Off peak/peak v Advance

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the complaints on this board come mostly from enthusiasts, who want to do things like break journeys and have a niche use case. Most people are not enthusiasts and simply want to get from A to B. They would view a London - Scotland train as similar to a flight. The fare trial demonstrably hasn’t deterred significant numbers from using LNER, whose full trains are surely good evidence that people are embracing the new system.

With the artificial scarcity on that route, I'm not sure (unless you're really David Horne in disguise) it is appropriate to say they are embracing it any more than they might embrace Ryanair's random seating policy, but there's plenty of evidence that they are tolerating it and still travelling (and paying more to do so).

Horne is claiming satisfaction is higher on London-Edinburgh/Newcastle than other routes, but there are many other potential reasons for that than the fare structure, e.g. the higher number of tourists (particularly overseas ones) travelling for happy reasons than on their shorter routes which will have far more business travel.

 

[43066]

It applies to anyone who needs flexibility on the time of travel, including a friend who choose the car instead of the train for this reason. Most people who can book in advance choose to fly from the South of England to Scotland.
LNER passenger numbers are about the same as in 2019 when the following article states the average loading per train is 250 passengers which is only half full. From December 2025 LNER will run around 30 more trains each with 600 seats each day on the London-Newcastle-Edinburgh route. LNER will need to attract a lot more passengers to pay for these additional trains. They need to set the flexible London to Newcastle and Edinburgh fares at a level which travellers who need flexibility are prepared to pay. £200 for a single journey is too high, it is clearly designed to put people off buying. People are prepared to pay more for flexibility but not £200.

On the contrary LNER numbers are now significantly higher than they were in 2019, and have been for several years (the below article dates from 2023 and growth has continued since then):

A Record Two Years For LNER As It Continues To Welcome Back Customers

London North Eastern Railway (LNER) continues to lead the way when it comes to welcoming people back to rail, topping the table for franchised operators for two years running. LNER operates more than 160 daily services carrying millions of people across its 956-mile East Coast route.

www.lner.co.uk

Between January and March 2023, passenger journeys were at 111 per cent when compared with the same period for 2019, according to new data published today by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

It also isn’t really possible to draw a line in the sand and say that X price is “too high”. It won’t be if that person’s employer is paying, or if they simply have the means to pay, as many people do. The people using the train have the same options as everyone else - fly, drive, train, coach etc. yet clearly many are still using the train.

With the artificial scarcity on that route, I'm not sure (unless you're really David Horne in disguise) it is appropriate to say they are embracing it any more than they might embrace Ryanair's random seating policy, but there's plenty of evidence that they are tolerating it and still travelling (and paying more to do so).

Either way - it works! And it isn’t putting people off using trains and pushing them back into cars as suggested above.

I’m not sure what you mean by “artificial scarcity” given how busy many trains are - they certainly aren’t carting around fresh air so the scarcity seems very real. You mean due to restricted fleet sizes?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2025 ==

Horne is claiming satisfaction is higher on London-Edinburgh/Newcastle than other routes, but there are many other potential reasons for that than the fare structure, e.g. the higher number of tourists (particularly overseas ones) travelling for happy reasons than on their shorter routes which will have far more business travel.

Okay - but there’s also no evidence to support any of the suggestions above that this is a disastrous policy that’s driving people off the railway and back into cars, coaches etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not sure what you mean by “artificial scarcity” given how busy many trains are - they certainly aren’t carting around fresh air so the scarcity seems very real. You mean due to restricted fleet sizes?

The restricted fleet size wouldn't be artificial scarcity - that term means when a company deliberately makes something scarce in order to charge more for it. That isn't what is happening on the railway; the scarcity is not cynically motivated, but otherwise governed by other factors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not sure what you mean by “artificial scarcity” given how busy many trains are - they certainly aren’t carting around fresh air so the scarcity seems very real. You mean due to restricted fleet sizes?

Yes. A combination of fake compulsory reservations and inadequate capacity means there is artificial scarcity on the route that doesn't exist, say, from London to Manchester with its three trains per hour or London to Birmingham with its three Avantis (some hours 2), two WMTs and two Chilterns. The third service to Newcastle when it eventually gets going will really help here, but even given that stuff like Lumo, GC and Hull wasting capacity with 5 car trains really is an issue on the ECML.

 

[43066]

The restricted fleet size wouldn't be artificial scarcity - that term means when a company deliberately makes something scarce in order to charge more for it. That isn't what is happening on the railway; the scarcity is not cynically motivated, but otherwise governed by other factors.

I’m also struggling to understand the use of the term.

There probably is an argument that longer trains for Lumo etc. would have been beneficial, but the inflexible nature of the rolling stock market makes it difficult to quickly upscale fleet sizes - which are also governed by infrastructure. As you say that is just the reality of the situation. The railway is evidently popular enough that it’s possible to charge high fares and not dissuade travellers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m also struggling to understand the use of the term.

There probably is an argument that longer trains for Lumo etc. would have been beneficial, but the inflexible nature of the rolling stock market makes it difficult to quickly upscale fleet sizes - which are also governed by infrastructure. As you say that’s just a reality. The railway is evidently popular enough that it’s possible to charge high fares and not dissuade travellers.

Artificial scarcity doesn't have to be wilful, it just means that the service provider* is deliberately not providing enough capacity for the demand and is instead pricing some of it off or dissuading it by other means such as claiming certain trains are full.

* Which in this case is a combination of LNER and DfT.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2025 ==

Okay - but there’s also no evidence to support any of the suggestions above that this is a disastrous policy that’s driving people off the railway and back into cars, coaches etc.

I don't think it's a wonderful policy but I wouldn't say it's a disastrous one either. However I think trials on shorter routes will be informative as I'd be surprised if they were anywhere near as popular - look at London-Birmingham where even without that policy and its fare hikes we see WMT and Chiltern trains rammed to the rafters and Avanti ones half empty at most times of day. It seems clear on that shorter journey that what people overridingly want is cheap walk up fares (even if that meant buying an Advance just before travel at, unlike on the ECML trial, a reasonable price - plenty do this on Northern).

In the peak too - as businesses are tightening up - I will be using the 1650ish MKC to Birmingham tomorrow - now usually a 5 car 805 with plenty of seats spare (I know a split that makes it nice and cheap). Whereas the WMT services at similar times are heaving.

 

[Jim the Jim]

I like some degree of flexibility for long-distance journeys, but it's very often flexibility to get a train an hour earlier or an hour later if necessary. Which is exactly what the LNER scheme offers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like some degree of flexibility for long-distance journeys, but it's very often flexibility to get a train an hour earlier or an hour later if necessary. Which is exactly what the LNER scheme offers.

The main issue I see with Advances on shorter journeys is the break of journey/ending early restriction. Yes, a small number of people might use it to save money, but it really does need to be looked at, particularly as you can't change the origin and destination of an Advance even if you want to, and even if you could it wouldn't be possible during the journey.

While for instance boarding or alighting at Haymarket on an Edinburgh ticket is unofficially tolerated, this really needs to be allowed (though in the case of boarding at the risk of losing a reserved seat). And we also don't need ammunition for silly staff who won't let people out of gatelines for a cigarette.

If the Advance is to become the main fare, and it seems like it perhaps is, then this needs to be resolved. If someone offers you a lift to the connection point, or it looked like the connection might miss so you took a taxi there instead at your own cost, being refused entry or charged an excess (or worse, being given a Penalty Fare or similar even if you shouldn't for that) is just stupid. Similarly refundability needs to be looked at.

 

[43066]

Artificial scarcity doesn't have to be wilful, it just means that the service provider* is deliberately not providing enough capacity for the demand and is instead pricing some of it off or dissuading it by other means such as claiming certain trains are full.

So isn’t it really just regular scarcity (as noted above supply of railway capacity is inelastic compared to other modes such as airlines)? LNER generally aren’t reservation only AIUI, that was something that was during Covid.

I don't think it's a wonderful policy but I wouldn't say it's a disastrous one either. However I think trials on shorter routes will be informative as I'd be surprised if they were anywhere near as popular - look at London-Birmingham where even without that policy and its fare hikes we see WMT and Chiltern trains rammed to the rafters and Avanti ones half empty at most times of day. It seems clear on that shorter journey that what people overridingly want is cheap walk up fares (even if that meant buying an Advance just before travel at, unlike on the ECML trial, a reasonable price - plenty do this on Northern).

Presumably the pricing should he dynamic/flexible enough to ensure they trains are priced to a level that ensures full trains. The London - Birmingham market might well support lower prices than the London - Scotland market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So isn’t it really just regular scarcity (as noted above supply of railway capacity is inelastic compared to other modes such as airlines)?

Capacity isn't inelastic, there are viable ways it could be increased. The stakeholders (DfT and LNER between them) are choosing not to pursue those ways, partly because they can't agree on how to do it, and partly because DfT doesn't want to fund it. Thus it's artificial scarcity.

It's not artificial scarcity in the sense of limiting capacity specifically to increase prices, as some businesses do, but it is still artificial scarcity because it wouldn't be that hard to resolve it.

LNER generally aren’t reservation only AIUI, that was something that was during Covid.

LNER, like Avanti West Coast, apply "fake compulsory reservations" which results in them claiming trains are sold out. We know it doesn't mean that but a lot of people don't or wouldn't take the risk, particularly given how the railway likes to apply swingeing financial settlements for very minor ticketing issues and the likes.

Presumably the pricing should he dynamic/flexible enough to ensure they trains are priced to a level that ensures full trains. The London - Birmingham market might well support lower prices than the London - Scotland market.

Only if the primary purpose of the railway is profit. Otherwise, the priority should be to attract as many passengers as possible from more polluting modes of transport such as car and air.

 

[norbitonflyer]

But you still haven’t really explained why it’s “of dubious legality.”

Because they are regulated fares - the clue is in the word. Abolishing them is against the regulations under which the operator (here DOLR) is required to operate. Yes, the rules can be changed, but not at the whim of the operator.

 

[Mainline421]

I think that would push a lot of passengers onto flights or coaches for long-distance journeys, unless you're proposing that flexible tickets from e.g. London to Glasgow should be £100 return.

"Simplification" isn't necessarily a good thing, and I'd argue that advance fares are the simplest type of ticket possible (specified trains permitted to get rather than a group or subgroup of possibilities).

Scrapping seat reservations also seems poorly thought-out; how many passengera would willingly risk being without a seat for a four-hour journey when the current system allows for reservations to be made for free?

That's a pretty ridiculous argument, Anytime is simplest ticket type and walk up tickets is how the railway has worked for 190 years. Advance fares are far more complicated and extremely anti-consumer. When push comes to shove probably <0.01% actually let the existence of seat reservations influence their travel decisions, many TOCs have sensibly abolished them (all with journey times over 3 hours). Walk up fares should be more affordable, but advance fares only benefit the TOCs. People have become so accustomed to the status quo they don't notice how bad it has become, you can always follow a booked intinerary if you want to on any ticket type.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because they are regulated fares - the clue is in the word. Abolishing them is against the regulations under which the operator (here DOLR) is required to operate. Yes, the rules can be changed, but not at the whim of the operator.

The LNER trial was not done "at the whim of the operator", it was agreed with DfT as it is something they themselves wanted to trial too. Thus it is legal.

 

[norbitonflyer]

. It will be bought as a distress purchase but nothing more, and the implementation of on-the-day advances even removes that for most people.

On the day advances are all very well, but there is no guarantee there will be one available at an affordable price when one needs to travel.
And remember that once you have made the outward journey, the return is no longer optional.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a pretty ridiculous argument, Anytime is simplest ticket type and walk up tickets is how the railways has worked for 190 years. Advance fares are far more complicated and extremely anti-consumer.

They may be anti-consumer, but the very simplest type of ticket is one that states on it which trains you must use. Anytime are more complex as you have stuff like permitted routes to deal with.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2025 ==

The point of removing off-peak fares was to remove the ‘price cap’ it provided at busy times, especially Friday evening and Sunday afternoon.

And also to remove the embarrassment of the annual fares round - you can surreptitiously tweak with quotas to increase fares without it being visible if everything is Advances. Nobody ever talks of the Ryanair annual fares round.

 

[Mainline421]

They may be anti-consumer, but the very simplest type of ticket is one that states on it which trains you must use. Anytime are more complex as you have stuff like permitted routes to deal with.

You can get an itinerary with an Anytime or Off-Peak, fining people and refusing refunds doesn't make anything simpler.

 

[43066]

Capacity isn't inelastic, there are viable ways it could be increased. The stakeholders (DfT and LNER between them) are choosing not to pursue those ways, partly because they can't agree on how to do it. Thus it's artificial scarcity.

With respect I completely disagree with you here. Surely it’s immediately clear why railway capacity is inelastic. Train fleets are used for many years and are subject to stabling space and maintenance depots being available. You can’t just lease an extra fleet of trains (and crew) in the way an airline can with airliners. Then capacity is also subject to signalling and other fixed infrastructure which cannot be easily or cheaply expanded. You only have to look at the recent HS2, Crossrail, electrification projects and fleet renewals to see that it’s extremely inflexible and inelastic.

Only if the primary purpose of the railway is profit. Otherwise, the priority should be to attract as many passengers as possible from more polluting modes of transport such as car and air.

Not necessarily. If the primary purpose* of the railway is to contribute to economic growth by transporting people you need some way or rationing scarce capacity to those whose journeys are linked to be most economically significant. Price is likely to be the best way of doing that (meaning business travellers, commuters, well heeled tourists etc.)

This does inevitably mean that, as trains become busier, bargain advanced tickets bought by (for example) cash poor time rich students, who could just as easily take the coach, will become less common.

*part of the issue here is that I don’t think there’s a settled consensus on what the railway is actually for, but that’s straying off topic!

Because they are regulated fares - the clue is in the word. Abolishing them is against the regulations under which the operator (here DOLR) is required to operate. Yes, the rules can be changed, but not at the whim of the operator.

Is it? Can you point to specifically how what LNER is doing contravenes the regulations you’re referring to, or any other area of law? It’s quite an accusation and I would be astonished if LNER/government’s legal advisors haven’t comprehensively “kicked the tyres” of the legalities…

 

[RailWonderer]

Capacity isn't inelastic, there are viable ways it could be increased. The stakeholders (DfT and LNER between them) are choosing not to pursue those ways, partly because they can't agree on how to do it, and partly because DfT doesn't want to fund it. Thus it's artificial scarcity.

It's not artificial scarcity in the sense of limiting capacity specifically to increase prices, as some businesses do, but it is still artificial scarcity because it wouldn't be that hard to resolve it.

And there lies the crux of the issue. The DfT doesn't want to spend millions on signalling, four tracking and more IETs for LNER to increase the Edinburgh fasts to 2tph just for demand per carriage to fall and for less trains to 'sell out'.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The LNER trial was not done "at the whim of the operator", it was agreed with DfT as it is something they themselves wanted to trial too. Thus it is legal.

I stand corrected, but DfT is acountable to Parliament, and we should be writing to our MPs about it.

No point writing to DfT. I have in fact done so, twice. My first email got a stock reply which did not address the points I raised. My second email, in October, has not been answered.

LNER have not answered either of my emails.

 

[RailWonderer]

This does inevitably mean that, as trains become busier, bargain advanced tickets bought by (for example) cash poor time rich students, who could just as easily take the coach, will become less common.

Or they fly Ryanair/Easyjet with no carry on in the early morning or evening and use the coach to get from airport to town centre/their homes both ends.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With respect I completely disagree with you here. Surely it’s immediately clear why railway capacity is inelastic. Train fleets are used for many years and are subject to stabling space and maintenance depots being available. You can’t just lease an extra fleet of trains (and crew) in the way an airline can with airliners. Then capacity is also subject to signalling and other fixed infrastructure which cannot be easily or cheaply expanded. You only have to look at the recent HS2, Crossrail, electrification projects and fleet renewals to see that it’s extremely inflexible and inelastic.

It's not. Trains can be ordered and timetables are not immutable. There are ways the capacity could be increased considerably above what it is now. The DfT are just choosing not to do so because charging fewer people more is better for their pocket.

 

[A S Leib]

I like some degree of flexibility for long-distance journeys, but it's very often flexibility to get a train an hour earlier or an hour later if necessary. Which is exactly what the LNER scheme offers.

Provided that either 70-minute flex tickets haven't sold out, or that you can afford an anytime fare if they have.

Walk up fares should be more affordable, but advance fares only benefit the TOCs.

There's a limit to how cheap walk-up fares would realistically ever get. Given that the fuel to drive from London to Glasgow works out at ~£65 each way, I don't see why fare-setters would have an incentive to significantly undercut that when they can already compete on speed and effort on the (potential) driver's part, but advance fares are available for substantially lower amounts. If you are advocating for walk-up tickets from Bournemouth to Berwick for £100 return then I'd agree with your point.

When push comes to shove probably <0.01% actually let the existence of seat reservations influence their travel decisions, many TOCs have sensibly abolished them (all with journey times over 3 hours).

But when the railway's competing with cars and planes, neither of which have any chance of passengers being left standing, the choice should still be provided. The only issue I have with them is when mandatory reservations are sold with flexible tickets and tonnes of "reserved" seats end up unoccupied.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily. If the primary purpose* of the railway is to contribute to economic growth by transporting people

That's certainly VERY much for debate - indeed I would utterly disagree at that being its primary purpose.

Perhaps that debate should be had on a political stage - it would help if it did have a clear purpose!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2025 ==

But when the railway's competing with cars and planes, neither of which have any chance of passengers being left standing, the choice should still be provided.

Another thing that makes London-Newcastle/Edinburgh different from most of the rest of the network is that the car isn't a primary competitor. Most people won't drive that far. For almost every other UK journey aside from London commuting the car is first choice and other options have to work hard to compete with it. (Most people won't drive into London, but would drive to somewhere just outside and park up and take the train in).

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's a pretty ridiculous argument, Anytime is simplest ticket type

Advances are also a very simple ticket type: booked train only, if you miss it then you've paid £100 for a useless piece of orange cardboard.

Surely it’s immediately clear why railway capacity is inelastic. Train fleets are used for many years and are subject to stabling space and maintenance depots being available. You can’t just lease an extra fleet of trains (and crew) in the way an airline can with airliners.

The railway can just lease an extra fleet of trains. New trains can be ordered, existing trains can be refurbished rather than being scrapped.

Lumo and Grand Central both operate five-carriage trains as a policy decision. They're open access so they can do what they want, but they are still hogging slots that could be used by larger trains. Same with CrossCountry north of York.

LNER also operate five carriage trains out of London as an operational decision.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railway can just lease an extra fleet of trains. New trains can be ordered, existing trains can be refurbished rather than being scrapped.

Lumo and Grand Central both operate five-carriage trains as a policy decision. They're open access so they can do what they want, but they are still hogging slots that could be used by larger trains. Same with CrossCountry north of York.

LNER also operate five carriage trains out of London as an operational decision.

Bingo. Artificial scarcity.

There are ways (probably not for this thread!) in which London-Edinburgh capacity could probably be near doubled without too much difficulty or cost. Some of them might be controversial because people might lose out at other locations from them, but it absolutely could be done.

The third service per hour that is on the way (next year?) will help of course.

 

[43066]

The railway can just lease an extra fleet of trains. New trains can be ordered, existing trains can be refurbished rather than being scrapped.

What you mean is commissioning brand new fleets of UK loading gauge stock - well we’ve seen how painful that is in recent years! Then you still have limited station platforms, signalling systems and stabling. Changing these takes years and costs billions, so it is hardly “artificial scarcity”.

Airlines can just wet lease aircraft and crews for a period of high demand - potentially from abroad - the two are simply not comparable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What you mean is commissioning brand new fleets of UK loading gauge stock - well we’ve seen how painful that is in recent years! Then you still have limited station platforms, signalling systems and stabling. Changing these takes years and costs billions, so it is hardly “artificial scarcity”.

Airlines can just wet lease aircraft and crews for a period of high demand - potentially from abroad - the two are simply not comparable.

It's certainly easier for airlines to do it, but it is possible for the railway to do it. The DfT is just choosing not to.

 

[sh24]

As one of the aforementioned business travellers (on average a long distance trip a week for the last 3 years), remote work technology makes flexibility less important. Meeting finishes early? Find a coffee shop/co-working space/empty meeting room on site and get some work done. Of my long distance/Advance ticketable journeys I would say I book Advances 95% of the time because I simply don't need or want to pay a premium to move things around .

Seat reservations on a journey over 1 hour are essential IMO. I want confidence I have a seat so I can be productive. Removing them would be insanity.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What you mean is commissioning brand new fleets of UK loading gauge stock - well we’ve seen how painful that is in recent years! Then you still have limited station platforms, signalling systems and stabling. Changing these takes years and costs billions, so it is hardly “artificial scarcity”.

Airlines can just wet lease aircraft and crews for a period of high demand - potentially from abroad - the two are simply not comparable.

It may be easier for airlines to do it- though not at the busiest airports because they won't have slots- but that doesn't mean the railways can't do it.

The railway chose to get rid of 19 of the 31 Class 91 locomotives. They could have kept them and run them in addition to the Azumas. Same when the CAFs come in next year.

 

[43066]

It's certainly easier for airlines to do it, but it is possible for the railway to do it. The DfT is just choosing not to.

In the way it’s possible to build Crossrail 2, build two new runways at Heathrow, or four track the Northern line. Some things are just not going to be deemed cost effective.

That’s not to say that capacity shouldn’t be increased - but it takes many years to do so, so it’s bordering on delusional to imagine that railway capacity isn’t inelastic in supply.

It may be easier for airlines to do it- though not at the busiest airports because they won't have slots- but that doesn't mean the railways can't do it.

The railway chose to get rid of 19 of the 31 Class 91 locomotives. They could have kept them and run them in addition to the Azumas. Same when the CAFs come in next year.

Would the signalling system have had capacity to do this (they aren’t compatible with ETCS IIRC). And would there have been sufficient depot/stabling space?

Lack of space sounds trivial, but it’s a major issue - it’s why the GTR Ashford depot never really got off the ground in terms of stabling trains there - there was insufficient space in the current depot, and no feasible way to expand it.