politico wouldn't be able to understand such simplicity and benefits - and no doubt intend to chuck it away buried under a stupid name with even more control in the hands of the useless bunch of trainset players in DafT.

 

As for variations in off peak fare validities/times you'd have to be someone with very little knowledge of geography, rail traffic movement, timetables, and passengers' travel habits, to realise that such variations are inevitable across a national network running over a huge variety of routes and commuting distances.  On the WR alone 'peak travel' times varied around the Region and peak train loadings were. an inevitable result of theh shape of the timetable.

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Reportedly it will be yet another daft idea from politicos who don't understand what they are talking about

Seems to be the Tories' Great British Railway. which foundered in all the latter chaos, floated as a new idea.

Edited July 17 by melmerby

[eatus-maximus]

13 hours ago, andyman7 said:

- I've met and worked with many wonderful colleagues but in every department there were always a few people who felt that their job would be easier if it wasn't for the idiots in every other department.

 

I'm very aware that there are very capable people in the railway industry, often hampered by the others who aren't.

 

13 hours ago, andyman7 said:

Take the one on 'flexibility'. Flexibility costs money. If people can travel on any train, you need more trains, more stock in reserve, more risks of overcrowding and so on. So the big question is - what is the price of that flexibility? Would you rather have only flexible fares at higher prices, or a system that can keep prices lower by managing fares on a train by train basis? The railways don't operate in isolation - every £ in subsidy has to be justified when the pressure is to fund health, education, security, social care.

 

 

Government wants to put less in, Train companies want more out, passengers want to pay less, that doesn't change.

 

I want a system people can understand, and by that I don't just mean "simplify", I mean, people have to understand what they are buying.

 

The majority of people I deal with have no idea what they are buying or have bought, this was true in 2008, it was true in 2010 and 2015, and it is true now. The internet has only increased people's ability to confuse themselves, not helped by the websites and rail companies being less than open about what they are selling. This isn't technology leaving the railway behind, this is the railway (and it's agents) leaving passengers behind. Don't misunderstand, the average passenger can do more, but so can the railway, without messing about with the fare structure.

 

In a similar way, the change to SLP will not help the majority of rail users.

 

10 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

If staff can't keep up with it all how are passengers supposed to figure it all out? 

 

Good question, but it is as much about information provision as it is simplicity (and maybe giving staff a reason to learn it, like pay above minimum wage and replace zero hours agency staff with full time staff).

 

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Mileage based fares works fine in other countries.

 

Removes all complexities, makes it honest.

 

 

In most cases here, maybe it would work, but whichever way you measure the mileage you will always have cases that make no sense. Further, systems like the Travelcard zones would need to be taken into account.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, eatus-maximus said:

 

I'm very aware that there are very capable people in the railway industry, often hampered by the others who aren't.

 

 

Government wants to put less in, Train companies want more out, passengers want to pay less, that doesn't change.

 

I want a system people can understand, and by that I don't just mean "simplify", I mean, people have to understand what they are buying.

 

The majority of people I deal with have no idea what they are buying or have bought, this was true in 2008, it was true in 2010 and 2015, and it is true now. The internet has only increased people's ability to confuse themselves, not helped by the websites and rail companies being less than open about what they are selling. This isn't technology leaving the railway behind, this is the railway (and it's agents) leaving passengers behind. Don't misunderstand, the average passenger can do more, but so can the railway, without messing about with the fare structure.

 

In a similar way, the change to SLP will not help the majority of rail users.

 

 

Good question, but it is as much about information provision as it is simplicity (and maybe giving staff a reason to learn it, like pay above minimum wage and replace zero hours agency staff with full time staff).

 

 

In most cases here, maybe it would work, but whichever way you measure the mileage you will always have cases that make no sense. Further, systems like the Travelcard zones would need to be taken into account.

Ever since Selective Pricing was introduced by BR (in the mid 1970s so it's now approaching its 50th anniversary) it has caiused cinfusion to someone or other and the key to resi olving that confusion is simple presentation of in formation.  The SPM manual acu tually did that although it was a weighty tome in its day but in many respects it was no different from looking up mileages for Zonal Tickets (e.g. for dogs or cycles.

 

In various places where I worked booking offices (usually on overtime from my railway 'day job') you learnt what applied to you and the tickets you issued - such as when Off Peak and/or Day Return tickets were valid (yes, we had both at one time).  But the key was simple presentation of information that could be quickly absorbed and just as quickly checked it you were unsure.

 

When somebody wanted to make a journey they wanted to know how much it would cost and when the train departed plus where they might have to change trains.  And if they were coming back they invariably wanted a return ticket - much simpler for the average human being than having to buy two separate tickets at two different places and it probably still is that simple for 'them'.

 

In my view, and experience nobody should have anything at all to do with fare structure and ticketing 'innovations' unless they had once worked in a booking office or had sold tickets on-train.  That used to be the case, largely because of the way recruitment and promotion worked, on the railway in just about every Fares Section or Fares Officer that I came across in my time on BR.  It didn't stop innovation (Selective Pricing came out of people with that sort of experience, even if it might have been limited) as did numerous other ideas relating to things like Off-Peak and Weekend tickets).

 

The key to it is knowing how the prospective, or actually, intending passenger thinks - or more likely doesn't have a clue about what to think.  what politicos and Civil Servants think is basically irrelevant to everyday dealing with passengers (apart from inflicting nonsenses on them).  what folk might learn or think they learn from spread sheets or 'puter programmes and streams of data is only looking at a result - not at the starting points that create such results.  If you want to fiddle with ticketing then first serve your year, or more, at the point of sale and then you might understand how passengers - and not the 'Daily Mail' or some politico  - thinks and needs.  And you'll also, hopefully, understand what the people in the front line need to do their job effectively.

 

BTW selective pricing applies on most TGV services on SNCF to name just one  'Mainland' example of it.

[GrumpyPenguin]

Great, are they not :

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/live/microsoft-outage-it-crowdstrike-status-flights-grounded-latest-072117660.html

Says it all really, I'll stick to paper tickets thanks.

[RichardT]

58 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Great, are they not :

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/live/microsoft-outage-it-crowdstrike-status-flights-grounded-latest-072117660.html

Says it all really, I'll stick to paper tickets thanks.

Well, if the IT systems are down, then they won’t be able to issue or validate paper tickets either - they’re not pre-printed and stored in wooden racks in the ticket office any more!

 

FWIW, the mega-outage (there’s now another thread on this) seems to be having absolutely no effect on the ECML this morning and the two QR codes on the e-tickets on my phone worked the optical readers on the barriers at Darlington fine. And amazingly the air-con on the Azuma is working. Working almost too well in fact.

Edited July 19 by RichardT

[GrumpyPenguin]

59 minutes ago, RichardT said:

Well, if the IT systems are down, then they won’t be able to issue or validate paper tickets either - they’re not pre-printed and stored in wooden racks in the ticket office any more!

Makes no difference to me because I'll have my paper tickets before I travel & in time to make other arrangements if I can't buy & print them out.

 

I'll also stick to having a "CashStash" about my person too.

[009 micro modeller]

9 hours ago, RichardT said:

FWIW, the mega-outage (there’s now another thread on this) seems to be having absolutely no effect on the ECML this morning and the two QR codes on the e-tickets on my phone worked the optical readers on the barriers at Darlington fine. And amazingly the air-con on the Azuma is working. Working almost too well in fact.

Can confirm, not everything was affected and some systems back on within a couple of hours.

[The Stationmaster]

However there does seem to be a major problem over ferry reservations at the Port of Dover so it looks like they might have bought the wrong software.