Permitted routes Nuneaton to Wolverhampton

[MKB]

I am struggling to understand the rationale that makes via Birmingham the only permitted route.

FastJP shows reasonable routes via Stafford, via Stoke on Trent, via Coventry and even via Rugby all of which seem to require split tickets. Via Stafford is often the fastest route at particular times of day.

Why would this be so heavily restricted?

I presume they are worried about people stopping short at an interchange, but that's really a result of how the industry operates fares. I can't see why passengers should be denied next-train options that get them to their destination earlier on a single through ticket.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Just because a route is faster / more convenient doesn't have any bearing on routeing (although there's a good argument that an appropriate fare should exist). There's plenty of examples where the fastest route is not permitted, particularly where the timetable is irregular.

 

[bakerstreet]

Just because a route is faster / more convenient doesn't have any bearing on routeing

isn’t that precisely what should happen.

 

[FaresGuru22]

It's an interesting one. The WVH fares are set by XC and the STA fares are set by WMR. The STA fares are valid via WVH but the WVH fares are not valid via STA. For STA there is an Any Permitted and a via Tamworth, whereas for WVH there is only the Any Permitted. The WVH single and return standard fares are more expensive than the equivalent STA fares, whereas the STA season fares are more expensive than the equivalent WVH fares.

If only XC and WMR could discuss pricing, they might be able to improve the situation. The fare clusters used won't be ideal here for changing the current set up to better represent the permitted routing, nor is that really the right thing to do. I would hope both would agree that both journeys need via Tamworth and via Birmingham fares, permitting WVH journeys to be valid via TAM in the process, and probably Any Permitted fares too until singles only pricing become the go-to. Sadly none of this can be done without sorting the actual fares out so that they make sense, and if they can't discuss under competition law, we simply have the fares and validity we have now..

 

[MKB]

Quite.

Also worth noting that, even when Nuneaton to Birmingham requires a scheduled replacement bus, as it has recently, the any-permitted ticket between those stations does not allow travel via Coventry, via Tamworth, via Rugeley or via Lichfield as one might reasonably expect. Unless I missed some easements?

(As is often the case, there is a workaround in this instance, but that doesn't help the less knowledgeable passenger.)

 

[Watershed]

Sadly none of this can be done without sorting the actual fares out so that they make sense, and if they can't discuss under competition law, we simply have the fares and validity we have now..

There has been plenty of collaboration between TOCs when it comes to fare-setting in the past so I'm afraid I just don't buy this as an excuse.

Funnily enough TOCs seem only too happy to collaborate when it comes to fares that they perceive as "loopholes" (even if they are really nothing of the sort).

For example, when LNER rolled out single leg pricing with the result that Edinburgh to London got half-price singles that would be valid on Avanti, permitted routes dating back decades (if not longer) were thrown out of the window overnight, with a change from "Any Permitted" to "via York".

 

[Hadders]

There has been plenty of collaboration between TOCs when it comes to fare-setting in the past so I'm afraid I just don't buy this as an excuse.

Funnily enough TOCs seem only too happy to collaborate when it comes to fares that they perceive as "loopholes" (even if they are really nothing of the sort).

For example, when LNER rolled out single leg pricing with the result that Edinburgh to London got half-price singles that would be valid on Avanti, permitted routes dating back decades (if not longer) were thrown out of the window overnight, with a change from "Any Permitted" to "via York".

Absolutely!

My concern is that when TOCs collaborate on things like fares there is usually only one result, passengers end up paying more.

Nationalised operators so not fill me with confidence when it comes to fares, you only have to look at what is happening on LNER to see this.

 

[thedbdiboy]

There has been plenty of collaboration between TOCs when it comes to fare-setting in the past so I'm afraid I just don't buy this as an excuse.

Funnily enough TOCs seem only too happy to collaborate when it comes to fares that they perceive as "loopholes" (even if they are really nothing of the sort).

For example, when LNER rolled out single leg pricing with the result that Edinburgh to London got half-price singles that would be valid on Avanti, permitted routes dating back decades (if not longer) were thrown out of the window overnight, with a change from "Any Permitted" to "via York".

It is illegal for TOCs to collaborate directly on fares (and will be until the progress of GBR resets the fare ownership above the level of a TOC).

With things such as LNER single leg pricing, the related changes were directed via the DfT but they don't have the capability/bandwidth to do this for fares generally as the expertise sits with pricing managers who are employed by TOCs (...and who are not allowed to collaborate directly with each other)

 

[yorkie]

Quite.

Also worth noting that, even when Nuneaton to Birmingham requires a scheduled replacement bus, as it has recently, the any-permitted ticket between those stations does not allow travel via Coventry, via Tamworth, via Rugeley or via Lichfield as one might reasonably expect. Unless I missed some easements?

(As is often the case, there is a workaround in this instance, but that doesn't help the less knowledgeable passenger.)

Depending on the nature of the bus service, it might not need an easement.

It is illegal for TOCs to collaborate directly on fares (and will be until the progress of GBR resets the fare ownership above the level of a TOC).

They do so indirectly in a negative way, or at least they don't oppose negative changes proposed by other TOCs that are to the detriment of customers (e.g. Newark to London no longer being valid via Nottingham - disgraceful behaviour by whoever was in charge of the MML and IC East Coast franchises at the time)

With things such as LNER single leg pricing, the related changes were directed via the DfT but they don't have the capability/bandwidth to do this for fares generally as the expertise sits with pricing managers who are employed by TOCs (...and who are not allowed to collaborate directly with each other)

None of this should be under the control of anything other than an organisation who genuinely have customers interests at heart. The DfT and TOCs cannot be trusted at all in this area. Changing the current structure to anything new would only be to the further detriment of customers, unless appropriate safeguards are put in place. Sadly I can't see the DfT allowing that.

It's an interesting one. The WVH fares are set by XC and the STA fares are set by WMR. The STA fares are valid via WVH but the WVH fares are not valid via STA. For STA there is an Any Permitted and a via Tamworth, whereas for WVH there is only the Any Permitted. The WVH single and return standard fares are more expensive than the equivalent STA fares, whereas the STA season fares are more expensive than the equivalent WVH fares.

If only XC and WMR could discuss pricing, they might be able to improve the situation. The fare clusters used won't be ideal here for changing the current set up to better represent the permitted routing, nor is that really the right thing to do. I would hope both would agree that both journeys need via Tamworth and via Birmingham fares, permitting WVH journeys to be valid via TAM in the process, and probably Any Permitted fares too until singles only pricing become the go-to. Sadly none of this can be done without sorting the actual fares out so that they make sense, and if they can't discuss under competition law, we simply have the fares and validity we have now..

I don't see any reason why each TOC can't address the issues related to the fares they price individually. As for any proposals to "sort fares out", we all know that will be to the further detriment of customers who currently use reasonably priced tickets, so I oppose that, unless suitable safeguards are put in place.

XC price York to Stafford Any Permitted, and yet the mapped routes to allow travel via the XC route were removed. XC or RDG could easily fix this; it doesn't require anyone else to do anything. Why haven't they?

 

[thedbdiboy]

None of this should be under the control of anything other than an organisation who genuinely have customers interests at heart. The DfT and TOCs cannot be trusted at all in this area. Changing the current structure to anything new would only be to the further detriment of customers, unless appropriate safeguards are put in place. Sadly I can't see the DfT allowing that.

The lack of any effective mechanism for managing the national fares structure in the last 29 years despite it being legislated for in the 1993 Railways Act is painfully obvious. The Routeing Guide, fragmented flow ownership under the franchising process and dysfunctional fares regulation are all symptoms.
The DfT is a Government department and the idea that they should manage pricing immediately fails any kind of logic test. The TOCs in their current form have a limited lifespan - so I would ask:

1) who do you think should manage pricing in the future. and
2) what you think would be the 'fairest' ways for that body to make decisions against a background where the industry needs to be financially sustainable (i.e. how to make difficult decisions assuming that it is a reality that there is no more money to pump into the industry than already happens, and things such as wage settlements have to be paid for?)
For example, if the restitution to passengers is to be made fairer would you accept that that might include ending or minimising delay repay for events totally outside the the industry's control? (Genuine question...!)

 

[yorkie]

The lack of any effective mechanism for managing the national fares structure in the last 29 years despite it being legislated for in the 1993 Railways Act is painfully obvious. The Routeing Guide, fragmented flow ownership under the franchising process and dysfunctional fares regulation are all symptoms.
The DfT is a Government department and the idea that they should manage pricing immediately fails any kind of logic test. The TOCs in their current form have a limited lifespan - so I would ask:

1) who do you think should manage pricing in the future. and

An organisation that has the interests of customers at its heart, as well as appropriate knowledge of contract and consumer legislation.

2) what you think would be the 'fairest' ways for that body to make decisions against a background where the industry needs to be financially sustainable (i.e. how to make difficult decisions assuming that it is a reality that there is no more money to pump into the industry than already happens, and things such as wage settlements have to be paid for?)
For example, if the restitution to passengers is to be made fairer would you accept that that might include ending or minimising delay repay for events totally outside the the industry's control? (Genuine question...!)

This is well beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Haywain]

An organisation that has the interests of customers at its heart, as well as appropriate knowledge of contract and consumer legislation.

Arguably, that would mean an outside agency from the train operating and that really doesn’t make sense.

 

[FaresGuru22]

There has been plenty of collaboration between TOCs when it comes to fare-setting in the past so I'm afraid I just don't buy this as an excuse.

Funnily enough TOCs seem only too happy to collaborate when it comes to fares that they perceive as "loopholes" (even if they are really nothing of the sort).

For example, when LNER rolled out single leg pricing with the result that Edinburgh to London got half-price singles that would be valid on Avanti, permitted routes dating back decades (if not longer) were thrown out of the window overnight, with a change from "Any Permitted" to "via York".

This was a DfT-led change and they would have facilitated discussions to assist with their trial. Competition law seems to go out the window when the DfT facilitate the discussions. The change favoured the trial, removing the loophole. You can safely bet your last dollar that any collaborative removal of loopholes is DfT-backed.

I don't see any reason why each TOC can't address the issues related to the fares they price individually. As for any proposals to "sort fares out", we all know that will be to the further detriment of customers who currently use reasonably priced tickets, so I oppose that, unless suitable safeguards are put in place.

XC price York to Stafford Any Permitted, and yet the mapped routes to allow travel via the XC route were removed. XC or RDG could easily fix this; it doesn't require anyone else to do anything. Why haven't they?

Well the Stafford fares are more expensive than the Wolverhampton fares, so the removal of permissions would've made sense from a fares perspective if there was no desire to change the fares. Similar to this case here, TPE and XC should have come together to create sensible via Manchester and via Derby fares, but it's the same problem as here.

This is well beyond the scope of this thread.

A great question though, I'd encourage a new thread to get into that discussion!

Arguably, that would mean an outside agency from the train operating and that really doesn’t make sense.

Agreed 100%

 

[MKB]

Is it possible to create Off-Peak and Anytime fares that specifically disallow break of journey at intermediary stations that have higher fares than for the through journey?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Is it possible to create Off-Peak and Anytime fares that specifically disallow break of journey at intermediary stations that have higher fares than for the through journey?

Off Peak - Yes

Anytime - No (although technically possible)

There is a rule in the Routeing Guide in some situations that allows a route to be taken for "interchange purposes only" - you could look to expand that out - but it's just causing more complexity.

 

[Watershed]

This was a DfT-led change and they would have facilitated discussions to assist with their trial. Competition law seems to go out the window when the DfT facilitate the discussions.

I cannot see any way in which the involvement of the DfT as a "middleman" alters the position under competition law.

There just seems to be a fixed mindset in lots of people who work in a pricing/fares capacity at TOCs, that competition law bars any sort of collaboration that might improve things for customers. Funnily enough it doesn't stop revenue-raising changes such as the rollout of multi-TOC Advances/walk-ups and so forth, so in reality I suspect it is just an urban myth.

 

[FaresGuru22]

There just seems to be a fixed mindset in lots of people who work in a pricing/fares capacity at TOCs, that competition law bars any sort of collaboration that might improve things for customers. Funnily enough it doesn't stop revenue-raising changes such as the rollout of multi-TOC Advances/walk-ups and so forth, so in reality I suspect it is just an urban myth.

Creating joint fares is very different to collusion to amend existing interavailable fares. Ask DfT and TOC legal teams about competition law, it's a safe bet that they will back up the requirement to not discuss fares. Some people think it's all fares colleagues, I highly doubt it.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Creating joint fares is very different to collusion to amend existing interavailable fares. Ask DfT and TOC legal teams about competition law, it's a safe bet that they will back up the requirement to not discuss fares. Some people think it's all fares colleagues, I highly doubt it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens for Winslow - London when EWR opens, given you'll have the option of changing at Bletchley, Bicester Village or Oxford.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I cannot see any way in which the involvement of the DfT as a "middleman" alters the position under competition law.

There just seems to be a fixed mindset in lots of people who work in a pricing/fares capacity at TOCs, that competition law bars any sort of collaboration that might improve things for customers. Funnily enough it doesn't stop revenue-raising changes such as the rollout of multi-TOC Advances/walk-ups and so forth, so in reality I suspect it is just an urban myth.

It absolutely isn't 'a myth'. Without going into legal niceties, the DfT is an arm of Government and a TOC is; the former is therefore not subject to the same Competition Law limitations. As regards 'multi-TOC Advance/Walk-Up' fares these are governed by the powers of flow creation and ownership in the TSA, a very specific set of rules that allows one TOC to set prices that are accepted on another. Indeed, it is because of the fare setting rules both allowing TOCs to price onto other TOCs and yet not to talk to them about it that the fare structure has become such a mess.