Lack of Advance fares even when trains are lightly loaded

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lowest-number-of-passengers-since-mid-19th-century.210098/

Not surprising as most TOC s seem have abolished decent priced advances, so people that have to travel are being forced to pay top whack even though trains are carrying lots of fresh air.

A bit naughty....

 

[SuperNova]

Not surprising as most TOC s seem have abolished decent priced advances, so people that have to travel are being forced to pay top whack even though trains are carrying lots of fresh air.

A bit naughty....

As it always has been with the railways, lack of capacity = higher prices. Trains are effectively now running at 50% capacity to maintain social distancing, so there aren't going to be the same amount of advanced tickets available for services, therefore cheaper advances are few and far between

Also the treasury and the DfT effectively run the railways - all operating in respect of the ERMA's. So TOC's are limited to what they can do.

 

[al78]

Not surprising as most TOC s seem have abolished decent priced advances, so people that have to travel are being forced to pay top whack even though trains are carrying lots of fresh air.

A bit naughty....

Advances have all but disappeared on the journey I used to make use of them (Horsham - Manchester) for years, so I have to pay around £100 return if I don't drive. The days I could do the return journey for < £40 are long gone.

 

[STINT47]

The railways are currently a contradiction. They need to maintain social distancing so limit cheap advances but they also talk about reduced passenger numbers and the need to get people back on the trains.

In a year or two I'm sure the treasury will look at the amount being spent on rail and the number of passengers travelling, which fills me with a sense of dread.

Personally I think we should be offering cheaper tickets to tempt people back. More advances, less peak restrictions and a campaign that says if you catch a train you are unlikely to drop dead two weeks later. Belgium offered it's citizens free travel to boost rail.

 

[Howardh]

The railways are currently a contradiction. They need to maintain social distancing so limit cheap advances but they also talk about reduced passenger numbers and the need to get people back on the trains.

In a year or two I'm sure the treasury will look at the amount being spent on rail and the number of passengers travelling, which fills me with a sense of dread.

Personally I think we should be offering cheaper tickets to tempt people back. More advances, less peak restrictions and a campaign that says if you catch a train you are unlikely to drop dead two weeks later. Belgium offered it's citizens free travel to boost rail.

In the past, particularly after long-term engineering works, TOC's (Northern in my case) and local newspapers got together to offer vouchers (all day on the network for a fiver, that sort of thing) which (a) sold paper copies and (b) got people back on the trains. I hope something similar happens.

 

[Ianno87]

As it always has been with the railways, lack of capacity = higher prices. Trains are effectively now running at 50% capacity to maintain social distancing, so there aren't going to be the same amount of advanced tickets available for services, therefore cheaper advances are few and far between

Also the treasury and the DfT effectively run the railways - all operating in respect of the ERMA's. So TOC's are limited to what they can do.

More inportantly, DfT are bearing the revenue risk. So as pure businesses TOCs don't care how few passengers they may be carrying - they have no incentive to drive revenue as they're basically making profit regardless.

 

[Haywain]

More inportantly, DfT are bearing the revenue risk. So as pure businesses TOCs don't care how few passengers they may be carrying - they have no incentive to drive revenue as they're basically making profit regardless.

It’s been said that the ERMAs contain incentives for the TOCs and it would be very surprising if these didn’t revolve around reducing the cost to the DfT, so I think you are wrong on this.

 

[35B]

The railways are currently a contradiction. They need to maintain social distancing so limit cheap advances but they also talk about reduced passenger numbers and the need to get people back on the trains.

In a year or two I'm sure the treasury will look at the amount being spent on rail and the number of passengers travelling, which fills me with a sense of dread.

Personally I think we should be offering cheaper tickets to tempt people back. More advances, less peak restrictions and a campaign that says if you catch a train you are unlikely to drop dead two weeks later. Belgium offered it's citizens free travel to boost rail.

The Treasury are already looking at those numbers. Your sense of dread is justified.

 

[SuperNova]

More inportantly, DfT are bearing the revenue risk. So as pure businesses TOCs don't care how few passengers they may be carrying - they have no incentive to drive revenue as they're basically making profit regardless.

Your evidence for that? Because that's nonsense, unless you've had sight of the finer details of the ERMA's?

 

[Starmill]

It's probably worth pointing out that there have always been a number of trains on which only the most expensive Advance tickets were available despite them being nearly empty - trains like the 1600 London to Manchester on a Wednesday for example. The main effort has been to extract yeild, not fill trains.

It is true that the pursuit of higher yeild also regularly resulted in large numbers of people standing on trains for which many Advance tickets had been sold, but of course this is absolutely the opposite of what anyone wants to see now.

However you look at it if you're still using the railway you're being expected to pay more. In some cases, much more.

 

[Ianno87]

It's probably worth pointing out that there have always been a number of trains on which only the most expensive Advance tickets were available despite them being nearly empty - trains like the 1600 London to Manchester on a Wednesday for example. The main effort has been to extract yeild, not fill trains.

It is true that the pursuit of higher yeild also regularly resulted in large numbers of people standing on trains for which many Advance tickets had been sold, but of course this is absolutely the opposite of what anyone wants to see now.

However you look at it if you're still using the railway you're being expected to pay more. In some cases, much more.

Commercially, what you don't want is giving cheapo fares to people who'd happily pay more anyway. I.e. you don't want to price dump Advances on morning peak London arrivals as it's largely too early for the leisure market anyway (who are happy to travel later), and those who are travelling have a reason to do so already, and are unlikely to be incentivised to travel more by a cheap fare.

 

[Starmill]

and those who are travelling have a reason to do so already

The monnet to pay these fares needs to come from somewhere. At the moment there's no evidence that that's coming back.

you don't want to price dump Advances on morning peak London arrivals as it's largely too early for the leisure market anyway

All of the coming week, Monday to Thursday, leaving Manchester around 9 and arriving in London just before 11 is £152, or £132 on Friday. Quite unchanged from pre-pandemic levels and matched by the trains 20 minutes ahead and behind. So assuming you're able to secure the cheapest possible fare in the other direction, £28, which is unlikely because it sells quickly, you're looking at £160 - 190 round trip, with booking in advance, if you're travelling at these kind of times. Not really a leisure price, and not much likely to be taken up by a business market that the company and Department are praying will return when it probably won't.

 

[Ianno87]

The monnet to pay these fares needs to come from somewhere. At the moment there's no evidence that that's coming back.

All of the coming week, Monday to Thursday, leaving Manchester around 9 and arriving in London just before 11 is £152, or £132 on Friday. Quite unchanged from pre-pandemic levels and matched by the trains 20 minutes ahead and behind. So assuming you're able to secure the cheapest possible fare in the other direction, £28, which is unlikely because it sells quickly, you're looking at £160 - 190 round trip, with booking in advance, if you're travelling at these kind of times. Not really a leisure price, and not much likely to be taken up by a business market that the company and Department are praying will return when it probably won't.

The question is if that price were to drop would you sell any more tickets?

Leisure travellers would probably be the same travellers who would've travelled later in the day anyway.

Business travellers generally aren't that price sensitive.

 

[Starmill]

The question is if that price were to drop would you sell any more tickets?

I was refuting your claim that leisure travellers weren't likely to consider travelling on the trains that you can't use Off Peak tickets on.

Business travellers generally aren't that price sensitive.

The cheapest possible fare, which is very difficult to secure, at £28 is also rather uncompetitive given its terms.

This at least is true. They're demanding ~0 at any price.

The key point is that, overall, rail isn't really even trying to adapt. Pricing has changed little beyond a straight withdrawal of the cheapest fares, and even flexi-season products, almost all of which offer a trivial discount, won't be rolled out for many months yet. Hence being stuck at 30 - 40% of the comparable week last year without a sustained rise. Revenue is stuck at less than that.

 

[Ianno87]

I was refuting your claim that leisure travellers weren't likely to consider travelling on the trains that you can't use Off Peak tickets on.
This at least is true. They're demanding ~0 at any price.

The key point is that, overall, rail isn't really even trying to adapt. Pricing has changed little beyond a straight withdrawal of the cheapest fares, and even flexi-season products, almost all of which offer a trivial discount, won't be rolled out for many months yet. Hence being stuck at 30 - 40% of the comparable week last year without a sustained rise. Revenue is stuck at less than that.

Which again begs the question why most TOCs aren't trying? Is it simply that the EMRA terms leave them in profit without being massively incentivised to drive revenue?

 

[Starmill]

Which again begs the question why most TOCs aren't trying? Is it simply that the EMRA terms leave them in profit without being massively incentivised to drive revenue?

I think it's much more likely that it's a technically challenging task and a moving target, and they don't necessarily have the resources to pivot. There has been some evidence of this coming through, especially Avanti offering a 20% cheaper Anytime Single 3 days in advance and LNER removing Friday Super Off Peak restrictions, but it's all tinkering around the edges really.

 

[infobleep]

Commercially, what you don't want is giving cheapo fares to people who'd happily pay more anyway. I.e. you don't want to price dump Advances on morning peak London arrivals as it's largely too early for the leisure market anyway (who are happy to travel later), and those who are travelling have a reason to do so already, and are unlikely to be incentivised to travel more by a cheap fare.

In some cases you are expected to pay nothing as no fares show up. Cross Country Trains hello or to be exact not hello.

To be fair I was perhaps looking up fares too early in the current climate but seeing no fare on National Rail Enquiries App, which thousands would use and with no note explaining why, could he off putting to many.

As I don't drive I will find away to make the journey by train and not at the full price. The journey is the end of November and I was looking end of September.

Cross Country Trains must have an intresting EMRA agreement.