Flexible rail season ticket proposals come under fire

Proposed flexible season tickets will not reduce costs enough to get commuters back to the office, campaigners and industry experts have warned.

The French-style “carnet" tickets being discussed by ministers are too expensive for the new age of flexible working and are likely to fall flat, critics said.

Commuters travelling in for three days a week on major routes would pay more than for a normal monthly season ticket under the plans.

Conservative MP Paul Maynard, a former rail minister, said: "An Oyster-style pay as you go option is needed as commuters work more flexibly. It is all rather frustrating and a sign of an industry which can't pull together in face of crisis."

On Thursday The Telegraph revealed that ministers and rail chiefs were putting the finishing touches to flexible rail season tickets ahead of a June launch.

Passengers will be able to complete five return journeys in any month at a discount of 15pc to peak fares if the proposals go ahead.

A worker who wanted to attend the office for one day a week could buy a ticket that would give them five days of travel over the course of a month at a 15pc discount. If they wanted to travel two or three days a week, they would have to buy more tickets.

However, the cost of a three-day-a-week journey would be more expensive than buying a normal season ticket on major routes, meaning the appeal of the scheme is likely to be limited.

David Sidebottom, director of independent watchdog Transport Focus, said: “This type of carnet offer isn’t a catch-all incentive. It would provide a better deal for those commuting two days a week, but it’s not suited to three-day-a-week commuters. Those passengers need to be incentivised through wider fares reform that matches how more people want to travel in future.”

With many Britons now planning to change their working habits once coronavirus restrictions are relaxed, ministers have been considering the financial implications of introducing a flexible rail season ticket to entice them back onto the railways and ensure that the country does not suffer from a car-led recovery.

It is understood that more generously discounted alternative systems were vetoed by the Treasury over concerns they would cost too much.