This document sets out proposals for an easier fares system as a  rst part of the industry’s submission to the Williams review in to the future structure of rail. We know our customers want change quickly however, so we want to work with government to begin the journey of improvement where possible now, starting with a review of the TSA^▸ (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.) and running a series of real-world trials over the next year. Commercial contracts would then need to be revised and agreed, starting a programme of reform which, with all parties working together, has the potential to be rolled out operator any operator across the network over the next 3-5 years.

The current system risks failing to protect customers. Rather, it distorts the market and undermines trust, to the extent that up to 35% of people are being put off travelling by train because they find it difficult to find the right fare.

No change is not an option. To do nothing is to fall behind, not stand still.

Unless we bring the system up to date with how people work and travel today, the railway is likely to become increasingly outmoded.  An overly rigid fares system will inhibit the  exibility of travel required in today’s economy.

For an industry which has been at the cutting edge of technology, and in earlier eras drove huge changes in behaviours, this would be a great tragedy; and yet, as we have demonstrated here, there is also a tantalising opportunity.
 
The incremental improvements to the system we have delivered within current constraints (as set out on page 28) are valuable, but with changes in regulation we can deliver far more. Working with government, passenger groups, retailers and others, we can create an up to date, easier to use system where customers have more control over when they travel and how much they pay, easing crowding at the busiest times of day and boosting the funding available for investment in the future railway.

We also believe that current ticketing reform projects in the pipeline could, with the aid of our fares proposals and the agreement of government and devolved authorities, quickly o er real bene t to customers and communities. This is particularly so with many of the planned smart ticketing schemes that could make a real diffrence to people’s lives, but only with the right fares structure in place.

These proposals show how this can be delivered, starting with the  rst stage, which is to work with the government to create a new set of regulations for the fares system as a whole, replacing the TSA. This does not require statutory change so could be done very quickly.

With these new regulations in place, the second stage would see commercial changes agreed with operators as part of changing the price regulation. This can ensure that the right products are developed for the right markets incrementally, with new pricing structures better able to re ect what people want to see from fares including fairness,  flexibility and a pay-for-what-you-need approach - allowing operators to be flexible in the face of shifting patterns of consumer behaviour.

The changes would need to be made on a contract-by-contract basis, with government weighing up the implications for each individual operator. The rail industry is committed to working with government to kick start this process. In addition, a series of real-world trials need to be set up in parallel with the Williams review process over the coming year that can showcase new types of fares and how they are sold, and this will require regulatory approval. These trials would demonstrate the bene ts to customers of reform while enabling further commercial modelling on a train operator by train operator basis, as a fundamental part of delivering a sustainable and successful new fares system.

Half of the industry’s revenue either  ows directly through to government or is within the scope of franchise renewals taking place in the next 12 months. With joint working, meaningful improvements can therefore be achieved quickly, supporting full reform rolling out across the network through the contracting process over the next 3-5 years. Other changes could be implemented through existing change processes in contracts. These reforms are capable of taking place under the current system, and under any new structures adopted by government and transport authorities as an output of the Williams review and are therefore complimentary to the on-going review.

The Rail Delivery Group, as the unified voice of the train operators and Network Rail, is arguing for reform not for the sake of change but for the pressing urgency of change. Reforming the system of fares is part of that journey, making fares simpler to understand, easier to buy, and always the best value-for- money. This document sets out our ideas for reform, backed by evidence, analysis, and popular opinion. With government, industry and others working together, we can move to a system which meets the needs of our customers and equips the railway for success now, and the generation to come.

Analysis

Tom Burridge, BBC transport correspondent

How to reform the railways is a contentious, some might say politically toxic subject right now. A broad Government-commissioned review into almost every aspect of the system is ongoing.

Our out-dated and mind-bogglingly complicated ticketing system is a prime candidate for change. The system is, in the eyes of many, inherently flawed.

How can an off-peak single sometimes cost a fraction less than a return? And how can it be that you get different prices for exactly the same journey and fare?

Technology is clearly a big part of the solution. But a tap-in, tap-out system which automatically ensures you the best fare for your journey is also partly about restoring trust. The t-word has become a precious commodity on the tracks of late, after a whole host of problems.

The underlying message from train companies today is that they are on the side of passengers. They want to shunt the government towards positive change.

More types of flexible fares is one thing, but cost and who pays will, as always, be almost every passenger's central concern.

To make the proposals 'revenue neutral', as the operators plan, cheaper fares would have to be off-set by more expensive ones. That is, unless the changes drive more people to travel by train, especially on more empty off-peak services.

The initial mood music from those representing passengers is broadly positive. But some fear there could be winners and losers.

Even with the support of Government, one industry source said real change might not arrive for another three to five years.

Peak rail fares could go under rail price shake-up

Traditional peak and off-peak rail fares face the axe under sweeping changes being proposed for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s train ticketing system.

The Rail Delivery Group (RDG^‡(resolve)), which represents train operators, wants to eliminate the "cliff edge" between when peak and off-peak tickets kick in.