Standing on long rail journeys to be banned under Virgin Trains plan for airline-style fare

Bletchleyite · 1 Jun 2019

Puffing Devil said:
There is already a mechanism for reducing crowding on the WCML - that's West Midlands Trains, that soak up a lot of the time rich, cash poor travellers from Virgin.

It reduces crowding on VTWC (on which I can't remember the last time I couldn't get a seat), but not on their own services which are often overcrowded with passengers who really should be on VTWC and not taking up space that should be available for passengers who have no alternative services.

RailUK Forums

The Ham · 1 Jun 2019

PR1Berske said:
Not one part of your response seems negative to me. Trolley services already exist and passengers deal with them.

45 minutes to walk the length of the train, that doesn't allow for walking back. That means of you get on coach 2 and the trolly is in coach 3 heading backwards it could be significantly longer than that before it reaches you again.

Although personally I normally take my own food and drinks that's not always possible and the are times when you do just need to buy something (and I don't have hot drinks so I'm not even having to fuel that habit).

pt_mad · 1 Jun 2019

Ken H said:
Maybe we need to look at the fit of trains. make best use of the space. I travelled in the carriage on a 390 with the shop in it. What a waste of space.

There could be some sense in removing tables and having all airline seating GWR MK3 style.

6Gman said:
So you would remove the facility of obtaining refreshments en route?

Perhaps the poster was thinking of a trolley instead?

The Ham said:
As a rough count you're likely to get an extra 20 seats by doing that, based on that giving a total of 490 seats rather than 470 on a 9 coach 390 that gains 4.2% in seating capacity.

To put that in perspective on the 9 years between 2008/09 and 2017/18 growth between London and regions which benefit from HS2 phase 1 has grown by ~70% that's a little over 6% a year.

Yes it'll help but not by very much. Likewise change one of the first class coaches to standard class and you'll gain about 30 seats. That'll gain you a total of 10.6% extra seats, which will last about 15 months before capacity is back to where it was.

Would any operator ever catch up fully with demand without HS2 though? Every effort to help provide extra capacity would obviously provide some relief and it'd be a gesture nonetheless. Such as if the extra handful of Liverpool's were introduced at some point.

Taunton · 2 Jun 2019

PR1Berske said:
At 50 minutes journey time, HS2 between London and Birmingham should be mostly standing and it should be a nasty, cramped, sweaty, thoroughly uncomfortable experience. Fast, reliable and unpleasant. This should be the dream of anyone who wants to see rail succeed in the UK

PR1Berske said:

This is absolute, complete, and idealist nonsense of the highest order. Railways should offer top class customer service.

Click to expand...

Seems the straightforward New World way to me. Colleague commutes from Rickmansworth to Liverpool Street. That's 50 minutes as well. Couple of years ago the good old A stock trains were replaced by the 21st Century wonders, the S stock. With HALF the number of seats, because apparently standing is good. So conditions are now exactly as described.

F Great Eastern · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
Seems the straightforward New World way to me. Colleague commutes from Rickmansworth to Liverpool Street. That's 50 minutes as well. Couple of years ago the good old A stock trains were replaced by the 21st Century wonders, the S stock. With HALF the number of seats, because apparently standing is good. So conditions are now exactly as described.

For me the S Stock is vastly superior than the A stock in every department, they feel more roomy, are much cooler in the summer as they have decent air conditioning and when very busy they feel less cramped, each to their own though. I'm not saying the S stock are perfect but for the work that they do, they are far better than the A stock as the wide gangways promote far better distribution of load.

Bletchleyite · 2 Jun 2019

F Great Eastern said:
For me the S Stock is vastly superior than the A stock in every department, they feel more roomy, are much cooler in the summer as they have decent air conditioning and when very busy they feel less cramped, each to their own though. I'm not saying the S stock are perfect but for the work that they do, they are far better than the A stock as the wide gangways promote far better distribution of load.

I'd say they are close to perfect for what they do - it really is very hard to come up with a genuine criticism in my view. The A-stock was knackered old rubbish.

Bletchleyite · 2 Jun 2019

pt_mad said:
There could be some sense in removing tables and having all airline seating GWR MK3 style.

Pendolinos don't have many tables anyway. Ex-GWR Mk3s are not "all airline", they have two tables per coach. You need two sets of facing seats unless you want a seat facing the wall which is actually more wasteful of space.

The thing that wastes space is having more than two tables because there's space between adjoining seat backs that can't be used.

Taunton · 2 Jun 2019

F Great Eastern said:
For me the S Stock is vastly superior than the A stock in every department... air conditioning .... wide gangways .

You see, that's a typical Railway Person perspective. Speak to the real travellers and the No 1 issue about commuting that comes up is none of this, but "Getting a seat".

I did find it amusing one day on the Bluebell Railway when a spontaneous conversation broke out between two family groups nearby about "how nice and comfortable these seats are - if only they made trains this way nowadays ...".

In 1930s Maunsell stock.

NSEFAN · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
Seems the straightforward New World way to me. Colleague commutes from Rickmansworth to Liverpool Street. That's 50 minutes as well. Couple of years ago the good old A stock trains were replaced by the 21st Century wonders, the S stock. With HALF the number of seats, because apparently standing is good. So conditions are now exactly as described.

Standing isn't inherently good. Ideally there would be seats for everyone. Having standing passengers is a necessary tradeoff because of the constraints of legacy infrastructure preventing more frequent / longer trains. Disallowing it means that physical capacity is wasted.

Would you propose a system of compulsory reservations on the Metropolitan line, and other such commuter routes? What about the numerous instances that an intercity train doubles up as a regional commuter train? Would your boss accept, "sorry I'm 2 hours late, I couldn't get a seat reservation. Again."? Don't think mine would be too chuffed with that one.

Taunton · 2 Jun 2019

NSEFAN said:
Would you propose a system of compulsory reservations on the Metropolitan line,

No, I'd propose putting as many seats in the S stock as the old A stock used to have. When apparently everyone from Rickmansworth got a seat. Mot any more. I believe it's more than 200 seats per train lost.

Bletchleyite · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
No, I'd propose putting as many seats in the S stock as the old A stock used to have. When apparently everyone from Rickmansworth got a seat. Mot any more. I believe it's more than 200 seats per train lost.

The trouble is that tightly-packed 3+2 is not good for what is an extended Tube line. At best you'd get a Class 700 type layout, don't know about you but I would prefer S-stock.

There's always Chiltern if you prefer 3+2.

F Great Eastern · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
You see, that's a typical Railway Person perspective. Speak to the real travellers and the No 1 issue about commuting that comes up is none of this, but "Getting a seat".

No, it's not, it's the opinion of everyone I ever speak to, including my family and friends who saw those units as a breath of fresh air when they came in, the only people who I know who prefer the A stock are enthusiasts.

I did find it amusing one day on the Bluebell Railway when a spontaneous conversation broke out between two family groups nearby about "how nice and comfortable these seats are - if only they made trains this way nowadays ...".

Comparing the Bluebell Railway that takes miniscule passengers, all of which is leisure and entertainment travel with the London Underground, one of the busiest urban metro network in Europe christ that's not even comparing apples with oranges, that's comparing a spoken word with oranges, completely irrelevant.

Some of the quality of the discussion in this thread is quite frankly appalling.

F Great Eastern · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
No, I'd propose putting as many seats in the S stock as the old A stock used to have. When apparently everyone from Rickmansworth got a seat. Mot any more. I believe it's more than 200 seats per train lost.

And reduce the capacity of the train in the process so people get left behind?

At the end of the day metro networks need to take as many passengers as possible as quickly as possible, replacing standing room with seats will mean that less people can be carried at rush hour.

Taunton · 2 Jun 2019

F Great Eastern said:
the London Underground, the busiest urban metro network in Europe .

That must surely be Moscow.

Bletchleyite · 2 Jun 2019

F Great Eastern said:
And reduce the capacity of the train in the process so people get left behind?

At the end of the day metro networks need to take as many passengers as possible as quickly as possible, replacing standing room with seats will mean that less people can be carried at rush hour.

I suppose the Met Line is a bit of an oddity, being more like Thameslink or Merseyrail. That said, as I said I'd favour S-stock or something very like it (e.g. the Crossrail stock) being used on either of those in preference to what is presently there.

Taunton · 2 Jun 2019

F Great Eastern said:
At the end of the day metro networks need to take as many passengers as possible as quickly as possible,

So let's pay Metro style fares then (relevant operator's cards).

Moscow Metro : 55p anywhere
Rickmansworth to Zone 1 single : £5.60.

Adsy125 · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
So let's pay Metro style fares then (relevant operator's cards).

Moscow Metro : 55p anywhere
Rickmansworth to Zone 1 single : £5.60.

Are you going to pay the extra tax to subsidise it, and expect everyone in Rickmansworth to fund your commuting?

F Great Eastern · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
So let's pay Metro style fares then (relevant operator's cards).

Moscow Metro : 55p anywhere
Rickmansworth to Zone 1 single : £5.60.

Such comparisons are meaningless as they don't take into account things like subsidy and the cost of living.

In Kyiv a metro ride anywhere is about 25p but since salaries are vastly lower there it's expensive to people in Kyiv.

sprunt · 2 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
You see, that's a typical Railway Person perspective. Speak to the real travellers and the No 1 issue about commuting that comes up is none of this, but "Getting a seat".

Perhaps in Rickmansworth. Further in, where the idea of getting a seat is a pipedream it's going to be "Getting onto the train at all" which is much more likely to happen with higher capacity trains containing fewer seats.

Taunton · 11 Jun 2019

For the second time IN SUCCESSION my journey on Virgin's WCML has been overcrowded because the previous service has been cancelled. Announced that due to an engineering issue they "needed to thin the service out". How on earth is this glib operating approach compatible with requiring reservations.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
For the second time IN SUCCESSION my journey on Virgin's WCML has been overcrowded because the previous service has been cancelled. Announced that due to an engineering issue they "needed to thin the service out". How on earth is this glib operating approach compatible with requiring reservations.

Well, VT's view has become apparent on this with their Open Access application - reservations compulsory during normal operations but standing permitted in the event of a cancellation.

Hadders · 11 Jun 2019

What counts as disruption though?

I planned to travel from Northampton to Warrington Bank Quay this morning, changing at Rugby.

Train from Northampton to Rugby was cancelled due to overhead wire problems between Rugby and Coventry, with no prospect of anything northbound from Northampton for a couple of hours.

Thinking quickly I guessed if I could get to Milton Keynes I could get a train to Manchester and then get across to Warrington from there. Made it to Milton Keynes with a couple of minutes to spare and minimised my delay.

Obviously I had no seat reservation but it was a risk worth taking. Interestingly the Manchester route wasn’t affected by any disruption so would I have been allowed to use it if reservations were compulsory as I doubt there’d have been dispensation to use it due to disruption.

geoffk · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Pendolinos don't have many tables anyway. Ex-GWR Mk3s are not "all airline", they have two tables per coach. You need two sets of facing seats unless you want a seat facing the wall which is actually more wasteful of space.

The thing that wastes space is having more than two tables because there's space between adjoining seat backs that can't be used.

Even the TfW 150s have some tables!

PeterC · 11 Jun 2019

Taunton said:
No, I'd propose putting as many seats in the S stock as the old A stock used to have. When apparently everyone from Rickmansworth got a seat. Mot any more. I believe it's more than 200 seats per train lost.

And like the A stock you would have people left on the platform in zone 1 despite empty seats because short distance passengers packed the dorrways solid and didn't move down. For all its faults the S stock was the least worst compromise.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

geoffk said:
Even the TfW 150s have some tables!

150s are branch line units. The pressures are not the same.

6Gman · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Pendolinos don't have many tables anyway. Ex-GWR Mk3s are not "all airline", they have two tables per coach. You need two sets of facing seats unless you want a seat facing the wall which is actually more wasteful of space.

The thing that wastes space is having more than two tables because there's space between adjoining seat backs that can't be used.

Very useful for luggage though.

Or litter bins.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

6Gman said:
Very useful for luggage though.

True, though dedicated racks and large overheads are less awkward.

Or litter bins.

Better having large bins in the vestibule than undersized ones between seat backs.

Taunton · 11 Jun 2019

Hadders said:
Obviously I had no seat reservation but it was a risk worth taking. Interestingly the Manchester route wasn’t affected by any disruption so would I have been allowed to use it if reservations were compulsory as I doubt there’d have been dispensation to use it due to disruption.

I guess we were in the same disruption. But you are right, such ingenuity would never be even thought of or allowed.

yorkie · 21 Jul 2019

An article published a few days ago has further scorned the idea:

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/airline-model-for-railways/

“What Virgin is proposing is absolute madness,” argues UK rail historian and journalist Christian Wolmar. “They’re on the verge of being booted off the railway because, even after 20 years, they still don’t understand it.”

Mark Smith, a rail expert who runs the Man in Seat 61 blog, also believes Virgin’s logic is essentially flawed. This is mainly down to the fact the people tend to make longer journeys on the UK rail less frequently than they do shorter trips, the latter often requiring little pre-planning and less willingness to commit to a specific time.

“Shorter trips are made more frequently with greater spontaneity – and most crucially of all – with a need for greater flexibility,” he says. “In removing this flexibility, Virgin’s proposals potentially remove one of rail greatest advantages over air and coach. And on routes when where the main competitor is the car, the ultimate in mobility, I am not convinced this is the right approach.”

Virgin have been waging war against the cheapest flexible fares for over two decades.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/virgin-backs-down-over-walk-on-fares-1296476.html

Randeep Ramesh in November 1997 said:
Virgin Trains, tried last month to abolish its cheapest walk-on fares. But opposition from passenger groups and industry regulators has forced management to think again.

The company, which is owned by Richard Branson, planned to withdraw its cheap Super Saver tickets in January. The proposals - revealed exclusively by The Independent - would have meant passengers paying up to 37 per cent more to travel using the cheapest "walk-on" tickets.

Bletchleyite · 21 Jul 2019

What VT actually did in 1997 was to remove SuperSavers (which weren't valid Fridays or summer Saturdays) but reduce the Saver fares to roughly the average of the two. The outcome of this long-term (which I bet didn't exactly please them, but tough

) was that regulated VTWC Off Peak fares are quite a bit lower than the equivalents on other TOCs - no bad thing at all.

Standing on long rail journeys to be banned under Virgin Trains plan for airline-style fare

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member