Originally Posted by
europegrad
Other forumers pointed, already, at the real problems: overcrowding, bizarre franchise designs, and pure train overcrowd on a low-tech network with many outdated signaling and so.
You don't know the UK network very well, then. The franchise system is a bit bizarre, but we do have such things as full interavailable ticketing that many European countries are moving away from - that's one of the things that was secured by franchising. And in many cases all that is required to solve the capacity problem is extra rolling stock, which because the UK has, for historical reasons, a small loading gauge, can't just be bought off the shelf or second hand from the rest of Europe as Nederlandse Spoorwegen has done with the German Bm235 coaches.
However, I would leave the flexible pricing out of the complaints. It is here to stay.
...because the TOCs like it, because it absolves them of the need to provide enough capacity when it is required. But that is *essential* to compete with the car. The reason airlines can get away with it is that for most air journeys they have little realistic competition, so we have to put up with it.
FWIW, easyJet offer some limited railway-style flexibility - you can turn up early for a flight home and be put on an earlier flight for free. I really like this, and it helps them by getting people out of the way on an earlier flight, freeing up a seat that might be sold on the later one. This is an extremely useful feature offered by few or no other European airlines, and I've used it a number of times.
People who buy tickets at the last moment could pay more because they are either lazy not to plan in advance (and if given the proper incentives, they will)
I take exception to that. Why am I lazy because I wish to travel when I wish? I can do that by foot, with my car or on my bicycle. If public transport wishes to compete with those modes, it must also offer that. If it doesn't, it will lose the battle against the car.
Airline pricing has been operating this way for 35 years and the system is just fine
Airlines are different from trains in one very key way - it is not safe to crush-load an airliner (or indeed to have standing passengers in any form). That means you can't deal with demand flexibility by having passengers stand. With trains you can. Thus providing for that demand isn't necessarily as expensive as it is with air.
Same thing should go for rail: if one can be careful enough to plan a Manchester-Euston jorney 2 weeks in advance, why shouldn't they get a better deal than the one who shower up 10 min before train departure?
Or to look at it differently - why *should* they? They are taking up the same amount of space on the train.
Most of this whining about "expensive walk-on fares" comes from costumer who feel spoiled that they didn't put any effort in searching for better fares and are paying 40, 70, 120% more than the person sit next to him
FWIW, I am happy with the current level of railway Off-Peak walk-up fares in the UK. If they were abolished, leaving Anytime fares as the only walk-up fare, my rail travel would reduce to near nil. My car doesn't require me to "put in any effort searching for better fares", nor should it do. I get in, start the engine and drive where I wish. If public transport will not offer fares that give me that flexibility at the same sort of price, I will not use public transport.
I bet if forums such as this existed in the 1970's, we'd have had tons of complains from airline costumers that "airfares should be simple, and you shouldn't be fined or charged just because you want to change plans and travel to Dublin on the 17h flight instead of the 18h30 one.
Air fares could be simpler - and they are on the low-costs though in a different way. But as I said, if you were booked on the 1830 easyJet flight to Dublin (assuming they fly there), and turned up at the airport in time for the 1700, and there were seats, you could change plans and travel on the 1700 without charge. Not even an admin fee. So clearly someone thinks there is value in it.
There are people that seems to want a national rail network that operates like a subway: no reservation, fixed fares, at most off-peak/peak strucutres
That is certainly, to me, a sensible way of operating a rail network intended mostly for short/medium-distance travel at very high frequencies. London-Manchester is a good example - it has almost "subway-like" frequencies - so why not ticketing? Where are those book-in-advance deals on Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or the yield management on SBB in Switzerland? Er, they aren't there, or are there in very small numbers. That's because that sort of network doesn't suit the concept.
and some, in 2011, think that is "a problem" that most fares cannot be bought on-board. Geez, in an era of Internet and automated ticket machines, selling tickets on-board is as outdated as steam locomotives - or should be -.
I read your post as saying "it's a bit inconvenient for the operator to sell tickets on board". That's not justifying what you're saying. I think that where there is no working ticket machine at the station buying on board is justified (and in the UK that is the case). I can see a justification for a small fee for buying on board. But not the "fine"[1] charged for doing so on London-Manchester, the level of which is outrageous.
[1] In a Ryanair sense - an inflated fare (if travelling off-peak). If travelling in the peak, you would be sold the normal fare with no additional charge. Is that sensible?
Neil