Flexible Rail Season Tickets - 2/3 days per week to be introduced by June 2021

[Haywain]

Basically, if you work 3 or 4 days a week you'd be better off paying for anytime returns than to buy a 'flexi' ticket as they work out cheaper! Ridiculous really.

The flexi should be cheaper, per day, than the equivalent Anytime Return, so if 3 or 4 days is going to be cheaper than a season, just use the flexi over a shorter period. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, there are occasions where the flexi won’t be appropriate if your journey is one of those priced against the main peak flow.

 

[iainbhx]

That is probably because the weekly season is less than the cost of two anytime returns.


Normal season tickets aren't available for every pair of stations. There are some station pairs where the weekly season is less than the cost of two anytime day returns and the pricing formula doesn't work.

Indeed it probably is because it is a lower cost season, although I can assure you it doesn't seem like it at the the start of each month, however, that's not what was promised is it.

However, there is a normal season ticket and there is no Anytime Day Return (whilst there is for stations further afield).

 

[Alex365Dash]

Although how often is it that such things require catching a train between them? I would suggest it's generally pretty rare.

Rarer still for such things to be in peak time where a child-rate flexi season would be worth purchasing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although how often is it that such things require catching a train between them? I would suggest it's generally pretty rare.

You'll get it to some extent in areas with dense local rail networks - Merseyrail most notably, where kids shuttling back and forth between e.g. Aughton Park/Town Green and Ormskirk potentially more than once a day isn't totally out of the ordinary (plenty of others on Merseyrail where you might get that). You're not likely to get it in the London travel to work area other than LU and LO, and probably a bit less so in the lower-frequency Manchester network where I'd expect them more likely to use the bus. But fares are low for those very local journeys so pricing isn't necessarily a great issue.

 

[DB]

If the railways want to attract passengers back, and the government is serious about cutting emissions, this is absolutely not the way to go about it - not only is it very unlikely to lead to any modal shift, it may actually increase traffic on the roads as the increased daily cost of using the train if only travelling 2 oe 3 days a week may tip the balance in favour of the car.

It's also fairly incomprehensible why they've made such a big thing of it in the media (it was even one of the leading headlines on Radio 3 news this morning), given that it's really not likely to be viewed as adequate by most of those who were asking for part-time season tickets, and by publicising it so widely they will just have increased the volume of criticism. Surely those who dreamed this up, and the DfT generally, can't be so out of touch that they thought this would go down well?

 

[Fenchurch SP]

For me personally it would be most useful as a leisure ticket, ie a 8 in 28 rover which is valid in the peaks. Seems poor value if you intend to make only one return journey in a day.

 

[JonathanH]

For example - it's quite common for children to have after-school activities such as music practice, swimming lessons or any number of other things. These are often weekly, and it is very plausible that a child would do two such things on different days within walking distance of each other (and therefore of the same station).
Alternatively, when I was younger I knew several people who had - for instance - football training two or three days a week in the evenings. Wouldn't it be good if they could have a flexi-season ticket to get to that?

Isn't everything you describe off-peak in nature and therefore not going to be worth having a season ticket valid in the morning peak at those fares?

 

[Watershed]

Retail work or other forms of work done by young people after school or at the weekend.

Another situation would be where they live at another caregiver one part of the week

Most such journeys will be off-peak, hence buying individual tickets would be cheaper.

I agree it's inconsistent to allow 16-17 Saver discounts but not child discounts. However, it's got to be an extremely unlikely edge case where someone aged 11-15 (they're unlikely to be travelling on their own below 11) travels at peak times a fixed 2 days a week.

The overall pricing strategy is, by far, the howler here.

 

[Meerkat]

The overall pricing strategy is, by far, the howler here.

Why? You expected the government to raise subsidies to keep it as cheap as an annual ST?

 

[Wolfie]

Why? You expected the government to raise subsidies to keep it as cheap as an annual ST?

Given that the Treasury wishes to cut not increase subsidies the only way that these might be cheaper is if annual STs go up to compensate... Watch the howls if that is attempted...

 

[thedbdiboy]

As has been amply repeated in this thread, the specifics of the Flexi Season have the imprints of both DfT and Treasury all over them. The (unsurprising) biggest disappointment (or expectation) for many is that there are certainly not universal big savings, but they will offer some savings to some travellers on many flows. The big issue for Treasury is that until there is a proper post lockdown return to work, the degree of (semi) permanent loss of commuting traffic is unknown and they are terrified of accidentally giving too much away in terms of discount.
The other elephant in the room is that all the while the Season Ticket, the daily fares and the relationship between the two remain unreconstructed there is desperately little room to squeeze in a new fare. Put simply, daily peak fares are quite expensive but Seasons, although perceived of as expensive, generally offer pretty good per-day travel rates on the basis that the customer has paid upfront for unlimited travel. This is quite a significant white-collar subsidy that goes not to the lowest paid in general (cleaners, part time workers etc) but to better off people in reasonably paid jobs. Over time, as people's travel patterns post-Covid become established, it is probably going to be necessary to redirect this so that the benefit is less tilted towards the season ticket and there is a more even spread between full time, part time and daily travel. The kind of experience in working this out won't come from arguments between Treasury and DfT.
However, the other aspects (child fares, missing flows, 1st class) can all be picked up in due course - what's there now isn't what has to be there for evermore; and of course as at long last a national strategic approach (rather than a TOC approach) to ticketing can be established, the delivery mechanism should be able to become more consistent across the network - for now, the developers had to work with what was there.

 

[Watershed]

Why? You expected the government to raise subsidies to keep it as cheap as an annual ST?

Ah, the the archetypical Treasury view.

They're so blinkered they won't even consider the possibility that:

a) Commuting is now a price sensitive, elastic market, including the former cash-cow that is the South East.

b) The rail industry will, in the grand scheme of things, only achieve marginal savings if commuters don't return.

"Raising subsidises" reflects a mindset that refuses to accept that the value of peak time travel has drastically reduced over the last 15 months.

In any sensible world, so would prices. Take a look how much the airlines are charging for flights to Europe this and next month - what would traditionally be peak summer holiday season. I think you might be in for a surprise.

The trains will be running no matter what. So any revenue is better than no revenue.

 

[Wolfie]

Ah, the the archetypical Treasury view.

They're so blinkered they won't even consider the possibility that:

a) Commuting is now a price sensitive, elastic market, including the former cash-cow that is the South East.

b) The rail industry will, in the grand scheme of things, only achieve marginal savings if commuters don't return.

"Raising subsidises" reflects a mindset that refuses to accept that the value of peak time travel has drastically reduced over the last 15 months.

The bottom line is that the amount of taxpayers money going to the railway has gone through the roof over the last 15 months. HMT will expect it to go down, and likely significantly, not to go even higher. At best reallocation of remaining subsidies will take place. I also expect demands for significant cuts in running costs and, given normal HMT practice, that means staff costs.

 

[Watershed]

The bottom line is that the amount of taxpayers money going to the railway has gone through the roof over the last 15 months. HMT will expect it to go down, and likely significantly, not to go even higher. At best reallocation of remaining subsidies will take place. I also expect demands for significant cuts in running costs and, given normal HMT practice, that means staff costs.

That is, however, largely incompatible with the promise in the Williams Review that the railway will grow, not shrink.

 

[JonathanH]

The other elephant in the room is that all the while the Season Ticket, the daily fares and the relationship between the two remain unreconstructed there is desperately little room to squeeze in a new fare. Put simply, daily peak fares are quite expensive but Seasons, although perceived of as expensive, generally offer pretty good per-day travel rates on the basis that the customer has paid upfront for unlimited travel. This is quite a significant white-collar subsidy that goes not to the lowest paid in general (cleaners, part time workers etc) but to better off people in reasonably paid jobs. Over time, as people's travel patterns post-Covid become established, it is probably going to be necessary to redirect this so that the benefit is less tilted towards the season ticket and there is a more even spread between full time, part time and daily travel. The kind of experience in working this out won't come from arguments between Treasury and DfT.

Indeed, but it also has to be recognised that those who can't work from home include many of the lower paid, so just putting up season ticket prices on shorter distance flows may lead to them being disadvantaged. The significant white-collar subsidy seems to be the longer distance tickets where multiples of weekly to daily tickets are lower than 2. These are the cases where there may be an opportunity to increase the multiples over time (as fewer lower paid people are affected).

It will be interesting to see how much of this is removed with the PAYG revolution where you might imagine that the weekly cap is set at a multiple higher than the current weekly season multiple and then at some point the paper ticket is withdrawn.

There is a disconnect here between the cost of train journeys and what people expect to pay for them because that view hasn't taken inflation into account since they formed their view. People form a set view of what something is worth and then when it increases beyond that set view, think it is expensive. What may have been £3,000 in 2005, is £4,500 now and with some years of above inflation increases, could be £5,000, which they now feel is expensive. That appears to be what has happened with train fares.

 

[Wolfie]

That is, however, largely incompatible with the promise in the Williams Review that the railway will grow, not shrink.

Given the current state of the economy, and what we hear about the Spending Review currently underway in Govt, expecting more subsidy is way beyond optimistic. More like deluded frankly.

 

[Meerkat]

Ah, the the archetypical Treasury view.

They're so blinkered they won't even consider the possibility that:

a) Commuting is now a price sensitive, elastic market, including the former cash-cow that is the South East.

b) The rail industry will, in the grand scheme of things, only achieve marginal savings if commuters don't return.

"Raising subsidises" reflects a mindset that refuses to accept that the value of peak time travel has drastically reduced over the last 15 months.

In any sensible world, so would prices. Take a look how much the airlines are charging for flights to Europe this and next month - what would traditionally be peak summer holiday season. I think you might be in for a surprise.

The trains will be running no matter what. So any revenue is better than no revenue.

Not sure that makes sense. You seem to be saying that to keep customers who cost you money you need to make it cost you even more money??
That isn’t the way to save money.
People demanded nationalisation so it’s likely that they will suffer the same consequences as last time - the Treasury gets BR to price the demand off and then slash services ……real savings.

 

[alistairlees]

Some less than favourable coverage:

Flexible ticket 'will only save me £7 a year' on my commute

New flexible train tickets are aimed at commuters doing few days in office - but first impressions are muted.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yet again the BBC is incapable of working anything out - to "only save £7 a year" you would need to be buying 13 Flexi-Season tickets. Most people take 4 weeks (or more) off, so a fairer comparison would be 12 Flexi-Season tickets - a £404 saving.

 

[telstarbox]

Indeed, but it also has to be recognised that those who can't work from home include many of the lower paid, so just putting up season ticket prices on shorter distance flows may lead to them being disadvantaged. The significant white-collar subsidy seems to be the longer distance tickets where multiples of weekly to daily tickets are lower than 2. These are the cases where there may be an opportunity to increase the multiples over time (as fewer lower paid people are affected).

It will be interesting to see how much of this is removed with the PAYG revolution where you might imagine that the weekly cap is set at a multiple higher than the current weekly season multiple and then at some point the paper ticket is withdrawn.

There is a disconnect here between the cost of train journeys and what people expect to pay for them because that view hasn't taken inflation into account since they formed their view. People form a set view of what something is worth and then when it increases beyond that set view, think it is expensive. What may have been £3,000 in 2005, is £4,500 now and with some years of above inflation increases, could be £5,000, which they now feel is expensive. That appears to be what has happened with train fares.

See also the £5 pint

 

[Watershed]

Not sure that makes sense. You seem to be saying that to keep customers who cost you money you need to make it cost you even more money??
That isn’t the way to save money.
People demanded nationalisation so it’s likely that they will suffer the same consequences as last time - the Treasury gets BR to price the demand off and then slash services ……real savings.

Virtually no rail services are profitable at the moment (in fact, very few were even pre-Covid but that's another matter).

There is effectively no additional cost to the rail industry (and thus the Treasury) whether the 07:12 Brighton to Victoria has 10 people on it, or 100 or 400.

At £45 a day, you're not going to get many takers for a Flexi Season. It's hardly much cheaper than a £56 Anytime Day Return (an Anytime Single out and a Network Railcard discounted Off-Peak Single back is cheaper anyway at £49).

Most who do travel will be the residual 5 day commuters, paying the equivalent of about £24 a day (or less) on a season ticket.

If, by contrast, the Flexi Season were priced nearer £24 a journey, I fail to see a scenario in which that would reduce overall revenue.

The Treasury obviously thinks it knows better.

Some less than favourable coverage:

Flexible ticket 'will only save me £7 a year' on my commute

New flexible train tickets are aimed at commuters doing few days in office - but first impressions are muted.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yet again the BBC is incapable of working anything out - to "only save £7 a year" you would need to be buying 13 Flexi-Season tickets. Most people take 4 weeks (or more) off, so a fairer comparison would be 12 Flexi-Season tickets - a £404 saving.

Yes, but it's unlikely to be 4 weeks in one go. So in any given 4 week period where you don't commute 8 days, you're wasting validity.

The 8 in 28 day limit is too onerous to truly justify the epithet "flexible".

 

[alistairlees]

Yes, but it's unlikely to be 4 weeks in one go. So in any given 4 week period where you don't commute 8 days, you're wasting validity.

It could be 4 periods of 1 week each; or 2 periods of 2 weeks each, for example. I did not state that it had to be 4 weeks in one go.

 

[Meerkat]

There is effectively no additional cost to the rail industry (and thus the Treasury) whether the 07:12 Brighton to Victoria has 10 people on it, or 100 or 400.

At £45 a day, you're not going to get many takers for a Flexi Season. It's hardly much cheaper than a £56 Anytime Day Return (an Anytime Single out and a Network Card discounted Off-Peak Single back is probably cheaper anyway).

Most who do travel will be the residual 5 day commuters, paying the equivalent of about £24 a day (or less) on a season ticket.

If, by contrast, the Flexi Season were priced nearer £24 a journey, I fail to see a scenario in which that would reduce overall revenue.

How much are Brighton commuters paying for an annual. I can’t see them binning off a job that covered that cost before WFH over a £2k a year difference, when it’s still cheaper than their old annual, and they aren’t going to be driving to London. You would just be subsidising wealthy folk even more.
If it really drove off custom then they would run fewer trains, which really does save money.

 

[MadCommuter]

As I've said up thread, I'm in Scotland so no details for me yet. However, I can start work at 10.00, so if a similar fares structure is replicated here, I'll be travelling after 9.15 and buying CDRs.

 

[Alex365Dash]

As I've said up thread, I'm in Scotland so no details for me yet. However, I can start work at 10.00, so if a similar fares structure is replicated here, I'll be travelling after 9.15 and buying CDRs.

Looks like you might be waiting a while…

Flexi Season tickets are also not available on rail journeys entirely within the Scotrail network, the Transport for Wales network and the MerseyRail travel area.

ScotRail instead have the Flexipass scheme, which doesn’t allow break of journey or unlimited journeys for the day it’s activated between the stations specified unlike Flexi Seasons.

It’s 10 journeys (so 5 return journeys) within 1 calendar month, which is less onerous than Flexi Seasons which are sold in packs of 8 days within 28.

It also doesn’t allow you to refund unused journeys midway through validity if you don’t think you’ll use them all.

 

[david1212]

How much are Brighton commuters paying for an annual. I can’t see them binning off a job that covered that cost before WFH over a £2k a year difference, when it’s still cheaper than their old annual, and they aren’t going to be driving to London. You would just be subsidising wealthy folk even more.
If it really drove off custom then they would run fewer trains, which really does save money.

For Brighton to Victoria only i.e. no bus / tube £4712.
As Brighton to Zones 1 - 6 via any permitted route £6020.
ThamesLink only to either specifically City Thameslink or London Terminals £4316.

Taking the first over 200 days is £23.56 per day. Hence another example of a huge difference between the Anytime Day Return @ ~ 52p/mile and the season price. The any permitted route off peak day return is £32.20 which is ~30p/mile. Reduce both day returns by 33% then the new flexi-season would be £30 per day which fits in much better and based on typical usage the off-peak fare would be less than the season.

 

[CrispyUK]

It could be 4 periods of 1 week each; or 2 periods of 2 weeks each, for example. I did not state that it had to be 4 weeks in one go.

But the person in the office 2 days a week then needs to ensure their periods of leave have exactly 4, 8, 12, etc. weeks of work in between them to suit the validity period of the flexi season.

If you have a week off, are back at work for 6 weeks, then have another week off, it doesn’t work. You’d need to use anytime tickets for 2 of these 6 weeks which then starts eating into the savings made by not having to purchase the 13th flexi season.

 

[Jurg]

But the person in the office 2 days a week then needs to ensure their periods of leave have exactly 4, 8, 12, etc. weeks of work in between them to suit the validity period of the flexi season.

If you have a week off, are back at work for 6 weeks, then have another week off, it doesn’t work. You’d need to use anytime tickets for 2 of these 6 weeks which then starts eating into the savings made by not having to purchase the 13th flexi season.

Yeah the more I look into the practicalities, the less flexible this product looks in reality. For those in the office 2 days per week, it only really works if you can be certain in advance that there'll be no leave or sickness in the 4 weeks ahead. If Monday is one of your allocated office days this will cause an issue several times a year.

It's of more use to those in 3 days per week, but as has been identified in many instances a 'proper' season ticket provides better value for 3+ days.

I am often somewhat cynical about government consultation exercises, that they could just be angling for justification of the decision they've already made, but I think some proper public consultation before coming up with these tickets would have helped. On the positive side it would probably be very easy to tinker with the tickets to extend the period of validity in future. Even an extra week would probably tip the balance for many potential customers.

 

[35B]

That is, however, largely incompatible with the promise in the Williams Review that the railway will grow, not shrink.

The question is, should we believe that the Treasury is bought into Williams rather than just being the guardian of the government’s cash.

 

[Wolfie]

The question is, should we believe that the Treasury is bought into Williams rather than just being the guardian of the government’s cash.

If you have ever dealt with HMT, and l have for over 30 years, you would know very well that they only care about the cash. Williams is for and by DfT. At best it may provide some evidence to HMT. At worst DfT will be told to fund it from savings from elsewhere in their existing budget

 

[OldNick]

I think these were always going to be a disappointment if people expected 'cheaper' when phrases like 'good value'/'better value' are applied - this essentially means 'more product for less' or 'something for nothing' to most, and due to the pricing of the existing products that was always going to be hard to achieve in a meaningful way.

The fact that on the journey I tested, travelling 3 days a week instead of 2 appears to destroy the saving completely, means if you say, are booked into the office 2 days a week most weeks but may be required to attend special meetings or whatever in addition and at short notice, then you might be paying more, especially if you try playing the game of buying a 7D season one week and not using your flexi, and then it expiring.

In how many cases will the refund on unused journeys result in any refund due? I used to process many refunds on season tickets and after it was all calculated and the admin fee taken there was often no refund if there wasn't much validity left, which is the point at which most people would seek a refund on unused journeys I feel.

The proof of the pudding will be how many are bought after the honeymoon period.