Is TfW & Trans-Pennine Conspiring to deprive Avanti of Revenue?

[Envoy]

I have just been www.nationalrail.co.uk & put in for a one way journey from Cardiff to Edinburgh onTuesday 17th March departing at 10am.

I get a 10.05 TfW service to Crewe (arr. 12.29 & change for 13.09 Avanti to arrive. EDB at 16.18 (6 hours 13 minutes) with a fare of £192.60. (Cross Country comes up as the fare supplier - even though I would not even be on their trains).

Next option says depart CDF at 10.51 on TfW for Manchester - arr. 14.13 & change for 14.26 Trans-Pennine Express to Arr.EDB at 17.37 with a fare of £51. (6 hours 46 minutes).

So, what the hell is going on? Are Cross Country setting fares for services that people would not use? Is Transport for Wales & Trans-Pennine Express conspiring to deprive Avanti of revenue? Why is the Transport for Wales fare between Cardiff & Crewe not combined with the separate Avanti fare from Crewe to Edinburgh? Seems to me that people are being induced to use slower services for this long trip because of the fare differential on the through ticket? Probably cheaper to fly!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, what the hell is going on? Are Cross Country setting fares for services that people would not use? Is Transport for Wales & Trans-Pennine Express conspiring to deprive Avanti of revenue? Why is the Transport for Wales fare between Cardiff & Crewe not combined with the separate Avanti fare from Crewe to Edinburgh?

Because that's not how the fare system works. If you want to do that, just book those tickets separately, perhaps using Trainsplit or something.

The fare being set by XC appears to suggest they expect you'd do Cardiff-Bristol/Cheltenham then Bristol/Cheltenham-Edinburgh, which is probably what most people would do[1] rather than faff about with multiple changes via the WCML.

[1] I don't know if it's a Permitted Route, but absent a journey planner it's to me a fairly obvious one.

 

[Envoy]

Because that's not how the fare system works. If you want to do that, just book those tickets separately, perhaps using Trainsplit or something.

The fare being set by XC appears to suggest they expect you'd do Cardiff-Bristol then Bristol-Edinburgh, which is probably what most people would do[1] rather than faff about with multiple changes via the WCML.

[1] I don't know if it's a Permitted Route, but absent a journey planner it's to me a fairly obvious one.

It is over 1 hour longer going via Bristol & up to Edinburgh via Newcastle. The quickest & shortest route between Cardiff & Edinburgh is via The Marches (Hereford) to Crewe with 1 change to Avanti to reach Edinburgh. It does not make sense that a company you would never use is setting a fare for a longer route between the Welsh & Scottish capital cities. Many members of the public are not aware of split ticketing and as a result, will go for the cheaper option of changing in Manchester.

 

[30907]

For Tues 17 Mar I am unable to get NRE to show any Advance fares. The XC set one is the Offpeak single, as you presumably realised, but BRFares suggests that Avanti advance fares exist as well as the TfW/TPE one you found. There should be no need to split at Crewe.

Even booking well ahead on the Avanti site I could only find First Advances changing at Crewe. Curious - I wonder if you are partly right, and TfW have not released any quota of Advance reservations for their route?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is over 1 hour longer going via Bristol & up to Edinburgh via Newcastle. The quickest & shortest route between Cardiff & Edinburgh is via The Marches (Hereford) to Crewe with 1 change to Avanti to reach Edinburgh. It does not make sense that a company you would never use is setting a fare for a longer route between the Welsh & Scottish capital cities. Many members of the public are not aware of split ticketing and as a result, will go for the cheaper option of changing in Manchester.

I'm not sure that's true any more, particularly now Trainline are offering it on their site and app. Trainsplit is a bit niche, excellent though it is. Trainline is what everyone who doesn't know about trains uses, and their claim to offer savings over others is now true, too, because of said splits...

 

[ys123]

Trainsplit.com brings the price down for the 10.05am train (£192.60) to £57 splitting at crewe

 

[Envoy]

Trainsplit.com brings the price down for the 10.05am train (£192.60) to £57 splitting at crewe

So, if we get a combined ‘through’ ticket price of £51 using TfW & TPE, why can’t the system offer a through price of £57 using TfW & Avanti? Why is a Cross Country price coming up on National Rail when this trip is nothing to do with them? I could understand it coming up if say using XC from Cardiff to Birmingham (or Cheltenham) & then changing for another XC train heading to Edinburgh - the long way round via Newcastle. Indeed, you would think that such a routing would undercut the prices offered via the quicker Marches route?

Anyway, well done to Trainsplit.com for getting it right about the split at Crewe. I thought that TOC’s have to pay a commission to anyone who books through these ‘split’ sites? Surely, it would be in all of the TOC’s interests to offer the lowest fares between 2 points rather than have people be induced to use the split sites? Perhaps they hope that those not in the know will just pay their higher prices? This is not good for the rail industry - or the environment for that matter as the very high fares set by Cross Country for example, just encourage people to drive.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It all goes back to the BR fare structure and the way the franchises were set up.
XC got all the long-distance non-London fares like Cardiff-Edinburgh, as the best BR route would have been via Birmingham (then a choice ECML/WCML to Edinburgh).
The Marches route had been down-graded to regional status and was infrequent and slow, so it only had local fares to Manchester.
Since 1997 Marches services have markedly improved and it's now quite a competitive route north (except when TfW put 2-car 150s on).
TfW can cooperate with Avanti and TPE with specific fares, but the Any Permitted fare has to stay with XC and their high fare structure.
The only walk-on fares for Cardiff-Edinburgh are routed "Not London" by XC, so it's the same fare via Birmingham or via the Marches.
Gradually, these anomalies are being resolved, usually by complicating things with multiple fares and conditions, or by splitting.

By buying the TfW/TPE fare you are actually depriving XC of a big chunk of the revenue, which they get whichever way you go on the through fare, even if you never set foot on their trains.

 

[Haywain]

In answer to the question in the thread title, yes, TFW and TPE are conspiring to deny revenue to Avanti and CrossCountry. The regulation of fares and competition legislation allows them to set Advance fares which result in them receiving more money from the ticket sales than they would get from a much more expensive walk-up fare. For the same reason both Avanti and CrossCountry can and do also set Advance fares which are restricted to principally using their services.

 

[Envoy]

It all goes back to the BR fare structure and the way the franchises were set up.
XC got all the long-distance non-London fares like Cardiff-Edinburgh, as the best BR route would have been via Birmingham (then a choice ECML/WCML to Edinburgh).
The Marches route had been down-graded to regional status and was infrequent and slow, so it only had local fares to Manchester.
Since 1997 Marches services have markedly improved and it's now quite a competitive route north (except when TfW put 2-car 150s on).
TfW can cooperate with Avanti and TPE with specific fares, but the Any Permitted fare has to stay with XC and their high fare structure.
The only walk-on fares for Cardiff-Edinburgh are routed "Not London" by XC, so it's the same fare via Birmingham or via the Marches.
Gradually, these anomalies are being resolved, usually by complicating things with multiple fares and conditions, or by splitting.

By buying the TfW/TPE fare you are actually depriving XC of a big chunk of the revenue, which they get whichever way you go on the through fare, even if you never set foot on their trains.

Many thanks for your detailed explanation. So, all this appears to go back to the days of British Railways. Here we are in 2020 and nothing appears to have been done to sort this ridiculous situation out. Another case of the so called ‘Rail Delivery Group’ failing to deliver by scrapping an antiquated fare system! Usually TfW use Class 175’s (Coradias) on The Marches route & these are generally nicer trains than the narrow bodied Voyagers that prevail on XC routes. It remains to be seen what the CAF Class 197’s turn out like when they arrive on The Marches but at least they will be 5 coaches.

I don’t get this about calling certain routes ‘Inter City’ and others that link cities/conurbations as ‘Regional’. This sort of implies that The Marches route - once considered a mainline has been downgraded to some sort of lesser route. Presumably that is why I still see semaphore signals & old signal boxes on the route - despite much of it having a speed limit of 90mph. OK, it is not 125mph but then neither is the XC route from Bristol Parkway to Birmingham. (The XC route from Newport to Cheltenham has even slower speeds).

So, even by buying the TfW/TPE through fare, XC still manage to get a cut. I think that this is appalling - especially as Transport for Wales have to get funding from the Welsh taxpayer. It can’t be right that a company that is not even used is getting money for trains it does not provide. Furthermore, I would hope that TfW & Avanti would co-operate to provide a through fare via the change at Crewe and that this fare would show up on all the sites - whether National Rail, TOC or split ticket. Of course, XC should have nothing to do with this unless they wish to provide a fare for those who wish to use their actual trains via Birmingham & Newcastle.

By the way, I see that for the same date (17 March), I can buy a ticket for £43 for Kings Cross to Edinburgh = a similar distance as Cardiff to Edinburgh for which XC have a price of £192.60.

 

[CrispyUK]

By the way, I see that for the same date (17 March), I can buy a ticket for £43 for Kings Cross to Edinburgh = a similar distance as Cardiff to Edinburgh for which XC have a price of £192.60.

The £43 Kings Cross to Edinburgh ticket is an Advance Single (specified trains only, no refunds) so is more of a direct comparison to the £51 Cardiff to Edinburgh ticket which is also an Advance Single routed on TfW and TPE services.

 

[yorkie]

Seems to me that people are being induced to use slower services for this long trip because of the fare differential on the through ticket? Probably cheaper to fly!

There is nothing stopping Avanti & TfW offering cheaper fares for Avanti & Connections journeys.

There is no conspiracy.

I think these days nearly everyone knows it's possible to buy a ticket for each operator separately; some people even think you have to do that (as you often have to do with, say, buses)

If anyone is keen to save money they will use an accredited ticket splitting site.

So this isn't anything unexpected at all.

Another benefit of some split ticketing sites which not many people know of is that you can also access a seat selector (and at no cost

By the way, I see that for the same date (17 March), I can buy a ticket for £43 for Kings Cross to Edinburgh = a similar distance as Cardiff to Edinburgh for which XC have a price of £192.60.

XC have short trains which are typically overcrowded in the core section of the route; there are some people who are prepared to pay a large premium for a through fare (eg business people or some well off pensioners) on trains which avoid the need to cross London; this is market based pricing on action.

If XC charged £43 the trains would be so overcrowded people would be unable to board.

XC know that most people won't pay £192 but that's fine because they can't carry all those people anyway and it would cost too much to lengthen their trains to accommodate people paying lower fares.

XC know that anyone who is keen to use the train who is price conscious will use a split ticketing site and XC will still get all the revenue of people use their trains.

Do some research on yield management and market based pricing and you will see it all makes total sense to the operator.

 

[Envoy]

So, basically the high fares charged by XC all goes back to the disaster that was ‘Operation Princess’ when Virgin (Branson) ordered the fleet of terrible Voyager trains that were too short to cope with demand. (The narrow bodies I presume were to allow for tilt yet on the south-west to Scotland route they never ever tilted to allow for increased speeds on the bends). The travelling public are now being screwed for high fares to suppress demand due to this incompetence.

 

[yorkie]

So, basically the high fares charged by XC all goes back to the disaster that was ‘Operation Princess’ when Virgin (Branson) ordered the fleet of terrible Voyager trains that were too short to cope with demand. (The narrow bodies I presume were to allow for tilt yet on the south-west to Scotland route they never ever tilted to allow for increased speeds on the bends). The travelling public are now being screwed for high fares to suppress demand due to this incompetence.

Pretty much, and when Arriva took over the affordable long distance fares ceased to be available. It was possible, in the days of Virgin XC, to get a ticket from York to Dawlish for about £20 or so. Unimaginable today even when using a split ticketing site and taking into account inflation.

There is no reason not to use a split ticketing site on XC.

One reason used to be to access a seat selector, but now Trainsplit has that functionality there is no longer any reason to book with XC.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So, basically the high fares charged by XC all goes back to the disaster that was ‘Operation Princess’ when Virgin (Branson) ordered the fleet of terrible Voyager trains that were too short to cope with demand. (The narrow bodies I presume were to allow for tilt yet on the south-west to Scotland route they never ever tilted to allow for increased speeds on the bends). The travelling public are now being screwed for high fares to suppress demand due to this incompetence.

Almost none of that is true.
The economics of the XC route system means it was heavily loss-making, and the Voyagers were an attempt to improve the losses of the BR operation.
There's nothing wrong or "narrow" about Voyagers, they are just too short and that isn't Mr Branson's fault, it's DfT's.
The DfT has refused the XC operator (Virgin or Arriva) acquiring more stock for 20 years, bar the odd HST on Edinburgh-Plymouth.
TfW's trains are in reality no better than XC's except possibly in seating terms - they are also too short.
The Civitys will make a difference but I will be surprised if they are more comfortable than 175s.
At least you now have a choice of fares - BR didn't offer any.

The fare system is what it is, a hopeless mix of BR baseline and private TOC invention layered on top.
XC set the Any Permitted fare to Edinburgh and will take a chunk of revenue however you travel on that ticket.
TfW, Avanti and TPE can set their own Advance fares on specific routes in competition, but generally seem not to have done so on Cardiff-Scotland so you have to split.

We are heading towards a single-leg pricing model which ought to sort these anomalies out, but it's going to take quite a while to implement it.
There's a trial of this on some LNER fares at the moment, and you can see elsewhere on the forum how this is introducing more anomalies in the process.
RDG and the TOCs have to operate within the DfT regulated fare structure, and can't arbitrarily change the system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are heading towards a single-leg pricing model which ought to sort these anomalies out

For the record, the LNER trial is of single fare pricing which doesn't sort that sort of anomaly out at all. All it involves is the removal of return tickets. I strongly suspect, as I posted in that thread, that the "route York" thing is because Avanti noticed these fares could be used to travel on their services for less than their fare (most notably London-Manchester in the evening peak) and with them receiving almost none of the money.

Single leg pricing would involve the complete withdrawal of through fares, and you just cobbling one together by way of, essentially, all sales sites being splitting sites, though probably just splitting where you change trains (and possibly issuing the lot on one piece of card or e-ticket with the splits being shown in the route field). That's difficult to trial, but fortunately people who split tickets as a matter of course already are trialling it.

The latter is also quite complex for walk-ups and requires decisions on how it is done in terms of limiting to TOC/route. For Advances, though, it's quite easy, as you simply get each TOC to price its leg and issue it as one Advance ticket with standard Advance T&C applying to the whole thing. That way you can calculate and price literally anything at any time (by any route you like, and including a break of journey of any duration you like including overnight) - if there is no Advance for one leg you just use the price of the relevant walk-up single for that bit.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

TfW priced fares have come down by 10% this year as a franchise promise on legs that are only on their network and they have also introduced advances on journeys that previously only had off peak or anytime fares, this has meant for journeys using only TfW or splitting to make sure one leg only uses them on their routes can now offer significant savings.

 

[Haywain]

the LNER trial is of single fare pricing

I wonder why they call it Single Leg Pricing then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder why they call it Single Leg Pricing then.

I don't know, but it's extremely unhelpful to use the same term to describe two completely different things, either of which can exist without the other (though they'd work best done together), where the trial only deals with one of them.

It might be inadvertent or it might be deliberate to hide them avoiding trying the more difficult of the two.

 

[Envoy]

Many thanks everybody for your further interesting input. Not happy to read that the new CAF 197’s may not be as good as the outgoing 175’s.

I have been testing some of the other booking sites for the Cardiff to Edinburgh journey for Tuesday 17th March Dep 10am. Raileasy does indeed come up with a price of £57 for the 10.05 from Cardiff with a change at Crewe for the 13.09 Avanti to EDB. Of course, they want an unacceptable 10% (of the saving) commission which would up the price to £70.56 for anybody stupid enough to book with them.
For this same service(s), the Trainline, Transport for Wales and Avanti, all come up with the ridiculous Cross Country price of £192.60.

Incredibly, Avanti also shows the £51 price for using the 10.51 from Cardiff to Manchester & then onward with Trans-Pennine Express. So, they appear to be promoting travel on the northern leg via a competing company (TPE) whilst failing to show the combined fare of their Crewe to EDB with that of TfW from Cardiff to Crewe - as Raileasy have done. This is absolutely bonkers! Why would they load the Cross Country fare thus depriving themselves of income - as well as inducing people to use TPE a bit later?

Why would TfW also not show the cheaper combination for the 10.05 changing at Crewe as Raileasy have done? Clearly, you can’t trust their site to come up with the best deals!

 

[Haywain]

I don't know, but it's extremely unhelpful to use the same term to describe two completely different things, either of which can exist without the other (though they'd work best done together), where the trial only deals with one of them.

It might be inadvertent or it might be deliberate to hide them avoiding trying the more difficult of the two.

Until your post above I have never heard or seen a reference to single fare pricing, whilst I am aware that Single Leg Pricing has been referred to consistently in LNER for as long as it (the trial) has been proposed.

 

[Haywain]

Why would TfW also not show the cheaper combination for the 10.05 changing at Crewe as Raileasy have done? Clearly, you can’t trust their site to come up with the best deals!

Because the TfW site is not configured to show split tickets, which is functionality that generally comes with an additional cost for those using it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TfW priced fares have come down by 10% this year as a franchise promise on legs that are only on their network and they have also introduced advances on journeys that previously only had off peak or anytime fares, this has meant for journeys using only TfW or splitting to make sure one leg only uses them on their routes can now offer significant savings.

I think, the 10% discount only applies to Welsh routes?
ie fares increased by the usual 3% or so on TfW's English routes like Chester-Manchester or Shrewsbury-Birmingham, also on cross-border fares.
That makes their policy a lot less attractive.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I think, the 10% discount only applies to Welsh routes?
ie fares increased by the usual 3% or so on TfW's English routes like Chester-Manchester or Shrewsbury-Birmingham, also on cross-border fares.
That makes their policy a lot less attractive.

unless you live in North Wales and have kids that I can now take for free

I buy reduced price tickets to Chester or Crewe or advances which have never previously been possible and the kids go free and then book tickets from the English side from whichever other operator has the best deals. There are some good TfW deals to be had were as previously the only decent price advances to chester or Crewe from North Wales were on Avanti. Now we have a choice. competition is always a good thing!

 

[30907]

I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Offpeak (Saver) fares, though they happen to be set by XC, are regulated by Government as part of the privatisation set up (and XC don't get an extra cut by setting it). The CDF-EDB fare isn't hugely more expensive than (say) EUS-GLC, and West Coast fares were signifcantly cheaper than EC at privatisation. So I don't see that XC are particularly to blame for that (unlike for other things!).

On another point, Avanti are obliged to show all available through fares, whether they use their own trains or not. The real issue is that Avanti (and TfW) haven't sorted out their Advance fares by via the Marches.

I don’t get this about calling certain routes ‘Inter City’ and others that link cities/conurbations as ‘Regional’. This sort of implies that The Marches route - once considered a mainline has been downgraded to some sort of lesser route.

Implies? It happened nearly 50 years ago when the handful of long-distance trains was withdrawn, leaving a Cardiff-Crewe DMU (later loco-hauled).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Until your post above I have never heard or seen a reference to single fare pricing, whilst I am aware that Single Leg Pricing has been referred to consistently in LNER for as long as it (the trial) has been proposed.

Either way, there are two separate and (relatively) independent concepts there, only one of which is being trialled on the network at present.

 

[Envoy]

I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Offpeak (Saver) fares, though they happen to be set by XC, are regulated by Government as part of the privatisation set up (and XC don't get an extra cut by setting it). The CDF-EDB fare isn't hugely more expensive than (say) EUS-GLC, and West Coast fares were signifcantly cheaper than EC at privatisation. So I don't see that XC are particularly to blame for that (unlike for other things!).

On another point, Avanti are obliged to show all available through fares, whether they use their own trains or not. The real issue is that Avanti (and TfW) haven't sorted out their Advance fares by via the Marches.


Implies? It happened nearly 50 years ago when the handful of long-distance trains was withdrawn, leaving a Cardiff-Crewe DMU (later loco-hauled).

That £192.60 fare that is set by XC that keeps coming up when you put in for CDF > EDB is fixed: i.e. you never ever get a cheaper Advance fare from XC for travel between these two cities - even though, they do offer Advance fares between other cities. As I have said earlier, it is bonkers that a company that you would never use between Cardiff & Edinburgh is allowed to set the fare. The Department for Transport should get this sorted out!

Through trains use The Marches route to link south Wales (roughly 2 million population) with the north-west of England (Manchester) with several more millions. (Even more if you add the passengers who are heading even further north). I don’t see why a train travelling from say Bristol to Manchester should be classified as ‘Inter City’ yet one going from Cardiff to Manchester via The Marches is regarded as ‘Regional’. Cardiff is as much a city as Bristol.

 

[30907]

That £192.60 fare that is set by XC that keeps coming up when you put in for CDF > EDB is fixed: i.e. you never ever get a cheaper Advance fare from XC for travel between these two cities - even though, they do offer Advance fares between other cities. As I have said earlier, it is bonkers that a company that you would never use between Cardiff & Edinburgh is allowed to set the fare. The Department for Transport should get this sorted out!

Through trains use The Marches route to link south Wales (roughly 2 million population) with the north-west of England (Manchester) with several more millions. (Even more if you add the passengers who are heading even further north). I don’t see why a train travelling from say Bristol to Manchester should be classified as ‘Inter City’ yet one going from Cardiff to Manchester via The Marches is regarded as ‘Regional’. Cardiff is as much a city as Bristol.

1. As I said before, the "Not Via London" Offpeak fare is regulated. The vast majority of regulated fares have AFAIK been increased in line with what Government policy has allowed, so it could be set by South Eastern and still be the same price.
Incidentally, Cardiff was a core part of the British Rail Cross Country network, and the obvious route to Edinburgh then would have been via Birmingham and Carlisle, so having the fare set by XC was sensible back then.

2. As a matter of fact XC do have Advance fares set for their route - and NRE shows those if you specify via York AND look far enough ahead. And Avanti Advance fares also show up if you look far enough ahead.

3. The term InterCity hasn't been used officially since BR days, and referred to a specific product OR to a set of routes that was supposed to be profitable without subsidy (depends whose viewpoint you take). It wasn't defined by the status of its destinations. The then Crewe to Cardiff train service wasn't InterCity, but nor was Bristol to Portsmouth or Birmingham to Norwich.

 

[AnkleBoots]

That £192.60 fare that is set by XC that keeps coming up when you put in for CDF > EDB is fixed: i.e. you never ever get a cheaper Advance fare from XC for travel between these two cities

It's £96.80 each way if you come back.
And many will value the flexibility over Advance tickets.

 

[AnkleBoots]

There is no reason not to use a split ticketing site on XC.

One reason used to be to access a seat selector, but now Trainsplit has that functionality there is no longer any reason to book with XC.

Do XC still amend for free?