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

[Trainbike46]

I would add that as for many trips the main competition to rail is driving, it is essential for rail to be as flexible as possible to help attract drivers to rail. In that sense, LNER's trial seems highly counterproductive. Then again, the aim of the trial clearly isn't to get as many people to switch to rail as possible, but instead to maximise the amount charged per passenger and reduce the number of passengers to avoid overcrowding.

For clarity, I believe this to be the wrong aim.

Indeed. Given that the service is going to be increased by 1tph in December (OK, still only two to Edinburgh but the slower one will be sped up and an additional Newcastle semi fast be added, if I recall) it will be interesting to see the effect on fares.

Hopefully the fares will go down given the higher capacity, however I doubt they will go down to the levels before this sham trial started.

 

[renegademaster]

How many people complained after GA dropped seat reservations? I don't think "the masses" are really bothered

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many people complained after GA dropped seat reservations? I don't think "the masses" are really bothered

London to Norwich is more like a fancy Chiltern, despite previously having been IC sector. I am not sure it is really comparable.

 

[davews]

70 minutes is too short for many delays. Last Christmas I had a super off peak return via Kings Cross to Melton Mowbray. OK, not an advance purchased via the LNER system. The outward journey worked fine, and I had a reservation on Grand Central. The return journey had a reserved seat on LNER. But at short notice XC cancelled the Melton to Peterborough train due to driver shortage so I had to take the next train an hour later. Whether I would have got a seat on another LNER train 70 minutes later, not having the LNER app on my phone I couldn't even be bothered to try. But getting to Peterborough there was a Thameslink train sitting there waiting so that made it an easy decision.. When I travel on a train I just want to do that, not bother looking into reserving seats and changing them at a minutes notice and making sure I am following not that straightforward rules.

 

[crablab]

London to Norwich is more like a fancy Chiltern, despite previously having been IC sector. I am not sure it is really comparable.

So is London to Stevenage and Peterborough. Or London to Reading/Swindon/Oxford... arguably even Bristol

 

[Sonic1234]

How many people complained after GA dropped seat reservations? I don't think "the masses" are really bothered

I'd prefer it if they did. Seat reservations cause conflict. You can do a 3+ hour journey on SWR to Exeter without one.

I would add that as for many trips the main competition to rail is driving, it is essential for rail to be as flexible as possible to help attract drivers to rail.

The Government would prefer you to drive, in my opinion. Driving is highly taxed, and the railway is overcrowded. Solving rail capacity problems needs a lot of money, easier to price people off.

You can see the revenue maximisation strategy all over the railway. A pair of GWR advances booked ages in advance is now a few pounds under the super off peak (at times when super off peak is valid), used to be 40-60% of the price. Southern have withdrawn the cheapest tier from trains that arrive at the South Coast towns before lunchtime, and Advances entirely from some Saturday services. The message is pay more or get off.

 

[AdamWW]

I would add that as for many trips the main competition to rail is driving, it is essential for rail to be as flexible as possible to help attract drivers to rail. In that sense, LNER's trial seems highly counterproductive. Then again, the aim of the trial clearly isn't to get as many people to switch to rail as possible, but instead to maximise the amount charged per passenger and reduce the number of passengers to avoid overcrowding.

That's what I would like rail to be, but I suspect that many people would prefer a French style system where they can use the train when they are able to plan well ahead, knowing that they'll get a seat and won't find the train full of standing passengers, and when that doesn't work for them they'll just drive.

And if they can fill their trains like that, that probably works well for the railway too.

You can see the revenue maximisation strategy all over the railway. A pair of GWR advances booked ages in advance is now a few pounds under the super off peak (at times when super off peak is valid), used to be 40-60% of the price. Southern have withdrawn the cheapest tier from trains that arrive at the South Coast towns before lunchtime, and Advances entirely from some Saturday services. The message is pay more or get off.

But surely those 40-60% off priced tickets were also aimed at revenue maximisation. Why else would they have been there?

I'd prefer it if they did. Seat reservations cause conflict. You can do a 3+ hour journey on SWR to Exeter without one.

If due to age or state of health not getting a seat is a big issue, it's something that puts people off rail.

 

[Mainline421]

Caring about route flexibility is very much an enthusiast thing. No member of the general public gives a monkey's about that.

Thats nonesense, I know many people who aren't enthusiasts and choose flexible tickets, there's not always one best route.

I bet said backpackers still knock around France, Spain, Italy and the likes where when it's full it's full, there isn't even an Anytime walk-up that guarantees travel.

Although it's out of the budget of most backpackers SNCF does actually offer a premium fare that allows travel on "full" TGVs without a seat. Trenitalia allows flexible ticket holders on any train for payment of €20 onboard. I don't know if Renfe offer anything but backpackers complain about trains in Spain all the time.

FWIW the other thing "normals" care about is someone not sitting in your seat (a lot less likely if it's prohibitively expensive to get a ticket that doesn't have a compulsory seat reservation) and a lack of overcrowding (same).

Many TOCs abolished reservations on many/all routes, in all cases demand significantly increased (with journeys over 3h). It's not something that actually affects any statistically relevant number of people's purchasing decisions, and you yourself acknowledge the problems they cause. Amtrak offer no reservations on trains taking over 48 hours!

 

[AdamWW]

Amtrak offer no reservations on trains taking over 48 hours!

That's a bit misleading I think.

Almost all their trains (and all the long distance services) are fully reserved. You just don't have a particular seat allocated in advance.

But (at least disregarding overbooking) you will get a seat somewhere and once a train is full for a given journey they won't sell any more tickets for it.

 

[sheff1]

Caring about route flexibility is very much an enthusiast thing. No member of the general public gives a monkey's about that.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Amtrak offer no reservations on trains taking over 48 hours!

Amtrak don't allow reservation of specific seats on a lot of trains, but they do stop selling tickets when they've sold enough to fill all of them. They don't have flexible tickets.

That's what I would like rail to be, but I suspect that many people would prefer a French style system where they can use the train when they are able to plan well ahead, knowing that they'll get a seat and won't find the train full of standing passengers, and when that doesn't work for them they'll just drive.

And if they can fill their trains like that, that probably works well for the railway too.

One thing I've noticed with this post COVID fake compulsory reservations nonsense is that the majority of people will complain about overcrowding and secondarily high fares (though with them already being perceived as high, a bit higher doesn't seem to have much effect) they seem to accept "sold out" as just one of those things, given that most other things where you have a seat (coaches, planes, cinemas, theatres etc) can sell out and once it does it's tough.

As I said, it's not my preference. But I do wonder if we might be nearing the point where the majority of people would indeed actually prefer a French style approach for long distance travel.

If due to age or state of health not getting a seat is a big issue, it's something that puts people off rail.

I'm 6' 4", I'm not afraid of telling someone to get out of my seat and doing something like moving their bag if they refuse.

I suspect my Mum wouldn't, and it seems clear staff aren't willing to do it either for fear of assault. "I'll get the guard" is no longer a threat; the guard won't do anything in 99% of cases. Only if RPIs are on board is anything likely to be done. The passive way to deal with the problem is to ensure everyone has a reserved seat and a seat selector is present, then there's no reason to prefer to sit in someone else's. I know the 70 minute thing means this isn't absolute, but it would certainly be quite different from say GWR where Advances are generally poor value and so a lot of people are on walk-ups just because they were cheapest.

I'm not sure that due to these issues I don't lean towards the idea that reservations should either be compulsory or non-existent on any given train and that optional doesn't work well - but that's very much one for another thread!

 

[miklcct]

That's not to be fair what I said. @miklcct has elaborated extensively on their complex and time-pressured journeys for their sporting engagements here in the past, and to me a car would definitely be most suitable for their needs, just as it is for many of mine.

Exactly true.

I would add that as for many trips the main competition to rail is driving, it is essential for rail to be as flexible as possible to help attract drivers to rail. In that sense, LNER's trial seems highly counterproductive. Then again, the aim of the trial clearly isn't to get as many people to switch to rail as possible, but instead to maximise the amount charged per passenger and reduce the number of passengers to avoid overcrowding.

I have got a licence already and I will soon buy a home in Croydon with parking space. The next thing for me is to work out the cost of installing an electric car charging point on my parking. If it works out well then goodbye rail travel (other than within London, or journeys with reasonably-priced super off-peak tickets available e.g. to the south coast, or buying Advance tickets when I am completely inflexible).

 

[Mainline421]

Amtrak don't allow reservation of specific seats on a lot of trains, but they do stop selling tickets when they've sold enough to fill all of them. They don't have flexible tickets.

I would not hold up Amtrak as an example of how to run a railway, but their tickets are fully refundable right up to departure without any change fees, that is not comparable with LNER'S much more expensive Advance or 70 min fares. Counted places aren't the same as seat reservations (although I obviously don't think they'd be a good idea).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would not hold up Amtrak as an example of how to run a railway, but their tickets are fully refundable right up to departure without any change fees, that is not comparable with LNER'S much more expensive Advance or 70 min fares. Counted places aren't the same as seat reservations (although I obviously don't think they'd be a good idea).

I do think to be fair that the 70 minute ticket (as a kind of Advance Plus) should be refundable up to departure. They'd probably sell more of them if it was, so I expect it would be revenue positive even with the refunds.

 

[AdamWW]

I would not hold up Amtrak as an example of how to run a railway, but their tickets are fully refundable right up to departure without any change fees, that is not comparable with LNER'S much more expensive Advance or 70 min fares.

Agree on both counts!

Counted places aren't the same as seat reservations (although I obviously don't think they'd be a good idea).

In the context of whether one is guaranteed to have a seat or not, as was being discussed, a counted place scheme limited to the number of seats available is equivalent to having a particular seat reserved.

There's a reason that Amtrak describes these trains as being reserved trains even though you don't get a particular seat assigned beforehand.

I do think to be fair that the 70 minute ticket (as a kind of Advance Plus) should be refundable up to departure. They'd probably sell more of them if it was, so I expect it would be revenue positive even with the refunds.

My impression of Eurostar is that they are pretty aggressive about maximising revenue.

And they have shifted to much more flexibility in their tickets (though not quite as generous as full refund up to departure).

 

[Bletchleyite]

My impression of Eurostar is that they are pretty aggressive about maximising revenue.

And they have shifted to much more flexibility in their tickets (though not quite as generous as full refund up to departure).

I seem to recall Lumo's middle tier ticket (LumoFlex) is refundable. Though ridiculously a £10 fee plus fare difference is charged for changes on the day, which is silly.

 

[AdamWW]

I seem to recall Lumo's middle tier ticket (LumoFlex) is refundable. Though ridiculously a £10 fee plus fare difference is charged for changes on the day, which is silly.

I was looking at RENFEs ticketing options recently. As with Amtrak, I certainly wouldn't hold them up as an example of how I'd like to see a railway run, but on the non cheapo tickets (which weren't much more than the most restrictive) they have an interesting (if a bit infurating) scheme where you get to assemble the terms and conditions you fancy at 5 Euros a go.

The options include unlimited changes and just pay the fare difference, free refunds, and also an interesting one where on the day of travel only you can change to a different train for no charge - not even the fare difference - so long as there are seats. If trains are likely to have seats avaliable (and often I think not the case in Spain) that makes a huge difference to an all reserved railway.

 

[yorksrob]

That's what I would like rail to be, but I suspect that many people would prefer a French style system where they can use the train when they are able to plan well ahead, knowing that they'll get a seat and won't find the train full of standing passengers, and when that doesn't work for them they'll just drive.

And if they can fill their trains like that, that probably works well for the railway too.



But surely those 40-60% off priced tickets were also aimed at revenue maximisation. Why else would they have been there?



If due to age or state of health not getting a seat is a big issue, it's something that puts people off rail.

Extortionate prices when people want/need to travel are what puts people off travelling.

That's a bit misleading I think.

Almost all their trains (and all the long distance services) are fully reserved. You just don't have a particular seat allocated in advance.

But (at least disregarding overbooking) you will get a seat somewhere and once a train is full for a given journey they won't sell any more tickets for it.

Much like counted place on SWR.

 

[Richardr]

I do think to be fair that the 70 minute ticket (as a kind of Advance Plus) should be refundable up to departure. They'd probably sell more of them if it was, so I expect it would be revenue positive even with the refunds.

A silly point, maybe, but if that were the case wouldn't apps soon spring up booking all journeys in a day, and then refunding all bar one once one has decided which one one is going to catch? It would then be a completely flexible fare.

 

[AdamWW]

A silly point, maybe, but if that were the case wouldn't apps soon spring up booking all journeys in a day, and then refunding all bar one once one has decided which one one is going to catch? It would then be a completely flexible fare.

Not everyone has the financial resources to do that - and it could get very expensive if you made a mistake and didn't cancel most of them.
How many people would take that risk?

And a £5 refund fee would make it a less attractive idea.

Other countries seem to manage but they probably all have tickets that can only be used by a particular named passenger, unlike here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much like counted place on SWR.

Not really. Counted places are just for Advance quota purposes, they don't guarantee your ability to board or get a seat. Amtrak don't sell more tickets than seats so everyone is guaranteed a seat, just not a specific one. It's more like low cost airlines before they did seat allocation.

 

[Krokodil]

Not really. Counted places are just for Advance quota purposes, they don't guarantee your ability to board or get a seat. Amtrak don't sell more tickets than seats so everyone is guaranteed a seat, just not a specific one. It's more like low cost airlines before they did seat allocation.

Amtrak basically has "mandatory counted places"

 

[Mainline421]

Not really. Counted places are just for Advance quota purposes, they don't guarantee your ability to board or get a seat. Amtrak don't sell more tickets than seats so everyone is guaranteed a seat, just not a specific one. It's more like low cost airlines before they did seat allocation.

There is a limit, but unless they've changed it they do sensibly "oversell" in Standard Class/Coach.