Memorandum from Trainline.com Ltd (TPT
18)
ABOUT THE
TRAINLINE
1. The Trainline is the UK's leading rail
ticket retailer and information provider. We currently sell just
over six per cent of the UK's surface train tickets by number
of journeys, through a dedicated website and call centres and
an associated fulfilment/distribution function.
2. The company was founded in 1997, initially
as an online sales mechanism for Virgin Trains, but since 2002
has been independently owned by private investors and has no preferential
relationship with any of the UK's Train Operating Companies (TOCs).
3. In addition to its branded website at
www.thetrainline.com, the company works with the majority of Train
Operating Companies (TOCs) to provide the IT infrastructure for
their online ticketing services, and also provides ticketing direct
to a number of large companies, public sector organisations and
service providers in the travel sector (eg Barclays, BT, the MoD
and Carlson Wagonlit Travel).
4. The Trainline also provides a number
of Oyster Cards to our business customers in London and welcomes
the recent news that TOCs have agreed to work with Transport for
London to roll out Oyster across the London rail networks.
5. We are at the forefront of the market
in delivery of new methods of ticketing and are engaged in the
development of new technology to improve customer experience and
reduce TOC costs in this respect. For example, we are currently
developing "airline-style" ticketing in collaboration
with Virgin Trains and supports calls for increased simplicity.
In addition, we are currently developing innovations along the
lines of "smart ticketing"—including use of mobile
technology, smartcards and print at home e-tickets.
6. As a specialist ticketing provider, our
response to this inquiry focuses on questions 1 to 5 regarding
ticketing arrangements.
INTEGRATED TICKETING
Is ticketing sufficiently integrated across different
modes of transport and between different geographical areas?
7. No. The modal ticketing systems in the
UK do not generally work well together when compared with those
in other European countries. Diverse ticket fulfillment methods
and the lack of data lie behind poor integration across modes,
a situation exacerbated by the optional nature of integrated ticketing
between modes in the UK.
8. Universally accepted methods of ticket
fulfillment, data and a legal requirement to be part of an Integrated
Fares Management System are the primary requirements for large-scale
adoption of integrated ticketing in the UK.
Does the Government have an adequate strategy
for developing the integration of ticketing systems?
9. The Trainline has concerns about the
adequacy of the Government's strategy for improving the degree
of integration. Experience around the world indicates that for
integrated ticketing to be used extensively by the travelling
public, both the tickets and related information must be widely
available for the different modes concerned. This requires an
open approach to the availability of data, which is a pre-requisite
to the wider adoption of integrated ticketing. The take-up of
integrated ticketing in the UK could therefore be enhanced if
the licensing of public transport services were to go hand in
hand with an obligation to make timetable, routing and fares information
available directly to the public and indirectly though other carriers
and ticket retailers in the transport industry. The provision
of timetable and ticketing information should be mandated to be
in the standardised formats already agreed by the transport industry
according to ISO/FDIS 24014-1 (international Standard for Public
Transport Interoperable Fare Management Systems).
10. Interoperable fare management systems
can exist co-operatively together—but a Common Requirement
Specification for Interoperability (CRSI) is needed for them to
collectively operate in an integrated manner. DfT should tender
for and implement such a CRSI (compliant with ISO 24014) and pump-prime
an independent cross-transport organisation to have responsibility
for this activity which would have the necessary integrated transport
vision. Combining this organisation with ITSO (Integrated Transport
Smartcard Organisation) would have the added benefits of being
able to manage the security necessary for smartcard fulfillment,
which is likely to be the universally accepted fulfillment method
for transport tickets across multiple modes.
THE USE
OF SMARTCARD
TECHNOLOGIES
Is the industry taking up modern smartcard technologies
adequately and appropriately?
11. The adoption of the Integrated Transport
Smartcard Organisation (ITSO) specification by the DfT for public
transport operators in the UK is very much to be welcomed, since
it is an internationally recognised open specification which allows
the implementation of Integrated Fares Management systems and
the common acceptance of smartcard fulfilment across multiple
modes.
12. It is also appropriate that the DfT
is seeking to implement convergence with the earlier Oyster system
and conversion of other proprietary systems in English cities.
These actions considerably increase the likelihood of successful
integrated transport provision in the UK in the next decade and
encourage retailers and product owners to participate in multi-mode
integrated ticketing. Our view is that, from a technical implementation
perspective, two years represents a realistic time frame for ITSO
convergence with the London Oyster scheme, and that both organisations
should be encouraged by Government to deliver this desirable objective.
13. In the rail industry, a relatively rapid
adoption of season tickets on smartcards could have a significant
impact on ticket office and self-service transactions at stations,
which has to be balanced against the benefit to customers. The
introduction of multi-journey and other new products will also
have an impact on station transaction volumes. It is likely that
the use of smartcards will also be encouraged by the use of loyalty-type
features offered to cardholders.
14. The consequences of the reductions in
transaction volumes by up to 60% at stations should be addressed
in policy terms by the DfT in order not to delay smartcard adoption
by existing rail franchisees. The DfT should also consider the
effect of current regulations and agreements on the take-up of
innovative customer-service options so that regulatory concerns
do not slow smartcard adoption. For example, customers will be
less likely to purchase tickets at stations, even though station
queuing times often represent franchise commitments. Related franchise
terms may therefore need to be altered to take this into account.
Does the ITSO system cater for the needs of all
passengers and travel providers?
15. Yes. It is our opinion that, with the
notable exception of Oyster within the Transport for London area
(examined above) the ITSO specification covers all existing UK
transport tickets and also allows the creation of new, innovative
products. It is, however, essential that ITSO remains independent
of product owners and transport operators.
What can be learned from the experiences of areas
such as London and Scotland where smartcard technology is already
in place?
16. Oyster "Pay as you go", together
with zonal pricing, are attractive to passengers in London and
the desire from passengers to extend these features to London
rail services and beyond would indicate that similar products
using ITSO Stored Travel Rights and Charge To Account will be
equally popular. This in itself could lead to a major simplification
of rail ticketing products over a relatively short period of time
following the introduction of smartcards.
17. A growth in demand-managed fare products
is likely to happen hand in hand with product simplification.
Adequate measures to protect passengers from unintentionally large
changes in fares through the combined effects of product simplification
and demand-management should be considered by DfT.
18. It is also clear from both the London
scheme and the Scottish scheme that the infrastructure cost and
project complexity for implementing smartcard readers is a significant
concern for transport operators and is a one-time expenditure
which does not fit easily into current franchise and carrier contractual
arrangements. DfT should provide a lead in establishing a financing
mechanism for this capital investment that allows it to be managed
away from the balance sheets of the transport operators through
a facility independent of both government and operator.
19. The changes to distribution strategy
brought about by the introduction of smartcards elsewhere has
generally resulted in improved customer perception of the transport
network and increased patronage. It is recommended that DfT undertake
further studies on the likelihood and consequences of a relatively
rapid step-change in passenger volumes.
CONCLUSIONS
20. We believe that improving ticketing
arrangements across all modes of public transport in the UK plays
a vital role in encouraging take up of public transport, particularly
multi modal use—as well as making the best use of the capacity
available. These are important goals and objectives if the UK
is to reduce its dependency on road use and motoring.
21. To ensure that a more joined up ticketing
system is rolled out in the UK, the Government needs to have a
much clearer strategy in place—and then ensure that it maximises
opportunities such as franchise negotiations to challenge transport
operators to improve and upgrade ticketing arrangements and systems.
22. The Government also needs to review
its approach to the availability of data. This is a key issue
and we suggest that the licensing of public transport services
should also include obligations that make timetable, routing and
fares information directly available to the public and indirectly
available though other carriers and ticket retailers in the transport
industry.
23. We would be happy to explain our views
in more detail should the committee wish.
March 2007
| 
