…
There was a huge queue of people switching on their phones or switching off airplane mode. Those of us with paper certificates just breezed past all those trying to find theirs on their phones.
Martin C
The opposite case is more common: phone-waving and contactless gets one through turnstiles or on to buses much faster than messing with cash or paper. Even though I am one, getting stuck in a queue of old-fashioned customers is very frustrating. They’re so slow!
My pet-gripe with the railways is the overwhelming complexity of the ticket system. When I first travelled by train, tickets were bought at the station, and pretty much cost what they cost. All rather simple and predictable. Unfortunately buying a straightforward ticket at the station is now the second most expensive way of buying a ticket, the worst being buying one on the train itself. On the train, tickets are absolute top-price. Now there are many alternatives.
So the customer has to play shops, looking for cheaper opportunities, of which there are many, many fly-by-night possibilities. Off-peak is fair enough, but also necessary to search for offers made by the various different operators who may or may not be after your money, in advance, or on the day, depending on how the wind blows.
Considerable research is necessary: for example, travelling from Bristol to London, rather than buying a through ticket, it may be markedly cheaper to buy a ticket from Bristol to Reading, and another from Reading to Paddington. Stay on the train. None of this is intuitive, and could be the other way round. Recently, the cheapest way to travel first-class from Bristol to Paddington was to buy a through ticket from Bristol to Brussels, and not catch the Eurostar train. Some people enjoy the challenge: personally, I like to keep it simple, and would much prefer a ticket system that didn’t waste my time.
These complicated opportunities have spawned a number of services whereby a website gets a cut for doing a basic automated search on behalf of baffled customers. Their profits must add to travel costs.
Root cause I suggest was a botched privatisation. In theory, competition forces providers to deliver cheaper services by finding efficiencies, and it can work. In this case the way competition was created by putting boundaries between railway services fostered complexity, train travel hasn’t improved, and failed commercial providers still have to be rescued by the taxpayer.
Nationalisation isn’t a simple answer because that introduces a bunch of other problems. Either way, the secret of success is getting the details right. Political and economic ideas have to be backed up by competent delivery, which is hard. In short, political ideas imposed on complex systems are doomed to fail unless some form of practical delivery can be engineered. That requires continuity and expertise that politicians rarely have, though they often talk a good show.
Sooner or later the government will have to have another go at the railways; fingers crossed, results will be better next time.
Dave