Should child fares be reviewed?

[northwichcat]

It also makes a lot of assumptions. The most obvious is that doubling the price for a child will lead to 50% less children travelling, and that the smaller numbers of children using the train on one day fo the week would elad to rail becoming a more attractive proposition for adults, who will be applying more.

That isn't an assumption. I was saying IF it resulted in a 50% decline in child travel with children paying 50% more it wouldn't be a disadvantage to rail operators. I know a lot of people who try to avoid travelling with or going to a place when there are likely to be a lot of children there.

If I extend the argument to other types of discounts (railcards and duos for example), can we say that the fewer numbers travelling as a result will mean that rail travel will be more attractive to those who are willing to pay the full fare? I believe that is the same argument in essence.

I'm sure you're aware that no railcard discounts are available on local fares before 10am and there's further restrictions on some routes. Also Duos are after 09:30 with restrictions on evening peak services. There's also additional Duo restrictions such as not available on Saturdays in December when trains are full of Christmas shoppers and not being available to places like Chester and York on race days. On the other hand in school holidays the evening peak services can be packed with children travelling home on half price Off-Peak Day returns. I remember one Friday afternoon service on the Mid Cheshire in school half-term where commuters with season tickets were unable to board because children travelling on cheap tickets had filled up the train.

 

[Greenback]

So are you saying that it's only at certain times that child fares should not be available then? That's a slightly different proposal to the one I thought you were making.

Still to change my opinion I would need to be shown a clear business case as to the financial benefit of removing children's discounts, and one that into account the national situation rather than just localised issues. (I don't disagree that there are such issues, our local trains are full of kiddies at half term and Satuirdays, all travelling back from shopping in Swansea, but that's not necessarily a bad thing).

Also, I believe we should be making great efforts to get more children on to the trains, in the hope that they will not automatically look to car travel as the only way to get from A to B when they are older.

 

[northwichcat]

So are you saying that it's only at certain times that child fares should not be available then? That's a slightly different proposal to the one I thought you were making.

No I'm pointing out that child fares are different to the railcard and other cheap fares that you were likening them to because child fares are available on every train on every day.

Also, I believe we should be making great efforts to get more children on to the trains, in the hope that they will not automatically look to car travel as the only way to get from A to B when they are older.

But then they start paying full fares approximately one year before they can learn to drive so all of a sudden think that adult train travel is very expensive (because it's a lot more than what they are used to paying) so when people warn them that driving is expensive they think so is train travel.

 

[Greenback]

Do you accept that having child fares increases revenue overall, or do you think that revenue would increase if they were abolished? And I'm not talking about individual lines!

 

[northwichcat]

Do you accept that having child fares increases revenue overall, or do you think that revenue would increase if they were abolished? And I'm not talking about individual lines!

I suggested a few different options in my original post so there was more basis for discussion.

I don't think you could abolish child fares overnight - abolishing child fares is also not what I would suggest as a preferred option if I was transport minister. However, as I suggested it as an option in my original post it's only fair that I give reasons for doing it.

You could, for instance, increase the 50% fare they pay to something like 55% or 60%. I think this would have little effect on child passenger numbers as the number of children using the railways for leisure trips doesn't seem to be declining as fares increase above the rate of inflation.

Alternatively, as I suggested you could have child fares for 5-11 year olds and introduce a 12-25 railcard, which is similar to some EU countries - maybe some of the terms of use of the railcard would need revising if that was to happen.

 

[Greenback]

OK, I;m glad we agree about abolition!

Raising child fares to 55 or 60% - why? If it will have little or no influence on numbers travelling, it will merely increase revenue for the TOC's. It won't reduce overcrowding, so it won't help attract full fare users or reduce ticketless travel in the way you suggested in an earlier post. Now, I could support such a move if it would mean more investment and extra carriages, but sadly I think it would just end up int eh corporate kitty!

The 12-25 railcard sounds more interesting. Although I still see an element of unfairness in expecting a 12 year old who is still in school to pay the same fare as a 24 year old in full time employment. My suggestion would be along the lines of unaccompanied children between 12 and 15 need to buy a railcard in order to get 50% off. Accompanied teenagers and those under 12 get 50% off without a railcard. I haven;t really thought much abot it though, so I'm sure someone will be able to pcik holes in it!

Good to have a discussion about it though!

 

[SS4]

If you set an arbitrary age for different fare prices you're always going to have delineation issues between those who are n and n-1 years old.

nb: yo = year old

At the moment it's between a 15 yo and a 16 yo for adult fare
Also at the moment it's between a 5 yo and a 4 yo for free travel
If you have the 12-17 railcard then it's telling apart a 12 yo from an 11 yo

The last one is only a problem if you intend to only allow (rail)card holders to get the 50% discount. I would like to see the card be free throughout though

If you abolish free travel for under 5's you immediately remove the issue of the second problem above. With a family railcard there is often little difference in fares anyway.


Despite the problems I do like the idea of a photocard for say 11-15 year olds which is mandatory to get a discount either stamped by the school, the local authority or with recognised ID at a staffed station. It would only need to be done once so I don't see it being too hard logistically

 

[northwichcat]

Raising child fares to 55 or 60% - why? If it will have little or no influence on numbers travelling, it will merely increase revenue for the TOC's. It won't reduce overcrowding, so it won't help attract full fare users or reduce ticketless travel in the way you suggested in an earlier post. Now, I could support such a move if it would mean more investment and extra carriages, but sadly I think it would just end up int eh corporate kitty!

The current government is proposing large increases in fares to reduce how much the tax payer funds the railways, if there were bigger increases in the child leisure travel then it could slightly reduce how much the increase is for adult essential travel.

As I said before I suggested a few different suggestions for discussion. In response to the suggestion of getting rid of child fares people quite a few people responded saying that will significantly reduce the number of children travelling so I thought it was worth pointing out how an up to 50% reduction in child travel would be advantageous if children paid adult fares.

The 12-25 railcard sounds more interesting. Although I still see an element of unfairness in expecting a 12 year old who is still in school to pay the same fare as a 24 year old in full time employment.

The issue here is how do you define fair.

Currently an 18 year old studying full time for A Levels with no job pays full fare while a 15 year old with a weekend job pays half fare. Many would argue that's not fair. Also currently an adult can pay full fare to stand while a child can pay half fare to sit.

A left wing view for fairness could be for child fares to be means tested. A child with rich parents pay full fare, while a child with unemployed parents gets free or significantly reduced fares. While a more right ring view of that would say that's not fair as the parents who have done well in their careers are being penalised.

 

[Greenback]

I have supported proposals on here that full time students from 16 - 18 should pay the child rate.

Children with 50% rate tickets sitting while an adult stands is about as fair as someone with a £10 Advance ticket sitting while someone with a £150 Anytime ticket stands. So we ar eback to the argument of whether only full fare tickets should ever be sold, and all discounted tickets abolished.

I simply don't believe that increasing child fares will either reduce any planend increase of adult fares, or increase revenue at all. It is far more likely that it will cost the industry as a whole money. Child rates and family tickets (railcards), like such innovations as Group tickets, are a comemrcial necessity in almost every service industry I can think of. I think you are starting off with a preconceived idea that is flawed and unsustainable - making chidren pay more will not increase revenue!

 

[northwichcat]

Children with 50% rate tickets sitting while an adult stands is about as fair as someone with a £10 Advance ticket sitting while someone with a £150 Anytime ticket stands. So we ar eback to the argument of whether only full fare tickets should ever be sold, and all discounted tickets abolished.

Not really. The £10 Advance ticket is valid on one specific train service and £10 tickets wouldn't normally be sold on a train that's expected to get very busy. The person paying £150 is free to travel on any train they want via any permitted route they want. On the other hand the child fare and adult fare have exactly the same restrictions but one costs 50% more than the other.

 

[SS4]

The current government is proposing large increases in fares to reduce how much the tax payer funds the railways, if there were bigger increases in the child leisure travel then it could slightly reduce how much the increase is for adult essential travel.

It is very dependent on how many children no longer decide to travel by train. The revenue from child fares is n * x/2 where n is the number of children and x the full adult fare.

Let's now say that a is the percentage of n that no longer travel by train (expressed as a decimal). The revenue is now n(1-a)*x.

If we set the two equations above equal we see that a = 0.5 = 50% which means, as you say, a loss of 50% will cause revenue to break even. I am acting under the assumption that fare evasion will not change.

Yet if 75% were to leave the railway then the revenue will be 0.25nx which equates to have the revenue currently obtained (0.5nx).

Should this happen and the railway lose revenue then it will either be relying more on the taxpayer or the full fare will have to rise possibly creating a vicious cycle for those who must travel by train.

As I said before I suggested a few different suggestions for discussion. In response to the suggestion of getting rid of child fares people quite a few people responded saying that will significantly reduce the number of children travelling so I thought it was worth pointing out how an up to 50% reduction in child travel would be advantageous if children paid adult fares.

That is true, the maths bears it out. I would like to see some kind of independent survey done before it is rolled out nationwide though simply to check how many would no longer travel by train (taking into account the bias such a question would no doubt incur)

Currently an 18 year old studying full time for A Levels with no job pays full fare while a 15 year old with a weekend job pays half fare.
Many would argue that's not fair. Also currently an adult can pay full fare to stand while a child can pay half fare to sit.

Which is why I'd like to see any child fares extended to those in full time further education (in much the same way students of any age can get the 16-25 railcard).
A child being able to sit rather than an adult is unfair but to state that the level you pay determines whether or not you get a seat would set a dangerous precedent IMO. Children today, railcard holders (including senior railcards perhaps?) tomorrow, advance ticket holders the day after and then those travelling off-peak.

A left wing view for fairness could be for child fares to be means tested. A child with rich parents pay full fare, while a child with unemployed parents gets free or significantly reduced fares. While a more right ring view of that would say that's not fair as the parents who have done well in their careers are being penalised.

Means testing would be nice yet it's not cheap to do. From working on means tested benefits it's a lot more complicated to process means-tested than non means-tested (OT - universal credit is going to be an administrative nightmare!). Perhaps if a child is eligible for free school meals then they are also eligible for free/reduced fares but done a term at a time in case their circumstances change, especially if the LEA issues the pass.
I am unashamedly left-wing although I don't like using the link between parental income and the child's benefit since there is no guarantee the child is getting anything off their parents. EMA was a good example - I know a few people who didn't get it but (they stated) they didn't get £30/week off their parents.

 

[Greenback]

Not really. The £10 Advance ticket is valid on one specific train service and £10 tickets wouldn't normally be sold on a train that's expected to get very busy. The person paying £150 is free to travel on any train they want via any permitted route they want. On the other hand the child fare and adult fare have exactly the same restrictions but one costs 50% more than the other.

Very cheap advance tickets are sold on traisn which are packed to capacity. I regularly travel to and from London on very cheap tickets with people standing between Swindon and London (and vv). I have also personally experienced this on services from Manchester to Cardiff, and on trains out of Cardiff and Swansea heaidng west. On occasions I have been unable to sit myself because of elderly people with Senior discounted Advance fares of about £9 between Romford and Tenby.

Maybe these passnegers should be forced to pay the same for their tickets as the people who have to stand? The argument is the same as with the one about child tickets.

Life is not fair, we can only do what we can to make it as fair as possible!

The fares system is far too complex for us armchair experts to state with any degree of certainty that increasing child fares will result in higher revenue overall. It is the same for the introduction of a national railcard. ATOC will not support this because they are far from certain that it will increase revenue. If the experts don't know or cannot predict what will happen, how can we?

My doubt that it will work as you think is primarily based on the fact that there has never been a serious proposal or sugegstion at any time to reduce or eliminate the level of child discounts. I am certain that it would have been put forward somewhere along the path of history since nationalisation.

As another suggestion on raising revenue to offset future price rises, what does everyone think about the introduction of charges for luggage, bicycles, and buggies?

 

[northwichcat]

Very cheap advance tickets are sold on traisn which are packed to capacity. I regularly travel to and from London on very cheap tickets with people standing between Swindon and London (and vv). I have also personally experienced this on services from Manchester to Cardiff, and on trains out of Cardiff and Swansea heaidng west. On occasions I have been unable to sit myself because of elderly people with Senior discounted Advance fares of about £9 between Romford and Tenby.

Well it must vary between operators then. If you try and get an Advance for what you know will be a very busy TPE or Virgin service 12 weeks in Advance you find there's a few for around £30 which are sold out within a day, whereas on the less busy ones there's some £9 Advances, then a couple of weeks later the cheapest ones become £16 and so on.

However, the point remains that Advance tickets are non-flexible and child tickets are a flexible as the equivalent adult fare.

As another suggestion on raising revenue to offset future price rises, what does everyone think about the introduction of charges for luggage, bicycles, and buggies?

OK Mr O'Leary. How about £1 to use the on board toilet and selling scratch cards to passengers as well and adverts posted all around the interior.

 

[Greenback]

Well it must vary between operators then. If you try and get an Advance for what you know will be a very busy TPE or Virgin service 12 weeks in Advance you find there's a few for around £30 which are sold out within a day, whereas on the less busy ones there's some £9 Advances, then a couple of weeks later the cheapest ones become £16 and so on.

However, the point remains that Advance tickets are non-flexible and child tickets are a flexible as the equivalent adult fare.

OK Mr O'Leary. How about £1 to use the on board toilet and selling scratch cards to passengers as well and adverts posted all around the interior.

I would support that!

I have enjoyed this discussion - it has made me think carefully about the issue of child fares which I must admit has never really exercised my mind very much over the years!

I think pretty much everything has been said now, but I can't resist pointing out my TPE £7 Advance from Scarborough to Leeds on a Saturday evening train that was absolutely jam packed with no spare standing room on leaving Scarborough. No doubt there were a few people who had paid more than me on that train, but didn't get a sit down!

 

[northwichcat]

The issue with charging for luggage would be that stations/trains do not have the equipment for measuring/weighing luggage like at Airports and there'll have to be some point where you define the difference between luggage and a schoolkid's backpack or a lady's handbag. You also have the issue of people using the train for shopping - so would you charge for someone with two Sainsburys bags?

 

[Greenback]

Obviously, the idea needs quite a bit of working out, but in principle I would advocate charging by size and quantity - anything that fits in the mostly underused overhead racks would be free, and passengers would also be entitled to one piece of luggage that doesn't fit into the overhead rack. Anything else would require an 'Accompanied Baggage ticket.

Also, anyone with an unfolded buggy or non folding bicycle should be required to pay a small sum for the convenience to themselves and the inconvenience to everyone else!