Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

[AdamWW]

Excluding services that start off quiet but fill up as they go south, it would seem that the services they struggle to fill are often ones which have peak restrictions applied (and therefore very steep fares) but many people now have the flexibility to avoid them. The answer in that case is to cut those peak fares.

Or, presumably, to carry on as they are if revenue is maximised by part filling trains with passengers each paying a lot for their ticket.

 

[Krokodil]

Or, presumably, to carry on as they are if revenue is maximised by part filling trains with passengers each paying a lot for their ticket.

I suspect that it is not

 

[Starmill]

I was just thinking in general that if Avanti aren't managing to fill trains, they might be able to do so if they dropped some services at less popular times and forced the people who would have been on them to travel at a time more convenient to the railway.

Or into the car or other mode of transport, of course.

But I'm happy to believe I'm completely wrong on this.

You're absolutely right that this happens on SNCF especially on international services and / or in the evenings. There's a good reason only two trains a day service Paris - Barcelona by high speed for example. There's a good reason most routes, even shorter ones, have very early last trains from Paris, such as to Le Mans and Rennes, or to Strasbourg, or Eurostar just to Brussels.

But the inverse problems are the ones I was actually thinking of e.g. train marked sold out but actually leaves with unoccupied seats, or alternatively a train running heavily crowded with a standing load despite being "sold out" - both common occurances on Avanti and incredibly rare on TGV.

A alternative way to think about it is if there are two "crimes" of yeild management they are high prices on poorly loaded trains and low prices on heavily crowded ones. Both are rare for TGV and everyday for Avanti.

 

[AdamWW]

But the inverse problems are the ones I was actually thinking of e.g. train marked sold out but actually leaves with unoccupied seats, or alternatively a train running heavily crowded with a standing load despite being "sold out" - both common occurances on Avanti and incredibly rare on TGV.

And which indeed would be very different with true compulsory reservations and no standing passengers.

And I hope we never see the day that this happens in the UK.

I've recently had a frustrating experience with tickets in Spain with trains completely sold out weeks ahead of time for a short journey where I'd quite happily stand if required.

 

[Starmill]

And which indeed would be very different with true compulsory reservations and no standing passengers.

And I hope we never see the day that this happens in the UK.

I've recently had a frustrating experience with tickets in Spain with trains completely sold out weeks ahead of time for a short journey where I'd quite happily stand if required.

Unfortunately yes, Spain is rife for that sort of hard line for no reason. SNCF are significantly more practical than that but that doesn't mean you'd never get stranded. Either way my only point was the current Avanti situation offers the disbenefits of both free unreservable seating and compulsory reservation with few of the advantages.

For the record I agree, as I said above, neither the Renfe nor the SNCF approach should be used any further here in my view, and the British trains in question (except Sleepers) should go back to being shown as reservations advised rather than reservations obligatory.

 

[AdamWW]

Either way my only point was the current Avanti situation offers the disbenefits of both free unreservable seating and compulsory reservation with few of the advantages.

Point taken!

 

[Haywain]

if they dropped some services at less popular times

That would be difficult for them to do as those services are likely to be franchise/public service requirements. Most TOC franchises, when awarded, specified when early and late trains would operate.

 

[AdamWW]

That would be difficult for them to do as those services are likely to be franchise/public service requirements. Most TOC franchises, when awarded, specified when early and late trains would operate.

Quite so. My point was that perhaps SNCF isn't constrained in such a way making it easier not to run half empty trains.

 

[TUC]

I was just thinking in general that if Avanti aren't managing to fill trains, they might be able to do so if they dropped some services at less popular times and forced the people who would have been on them to travel at a time more convenient to the railway.

Or into the car or other mode of transport, of course.

But I'm happy to believe I'm completely wrong on this.

Any business which builds itself on what is convenient for itself rather than for its customers is likely to fail in the long term.

 

[Horizon22]

Any business which builds itself on what is convenient for itself rather than for its customers is likely to fail in the long term.

Only Avanti isn't really a "business" in the conventional sense. And is not long for this world anyway.

 

[AdamWW]

Any business which builds itself on what is convenient for itself rather than for its customers is likely to fail in the long term.

Only if there is meaningful competition.

 

[Haywain]

Only Avanti isn't really a "business" in the conventional sense.

In what way is it not a business?

 

[Starmill]

In what way is it not a business?

I think what the post is getting at is that a purely commercial outfit would be likely to be acting quite differently. Even more so now than when there was a good deal of commercial freedom in the pre-2012 Virgin Trains contract.

 

[Horizon22]

In what way is it not a business?

Well it doesn't have that much competition in the same way a purely commercial business would and has pretty strict conditions on it.

 

[Haywain]

Well it doesn't have that much competition in the same way a purely commercial business would and has pretty strict conditions on it.

Many other businesses exist in the same way, and they are still businesses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Avanti set up for example has all of the downsides of SNCF's long-haul operations without any of the advantages. SNCF are genuinely masters of selling nearly every seat, far far far better than Avanti are, and they still never rip anyone off to the level of the Anytime Single from London to Manchester. (it's £193.00 at present to save anyone checking)

Eurostar Red does, and SNCF have significant shareholding in that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2025 ==

Excluding services that start off quiet but fill up as they go south, it would seem that the services they struggle to fill are often ones which have peak restrictions applied (and therefore very steep fares) but many people now have the flexibility to avoid them. The answer in that case is to cut those peak fares.

It was actually part of their franchise agreement to drop Anytime fares by I think around 20-30%. It was the DfT that stopped it post COVID.

By comparison the LNER London to Edinburgh Anytime is almost reasonable! Twice the distance, almost the same fare.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2025 ==

I think what the post is getting at is that a purely commercial outfit would be likely to be acting quite differently. Even more so now than when there was a good deal of commercial freedom in the pre-2012 Virgin Trains contract.

And it was that Virgin Trains that cranked up the Anytime fare. Since then it's usually just gone up by roughly the normal increase percentage each fare round.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2025 ==

Only if there is meaningful competition.

The car?

 

[Starmill]

Eurostar Red does, and SNCF have significant shareholding in that.

It does on Paris - Brussels yes, although that's still quite a bit better value for money than Avanti Anytime given the trains are all non-stop and genuinely save a significant amount of time over any of the possible alternatives. They're also more reliable. The wonders of dedicated routes...

 

[jayah]

In what way is it not a business?

Its customer (DfT) and main supplier Network Rail are both the government.

It takes no revenue risk.

Its pricing policies are largely set by ministerial decree.

The government also determines the annual pay rises for those covered by collective bargaining.

It has a rail monopoly (>90% market share) on most of its key markets.

Its capital investment is decided and funded by central government.

 

[Haywain]

Its customer (DfT) and main supplier Network Rail are both the government.

It takes no revenue risk.

Its pricing policies are largely set by ministerial decree.

The government also determines the annual pay rises for those covered by collective bargaining.

It has a rail monopoly (>90% market share) on most of its key markets.

Its capital investment is decided and funded by central government.

That isn't an answer, it's a complaint. The company operating on that basis remains a business.

 

[Starmill]

That isn't an answer, it's a complaint. The company operating on that basis remains a business.

It's still pretty clear though from the context of the post you're replying to that LNER being long-established state corporation is in fact relevant.

There are lots of important downsides to state corporations which are very well documented, and which don't really apply to public sector bodies which are run in a very non-commercial way, such as NHS England. Neither the current nor previous governments have recognised these or planned for avoiding them. Criticisms on that basis seem perfectly valid to me, even though the response is likely to be it's a stop-gap measure.

 

[Haywain]

It's still pretty clear though from the context of the post you're replying to that LNER being long-established state corporation is in fact relevant.

The original comment (post #910) referred to Avanti, not LNER. Avanti is a business, even if much of the way it operates is dictated by branches of government. LNER is slightly different but it is a business, albeit government owned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The original comment (post #910) referred to Avanti, not LNER. Avanti is a business, even if much of the way it operates is dictated by branches of government. LNER is slightly different but it is a business, albeit government owned.

Curiously in Germany they consider such businesses (e.g. Deutsche Bahn AG) privatised, even if 100% of the share capital is owned by the Government (or they're limited by guarantee) - whereas we consider LNER nationalised.

But yes the Government (local and national) owns lots of businesses, DfT Operator Ltd is only one of the many. It doesn't make them any less businesses - the only way for them not to be would be if they were a direct part of the civil service.

 

[jayah]

That isn't an answer, it's a complaint. The company operating on that basis remains a business.

You could argue Network Rail is a business of you wanted.

Most people however would recognise it is an arm of the government, in the same way most TOCs are little more than government contractors.

 

[Haywain]

in the same way most TOCs are little more than government contractors.

If you agree a contract with Joe Bloggs Ltd to do something, and you pay them to do it, are they a business even though they are a contractor?

 

[redreni]

Curiously in Germany they consider such businesses (e.g. Deutsche Bahn AG) privatised, even if 100% of the share capital is owned by the Government (or they're limited by guarantee) - whereas we consider LNER nationalised.

But yes the Government (local and national) owns lots of businesses, DfT Operator Ltd is only one of the many. It doesn't make them any less businesses - the only way for them not to be would be if they were a direct part of the civil service.

Interestingly, in civil service vernacular, it is only Directorates within a department's headquarters and their associated offices that aren't called businesses. As soon as you create an agency and give it a Chief Executive, it is regarded by the civil service as a business, even if its staff are civil servants. Think DVLA, Jobcentre Plus, UK Border Force, His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, etc.

A palpably absurd distinction, of course, but not a very important one imho.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The TOCs are run as businesses, as GBR's operating arm will be. The Government is the shareholder but they are not 'run' by ministers (who have neither the bandwidth nor experience to run a business day-to-day).

The only activity that doesn't follow this model is the NHS, which, however it has been structured is essentially a political animal, but the distinction is that the NHS is free at the point of use.

One of the major distortions of the privatisation era was the loss of an integrated 'profit and loss' account for the whole industry and restoring this is a key early objective of the current renationalisation work.

The debate about farepayer vs taxpayer contribution to the railway isn't just an overall one; it's about understanding the relative costs/revenues within each element of the operation.

The Island Line (when it's actually running) requires a much larger subsidy per passenger than a London commuter route.

The ECML (as Intercity proved) can be a very profitable route in its own right. The question is whether a route like that (where people do have some choice, car, coach or air) should be subsidised or whether the surplus it generates should instead be used to help fund the less profitable but arguably more socially necessary parts of the network.

These are political/policy questions that are fed into the 'business' objectives of the TOC operator.

 

[Mike395]

The TOCs are run as businesses, as GBR's operating arm will be. The Government is the shareholder but they are not 'run' by ministers (who have neither the bandwidth nor experience to run a business day-to-day). The only activity that doesn't follow this model is the NHS, which, however it has been structured is essentially a political animal, but the distinction is that the NHS is free at the point of use.
One of the major distortions of the privatisation era was the loss of an integrated 'profit and loss' account for the whole industry and restoring this is a key early objective of the current renationalisation work. The debate about farepayer vs taxpayer contribution to the railway isn't just an overall one; it's about understanding the relative costs/revenues within each element of the operation. The Island Line (when it's actually running) requires a much larger subsidy per passenger than a London commuter route. The ECML (as Intercity proved) can be a very profitable route in its own right. The question is whether a route like that (where people do have some choice, car, coach or air) should be subsidised or whether the surplus it generates should instead be used to help fund the less profitable but arguably more socially necessary parts of the network. These are political/policy questions that are fed into the 'business' objectives of the TOC operator.

I have no problem with the ECML running at a surplus (and I agree it both is and should be a business, albeit one with Government funding and arms-length oversight), but not in the way LNER (and by extension by not intervening, the DfT), are choosing to achieve that at present. I think there's an important distinction there.

To mostly lift from my own Bluesky post earlier today - I have no problem with dynamic pricing for people who can plan where (as with LNER) trains are often at capacity and it's difficult to add more into the timetable due to (in this case) paths on the line concerned; that's about flattening out demand rather than revenue. However, in my view there has to be a time-of-day appropriate cap for those who need to travel at short notice/with flexibility, or have a discount not applicable to advance tickets though - even if it's on the understanding a seat isn't guaranteed. And if that part requires subsidy, so be it.

 

[Krokodil]

The original comment (post #910) referred to Avanti, not LNER. Avanti is a business, even if much of the way it operates is dictated by branches of government. LNER is slightly different but it is a business, albeit government owned.

It is however worth noting that it is not subject to the usual pressures of business.

 

[yorksrob]

Dynamic pricing should be banned in all circumstances. Such a lack of transparency is only tolerated because the public are seen by the Establishment as mugs to be exploited by big business.

 

[modernrail]

For me this has always come down to ‘what are the railways here for’ and who are the stakeholders in the business.

There is obviously lots of room for debate but I feel pretty clear in my perspective. The railways should be a practical, viable transport option for people to be able to use in a broad range of circumstances, including where last minute or flexible travel arrangements are required.

Stakeholders include taxpayers who subsidise the railway, the costs of the trains, the staff etc.

As a taxpayer, I will argue very strongly that there should be ticketing options that allow me to use the railway as a form of transport without being penalised for normal life patterns, partly to reflect the subsidy I have paid to the railway over many many years, as we all have, through our taxes.

As a simple example, I was due to travel from Holyhead to London on Sunday. I didn’t buy the ticket in advance as a friend’s Mum had died and the funeral was to be held in Market Harborough. I didn’t know when but there was a chance it would be on Monday. It was, and so I needed to travel Holyhead to Alsager, stay with a friend the travel Alsager to Market Harborough for the funeral then later Market Harborough to London.

I don’t have a car, so my other option would have been buses - not viable.

So I used the railway as a viable, practical form of transport. Had all thought routes or even the intercity only parts been following LNERs example, I would not have been able to attend the funeral. It would have either cost far too much or I would have probably been locked out of some services.