Initial pros and cons of Christian’s Basic Fare

In his column in RAIL 959, Christian Wolmar put forward his ideas for a ‘basic fare’ and asked if I would give my opinions.

His proposals have merit: take today’s Off-Peak Returns and halve them to create a basic single, then add a supplement for peak trains, First Class, and so on.

I certainly agree that all fares should be singles half of today’s OP or Super OP Returns - for the majority of journeys. But if you add a supplement for peak fares, is that different from having a peak single, as now?

Christian also suggests supplements for ‘faster’ trains and even reductions for slower ones, but how would that be measured?

Take the East Coast Main Line: do you charge more on a Scottish train just because it omits a few stops? Come to that, currently the cheapest trains are Lumo trains that only call at Newcastle and Morpeth, so they could end up being the dearest!

I don’t think fares should go back to being mileage-based. Travelling for 100 miles on a highquality train (assuming there are any!) at 125mph should surely cost more than 100 miles on a basic all-stations Class 150 on a slow cross-country route. Mileage-based fares last existed in 1969, so it’s something BR got right early on.

Assuming the industry is ever allowed to get on with fares reform (and I’m beginning to doubt the Treasury will permit it, because they don’t appear to understand the economics), I feel that three singles would cover every journey: Peak, Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak.

If only timetables could be colour-coded to show which are which, it would really simplify it although many trains start peak and become off-peak later, so it could be complicated.

However, if the industry gets away with not printing timetables, how many people would see that?