Lack of Advances on lightly loaded trains

[modernrail]

I have found there to be a complete lack of advances on some operators over the last year or so. This includes on peak services where I used to see lots, for instance peak intercity out of London in the morning.

In some of those cases I have had to use that timed service for work. I have boarded to find a near empty train. It has happened over 10 times in the last year. I have seen posts on social media pointing out the same, with LNER being a particular culprit.

There are many times where I have had to opt for an online meeting as I just cannot take the cost of the peak fare.

Does the industry produce a breakdown of loadings per timed service? If not, is this something that should be obtainable through an FOI? I expect TOCs hold the data and I can see no reason why they should be able to argue commercial confidentiality. It is basic data that should be transparent, especially on a subsidised railway with a public service remit.

 

[Starmill]

It is very common for this to happen across the whole country. There are two main reasons, one is that the people who may have travelled simply aren't shown the cheapest option that's actually available, as it'd require a split or even no split but a lot more faffing to actually return the price, and the other one is that it's intentionally necessary to keep prices as high as possible for use of some trains because it brings in more money to have a quieter train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

Does the industry produce a breakdown of loadings per timed service? If not, is this something that should be obtainable through an FOI? I expect TOCs hold the data and I can see no reason why they should be able to argue commercial confidentiality. It is basic data that should be transparent, especially on a subsidised railway with a public service remit.

I'm not sure I would bother with this. Also, in England there is very minimal evidence of the existence of any "public service remit". There's a lot of talk of that but actual hard incentives for it are very minimal.

 

[Benjwri]

Does the industry produce a breakdown of loadings per timed service? If not, is this something that should be obtainable through an FOI? I expect TOCs hold the data and I can see no reason why they should be able to argue commercial confidentiality. It is basic data that should be transparent, especially on a subsidised railway with a public service remit.

There is published data, easiest way to view it is probably here. Nice that you can just view all departures from a station and the loadings. Worth remembering it's an average, and can be quite inaccurate.

 

[modernrail]

There is published data, easiest way to view it is probably here. Nice that you can just view all departures from a station and the loadings. Worth remembering it's an average, and can be quite inaccurate.

Great stuff, thanks Benjwri

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

It is very common for this to happen across the whole country. There are two main reasons, one is that the people who may have travelled simply aren't shown the cheapest option that's actually available, as it'd require a split or even no split but a lot more faffing to actually return the price, and the other one is that it's intentionally necessary to keep prices as high as possible for use of some trains because it brings in more money to have a quieter train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==


I'm not sure I would bother with this. Also, in England there is very minimal evidence of the existence of any "public service remit". There's a lot of talk of that but actual hard incentives for it are very minimal.

Do they use some sort of algorithm to work out how empty to tolerate some trains to be to maximise overall revenue? I wonder what their evidence/confidence level is that the calculation is actually correct. For instance, I can’t believe that flows out of London in the morning peak would not yield higher with higher utilisation at lower fares. The availability of advanced on those flows always seemed to do that job whilst still allowing the TOCs/DfT to continue with their tax on the regions trying to get into London for meetings, instantly making the regions less competitive (aka an economy shooting itself in the foot).

Clearly infuriating. We have all paid a lot of tax in our time to pay for those empty and highly usable seats to be flying around the country.

 

[miklcct]

Do they use some sort of algorithm to work out how empty to tolerate some trains to be to maximise overall revenue?

Clearly infuriating. We have all paid a lot of tax in our time to pay for those empty and highly usable seats to be flying around the country.

Is it even possible to deliberately keeping trains empty to maximise overall revenue? Selling a £10 ticket on an otherwise-empty train will definitely increase the revenue!

 

[Haywain]

Does the industry produce a breakdown of loadings per timed service?

You have to remember that loadings do not equal revenue.

We have all paid a lot of tax in our time to pay for those empty and highly usable seats to be flying around the country.

We may be paying less tax because of the lighter loading paying more.

 

[Starmill]

There is published data, easiest way to view it is probably here. Nice that you can just view all departures from a station and the loadings. Worth remembering it's an average, and can be quite inaccurate.

That's a useful source of data for many things but telling you which trains are crowded and which aren't isn't really one of them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

Do they use some sort of algorithm to work out how empty to tolerate some trains to be to maximise overall revenue?

Clearly infuriating. We have all paid a lot of tax in our time to pay for those empty and highly usable seats to be flying around the country.

Every operator is allowed to use their own approach to maximising revenue. It's an open secret that for Avanti West Coast this is achieved by having some very, very lightly loaded trains Monday - Thursday which it is all but impossible to use unless you part with a huge amount of money.

 

[modernrail]

There is published data, easiest way to view it is probably here. Nice that you can just view all departures from a station and the loadings. Worth remembering it's an average, and can be quite inaccurate.

Wow, unless I am misreading the numbers those loadings more than make the point. There is a huge amount of fresh air being carted out of London Kings Cross in the morning peak on LNER, on exactly the same services I have experienced the same.

 

[Benjwri]

That's a useful source of data for many things but telling you which trains are crowded and which aren't isn't really one of them.

I don't see why the loadings data doesn't provide at least an idea?

 

[modernrail]

You have to remember that loadings do not equal revenue.

We may be paying less tax because of the lighter loading paying more.

As I taxpayer I would like more transparency than ‘may’. Not expecting you to be able to to turn ‘may’ into ‘are’ of course

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

That's a useful source of data for many things but telling you which trains are crowded and which aren't isn't really one of them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==


Every operator is allowed to use their own approach to maximising revenue. It's an open secret that for Avanti West Coast this is achieved by having some very, very lightly loaded trains Monday - Thursday which it is all but impossible to use unless you part with a huge amount of money.

Well I for one have had enough of it now. It seriously impinges on ability to use the railway as a form of transport and with the move to GBR it’s time for this stuff to be very much on the table and for economic purposes like getting to meetings and site visits, the sort of thing that drives economic growth - which we are currently dire at. It is a completely valid debate as I see it.

 

[Starmill]

I don't see why the loadings data doesn't provide at least an idea?

That comes from a hypothetical model of what the demand would be. It doesn't seem to me the OP wants that though, they want to understand what the actual availability of free seats is. I know those seem similar but unfortunately...

 

[Benjwri]

That comes from a hypothetical model of what the demand would be. It doesn't seem to me the OP wants that though, they want to understand what the actual availability of free seats is. I know those seem similar but unfortunately...

True, but I think it still holds some significance, as it gives an idea of what the railway believes loadings are like, which is what they claim advances are priced off.

 

[Starmill]

True, but I think it still holds some significance, as it gives an idea of what the railway believes loadings are like, which is what they claim advances are priced off.

I'm not sure that claim is still being made. Maybe it is but in respect of LNER and Avanti West Coast at least I don't think anyone can make that claim, it's certainly not true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

As I taxpayer I would like more transparency than ‘may’. Not expecting you to be able to to turn ‘may’ into ‘are’ of course

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==


Well I for one have had enough of it now. It seriously impinges on ability to use the railway as a form of transport and with the move to GBR it’s time for this stuff to be very much on the table and for economic purposes like getting to meetings and site visits, the sort of thing that drives economic growth - which we are currently dire at. It is a completely valid debate as I see it.

I agree. Operators under DfT control have a very clear remit from the Minister to reduce subsidy and perform reliably and punctually above all else. They don't have a remit to serve economic growth at all.

 

[modernrail]

I'm not sure that claim is still being made. Maybe it is but in respect of LNER and Avanti West Coast at least I don't think anyone can make that claim, it's certainly not true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==


I agree. Operators under DfT control have a very clear remit from the Minister to reduce subsidy and perform reliably and punctually above all else. They don't have a remit to serve economic growth at all.

It is interesting. I obviously see there is an argument that you want to charge astronomical figures as much as you can get away with, and that a resulting consequence might be leaving lots of empty seats, but how you calculate all of that is not clear cut.

There should be transparency around this. All operators are subsidised monopolies in some form. LNER is an effective monopoly during the peaks.

TOCs are no doubt all taking different approaches and I fully expect a range of people analysing those approaches would find errors in thinking and judgment. At some point (fairly early on) it does also need the DfT to engage on whether these tactics are the right ones or not, then overlaying the wider questions of public utility and economic growth. My guess is that DfT has interposed itself sort of but not then enough to actually get stuck into some of this, probably leaving the TOCs to self certify their methodologies as the right ones.

Looking at the East Coat LNER flows into London, it doesn’t look like anything arrives into Peterborough more than about half full in the peak. I hear that the data might not be fully accurate but even if it is a good guess, it tells a big story. Going the other way, I could have attended so many more meetings in person if there had been an effort to fill those seats as a cost that is viable.

The next breakdown I would love to see is how many of the people on those trains are working for the public sector or publicly funded services like the BBC and so the public purse was paying the elevated cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

That comes from a hypothetical model of what the demand would be. It doesn't seem to me the OP wants that though, they want to understand what the actual availability of free seats is. I know those seem similar but unfortunately...

Do you know if that data is held by TOCs Starmill?

 

[bcarmicle]

Wow, unless I am misreading the numbers those loadings more than make the point. There is a huge amount of fresh air being carted out of London Kings Cross in the morning peak on LNER, on exactly the same services I have experienced the same.

That seems expected to me - during the morning peak the demand for traffic is into London, not out of it. Even if LNER were to offer very cheap Advances, I imagine the supply would still exceed the demand.

 

[modernrail]

That seems expected to me - during the morning peak the demand for traffic is into London, not out of it. Even if LNER were to offer very cheap Advances, I imagine the supply would still exceed the demand.

I would say into London is the dominant flow. However, there is plenty of demand to travel out of London in the morning peak. It is a city of 8 million people with lots doing plenty outside of London work wise and for other reasons. Thousands will take to the roads every morning to travel up the M1 and A1. LNER could likely fill all of those trains if they charged the right price.

Of course out of London is also the dominant flow in the afternoon peak.

Also, just to emphasise, this phenomenon of seriously empty trains feels new, and corresponds exactly with my perceived lack of ability to get advance fares on those services.

I am personally not buying that 44 people paying full price (that was the booked number on my London-York service the other week), makes up for potentially 250+ at a reasonable advance fare, even taking into account some of the 44 may have paid the lower fare.

The other severe risk with the approach is you get people used to dismissing the train option before they have even tried. On 3 of my projects we have just settled into a rhythm of online meetings now because the attempt to get all of us onto a reasonably priced train from various destinations (Newcastle, Birmingham, London to York), is just too stressful and time consuming.

It’s a shame as we would rather meet in person more often. Each empty seat in the peak is potentially wasted potential economic activity.

 

[Haywain]

I am personally not buying that 44 people paying full price (that was the booked number on my London-York service the other week), makes up for potentially 250+ at a reasonable advance fare, even taking into account some of the 44 may have paid the lower fare.

That depends on what the full price is and what you consider the "reasonable advance fare" to be, as well as whether the latter really attracts so many people. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the "booked" number on that train, and whether that is a typical load.

 

[modernrail]

That depends on what the full price is and what you consider the "reasonable advance fare" to be, as well as whether the latter really attracts so many people. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the "booked" number on that train, and whether that is a ytpical load.

Agree, and I find the lack of transparency on how this is calculated with a publicly subsidised near or total monopoly frustrating.

On the ‘booked number’ I was so surprised by how quiet the train was despite there having being no advances available days before that I asked the guard. He said yes it happens a lot these days, only 44 booked on the service. I was the only person in my carriage, which is crackers.

 

[Taunton]

Wow, unless I am misreading the numbers those loadings more than make the point. There is a huge amount of fresh air being carted out of London Kings Cross in the morning peak on LNER, on exactly the same services I have experienced the same.

As one who makes business trips starting from London, I can say it has quite long been like this. Back in BR days much such custom was concentrated in the restaurant car for breakfast, and only a spendthrift would pay first class (which vehicles were always used for meal service) instead of riding in the same seat on a standard class ticket, so it was sort of a way of scooping revenue. However since the end of such provision the trains do seem empty in the morning northbound. Manchester services commonly pick up far more passengers at Stoke than have come through from London.

 

[modernrail]

As one who makes business trips starting from London, I can say it has quite long been like this. Back in BR days much such custom was concentrated in the restaurant car for breakfast, and only a spendthrift would pay first class (which vehicles were always used for meal service) instead of riding in the same seat on a standard class ticket, so it was sort of a way of scooping revenue. However since the end of such provision the trains do seem empty in the morning northbound. Manchester services commonly pick up far more passengers at Stoke than have come through from London.

Yes but since BR days there has been a massive overall increase in passenger numbers so they definitely should not be empty now. There is a country out there that needs to get a rocking and a rolling and bums on seats on 6am trains is people going to do useful things that generate cash and taxes.

I remember the days of sitting in the restaurant car on a standard ticket. Sorely missed!

 

[Haywain]

He said yes it happens a lot these days, only 44 booked on the service.

I'm guessing this is one of the early morning trains - 05:55 or 06:15 - which have always been lightly loaded from London but they fill up further north.

 

[modernrail]

I'm guessing this is one of the early morning trains - 05:55 or 06:15 - which have always been lightly loaded from London but they fill up further north.

It was the 7.30am.

Always lightly loaded and needing to be lightly loaded are two different things. Just as always ridden a horse to work and needing to continue to ride a horse to work became two different things.

 

[35B]

It is interesting. I obviously see there is an argument that you want to charge astronomical figures as much as you can get away with, and that a resulting consequence might be leaving lots of empty seats, but how you calculate all of that is not clear cut.

There should be transparency around this. All operators are subsidised monopolies in some form. LNER is an effective monopoly during the peaks.

TOCs are no doubt all taking different approaches and I fully expect a range of people analysing those approaches would find errors in thinking and judgment. At some point (fairly early on) it does also need the DfT to engage on whether these tactics are the right ones or not, then overlaying the wider questions of public utility and economic growth. My guess is that DfT has interposed itself sort of but not then enough to actually get stuck into some of this, probably leaving the TOCs to self certify their methodologies as the right ones.

Looking at the East Coat LNER flows into London, it doesn’t look like anything arrives into Peterborough more than about half full in the peak. I hear that the data might not be fully accurate but even if it is a good guess, it tells a big story. Going the other way, I could have attended so many more meetings in person if there had been an effort to fill those seats as a cost that is viable.

The next breakdown I would love to see is how many of the people on those trains are working for the public sector or publicly funded services like the BBC and so the public purse was paying the elevated cost.

The assumption that LNER are a monopoly is false - they have competition on and off the rails. Fares have been held down by the existence of those competitors.

They will have a lot of data on both loadings and yields, and will have experts using that to optimise revenue - which is what government is (and has for a long time) been instructing them to do. Virgin East Coast collapsed because they couldn't pay the dividends that the government demanded - not because they couldn't cover their operating costs.

Very simply, if they sell a ticket for £50 today and sell 100 of them, they get £5000. If they reduce the price to £45, they need to sell an extra 12 tickets to earn the same income. If they put the fare up to £75, and lose only 10 customers, their revenue increases by £1750 - 35%.

The experiment they've been running in real time has been a demonstration of this at work. And, taking this sample of 1, what they've found is that as I won't buy a season (no need), I (or, in reality, my employer) will tolerate a significant price increase without telling them where to stick it.

We might hate it, we might think it really bad policy for any number of reasons, but the numbers tell us something really clear about why operators are making these choices.

 

[Haywain]

Virgin East Coast collapsed because they couldn't pay the dividends that the government demanded - not because they couldn't cover their operating costs.

Indeed - it was a franchise that was profitable, just not sufficiently so to cover the premiums.

 

[Starmill]

Do you know if that data is held by TOCs Starmill?

Modern trains do count passengers on and off, but this isn't particularly reliable in my experience. You can always try FOIing that but again I don't know if you'd get anywhere...

 

[35B]

Yes but since BR days there has been a massive overall increase in passenger numbers so they definitely should not be empty now. There is a country out there that needs to get a rocking and a rolling and bums on seats on 6am trains is people going to do useful things that generate cash and taxes.

Plenty of us do useful work, generating cash and taxes, without needing to travel at all.

I remember the days of sitting in the restaurant car on a standard ticket. Sorely missed!

So do I. I also note that this was a vehicle that was being used way below its potential, needed additional staff to serve it, and made a very questionable return. On a capacity constrained railway, it is something of a luxury

 

[Starmill]

Plenty of us do useful work, generating cash and taxes, without needing to travel at all.

So does @modernrail if you were to read their posts they say they regularly attend meetings online instead of in person, despite their client or business partner preferring to see them in person sometimes.

The above is in fact a completely normal and ordinary part of business in this country. You usually don't need to see people daily or even weekly in person to make progress. However you will inevitably run into problems, usually big ones, if you're 100% remote. Entirely remote businesses have special processes in place to manage that if they want to be successful. These are usually quite resource-intensive.

 

[Haywain]

Modern trains do count passengers on and off,

Not so sure about that but they do have the ability to weigh the passenger loading per carriage, and that's used to calculate loadings. No idea how accurate it is.

 

[Starmill]

Not so sure about that but they do have the ability to weigh the passenger loading per carriage, and that's used to calculate loadings. No idea how accurate it is.

I belive different specs based on different manufacturers. LNER and others (perhaps GTR? Southeastern?) use a mass based one, Avanti an infrared based one, CAF use one that has sensors above the doors. And so on and so forth.

 

[35B]

So does @modernrail if you were to read their posts they say they regularly attend meetings online instead of in person, despite their client or business partner preferring to see them in person sometimes.

The above is in fact a completely normal and ordinary part of business in this country. You usually don't need to see people daily or even weekly in person to make progress. However you will inevitably run into problems, usually big ones, if you're 100% remote. Entirely remote businesses have special processes in place to manage that if they want to be successful. These are usually quite resource-intensive.

I'd missed that specific point.

I'm entirely familiar with operating in a mixed mode - including on long term projects will colleagues abroad whom I expect never to meet in person, and where significant problems are dealt with entirely remotely.