On 18/12/2023 10:54, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2023 09:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ku9csfF8qeaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:00:31 on Sun, 17
>>> Dec 2023, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat,
>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>
>>>>>  GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the
>>>>> tech in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its
>>>>> simplified tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>  If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then
>>>>> the ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>
>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the
>>>> options for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets
>>>> (except for the independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of
>>>> course).  All the money now goes to government so there's really no
>>>> incentive element in ticket prices between one operator and another.
>>>> Or is there some problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>
>>> Indeed there is. Ticket prices are "what the market will stand", and
>>> people will pay *more* to get a posh InterCity style train, than an all
>>> shacks local service. So you might as well grab the money from the
>>> former, while retaining the patronage of the latter who simply don't
>>> have the funds to "travel posh".
>>
>> I sometimes pay a premium NOT to travel on a posh InterCity style train.
>>
>> Last time I went to Birmingham I could have paid less than to travel via
>> Bristol Parkway railway station and a voyager but I chose the more
>> expensive fare involving a BR Class 170 for the greater comfort.
>>
>
> The class 170 came years after the demise of BR. It was based on the class
> 168, as specified and ordered by Adrian Shooter of Chiltern. That was the
> first post-privatisation new train order. And the Chiltern 168s are still
> very nice trains.
>
I was referring to the BR class system not a non-existent BR produced train.

On 17/12/2023 23:11, Recliner wrote:
> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat, 16
>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>
>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>
>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>
>>> GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the tech
>>> in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its simplified
>>> tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>
>>> If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then the
>>> ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>
>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the options
>> for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets (except for the
>> independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of course). All the
>> money now goes to government so there's really no incentive element in
>> ticket prices between one operator and another. Or is there some
>> problem that I haven't thought of?
>
> They're a form of discount ticket. Taking them away will create only
> losers, but no winners, and would probably lose price-sensitive traffic.
>
> In a simplified system, basic ticket prices should be significantly lower,
> but with many of the complicated, restrictive discounts removed.
>
What I meant was, and should have explained better, was to keep the discounted tickets e.g. for specific off-peak periods, but make them available on all operators running trains in that period of time. This would not increase prices, and might slightly reduce it. It would certainly reduce the anguish that occurs when you have a operator-specific ticket and find that your nominated service is cancelled, but you can't transfer to another operator instead.

--
Clive Page

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2023 09:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ku9csfF8qeaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:00:31 on Sun, 17
>>>> Dec 2023, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat,
>>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>
>>>>>>  GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the
>>>>>> tech in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its
>>>>>> simplified tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>>  If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then
>>>>>> the ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the
>>>>> options for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets
>>>>> (except for the independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of
>>>>> course).  All the money now goes to government so there's really no
>>>>> incentive element in ticket prices between one operator and another.
>>>>> Or is there some problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed there is. Ticket prices are "what the market will stand", and
>>>> people will pay *more* to get a posh InterCity style train, than an all
>>>> shacks local service. So you might as well grab the money from the
>>>> former, while retaining the patronage of the latter who simply don't
>>>> have the funds to "travel posh".
>>>
>>> I sometimes pay a premium NOT to travel on a posh InterCity style train.
>>>
>>> Last time I went to Birmingham I could have paid less than to travel via
>>> Bristol Parkway railway station and a voyager but I chose the more
>>> expensive fare involving a BR Class 170 for the greater comfort.
>>>
>>
>> The class 170 came years after the demise of BR. It was based on the class
>> 168, as specified and ordered by Adrian Shooter of Chiltern. That was the
>> first post-privatisation new train order. And the Chiltern 168s are still
>> very nice trains.
>>
> I was referring to the BR class system not a non-existent BR produced train.

I assumed your use of the redundant 'BR' was a suggestion that BR-era stock
was more comfortable than post-privatisation stock.

On 18/12/2023 15:00, Clive Page wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 23:11, Recliner wrote:
>> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat, 16
>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>
>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>
>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>
>>>> GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the tech
>>>> in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its simplified
>>>> tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>
>>>> If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then the
>>>> ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>
>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the options
>>> for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets (except for
>>> the
>>> independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of course).  All the
>>> money now goes to government so there's really no incentive element in
>>> ticket prices between one operator and another.   Or

is there some
>>> problem that I haven't thought of?
>>
>> They're a form of discount ticket. Taking them away will create only
>> losers, but no winners, and would probably lose price-sensitive traffic.
>>
>> In a simplified system, basic ticket prices should be significantly
>> lower,
>> but with many of the complicated, restrictive discounts removed.
>>
> What I meant was, and should have explained better, was to keep the
> discounted tickets e.g. for specific off-peak periods, but make them
> available on all operators running trains in that period of time.  This
> would not increase prices, and might slightly reduce it. It would
> certainly reduce the anguish that occurs when you have a
> operator-specific ticket and find that your nominated service is
> cancelled, but you can't transfer to another operator instead.

I just dream of the compensation payable. lol

More surprisingly you'll be surprised how obliging the guards are if you
ask them nicely.

On 18/12/2023 16:55, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2023 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 18/12/2023 09:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ku9csfF8qeaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:00:31 on Sun, 17
>>>>> Dec 2023, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat,
>>>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the
>>>>>>> tech in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its
>>>>>>> simplified tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>>>  If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then
>>>>>>> the ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the
>>>>>> options for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets
>>>>>> (except for the independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of
>>>>>> course).  All the money now goes to government so there's really no
>>>>>> incentive element in ticket prices between one operator and another.
>>>>>> Or is there some problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed there is. Ticket prices are "what the market will stand", and
>>>>> people will pay *more* to get a posh InterCity style train, than an all
>>>>> shacks local service. So you might as well grab the money from the
>>>>> former, while retaining the patronage of the latter who simply don't
>>>>> have the funds to "travel posh".
>>>>
>>>> I sometimes pay a premium NOT to travel on a posh InterCity style train.
>>>>
>>>> Last time I went to Birmingham I could have paid less than to travel via
>>>> Bristol Parkway railway station and a voyager but I chose the more
>>>> expensive fare involving a BR Class 170 for the greater comfort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The class 170 came years after the demise of BR. It was based on the class
>>> 168, as specified and ordered by Adrian Shooter of Chiltern. That was the
>>> first post-privatisation new train order. And the Chiltern 168s are still
>>> very nice trains.
>>>
>> I was referring to the BR class system not a non-existent BR produced train.
>
> I assumed your use of the redundant 'BR' was a suggestion that BR-era stock
> was more comfortable than post-privatisation stock.
>
It's a suggestion I've made before and, in general, true. The fall was
pretty spectacular with the voyager and pendolino designs.

On 17/12/2023 23:00, Clive Page wrote:

> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the options
> for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets (except for
> the independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of course).  All
> the money now goes to government so there's really no incentive element
> in ticket prices between one operator and another.   Or is there some
> problem that I haven't thought of?

People willing to sit on a stopping train not wanting to pay
intercityprices. When TPTB said they were standardising fares on the
Brighton Line people soon realised that would mean no more cheap
Thameslink only tickets, and it never happened.

--
Arthur Figgis

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 23:11, Recliner wrote:
>>> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat, 16
>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>>
>>>>> GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the tech
>>>>> in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its simplified
>>>>> tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>
>>>>> If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then the
>>>>> ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>
>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the options
>>>> for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets (except for the
>>>> independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of course). All the
>>>> money now goes to government so there's really no incentive element in
>>>> ticket prices between one operator and another. Or is there some
>>>> problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>
>>> They're a form of discount ticket. Taking them away will create only
>>> losers, but no winners, and would probably lose price-sensitive traffic.
>>>
>>> In a simplified system, basic ticket prices should be significantly lower,
>>> but with many of the complicated, restrictive discounts removed.
>>>
>>
>> On the contrary, in a simplified system, basic ticket prices will be
>> inevitably higher.
>>
>
> Why?
>
> The whole idea of a simplified system is that basic ticket prices are
> lower, but the plethora of discounts disappears. That's the opposite of the
> current system, where basic walk-up, any-time tickets are mouth
>

Eye?

> wateringly
> expensive, but then there are various discounts available if they restrict
> their use to certain trains at certain times that make them affordable.
> Overall, the average paid will be roughly the same, but there will be many
> losers and winners.
>
>

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2023 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 18/12/2023 09:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ku9csfF8qeaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:00:31 on Sun, 17
>>>>> Dec 2023, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat,
>>>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the
>>>>>>> tech in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its
>>>>>>> simplified tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>>>  If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then
>>>>>>> the ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the
>>>>>> options for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets
>>>>>> (except for the independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of
>>>>>> course).  All the money now goes to government so there's really no
>>>>>> incentive element in ticket prices between one operator and another.
>>>>>> Or is there some problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed there is. Ticket prices are "what the market will stand", and
>>>>> people will pay *more* to get a posh InterCity style train, than an all
>>>>> shacks local service. So you might as well grab the money from the
>>>>> former, while retaining the patronage of the latter who simply don't
>>>>> have the funds to "travel posh".
>>>>
>>>> I sometimes pay a premium NOT to travel on a posh InterCity style train.
>>>>
>>>> Last time I went to Birmingham I could have paid less than to travel via
>>>> Bristol Parkway railway station and a voyager but I chose the more
>>>> expensive fare involving a BR Class 170 for the greater comfort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The class 170 came years after the demise of BR. It was based on the class
>>> 168, as specified and ordered by Adrian Shooter of Chiltern. That was the
>>> first post-privatisation new train order. And the Chiltern 168s are still
>>> very nice trains.
>>>
>> I was referring to the BR class system not a non-existent BR produced train.
>
> I assumed your use of the redundant 'BR' was a suggestion that BR-era stock
> was more comfortable than post-privatisation stock.
>
>

It's the style employed on Wikipedia pages about UK rolling stock.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 23:11, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat, 16
>>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the tech
>>>>>> in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its simplified
>>>>>> tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then the
>>>>>> ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the options
>>>>> for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets (except for the
>>>>> independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of course). All the
>>>>> money now goes to government so there's really no incentive element in
>>>>> ticket prices between one operator and another. Or is there some
>>>>> problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>>
>>>> They're a form of discount ticket. Taking them away will create only
>>>> losers, but no winners, and would probably lose price-sensitive traffic.
>>>>
>>>> In a simplified system, basic ticket prices should be significantly lower,
>>>> but with many of the complicated, restrictive discounts removed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary, in a simplified system, basic ticket prices will be
>>> inevitably higher.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> The whole idea of a simplified system is that basic ticket prices are
>> lower, but the plethora of discounts disappears. That's the opposite of the
>> current system, where basic walk-up, any-time tickets are mouth
>>
>
> Eye?

You're right!

I suppose they're mouth watering for whoever gets the revenue…

>
>> wateringly
>> expensive, but then there are various discounts available if they restrict
>> their use to certain trains at certain times that make them affordable.
>> Overall, the average paid will be roughly the same, but there will be many
>> losers and winners.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2023 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/12/2023 09:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ku9csfF8qeaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:00:31 on Sun, 17
>>>>>> Dec 2023, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 17/12/2023 13:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:03:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <WygfN.32629$ogWb.10745@fx14.ams1>, at 12:16:54 on Sat,
>>>>>>>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> More in The Times:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d637ef78-6b9c-406d-b91b-9cd88cc2bf7c
>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b39866a47efc4bd621a0e0e2277cf734>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "On Thursday the government said: We are confirming that we are not
>>>>>>>>> pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online
>>>>>>>>> rail ticket retailer."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So another nail in the Fat Controller's coffin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  GBR is aiming at simplified ticketing that might make much of the
>>>>>>>> tech in current ticketing apps redundant. So, rather
>>>>>>>> than replicate what Trainline does, it might be easier (and much
>>>>>>>> cheaper) for GBR to let the commercial ticketing apps
>>>>>>>> handle the current complex situation, while it works on its
>>>>>>>> simplified tickets (which, as we know, won't be easy, as any
>>>>>>>> simplification will create both winners and losers, and the latter
>>>>>>>> complain more loudly than the former rejoice).
>>>>>>>>  If it does manage to produce a workable new ticketing system, then
>>>>>>>> the ticketing app for them might be much simpler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely one thing that could be done immediately to simplify the
>>>>>>> options for passengers is to get rid of operator-specific tickets
>>>>>>> (except for the independent operations like Hull Trains and Lumo of
>>>>>>> course).  All the money now goes to government so there's really no
>>>>>>> incentive element in ticket prices between one operator and another.
>>>>>>> Or is there some problem that I haven't thought of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed there is. Ticket prices are "what the market will stand", and
>>>>>> people will pay *more* to get a posh InterCity style train, than an all
>>>>>> shacks local service. So you might as well grab the money from the
>>>>>> former, while retaining the patronage of the latter who simply don't
>>>>>> have the funds to "travel posh".
>>>>>
>>>>> I sometimes pay a premium NOT to travel on a posh InterCity style train.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I went to Birmingham I could have paid less than to travel via
>>>>> Bristol Parkway railway station and a voyager but I chose the more
>>>>> expensive fare involving a BR Class 170 for the greater comfort.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The class 170 came years after the demise of BR. It was based on the class
>>>> 168, as specified and ordered by Adrian Shooter of Chiltern. That was the
>>>> first post-privatisation new train order. And the Chiltern 168s are still
>>>> very nice trains.
>>>>
>>> I was referring to the BR class system not a non-existent BR produced train.
>>
>> I assumed your use of the redundant 'BR' was a suggestion that BR-era stock
>> was more comfortable than post-privatisation stock.
>>
>>
>
> It's the style employed on Wikipedia pages about UK rolling stock.

Indeed so, but seldom or never here (unless referring to actual BR stock).

On 16/12/2023 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <kqqpnidkuko85a0gkb5r7cidndiivtmhta@4ax.com>, at 16:17:16 on
> Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:14:11 +0000, ColinR
>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/12/2023 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>   <https://www.cityam.com/trainline-share-price-soars-after-government-
>>>> scraps-rival-ticket-app/>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Page Not Found"
>>
>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.
>
> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such a
> position is to be ignored.
>
> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the umpteenth
> time this year, let alone the last twenty years]

If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be able
to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in Thunderbird?

(I am just an ordinary user who finds Thunderbird relatively simple to
use, free to use, although not without occasional problems. There is
alternative free email software, but some seems over-complicated to me)

In message <ulrp8t$3vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:37 on Tue, 19 Dec
2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 16/12/2023 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kqqpnidkuko85a0gkb5r7cidndiivtmhta@4ax.com>, at 16:17:16
>>on Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:14:11 +0000, ColinR
>>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/12/2023 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>   <https://www.cityam.com/trainline-share-price-soars-after-government-
>>>>> scraps-rival-ticket-app/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Page Not Found"
>>>
>>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.
>> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such
>>a position is to be ignored.
>> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the
>>umpteenth time this year, let alone the last twenty years]
>
>If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be
>able to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in
>Thunderbird?

They already know, they just don't care.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ulrp8t$3vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:37 on Tue, 19 Dec
> 2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 16/12/2023 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <kqqpnidkuko85a0gkb5r7cidndiivtmhta@4ax.com>, at 16:17:16
>>> on Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:14:11 +0000, ColinR
>>>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/12/2023 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>   <https://www.cityam.com/trainline-share-price-soars-after-government-
>>>>>> scraps-rival-ticket-app/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Page Not Found"
>>>>
>>>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.
>>> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such
>>> a position is to be ignored.
>>> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the
>>> umpteenth time this year, let alone the last twenty years]
>>
>> If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be
>> able to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in
>> Thunderbird?
>
> They already know, they just don't care.
>

https://developer.thunderbird.net/thunderbird-development/fixing-a-bug

In message <uls37c$1pe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:44:29 on Tue, 19 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ulrp8t$3vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:37 on Tue, 19 Dec
>> 2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 16/12/2023 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <kqqpnidkuko85a0gkb5r7cidndiivtmhta@4ax.com>, at 16:17:16
>>>> on Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:14:11 +0000, ColinR
>>>>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/12/2023 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>   <https://www.cityam.com/trainline-share-price-soars-after-government-
>>>>>>> scraps-rival-ticket-app/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Page Not Found"
>>>>>
>>>>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.
>>>> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such
>>>> a position is to be ignored.
>>>> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the
>>>> umpteenth time this year, let alone the last twenty years]
>>>
>>> If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be
>>> able to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in
>>> Thunderbird?
>>
>> They already know, they just don't care.
>
>https://developer.thunderbird.net/thunderbird-development/fixing-a-bug

If they haven't fixed it yet, they just don't care.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uls37c$1pe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:44:29 on Tue, 19 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ulrp8t$3vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:37 on Tue, 19 Dec
>>> 2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 16/12/2023 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <kqqpnidkuko85a0gkb5r7cidndiivtmhta@4ax.com>, at 16:17:16
>>>>> on Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:14:11 +0000, ColinR
>>>>>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/12/2023 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>   <https://www.cityam.com/trainline-share-price-soars-after-government-
>>>>>>>> scraps-rival-ticket-app/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Page Not Found"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.
>>>>> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such
>>>>> a position is to be ignored.
>>>>> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the
>>>>> umpteenth time this year, let alone the last twenty years]
>>>>
>>>> If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be
>>>> able to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in
>>>> Thunderbird?
>>>
>>> They already know, they just don't care.
>>
>> https://developer.thunderbird.net/thunderbird-development/fixing-a-bug
>
> If they haven't fixed it yet, they just don't care.

The link is a hint to those that complain…..

In message <ulshm1$4dd2$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:13 on Tue, 19 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uls37c$1pe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:44:29 on Tue, 19 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ulrp8t$3vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:37 on Tue, 19 Dec
>>>> 2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 16/12/2023 09:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <kqqpnidkuko85a0gkb5r7cidndiivtmhta@4ax.com>, at 16:17:16
>>>>>> on Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:14:11 +0000, ColinR
>>>>>>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15/12/2023 16:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>><https://www.cityam.com/trainline-share-price-soars-after-govern
>>>>>>>>>ment- scraps-rival-ticket-app/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Page Not Found"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.
>>>>>> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such
>>>>>> a position is to be ignored.
>>>>>> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the
>>>>>> umpteenth time this year, let alone the last twenty years]
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be
>>>>> able to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in
>>>>> Thunderbird?
>>>>
>>>> They already know, they just don't care.
>>>
>>> https://developer.thunderbird.net/thunderbird-development/fixing-a-bug
>>
>> If they haven't fixed it yet, they just don't care.
>
>The link is a hint to those that complain..

As I'm not a direct *user*, the link doesn't really apply to me. I'm
simply trying to be helpful to people who *are* users, but they don't
appear to embrace that concept.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ulrp8t$3vs$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:37 on Tue, 19 Dec
2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> One must edit the eerily Ely space inserted by our SFP.

>> No space in the original, and even if there was, white space in such
>>a position is to be ignored.

>> [I can't believe we are having this discussion again for the
>>umpteenth time this year, let alone the last twenty years]
>
>If you ever get some spare time, as a computer expert, would you be
>able to advise the Mozilla team on how to eliminate the flaw in
>Thunderbird?

I could send them the RFC which tells them what to do (and I've posted
it here umpteen times anyway). But it's almost inconceivable they don't
already have access to a copy.
--
Roland Perry