TOCs not releasing cheap Advance tickets

[745appreciator]

After SWR's attempt to increase Winchester-London fares by stealth – thankfully mostly thwarted by the excellent Paul Clifton – I've noticed that my regular Oxford to London Paddington (and back) Advance singles have more than doubled in price recently. I always book far in advance and usually got the £3.95 Railcard Advance single advertised on BR Fares here. But now there are no Advance singles available at any point in the future on this route for less than £8.55, and even those are hard to find.

My question is what scope do TOCs have to refuse to make Advance tickets available at lower price points without notice? I know these fares are 'unregulated', but in the era of DfT micromanagement does this still exist, or is there a DfT programme of jacking up Advance fares through the back door?

 

[swt_passenger]

After SWR's attempt to increase Winchester-London fares by stealth – thankfully mostly thwarted by the excellent Paul Clifton – I've noticed that my regular Oxford to London Paddington (and back) Advance singles have more than doubled in price recently. I always book far in advance and usually got the £3.95 Railcard Advance single advertised on BR Fares here. But now there are no Advance singles available at any point in the future on this route for less than £8.55, and even those are hard to find.

My question is what scope do TOCs have to refuse to make Advance tickets available at lower price points without notice? I know these fares are 'unregulated', but in the era of DfT micromanagement does this still exist, or is there a DfT programme of jacking up Advance fares through the back door?

TOCs are not required to make any Advance fares at all. Its not that long ago, back in SWT’s time, that there were no Advances from Winchester to Waterloo, you had to be from Brockenhurst or further west.

 

[skyhigh]

My question is what scope do TOCs have to refuse to make Advance tickets available at lower price points without notice? I know these fares are 'unregulated', but in the era of DfT micromanagement does this still exist, or is there a DfT programme of jacking up Advance fares through the back door?

The DfT is tightening the screws on revenue, so it's possible they have decided they want less cheaper Advances. As the TOCs cannot do anything without DfT approval ultimately it will have been their decision if the policy has changed.

However, there is absolutely no entitlement to Advances being offered so nothing can be done if none are available.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The DfT is very much pro-Advance fares, but even more pro on ensuring TOCs are extracting as much revenue per seat as the market will bear.

They are particularly against commuters / regular travellers using Advance fares during traditional commuting times - as is it likely that the fairly captive market will return to purchasing season/flexi products. Even if it dissuades some from travelling, the overall gain in revenue from the more expensive products more than makes up for it.


With AI and other, more modern, algorithms now involved in yield management, along with revenue management software systems generally first used within aviation, a TOC commercial manager may not even know why certain tiers are unavailable - only that the software has identified a particular price point is more suitable for that train. Tiers can be dynamically and automatically set - so 50 tickets could be released initially, but if they start selling too quickly, that tier may be withdrawn and allocations assigned to higher tiers of Advance fares automatically, and it then may go up or down depending on how the market is performing. Over time, this process improves and evolves.

AI may spot that a lesser known football fixture, gig or some other event will affect demand, even if it has been overlooked or thought of insignificant by the human - and automatically offer the higher tiers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With AI and other, more modern, algorithms now involved in yield management, along with revenue management software systems generally first used within aviation, a TOC commercial manager may not even know why certain tiers are unavailable - only that the software has identified a particular price point is more suitable for that train. Tiers can be dynamically and automatically set - so 50 tickets could be released initially, but if they start selling too quickly, that tier may be withdrawn and allocations assigned to higher tiers of Advance fares automatically, and it then may go up or down depending on how the market is performing. Over time, this process improves and evolves.

AI may spot that a lesser known football fixture, gig or some other event will affect demand, even if it has been overlooked or thought of insignificant by the human - and automatically offer the higher tiers.

Premier Inn appears to do that (so prices don't tend to change very much right up to the day - they more work out what each room is worth on each given date and largely stick to it, give or take uplifts for increased flexibility e.g. refundability or very rarely if they realise they've got it very wrong or because e.g. a major event is cancelled). By contrast despite LNER going on and on about "dynamic pricing" (rather than "fare increases" as would be more honest) their Advances seem to work in a much more traditional way, i.e. starting at the bottom end and just increasing as the train fills.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Funnily enough the big players in the revenue management software business either have a background in hotels, car hire or airline, and are actively seeking opportunities in rail with varying degrees of success.

Southeastern is the one to watch, having recently purchased such a system at substantial cost, and who need it to totally transform how their leisure travel market works across the 'franchise'.

 

[JonathanH]

Southeastern is the one to watch, having recently purchased such a system at substantial cost, and who need it to totally transform how their leisure travel market works across the 'franchise'.

Is that the first sign of significant fares reform in the local travel market, with Southeastern being a test bed?

 

[ricoblade]

Premier Inn appears to do that (so prices don't tend to change very much right up to the day - they more work out what each room is worth on each given date and largely stick to it, give or take uplifts for increased flexibility e.g. refundability or very rarely if they realise they've got it very wrong or because e.g. a major event is cancelled). By contrast despite LNER going on and on about "dynamic pricing" (rather than "fare increases" as would be more honest) their Advances seem to work in a much more traditional way, i.e. starting at the bottom end and just increasing as the train fills.

Amazing how long this has taken as I worked on Car Rental yield management in the mid-90s, then had meetings with GNER about the possibilities in rail and they were talking about a “low cost airline model”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Amazing how long this has taken as I worked on Car Rental yield management in the mid-90s, then had meetings with GNER about the possibilities in rail and they were talking about a “low cost airline model”.

LNER of course have rather failed at the "low cost" part of that. And Lumo don't do it particularly well either - in particular they aren't offering any buy-ups bar food, and the true low-cost airline model involves making more from buy-ups than fares.

 

[Wallsendmag]

LNER of course have rather failed at the "low cost" part of that. And Lumo don't do it particularly well either - in particular they aren't offering any buy-ups bar food, and the true low-cost airline model involves making more from buy-ups than fares.

Read the founder of Southwest Airlines book, profit for Low Cost Airlines is all about revenue management something LNER definately haven't failed on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Read the founder of Southwest Airlines book, profit for Low Cost Airlines is all about revenue management something LNER definately haven't failed on.

I think SWA is an interesting example - it seems to have stuck with a very old version of the LCC model. In Europe the model has moved on a long way since then. Most notably SWA still misses out on the biggest buy-up going - seat selection and preferred seating - by still persisting with open seating and boarding card groups. It also offers two checked bags - charging for luggage is another highly profitable buy-up.

And so does Lumo - seat selection is an obvious buy-up for them. Yes, those in the know could circumvent it via Trainsplit, but most people book either via Trainline (which doesn't do selection at all) or Lumo's own site (which could if they wanted it to).

 

[JonathanH]

And so does Lumo - seat selection is an obvious buy-up for them.

With most of the seats unidirectional and there being no clear advantage of one seat over another, is there genuinely a market.

The way that Megabus has approached 'buy-up' seat selection is that there is an area of general seating with no charge at the back of the coach, but once gone, those booking later pay extra for one of the reservable seats.

Trains in this country haven't yet got to the point of absolute compulsory reservations and people don't always sit in the seats they have reserved. I wonder how well an absolute requirement to sit in the seat you booked would go down.

I'm not sure that splitting up fares and ancillaries is really where the railway is going. Pushing up advance fares at busy times is a much easier approach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trains in this country haven't yet got to the point of absolute compulsory reservations and people don't always sit in the seats they have reserved. I wonder how well an absolute requirement to sit in the seat you booked would go down.

Notably GNER used to enforce this, at least to some extent - it's generally regarded that they were the reason that's in the Advance T&Cs even if it's mostly ignored.

Lumo do ask you to sit in the correct seat but from experience do nothing about it if you don't, provided you've not taken one that is reserved to someone else.

 

[JonathanH]

Notably GNER used to enforce this, at least to some extent - it's generally regarded that they were the reason that's in the Advance T&Cs even if it's mostly ignored.

Yes, absolutely, it is mostly ignored. Telling passengers they have to pay again might focus minds, as that would be necessary to implement paying for specific seats.

In the days of TPE running 350s on Anglo-Scottish services, I recall an announcement that advance tickets would only be valid in the booked seat, but when a train is full that is easier to enforce.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, absolutely, it is mostly ignored. Telling passengers they have to pay again might focus minds, as that would be necessary to implement paying for specific seats.

Er no thank you. Better to go the other way and ditch seat reservations altogether for those who don't request them

 

[trainophile]

They would need to sort out the mismatch between requested and allocated seat types then. I always ask for a forward facing airline aisle, and more often than not get a backwards table window. It's not unavailability, as can be changed on websites with a seat selector. So annoying when I forget to check what I've been given. Coming up I appear to have a two hour journey in XC standard class hemmed in to a table window seat. Probably find someone else's luggage on it anyway!

 

[philosopher]

With most of the seats unidirectional and there being no clear advantage of one seat over another, is there genuinely a market.

The way that Megabus has approached 'buy-up' seat selection is that there is an area of general seating with no charge at the back of the coach, but once gone, those booking later pay extra for one of the reservable seats.

Trains in this country haven't yet got to the point of absolute compulsory reservations and people don't always sit in the seats they have reserved. I wonder how well an absolute requirement to sit in the seat you booked would go down.

I'm not sure that splitting up fares and ancillaries is really where the railway is going. Pushing up advance fares at busy times is a much easier approach.

I think there is, providing it is only a few pounds. A lot of seats have restricted views which many will want to avoid. Some may want to sit in the middle of the carriage where there are possibly less people walking past, or alternatively close to doors so they can get off quickly. A lot of people also prefer to sit facing the direction of travel.

When I travelled on Lumo last year, I was in a window seat in the second from last row. This seat had less space than most other seats, as seat width was reduced to allow the door to retract and hence was very uncomfortable. I could not move to another seat as the train was full. I would have not chosen this seat and would paid to sit somewhere else if I had know about this issue.

 

[Hadders]

Someone should be asking how any of this yield management stuff benefits passengers? Yes, it raises money for the DfT but who is looking after passengers interests in all of this?

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes, it raises money for the DfT but who is looking after passengers interests in all of this?

And when did you develop this taste for luxuries?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone should be asking how any of this yield management stuff benefits passengers? Yes, it raises money for the DfT but who is looking after passengers interests in all of this?

There are people who benefit to be fair - those who can be flexible and get a very cheap fare.

 

[JonathanH]

There are people who benefit to be fair - those who can be flexible and get a very cheap fare.

The very cheap fares are gone in many cases, particularly on GWR. The starting advance fare for a late evening train in the quiet direction is now pretty much the same as one at busy times.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Someone should be asking how any of this yield management stuff benefits passengers? Yes, it raises money for the DfT but who is looking after passengers interests in all of this?

Given pretty much everything involving travel or leisure these days is yield managed, from your Ryanair or even BA flight, car hire, hotels, theme parks, cinema tickets etc- even food delivery apps with their special offers/vouchers - it is an accepted part of life in 2024.

We live in a society that is designed to extract the maximum price for a commodity that the market can afford before it affects demand or causes wider adverse economic consequences.

Rail capacity is becoming an increasingly finite and over utilised resource at certain times/routes, and therefore pricing reflects that.

Let's not forget that even some (most) "expensive" yield managed fares still require government subsidy. Rail passengers rarely pay the true cost of their journey when considering the ticket price.

 

[akm]

Given pretty much everything involving travel or leisure these days is yield managed, from your Ryanair or even BA flight, car hire, hotels, theme parks, cinema tickets etc- even food delivery apps with their special offers/vouchers - it is an accepted part of life in 2024.

It's "accepted" in the sense that we "accept" the weather - we can't do anything about it, so we just have to put up with it. Doesn't mean it's liked or even desired.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It's "accepted" in the sense that we "accept" the weather - we can't do anything about it, so we just have to put up with it. Doesn't mean it's liked or even desired.

If it was so universally disliked, you wouldn't see it being rolled out to more and more sectors and to an ever increasing audience, even at traditionally premium brands.

Even essential things like energy bills / smart meters are becoming yield/demand managed, free electricity on certain days, peak/off peak pricing etc.

If it were so unpopular, you'd have many organisations popping up making a key point of the fact that they don't yield manage (or words to that effect). I don't think those companies would last long.

 

[Adam Williams]

Even essential things like energy bills / smart meters are becoming yield/demand managed, free electricity on certain days, peak/off peak pricing etc.

I think something I would flag here is the complete lack of any transparency when it comes to yield management in the rail industry. My energy provider has an API that I can use to fetch real-time pricing information. I can also fetch historical pricing information for any given date/time. There is a unit rate cap which protects me as a consumer. The wholesale prices are also - to a large degree - predictable. National grid publish the mix of generation in near enough real-time, as well as the wholesale prices for that mix of generation. The price can even go negative to reward me as a consumer for making use of spare capacity - can you imagine a TOC doing this?

Your comparison is frankly comical.

Let's be real here, TOCs like all of this being shrouded in mystery. It's harder to do a journalism piece on the amount that consumers are paying if you have no idea what quantities of the Advance fares in the fares data are being made available. The ones that are treated as public bodies deny any FoI requests that ask for detail on yield management. They conduct dubious public interest tests. They're spending vast, vast amounts of public money on DSS products like FareVantage with dubious benefits to the passengers who are actually subsidising the industry via tax. Price caps in the form of walk-up tickets are removed, or made incredibly difficult for passengers to purchase via the systematic and widespread misuse of timetable data flags. Consumers who want to travel in standard class are being coerced into purchasing expensive first class tickets for no reason due to these practices as trains """"sell out"""".

I think sometimes some people in the industry and govt departments forget that public transport is .. I don't know, a vital public service that enables economic growth and also one that offers a low-carbon way to travel.

 

[akm]

If it was so universally disliked, you wouldn't see it being rolled out to more and more sectors and to an ever increasing audience, even at traditionally premium brands.

I don't accept that argument at all. The world we have to deal with is constantly being en-shirt-ified (there's a wikipedia article with a rude word in the title, which is the term I actually mean here, but I can't link to it...) and there's naff all we can do about. Don't tell me "it keeps happening therefore it can't be disliked", that just doesn't hold water.

 

[JonathanH]

I think sometimes some people in the industry and govt departments forget that public transport is .. I don't know, a vital public service that enables economic growth and also one that offers a low-carbon way to travel.

It might be argued that local public transport is a public service. Bus franchising and local control of local rail services, together with the convenience of Contactless payment recognises that view.

Long distance travel is generally a choice, sometimes dictated by circumstance, such as family members living a distance apart because of economic factors, but usually discretionary. In that context, the railway and politics sees it less of a public service, as illustrated by the views expressed by both RDG and the government in their proposals for reform of fares.

In fact, it is fairly clear that the direction of fares reform is going very much in the lines of what RDG put forward in its "Easier Fares" proposals in 2019.

Big Plans Big Changes

Big Plans Big Changes Britain Runs on Rail was a rail industry campaign that was led by Rail Delivery Group on behalf of the rail industry, to promote the vital role the railway pl

www.raildeliverygroup.com

1. The ‘unbundling’ of fares, through a move to a single fare as the basic unit of all pricing in the new system, with algorithmic rules underpinned by regulation to allow and encourage the best combinations of single leg fares for return, through (allowing travel from any point on the network to another regardless of operator) and multi-journey tickets. This is similar to the way fares are currently structured within London, which has its own rules distinct from the rest of the network.

2. Train companies to be able to create discounted, premium, train specific and personalised variations of these fares, for example, charging less at quieter periods, more for first class, less for reduced flexibility, and so on. This ensures that fares are priced appropriately to market and are not simply the sum of their parts.

3. Protection from excessive fares through regulation of price levels rather than of a limited number of specific fares types that may not reflect customers’ needs. For example, moving from regulating the day return and 7-day Season Ticket for commuters, to regulating the maximum price paid when travelling over the course of a week - with systems programmed to deliver this automatically.

It may be seen as the government pushing these reforms, and the treasury ensuring that fares are set at high levels, and the Train Operating Companies no longer franchises, but the direction is still what RDG was pushing.

 

[Hadders]

Given pretty much everything involving travel or leisure these days is yield managed, from your Ryanair or even BA flight, car hire, hotels, theme parks, cinema tickets etc- even food delivery apps with their special offers/vouchers - it is an accepted part of life in 2024.

We live in a society that is designed to extract the maximum price for a commodity that the market can afford before it affects demand or causes wider adverse economic consequences.

Rail capacity is becoming an increasingly finite and over utilised resource at certain times/routes, and therefore pricing reflects that.

Let's not forget that even some (most) "expensive" yield managed fares still require government subsidy. Rail passengers rarely pay the true cost of their journey when considering the ticket price.

You make it sound as though the public are clamouring for this sort of thing. They aren't.

Just look at what LNER has done with fares with their trial - passengers aren't wanting more of that, yet that is what they're going to get.

 

[trainophile]

I can’t help feeling that it’s a shame that the railway won’t seem to take account of the fact that, as well as being a business run for profit, it has a social responsibility for the people of this country who have to rely on it. Not everyone can drive, or wants to drive, and we are supposed to be reducing private car usage for all sorts of valid reasons.

We’re not in the early last century, when people rarely ventured from their village, and accessible affordable public transport is an essential requirement for a 21st century first world country.

The railway is a lifeline for a huge proportion of the population, the least we can expect is to be able to afford it, without having to rely on gimmicks like promotional offers and limited availability Advance tickets. (I am online at this ungodly hour as I have just booked some of said tickets on their release date!)

I appreciate that supply and demand is a balancing act, but they seem to be able to manage it in Europe.

 

[Adam Williams]

Long distance travel is generally a choice, sometimes dictated by circumstance, such as family members living a distance apart because of economic factors, but usually discretionary. In that context, the railway and politics sees it less of a public service, as illustrated by the views expressed by both RDG and the government in their proposals for reform of fares.

I think there are a wide variety of factors here. Sometimes it's discretionary and purely undertaken for leisure, yes - but our housing policy and even recruitment policy set by govt in civil service departments (usually as part of the so-called "Levelling Up" agenda) do create other requirements for long-distance travel.

In a previous life when I was an infosec consultant the travel really wasn't discretionary and was often in excess of a 370 mile round-trip for some clients. I would've personally thought that the current govt was supportive of this sort of industry and the economic benefit its work brings, but people can and will look at non-yield-managed alternatives if they're pushed too hard and rail doesn't appeal. Even back in 2017, you'd get consultants who just decided to drive everywhere. You might think that these folks are less price sensitive, and to a degree that's true - but increasingly we would see end-clients setting more stringent travel policies that would not blindly accept a ridiculously expensive through Anytime ticket. It's also something I see now - companies and corporates looking at split ticketing retailers to meet their B2B needs because the fares have gotten too expensive.