Select Committee on Transport Sixth Report


3  The complexity of rail fares

The framework for train fares

27. Some 22 Train Operating Companies (TOCs) hold rail franchises in England.[27] Train operators enter into franchise agreements with the Department for Transport (DfT)[28], and every agreement requires the train operator to participate in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA). The TSA stipulates how fares for journeys involving several operators are set and distributed between them, as well as ensuring that through-ticketing continues to exist at a nationwide level.[29] Franchise agreements also require TOCs to participate in the National Rail Enquiries Service and in National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Under the current system, some fares are regulated whilst others are set at the full commercial discretion of train operating companies. Standard open, Apex and Advance booking fares are generally unregulated.

Unregulated fares

28. The range of ticket types, names and prices has increased greatly since privatisation, and many witnesses agreed that there is an almost impenetrable jungle of different fares, restrictions and price levels. Passenger Focus explained that "so complex is the fare structure that the current National Fares Manual (No. 91) valid from September 2005, lists over 70 fare types, governed by 760 validity conditions, on 102 A4-sized pages."[30] The Railway Consultancy pinpointed the two key areas of unnecessary complication in the current system as firstly, "the use of differing names for the same product" by different companies, and secondly, "the use of differing (e.g. time-of-travel) conditions applied to equivalent products."[31]

29. Depending on the company operating a particular route, advance purchase fares might be called for example "Apex, SuperAdvance, 3-day Advance, Value Advance, 7-day Advance, Flexi Return, Senior, 2-Some or 4-Sight".[32] If passengers buy their ticket on the day of travel, they could choose a Cheap Day Single or Return or a Saver Single or return - these sometimes have restrictions of travel, sometimes not. Alternatively they might opt for an Open Single or Return, a Standard Day Single or Return, or on a few routes, the Supersaver single or return.[33] And then of course there are First Class fares.

30. Mr Derwent provided the Committee with an example of how, when he travels from Brighton to Evesham return in one day with his Senior Railcard, specifying the exact trains he wishes to travel on, he is faced with a choice of eleven different fares ranging in price from £24.30 to £92.80 - and that excludes the First Class options! He has the choice of two different Cheap Day Returns, three different Standard Day Returns, three Saver Return options, and three different Standard Open Return options, all with different conditions, restrictions and prices.[34]

31. The current complexity of unregulated fares and conditions is an insult to the passenger. It is unacceptable that in order to purchase a rail ticket passengers are faced with up to a dozen different products, most of which have subtly different conditions and restrictions. Adding to the insult, operators not only market an unwieldy range of slightly different products, but in some cases, identical products are marketed under different names. The fact that this situation has been allowed to develop unchecked over a number of years demonstrates a lack of commitment from both train operating companies and the Government to the best interests of rail passengers.

CREATING A USER-FRIENDLY STRUCTURE

32. Evidence submitted to the Committee's inquiry broadly agreed that a reduction in the number of fares as well as a simplification and harmonisation of conditions and restrictions is required. Mr Harris, Director of the Railway Consultancy proposed that:

33. Whether there is scope for five or even fewer different types of tickets in standard class should depend on a careful analysis of the market, but as Passenger Focus pointed out, it is essential that a reduction in the number of types of fares is accompanied by a rationalisation: "into an immediately recognisable and understandable family hierarchy, with common nomenclature, validity and conditions, across all train operators."[36]

34. Train operators must take urgent action to implement a unified fares structure across the entire industry. This should involve no more than a handful of different fares, and names and restrictions should be identical across the network making the system user-friendly and transparent for passengers.

INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE PROBLEM OF FARES COMPLEXITY

35. The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) recognised that there is a problem of complexity, but considered that this problem primarily concerns long distance operators,[37] where fares are largely unregulated. Virgin Trains told the Committee that the industry as a whole had concluded already in 2000 that ticket systems were too complicated, but that the existing "ropey set of old [reservations] systems" was unable to cope with the burden. As of December 2004, the new National Reservation System has come into use, and Virgin maintained that this system is now enabling operators to simplify the fares structure.[38]

36. Both Virgin and GNER said they are taking steps to simplify and coordinate their range of fares and conditions.[39] Mr Leech from Virgin trains outlined how the new system will have:

    "only three types of fare: there is the Open fare which is fully flexible; there is the Saver fare which is for walk-up travel at off-peak times; and then there are the advance fares. We believe that that simple concept of three types of fare is something that customers can understand and indeed we are now developing our communication and our website to present fares in that simple way."[40]

Virgin Trains expect to have a new and more user-friendly web-site up and running in the spring of 2006 whilst GNER expect their new site to be operational by mid-2007.

37. It is commendable that some in the industry now appear to have seen the error of their ways and are taking steps to reduce the complexity and inconsistencies of rail fares and conditions. It would appear, however, that the 'new' fares structure being 'developed' by some operators is almost identical to the structure they inherited from British Rail, namely with three basic types of fares: Open, Saver, and Apex. In other words, it has taken a decade of complexity to reach the conclusion that the simplicity of the starting point was sound. This does not inspire confidence in train operators or the regulatory framework of the industry.

38. The Committee is not sanguine about the industry's capacity to create a uniform, coherent, and successful system of fares and conditions without Government regulation. The assertion by some train operating companies that the current level of complexity is caused by the old reservations systems being incapable of handling a simple fares structure is not credible. Under British Rail, the system was capable of managing a simple fares structure, but that is apparently no longer so. We believe that the level of complexity arises from a different cause entirely. In our view, it is inherent in the privatised and fragmented industry that different operators will wish to apply different conditions and restrictions which optimise the commercial advantage of their individual franchise. Where no regulation is applied, such commercial considerations will invariably win out over considerations of consistency and ease of use for the customer. The experience of the past decade gives us no reason to think otherwise. Government regulation is required to ensure that all train operating companies adhere to one simplified fares system so that passengers can travel with easily identifiable fares across the entire network.

REDUCING COMPLEXITY THROUGH REGULATION

39. Given our conviction that the complexity of the fares structure is an inevitable by-product of the industry being managed to maximise turnover and profit rather than public benefit, it follows that the only effective means of combating fares complexity is to use regulation to impose limitations on the freedom of operators to deviate from a simple and easy-to-understand fares structure. However, the Department for Transport has expressed concerns that such regulation might reduce innovation:

40. We do not accept the view that a Government-imposed harmonisation of fares categories and conditions would unduly reduce the scope for innovation. There is not a shred of evidence to imply that a clear, comprehensible and transparent framework of ticket names and conditions will reduce the scope for product innovation, as is suggested by the Department. Rather, such a framework would serve to improve customer satisfaction. It is imperative that the Government take steps to enforce a degree of harmonisation of ticket names and conditions on all operators.

Regulated fares

41. Saver fares and most commuter fares are subject to regulation by the Department for Transport which assumed responsibility for fares regulation in July 2005 following the winding up of the Strategic Rail Authority.[42] Regulated fares make up between 40% and 50% of fares depending on the method of calculation.[43]

The nature of regulation

42. The basis for regulation is the market position of rail in relation to other forms of transport in a particular area. If rail has a dominant position, regulation can be imposed, but if there is adequate competition from other transport modes, train operators are left to set fares freely.[44] The Secretary of State has "an obligation to ensure that where it appears necessary, fares or certain classes of fare are 'reasonable' in all circumstances of the case."[45] This obligation has resulted in two broad types of fares regulation, 'Commuter Fares regulation' and 'Protected Fares regulation'.[46] Fares are regulated through a 'fares basket', where a limit or 'cap' is applied to a weighted average of the relevant fares on each train operator. The system of fares regulation as a whole was reviewed in 2003.[47]

The impact of regulation on complexity

43. Regulated fares have not been characterized by the same multiplication of different products with different names and different conditions and restrictions. The fact that prices are regulated means that there is less reason and scope for train operating companies to create different products to appeal to different groups of passengers. That said, train operating companies have increased restrictions on the use of Savers in recent years, limiting the times of day when these fares are valid.[48] We believe that the greater stability and clarity of fares' names as well as the restrictions and conditions of travel for regulated fares such as commuter fares and Saver fares is an illustration of the potential benefit of a tighter regulatory framework for rail fares in general.


27   Following privatisation of British Rail in the mid-1990s, the number of train operating franchises across the network has varied slightly. The figure of 22 excludes the Scotrail franchise because this was transferred to the Scottish Executive, whilst. Merseyrail has been transferred to Merseytravel. Heathrow Express and Eurostar are also excluded from this figure because these are not franchises agreed by the Department of Transport or its predecessors in awarding franchises, the SRA and OPRAF. However, Scotrail and Merseyrail have similar fare regulation regimes to the other 22 TOCs (in Merseyrail's case this similarity extends to those other TOCs that operate in PTE areas). By contrast, Heathrow Express and Eurostar fares are largely unregulated. The Department of Transport has announced that the number of franchises will be reduced to 19 with further possible reductions as and when franchises come up for renewal (see Department for Transport Annual Report 2005, para 4.21). For a list of franchises and operators, please consult Annex 1. Back

28   The Department for Transport took over responsibility for franchise agreements from the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) at the end of July 2005. The SRA is now being wound up. Back

29   Strategic Rail Authority: Fares Review Conclusions 2003: Britain's Railway Properly Delivered, Annex B.  Back

30   Ev 54 Back

31   Ev 146 Back

32   Ev 54 Back

33   National Rail Enquiries (Ticket Types section: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk  Back

34   Ev 151 Back

35   Ev 146 Back

36   Ev 54 Back

37   Q 179 Mr Mapp, ATOC. Back

38   Q 183 Mr Leech, Virgin Trains. Back

39   Qs 179-180, Mr Leech, Virgin Trains; Q 181 Mr Garnett, GNER. Back

40   Q 180 Mr Leech, Virgin Trains. In a letter from Virgin Trains dated 7 April 2006, (Ev 176) Virgin Trains updated us on progress with their new systems. They emphasised that they had seen a 26% increase in the number of Advance Purchase tickets sold following the changes, and that their yield per seat had been reduced by 2%. Back

41   Ev 125 Back

42   See: http://www.dft.gov.uk .  Back

43   In 2003, the Strategic Rail Authority estimated that just over 40% of the annual £3.6 billion fares revenue came from regulated fares." SOURCE: Strategic Rail Authority: How are Fares Regulated? http://www.sra.gov.uk/qa/fares However, The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) now estimates that "around 49% of rail fares by value of sale and 52% by volume are subject to some form of regulation or other." SOURCE: TF 14 ATOC section 3 Back

44   Fares are regulated in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester. Other cities, for example Birmingham and Glasgow are not regulated by the DfT because fares are set by a PTE, a Passenger Transport Executive. Back

45   Ev 124 Back

46   Strategic Rail Authority: How are Fares Regulated? http://www.sra.gov.uk/qa/fares  Back

47   With effect from January 2004, the cap on each operator's Commuter Fares basket and Protected Fares basket has been fixed at the 2002/3 value of each basket, increased by the Retail Price Index plus one percent (RPI+1%) year on year. Protected fares are thus allowed to increase in real terms by one percent on average each year. Train operators can adjust different fares within their basket by different margins as long as the average increase for the entire basket conforms with the 'cap,' and as long as no one fare is increased by more than six per cent above the rate of inflation in any one year. See Strategic Rail Authority: Fares Review Conclusions 2003: Britain's Railway Properly Delivered. Back

48   Ev 55; Ev 148 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 19 May 2006