Rail operators call for leisure fares (especially day returns) to increase

[Meole]

The concept of off peak ticketing to promote non essential leisure travel contradicts the push towards green policies aimed at eradicating unfriendly activity in environmental terms, reducing trains during the off peak period to ensure fewer but fuller is probably the best solution for the planet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not make the £89 Off Peak ticket less restrictive and allow it to be used on some of the emptier peak trains?

Interestingly both VTWC and (I think) LNER have now done this on Friday evenings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The concept of off peak ticketing to promote non essential leisure travel contradicts the push towards green policies aimed at eradicating unfriendly activity in environmental terms, reducing trains during the off peak period to ensure fewer but fuller is probably the best solution for the planet.

More car journeys, then. I think your approach needs to head to France and stay there - our more Germanic style approach is to me markedly superior.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Why not make the £89 Off Peak ticket less restrictive and allow it to be used on some of the emptier peak trains?

Much more simple and transparent. No need to faff around with Advance tickets which the TOC can increase in price, sell fewer at the cheaper price points or withdraw altogether if they're not meeting their revenue target and need passengers to pay a bit more.

Interestingly both VTWC and (I think) LNER have now done this on Friday evenings.

Indeed - and there is talk of extending this to a Thursday.

I think the current system of Peak/Off-Peak and Advance could work, if the railways become more realistic with the pricing of the Advances. We're then back to the argument of better to sell on at £100 than 3 at £25......

 

[anme]

Why not make the £89 Off Peak ticket less restrictive and allow it to be used on some of the emptier peak trains?

Much more simple and transparent. No need to faff around with Advance tickets which the TOC can increase in price, sell fewer at the cheaper price points or withdraw altogether if they're not meeting their revenue target and need passengers to pay a bit more.

I think you're missing the point of my post. Advance tickets were just an example.

TOCs are private companies and they have to maximise their profits, which generally means maximising their revenue for a given timetable and set of costs. Changing some peak services to off peak is likely to mean fewer passengers buying the very expensive anytime tickets, which means less revenue. It might attract some extra passengers, of course, which brings in some more money. But overall, will it increase revenue? Probably not, or TOCs would already be doing it. They employ people whose job it is to predict these things.

I am not against doing what you suggest, but it will probably reduce revenue for the TOC overall, which means higher subsidy or lower premium payments. You will have to convince the government that is a price worth paying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the current system of Peak/Off-Peak and Advance could work, if the railways become more realistic with the pricing of the Advances. We're then back to the argument of better to sell on at £100 than 3 at £25......

TBH I think this needs to be enshrined in the franchise agreements. Something like incentivising TOCs for off peak "bums on seats" (but NOT overcrowding) - in order to prevent more car and air journeys.

 

[anme]

Indeed - and there is talk of extending this to a Thursday.

I think the current system of Peak/Off-Peak and Advance could work, if the railways become more realistic with the pricing of the Advances. We're then back to the argument of better to sell on at £100 than 3 at £25......

From a commercial point of view, that's an easy decision. One ticket sold for £100 is better than three at £25.

If, as a society, we prefer to sell more tickets for less money, that's a political decision and it's up to government to fund any shortfall. If the rail operator is a private company, we might also compensate them for lost profits depending on the circumstances.

I'm not against any of this, but you need to express your preferences at the ballot box.

 

[Hadders]

TOCs are private companies and they have to maximise their profits, which generally means maximising their revenue for a given timetable and set of costs.

But TOC’s also have a contract with the Government and agree to make a payment to them for the privilege of operating the service. The Government has a responsibility for making sure that passenger interests are looked after here. Despite the well meaning proposals I don’t think the Government or the train companies can be trusted on this matter. The Government wants to run the network as cheaply as possible, the TOCs want to maximise their profit but no-one is looking after passenger interests in all of this (I don’t count Transport Focus as they are incompetent when it comes to ticketing issues)

Whatever happens with this proposal is likely to be with us for a generation so it’s important to get it right.

 

[anme]

But TOC’s also have a contract with the Government and agree to make a payment to them for the privilege of operating the service. The Government has a responsibility for making sure that passenger interests are looked after here. Despite the well meaning proposals I don’t think the Government or the train companies can be trusted on this matter. The Government wants to run the network as cheaply as possible, the TOCs want to maximise their profit but no-one is looking after passenger interests in all of this (I don’t count Transport Focus as they are incompetent when it comes to ticketing issues)

Whatever happens with this proposal is likely to be with us for a generation so it’s important to get it right.

The two main players in this are the government and the TOCs. If you don't trust either of them to act in passengers' interests, we're basically s*****d, aren't we?

Presumably TOCs operate according to market forces and their shareholders' interests. The idea of privatisation in general is that market forces are a better way to match resources and demand (i.e. what we as individuals want) than government planning (or presumably, planning in a nationalised company). However, in the case of the railways we don't actually trust market forces to deliver the "right" result, so we provide subsidy and we regulate services and fares in various ways. So, we can choose to change those regulations, for example, to reduce the hours where peak fares are charged. That's up to the government, and it comes with a set of pros (passenger benefits) and costs (maybe more subsidy/less premiums).

The government can set up a third entity to look after passengers' interests. But some passengers are voters, so they might assume that normal democratic processes are sufficient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The government can set up a third entity to look after passengers' interests. But some passengers are voters, so they might assume that normal democratic processes are sufficient.

Of course London residents get to vote for an elected TfL overseer - the Mayor (as he has precious little other power).

Do we need an equivalent for elsewhere? Elected PTE type boards?

 

[anme]

Of course London residents get to vote for an elected TfL overseer - the Mayor (as he has precious little other power).

Do we need an equivalent for elsewhere? Elected PTE type boards?

I am personally in favour of regional governments across the UK. They have worked very well in London, Wales and Scotland (I can't comment on Northern Ireland), and have generally worked very well for transport.

I think the North East of England made a very major mistake when they rejected having their own regional assembly in 2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum.

 

[cjp]

Am I missing something but I thought that the aim of railcards and the like was to encourage people to travel when the trains are less crowded rather than run shorter trains, fewer trains or have rolling stock and crew idle when there was little or no demand for them outside the commuter peaks
such that running a full length train made a loss.
This has now been achieved and it now just tweaking the market to get more revenue or profit from the stock in use. The companies are saying they do not want more revenue (a lie) and will keep things revenue neutral. There is no gain to the companies for doing so accordingly whatever they say has to driven by politics (whatever that might be) or a LIE. A bit of both I suspect but my money is on politics or rather a geegaw all glittering to ensure
a) someone loves the TOCs and
b) they get to hang onto their franchise as it is either making their bosses or their shareholders money.
Smoke and mirrors.
We are right to be cynical but is "our" PR more effective than the RDG's with all their money.?
David and Goliath anyone?

 

[Starmill]

TBH I think this needs to be enshrined in the franchise agreements. Something like incentivising TOCs for off peak "bums on seats" (but NOT overcrowding) - in order to prevent more car and air journeys.

I agree with this. It will need the government to pay for it though. My view is that they should increase taxes elsewhere in order to pay for more subsididy that enables this policy of greater uptake. They can start by switching to a system of annual CPI+ increases in fuel duty, and increasing the severity of the VED taper for the most polluting cars (looking at various air pollution measures).

 

[Aictos]

Why not make the £89 Off Peak ticket less restrictive and allow it to be used on some of the emptier peak trains?

Much more simple and transparent. No need to faff around with Advance tickets which the TOC can increase in price, sell fewer at the cheaper price points or withdraw altogether if they're not meeting their revenue target and need passengers to pay a bit more.

This I fully agree with, it's so simple it's idiot proof but sadly because it is so simple nobody be it the TOCs or DfT will agree to it.

Part of the problem with the current fares is the expensive fares that the booking engine of most ticketing sites do for example if I want to book a return from St Albans to Edinburgh even though I have entered I want a return they all give singles which makes it so expensive.

It is getting more and more difficult to get them to show up returns and the other thing as well is for that journey above, pretty much all booking engines will insist on routing you via Kings Cross even though there is a VT advance fare that is valid via Euston and Birmingham.

So in short, this idea by the RDG is the dumbest thing I've heard from them and hope it never makes policy.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I see no reason why season tickets, or even open tickets, could could not be retained. These are just additional tweaks. The system would presumably "learn" what services get full with holders of open tickets and price the walk up fares higher for these services. Add in holidays and so-forth, and the system has even more data to play with.

Modern systems allow the cost for the next journey leaving any given station to be shown in real time, so whilst it might be an "advance fare" it is still turn-up and go. Open tickets would presumably only be used by businesses who want to buy travel for their employees, so these would be priced accordingly. Most smaller businesses would probably reimburse fees paid out of pocket from their employees as this would be cheaper.

I conceded "touch in / touch out" systems make more sense in metropolitan areas, but the physical oyster card is yesterdays news. The option to use this for longer journeys might be available, but as a duress option as it would be more expensive than booking your seat!

Want something more radical: I think it worth considering that all seats on all journeys get allocated between two or more ticketing agencies who can then set their own fee structure in competition with each other to keep prices low.

Advance fares have been in existence since before privatisation and yet it still isn't a way of ensuring balanced loadings. It is, and always has been, about maximising revenue. Nothing more, nothing less. It's been quite effective in doing that, whilst giving the TOCs the 'excuse' that it's about balancing loadings. The general public has swallowed the lie.

As for having different ticketing agencies, surely that already exists, by way of the many different retailers we have? OK, many of them share a common system, but there are at least five different ones out there, so there is hardly a lack of competition, and individual TOCs or retailers can and do offer special discounts on specific fares.

The RDG want to get rid of fares regulation. If this happens we need to be very, very concerned.

Regulation isn't perfect but at least it keeps the price of some fares in check and provides a benchmark. Without regulation a London - Manchester Off Peak fare would not cost £89.

Agreed. If there is anything I am most worried about when it comes to the proposed changes, it is this - but then again, the relaxation of fares regulation is a central part of the proposals, so the two are intertwined. I quietly fear that the DfT will agree, because it has the potential to further decrease subsidies.

RDG's Press Release says this when it comes to the regulation of long distance fares:

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2019/469762745-2019-02-18.html
The very specific time bands that they refer to are the fault of the TOCs. They could relax them tomorrow if they wanted to. In fact they were far less restrictive when privatisation started, it's the greedy TOCs that made them more restrictive

Exactly. It's PR spin, nothing more. This bit:

The regulation of these fares at very specific time bands of travel has led to underutilised, more expensive services at natural peak times, and typically over-crowded, cheaper services during the ‘shoulder peak’ (immediately before and after peak times).

Is nothing more than an outright lie. It is the TOCs' commercial interests, and their self-interested efforts at increasing revenue, that has led to this situation. Nothing more, nothing less. If there were no peak/off-peak divide there would still be overcrowding, but it would be spread more widely across services.

You cannot trust a single word of the RDG's PR tripe. Unfortunately they have managed to infect the mainstream media with their disinformation and lies.

What a load of rubbish. There's absolutely nothing stopping the TOCs from offering good value fares throughout the day now. Advance fares are not subject to regulation and if the TOCs wanted to fill up the fresh air on all these empty 'peak' trains then I don't understand why they don't already offer cheap Advance fares on these services.

It's down to commercial interests, nothing else. XC had no need to introduce a blanket 2V (not before 09:30) restriction on their Off-Peak fares. They chose to do so for commercial reasons, and they are reaping the rewards of it now.

So they want to abolish regulation on long distance fares and replace it with an overall turnover based target. So in a franchise bidding competition a company wins by offering the best return to the Government. After a while they're not reaching their turnover target because their bid was 'too ambitious', guess what happens to fares? In case anyone's wondering we're already seen this on VTEC/LNER. They got into financial difficulty and Advance fares have risen significantly - thankfully regulation on Off Peak fares at least provides a cap. If we didn't have this regulation I dread to think how high the fares would become.

Exactly - this is a simply ridiculous situation. We have already been there, with turnover-based targets - see the original fares-basket based regulation (which was swept away in 2003). All that does, is to increase the gap between Peak and Off-Peak. See, for example, Swindon to Didcot. £48.40 Anytime, £24.80 Off-Peak. At the time of privatisation, the fares were £24.17 and £18.88, respectively (adjusted for inflation). The difference couldn't be clearer - the Off-Peak has risen to the level of the old Anytime (though I'm not sure the Off-Peak would even have had any restrictions at privatisation). An the Anytime has more than doubled, in real terms, despite the service remaining largely similar in terms of time and frequency. Completely unjustifiable, in other words.

The only benefit is Off-Peak Daytrippers, who have seen a new fare introduced at what is now £11.90, so a decrease in real terms. But everyone else has been ripped off royally, and a real-terms 36% reduction in one fare does not excuse the doubling of another, much more popular, fare.

They are not "abolishing fares regulation", but changing the basis for it to a capping process rather than on specific fare types.

As stated, we have been there, done that and got the T-shirt.

They talk about "small increases" in off-peak fares

Make no mistake, if they are targeting a reduction of overcrowding of a third then the "small increases" - which, notably, there is no commitment to cap at a certain level - will end up having to be massive increases from the perspective of passengers. Some Off-Peak fares could double, or even more. That will simply destroy a lot of the price sensitive leisure market.

One thing that I think needs changing is the availability of Anytime and Off-Peak tickets on routes with either no peak flows, or a very sparse service. For these trains there should just be one fare.

This already exists in some places, for example Transport for Wales has all their Off-Peak Returns set with restriction 8A, which means that there are no time restrictions whatsoever. Northern also converted a number of their former 8A Off-Peak Returns to Anytime (Short) Returns. It's clearly possible (although, for instance in the case of Transport for Wales, using more appropriate terminology - i.e. Anytime (Short) Return - is desirable).

Another thing is that if, say, there is a two-hourly service, and one train runs just before the peak cut-off for a few stations, before suddenly becoming off-peak, it should be valid for off-peak fares throughout.

This already happens in a number of places, with easements to general time restrictions. There's nothing stopping the TOCs from rolling this out further.

Why not make the £89 Off Peak ticket less restrictive and allow it to be used on some of the emptier peak trains?

Exactly - Virgin have already done this on Fridays out of Euston, so what's to stop them rolling it out over the entire week? Commercial interests, nothing more, I'd have thought.

TBH I think this needs to be enshrined in the franchise agreements. Something like incentivising TOCs for off peak "bums on seats" (but NOT overcrowding) - in order to prevent more car and air journeys.

Then they'd simply sell the seats at silly prices in order to ensure that they met the targets, resulting in overcrowding. It's very difficult to ensure that this is done correctly.

The two main players in this are the government and the TOCs. If you don't trust either of them to act in passengers' interests, we're basically s*****d, aren't we?

Absolutely, we are. The worst part is, the general public will be lapping up the disinformation that the media have lapped up from the RDG.

 

[anme]

It's down to commercial interests, nothing else. XC had no need to introduce a blanket 2V (not before 09:30) restriction on their Off-Peak fares. They chose to do so for commercial reasons, and they are reaping the rewards of it now.

I don't agree that Cross Country had no need to introduce a blanket 2V restriction on their Off-Peak fares. If it makes them more money, and is within the law, don't they have an obligation to their shareholders to do it?

For better or for worse, this is how we have chosen to run our railways. Blaming a private company for maximising their profit is like blaming a lion for eating a gazelle. What else are they supposed to do?

Exactly - this is a simply ridiculous situation. We have already been there, with turnover-based targets - see the original fares-basket based regulation (which was swept away in 2003). All that does, is to increase the gap between Peak and Off-Peak. See, for example, Swindon to Didcot. £48.40 Anytime, £11.90 Off-Peak (Day Returns). At the time of privatisation, the fares were £ and £, respectively (adjusted for inflation). The difference couldn't be clearer.

You didn't fill in the fares at the time of privatisation, so I fear you wrote your argument before knowing the facts... You may well be making a good point, but let's not fall into the fake news trap.

 

[philthetube]

I reckon that there is no need for anybody to set fares at all. Budget airlines have come up with various formulae that fill up their aircraft all through the day. It must be a pretty established art by now. Fares should be handed over to an algorithm which dispassionately extract the maximum utility from the train services.

Of course the stakeholders get a say as to how the algorithm works, but the mindset gets away from setting fares structure to a more abstract idea of setting broader rules of the game.

unfortunately there are problems with that, EG. GTR decide to charge £40 daily for commuters from Brighton to London, this probably wouldnt hit revenue as some people have to travel and some might even be enticed to the railway with half empty trains. If they were an airline some other operator would jump in and undercut them, not possible with railways.

 

[extendedpaul]

Using the London to Manchester 19.00 off peak crowded train as a pilot scheme , could not holders of standard off peak tickets be given the opportunity to pay an upgrade fee to the Train Manager or at the ticket barrier, say £20, to travel 20 or 40 minutes earlier ? Could be made contactless only but ideally cash or contactless.

Additional revenue and a better spread of passengers. Would not be guaranteed, just discretionary if announced on the day at the station.

Probably impractical and I'm sure others will point out why, but Megabus do it successfully for £5 or £10 on coach services from Victoria.

 

[mallard]

If it makes them more money, and is within the law, don't they have an obligation to their shareholders to do it?

That's not how corporate governance laws work. See the answer to question 19 here (not quoted due to length and copyright). The key point is that company directors must "Promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members" and "Exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence", not pursue any and all possibilities for increased profit.

For something as mundane as a ticket restriction, it's unlikely to even be a decision that reaches director level. As long as the director(s) of the company can show that they've hired competent and trustworthy staff to make such decisions and that there is appropriate oversight of their work, that would easily be enough to satisfy their obligations to shareholders.

 

[Starmill]

Using the London to Manchester 19.00 off peak crowded train as a pilot scheme , could not holders of standard off peak tickets be given the opportunity to pay an upgrade fee to the Train Manager, say £20, to travel 20 or 40 minutes earlier ?

Additional revenue and a better spread of passengers. Would not be guaranteed, just discretionary if announced on the day at the station.

Probably impractical and I'm sure others will point out why, but Megabus do it successfully for £5 or £10 on coach services from Victoria.

A reasonable approach, but I assume VT would be too scared to really try it. Some people would switch from the Anytime Single at £175 to the Off Peak at just under £90, plus your suggested £20 supplement. This would lead to at least some people paying about £110 where previously they paid £175. Furthermore anybody who had paid £175 might feel the company had cheated them, or be driven to complain. One can only imagine the reaction of the press who love a good confusing rail fares story. Also, it wouldn't really be 'easier fares'.

 

[extendedpaul]

I would see it being marketed as a "standby upgrade", the number available limited, and only announced 10 -15 minutes before departure. Similar standby schemes operate in other industries and don't seem to antagonise full paying customers because they are always discretionary, never guaranteed.

 

[AM9]

Is that true? I haven't done an extensive analysis but it's certainly not true for the routes I have commuted on.

Anyway, can we really say that a commuter who travels every working day and hands over thousands of pounds per year to the railway industry is being subsidised by someone who makes the occasional leisure journey? Which of those people is more important to the industry?

I don't thing a cherry picking competition is appropriate in this thread but on every commuter route that I have looked at the annual season is priced between 1/2 and 2/3 of the anythime fare assuming a typical 232 return journeys. The "hands over thousands of pounds per year" argument is irrelevant as they are getting between 'thousands of pounds' x 1.5* worth of travel for their money. The comment "is being subsidised by someone who makes the occasional leisure journey" is fatuous because there are millions of occasional leisure journeys made.
*this figure varies but is generally between 1.5 and 2, - see previous sentence.
The capacity of the railway is finite, and especially important on a commuter route. Most of the expenditure on new works is to increase the capacity for the peak period. Off-peak generally doesn't require all trains to be 12-car and running run on 3 minute headways. Off-peak travel is helping to reduce the wastage created by providing infrastructure and rolling stock for just 4-6 hours use per day, 5 days per week. Otherwise, many more trains would spend the rest of the time sitting in sidings waiting for the next 2-hour rush, as is the case in some US locations.

As I said, any revenue neutral change in fares is going to create winners and losers. Of course it's not irrelevant why people travel. If it was we wouldn't need peak and off peak, singles and returns, advances and walk up tickets, and so on. We could just have one distance based price for each journey.

What we are discussing here is if and how the balance between those ticket types is changed.

It's a bit more than that. If leisure travel is discouraged, then the case for expenditure to provide for just the peaks becomes even harder to justify. The subsidy/return situation would get worse and peak fares could well rise once the leisure travel was no longer there to subsidise the capital and operational costs of operating an underused fleet/infrastructure. I'm sure that coach companies are sitting in the wings waiting for a sizeable share of leisure travellers who won't tolerate large hikes in prices. Not all rail leisure passengers are enthusiasts.

 

[mallard]

Personally, I'd like to see us switch to the system that works quite well on the continent; an "ordinary" ticket is only valid on local/regional services and a paid supplement/reservation is required for faster intercity-type services. The price of the reservation can vary by particular train, can be sold on-board and, in the case of a passenger missing their "booked" train, they can still purchase another reservation (for substantially less than the cost of an entire new ticket) or use slower services.

"Peak"/"Off-Peak" for long-distance services would become basically irrelevant, it would just vary the price of the reservation based on demand. Local/regional services may still have the distinction, but a long-distance ticket (i.e. one that can be supplemented up for faster services) would effectively be an "Anytime" if using those services.

It would require some "gaps" in the provision of local/regional services to be closed (or a provision that intercity-type services count as regional for those sections only) and may make things more complex in times of disruption (If a long-distance services is cancelled, do you refund all reservations or just allow them on the next train? What if a passenger decides to take the regional service instead due to a delay? If a train is cancelled part-way through the journey and passengers are advised to continue on regional services, what, if any, proportion of their reservation is refunded? Does it matter if the regional service only runs a short time, say 5 minutes, behind the intercity on that part of the route?), so it's obviously not perfect, but would deal with several existing issues, including the "cliff edge" at off-peak time and replace Advance tickets with something with some limited flexibility.

 

[yorkie]

..I conceded "touch in / touch out" systems make more sense in metropolitan areas, but the physical oyster card is yesterdays news.

True, but let's stick to what is going to happen to fares (pricing & terms) in this thread rather than the fulfilment methods / media they are held on.

We have separate threads to discuss the PAYG proposals. Conventional fares are going to use barcodes in the future anyway, that's already been decided.

Want something more radical:...

Feel free to create a new speculative thread for any such suggestions

I haven't read it fully yet, but it doesn't seem as apocalyptic as some of the above posts suggest.

Well, of course!

And if you are one of the people paying £350 for an Anytime Return from Manchester to London, the proposals are fantastic.

But they are hardly going to make a big deal about the fact that day trippers on cheap fares are going to see huge increases in fares; they want that news to be buried. B

They are not "abolishing fares regulation", but changing the basis for it to a capping process rather than on specific fare types.

They want to abolish the caps on the former Saver Return fares (these are now generally Off Peak Returns, though there are exceptions) so that they are free to increase the off peak fares to make up the revenue loss for decreasing Anytime fares.

Fares regulation does not currently permit them to charge the higher fares for off peak travel, and the train companies are very unhappy about that.

Virgin Trains have been at the forefront of the campaign to increase prices for many years:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/david-mapp-contradicts-himself.19271/

savers “could exacerbate overcrowding” because companies were unable to set higher prices to deter people from travelling on the busiest off-peak trains.
“Unlike season tickets, there is no economic justification for savers because they are being offered to customers who are using their income on a leisure journey rather than going to the theatre or buying CDs.”

They talk about "small increases" in off-peak fares, and a better matching of peak/off-peak demand, probably some kind of sliding scale.

Do you seriously think that someone travelling on a weekend from Derby to Sheffield is going to cost only a "small" amount more than £6.15 for singles, or likewise from St Pancras to Gatwick is only going to be a "small" amount more than £4.90 for a single?

If you believe that, then they have successfully succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes.

Anyway, the RDG has never had much success persuading the DfT to change the regulatory system, as it's always deemed "too hard".
We shall see what happens with this one.

I agree; this will fail unless the DfT are able to agree to reduce fares. A "revenue neutral" new system of charging less to business users and more to leisure users is totally and utterly politically unacceptable so will never get the green light.

Using the London to Manchester 19.00 off peak crowded train as a pilot scheme , could not holders of standard off peak tickets be given the opportunity to pay an upgrade fee to the Train Manager or at the ticket barrier, say £20, to travel 20 or 40 minutes earlier ? Could be made contactless only but ideally cash or contactless.

It is already the case that fares can be excessed, however the staff at the 'barrier' will send people back to the ticket office to do it.

Additional revenue and a better spread of passengers...

Already happens on trains out of King's Cross. If LNER can do it, so can Virgin.

Anyway, RDG proposals to get rid of the "cliff edge" are at odds with this evidence in the Transport Committee report from 2005 'How fair are the fares?'

Is it not true that the first saver train of the day is over-crowded primarily because standard open tickets are so exorbitantly priced?

No. The first Saver train of the day has always tended to be overcrowded, even when the differential between the Saver and the Open fare was not so great. It is natural that many passengers will gravitate towards that particular train, which is the first to offer heavily discounted tickets.

So, who is right?

 

[anme]

That's not how corporate governance laws work. See the answer to question 19 here (not quoted due to length and copyright). The key point is that company directors must "Promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members" and "Exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence", not pursue any and all possibilities for increased profit.

For something as mundane as a ticket restriction, it's unlikely to even be a decision that reaches director level. As long as the director(s) of the company can show that they've hired competent and trustworthy staff to make such decisions and that there is appropriate oversight of their work, that would easily be enough to satisfy their obligations to shareholders.

Well, indeed. My mail was obviously a simplification, and for example, pursuit of short term profit might not be in the company's long term interests. But in this case, Cross Country's actions regarding the 2V restriction seem to be fully in line with those legal requirements. From XC's point of view, these actions increase revenue and profit, and therefore promote "the success of the company for the benefit of its members". When choosing whether to add these restrictions, the company will have to decide whether doing so is overall in their interests. Are there any reasons to believe that XC made the wrong decision in this regard.

Yes, I appreciate such a decision will not necessarily have been made by the directors themselves.

 

[anme]

A "revenue neutral" new system of charging less to business users and more to leisure users is totally and utterly politically unacceptable so will never get the green light.

I am not sure this is true. Train fares are most important to commuters, who often pay a substantial proportion of their income for the dubious privilege of travelling by train every day at peak times. I think those people are more likely to express their anger over train fares at the ballot box than leisure travellers.

Politics often involves deciding whether to please group A and make group B unhappy, or vice versa. If I was transport secretary, I would choose to make leisure travellers unhappy before commuters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I'd like to see us switch to the system that works quite well on the continent

The fundamental problem is that our services don't match that pattern - in particular there are plenty of lines where the regional service is provided by an InterCity operator - Warrington to Wigan is such an example.

You could implement that from MK to Euston, but there are so many places where you really couldn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Politics often involves deciding whether to please group A and make group B unhappy, or vice versa. If I was transport secretary, I would choose to make leisure travellers unhappy before commuters.

There aren't many commuters on the InterCity operators, though, other than Reading, MKC (southbound only) and Stevenage/Peterborough. Thus, it's business occasional travellers vs. leisure.

(The question of regulated SVRs on London commuter operators isn't relevant; it's not the leisure fares that are regulated in the first place, it's the Anytime Day Returns and season tickets - this gives rise to the huge jump in Anytime (Day) Return fares between Bedford-London vs. Market Ketteringborough-London, for instance)

 

[Kite159]

How many of those business users using the full fat anytime return fare for London - Manchester are paying for it out of their own pocket, rather than claiming it back on business expenses (or it having been purchased for them)?

 

[Silverdale]

They are seeking permission from DfT to ditch fares regulation on the former Saver fares; the aim will be to reduce the price of Anytime fares, and increase the price of Off Peak fares.

For example, an Anytime Return from Manchester to London is £350, while an Off Peak Return is £89.60. Trains departing at 1800, 1820, 1840 have plenty of spare seats, while the 1900 is full.

It doesn't have to be that way; LNER have a much more sensible pricing structure that avoids this situation.

If the Manchester to London fares had the same sensible pricing structure as LNER, what would those fares be?