You have not answered the question, so I'll ask it again: What evidence do you have for this statement of 'in fact' ? (your post #411)
'In fact' are your words, so please back this up.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Standing on long rail journeys to be banned under Virgin Trains plan for airline-style fare
- Thread starter duncanp
- Start date
- Status
You have not answered the question, so I'll ask it again: What evidence do you have for this statement of 'in fact' ? (your post #411)
'In fact' are your words, so please back this up.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Let's get rid of advance fares entirely. Why should people who can plan in advance get cheaper prices?
If the railways were coping at times of peak demand, then the subject would not have come up in the first place. At peak times (and this may not be a daily 'commuter' peak) on long distance trans, some passengers are having to stand for hours, and the seated passengers are suffering from cramped unpleasant conditions caused by the standing passengers. The rail industry is attracting complaint because of their policy of selling open tickets and allowing unlimited passengers onto trains. To many, coping is not standing. This is the purpose of this debate.
Because they are using capacity that is there because of the demand in the peak. Without the off-peak business, this capacity wouldn't earn any income so it would be like in some cities (e.g. the US) where most trains make one journey into the city and are then parked in sidings all day until the evening rush back to the satellite towns where they spend the night.
Maybe this obsession with only allowing passengers up to the nominal capacity of the mode to travel should be extended to motorways. Once the density of traffic is reached where speeds start to reduce (and pollution levels start to rise), traffic is simply prevented from entry. It would only be on 'inter-city' roads, i.e. trunk motorways and as every trunk route has a non-motorway alternative (provided for prohibited traffic), the argument that local journeys could not be made isn't valid. I wonder whether those toadying up to this profit enhancing proposal by VT would agree to that?
I am just questioning whether a 90-105 minute journey is really a 'long distance' nowadays. But that is not really the point in question. In this example (and the same with other outlying sections such as Penzance-Plymouth), the long distance train will be filling up the closer it gets to London. If the Norwich line had compulsory reserved trains, two or so coaches would be 'unreserved' between Norwich and Ipswich to cater for local passengers on this stretch. Between Ipswich and London local passengers would travel in unreserved suburban trains.
Nowhere did I suggest additional local services between Norwich and Diss. Instead of just trying to knock down the proposal with minor (solvable) details, please consider the big picture. I would certainly not expect compulsory reservation on long distance trains without a change to the reservation system, the ticketing system and (in some cases) the pattern of train services. The current way of running the railways is not preserved in aspic.
The reality is the Victorian UK rail service wasn't built for 70 million plus people in an ever expanding population. Especially when a great deal of them live in a few small areas of the land.
There's been improvements in and around London to cater for the insane numbers who live and commute there but it can only stretch so far.
There's always going to be more people wanting to use the services than there are seats on a lot of services at various times. If you restrict it to seating only then the motorways will just get completely gridlocked instead.
There's been improvements in and around London to cater for the insane numbers who live and commute there but it can only stretch so far.
There's always going to be more people wanting to use the services than there are seats on a lot of services at various times. If you restrict it to seating only then the motorways will just get completely gridlocked instead.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What you have to do (just like with flights) is to book the latest one you are likely to need, then move it earlier if possible. If not possible you go to the pub. It isn't that much of a problem.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As you can see from the fact that several TOCs now offer them right up to departure, it isn't them being booked in advance per-se, it's dynamic pricing, i.e. pricing a limited, perishable commodity (seats) at the highest price they can get for them at that point, which can change up and down over time. The present regulated Off Peak fares knacker this, but this is independent of compulsory reservations really, because you could remove those and keep Anytime tickets which would not require reservations, and with Advances actual seat (rather than train) reservations can be optional or (per Wales) not even offered at all.
You could also have compulsory reservation but with a non-dynamically-priced fares system, as quite a number of countries do - Malaysia and Thailand are two I think - that is, the fare doesn't change but if you don't have a reservation you don't get on.
The older advance purchase thresholds were a much cruder and less effective approach.
But again, why would you introduce such a system?
A couple of days ago me and a friend decided to make a short notice, short (ish) distance trip on a long distance service. We could turn up at the station, knowing exactly how much we were going to pay, and that we could get on the train we wanted. We stood for one stop, were lots of people get off, so we sat down from there. We then stayed at our destination and decided to do something unplanned. Having flexible tickets though, it didn't matter we just got the train an hour later. Again at the busy station there were a few people standing for one stop, where we got off.
I assume the compulsory reservation advocates propose one of two options for this service:
1. Completely reservation only. We would have to go to the station, not knowing how much we were going to pay, or if we would be able to get on the train at all, and whether we could get a sensible train time coming back, as it's a busy line where lots of bucket and spade traffic go the whole length, coming back in the evening. When we decided to spend a bit longer, we would have had to lose our money on the return portion, and hope we could get reservations all the way to our final destination.
2. Partial Compulsory reservation: The train we were on would have maybe 1 or 2 coaches for people without reservations. These would be crammed full.of standing passengers and very inconvenient. Also, if the train was full at the start, people would just split tickets as they do now, so they can travel in the unreserved bit for the journey they're making, rather destroying the point.
Both of these options are much worse than the status quo, which is a much more pragmatic option. Also with either of these options, we would've just drove and not bothered with the train at all.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The reason for having compulsory reservations (i.e. only selling the number of actual seats) is for comfort. It's not nice travelling on trains for a long period of time which are crammed to the gunwhales, where someone else steals your reserved seat and you can't get them to move, and you can't get through to the bog/buffet/the trolley can't get to you.
The argument against this is that it's better to be in discomfort than unable to travel at all.
The reason for dynamic pricing is for the TOC to make more money. The argument against this is, as you say, because you will have no idea what a journey is going to cost, and to get it for a reasonable price will almost certainly have to book it in advance.
I think we could really do with decoupling the two, as you can have either without the other. Cinemas, for example, have compulsory reservations but do not have dynamic pricing - it costs the same if you book the first seat a week out as if you walk up and buy the last one 30 seconds before it starts.
Strange as it may seem to some, most passengers don't want to spend a couple of hours hanging around in a pub because the train doesn't have any vacant seats. If they are going to hang around, much better to do it standing on a train getting to their destination. Travelling on trains for many is a necessary part of getting to/from home to wherever the destination is and would resent trading useful time at their destination or at home for hanging around in stations, many of which don't have anywhere pleasant or even mildly comfortable to waste and hour or two at.
The key difference between long distance rail vs trunk route driving is that journey time are generally faster, safer and much more dependable in arrival time terms, but even with all that, implementing this daft proposal might just drive many onto roads with all the health and environmental issues it would bring.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Is that actually true? There are a lot of people who do that in order to use cheaper Advance tickets rather than more expensive walk-ups even now. Euston (waiting rooms and food places) is full of them on a typical evening, and I'm sure the Tap is as well.
Some people would go by car instead, of course. But would an end to overcrowding attract others back?
You can have dynamic pricing without cumpulsory reservations and vice versa, but you can't properly yield manage without dynamic pricing is you have cumpulsory reservations, because you'll end up with an even worse situation than now, with one fare that is vastly overexpensive for off peak travel, but leaves every train full during the peaks.
That to save money though, I'm sure most of them would rather be on a train if they could afford it, and the people who are happy to pay now would just not be allowed
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I reckon at least some people (those not in a rush) would happily hang around for a bit if it meant not having to endure the unpleasantness of a rammed-and-standing train. I certainly plan my commuter travel around avoiding specific trains which I know to be unpleasantly rammed, even if it means a slower journey. The result is a near 100% record of a seat to/from Euston at peak times.
But if everyone is forced to do this, the currently not rammed trains will become rammed as people have to get to where they need to be!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There is a fair scope for lengthening commuter trains out of Euston with more stock (e.g. 360s, or retaining 350/2s, or more 319s or similar). Only about 6 services out of Euston in the evening peak are 12-car. If they all were that would be a good whack of extra capacity.
For whom? Certainly not those who can't get on the train at all. Some stations don't even have any seats to wait an hour on.
That's a problem with enforcement of rules and (after a few high profiles cases), which would encourage those doing it to change their behaviour.
Precisely, the railway has a (very large) but defined capacity. For decades, that capacity has been extended when needed by voluntary standing. If standing was so bad, then many of those doing it wouldn't be there. Those still doing it would be the passengers had to make the journey at that time. Nobody else really suffers when there are standees.
If the TOCs are making more money, that means that the average journey cost will rise. Apart from the DfT, those who have a vested interest in TOC profits and those who don't care about any other travellers, who else would want yet another excuse for fares to rise.
Because they are trading flexibility for a cheaper ticket, and it is a way of putting bums on seats during the low demand periods of the day. Transporting passengers at a cheap price is less costly to the rail company than transporting fresh air.
underbank
Established Member
So what's the point of the industry's obsession with speed and reducing journey times? Perhaps it's just so that you don't have to stand in a cramped carriage for a longer period of time?
Advance tickets are also available on peak trains.
Not a reason to scrap them entirely...
But surely no one will buy them because they don't want to be forced to hang about in the pub while they want for their train?
Transfer local services to regional franchises?
But the local services are provided by the intercity trains, why replace a 9 car 80X so a 150 can run a shuttle for Didcot-Swindon, for example?
This is not true. Firstly the "fills an empty seat" argument only applies for about the first week. Thereafter those passengers who would have, and were previously, paying the standard fare wise up to the situation and where they can start paying less than they did previously. This is known as "revenue dilution", and can easily lead to getting less revenue than before.
Secondly, the railway just has not gripped the "low demand periods" aspect, and continue to market Advances at periods of high demand, adding insult to injury by doing so on short trains. Recently boarding at 1730 a Birmingham to Edinburgh service, right at peak hour, to find that despite a wholly electrified route it was not a Pendolino, but a single 5 car Voyager - for a peak departure from Birmingham. And the First Class was oversubscribed as well, principally down to a number of Advances being sold in there for the throughout journey this train makes London to Edinburgh, trying to score one off the ECML operator no doubt.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They very much have gripped it. With no requirement not to have standing passengers, they know they can sell both the cheap Advance and an Anytime and people will put up with standing.
There really needs to be something in the franchise agreements to severely disincentivise this practice. What might work would be a requirement to pay the full value of any Advance fare sold on any train on which the number of passengers on board exceeded the seating capacity of the relevant class.
underbank
Established Member
Surely cheap advances should only be for the quieter off peak services? What's the point of offering cheaper prices for trains that are likely to be full anyway? Doesn't make sense.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because they can sell the same "seat" twice, and they know it.
Who is going to find these additional services?
Where is the rolling stock coming from?
Are there sufficient paths available?
Even if you can introduce them the inter-City services will end up carrying fresh air around.
- Status