Modern Railways: LNER and compulsory reservations

[Bikeman78]

Presume you mean Düsseldorf or Frankfurt. It’s over 4 hours Köln - München and at least 6 stops!

Yes the standees were only for shortish sections on some parts of the route. As some got off they were replaced by other people. I didn't mean to imply that they were standing the whole way.

Pre covid there were fast GN trains in the peaks calling at Huntingdon, St Neots, Biggleswade and Stevenage. Some even operated on Saturdays but these didn’t call at Stevenage.

Indeed. The last ever 317 into King's Cross worked such a train on a Sunday morning.

 

[sheff1]

- As is the model in France, if you've a reservation on a specific train, you can easily change it either online, at a ticket office or using a machine to a later / earlier service if a train is full.

This in indeed the case but there is an issue with the French system. Probably not a concern for most people ..... but still.

I needed to get back to Nice after an event in Cannes but the scheduled departure time of the last TGV was too early. However, there was a strike on and virtually all TGVs were running 45+ mns late (local trains were cancelled) and so I went to the station anyway and, sure enough, the TGV was expected to arrive in about 15 mins.
I went to the machine to book a ticket (with reservation) but because the scheduled departure was in the past it was not possible to do so, even though at that time of night on the final section of the journey from Paris there would 100s of empty seats.

A similar LNER example would be using the last southbound train from York to Doncaster. If I could not guarantee to make the train if it was on time I would not want to buy a train specific ticket which could be wasted (no refund if the train ran to time) ...... but if I turned up and the LNER service was still 10 mins away I would not be happy if I had to travel on local trains via Leeds because I couldn't get a ticket* for a train with a scheduled departure time in the past.

The problem could be solved if tickets could be bought online or at TVMs for trains which had not yet arrived but you can't do that now on the 'journey planner' TVMs even when reservations are not compulsory (or even possible) unless you ignore the on screen times.

*Obviously with an 'open' ticket I could make an advance reservation regardless, but I get the impression that the intention, at some point, is to do away with such tickets in favour of specific train only tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I went to the machine to book a ticket (with reservation) but because the scheduled departure was in the past it was not possible to do so, even though at that time of night on the final section of the journey from Paris there would 100s of empty seats.

A similar LNER example would be using the last southbound train from York to Doncaster. If I could not guarantee to make the train if it was on time I would not want to buy a train specific ticket which could be wasted (no refund if the train ran to time) ...... but if I turned up and the LNER service was still 10 mins away I would not be happy if I had to travel on local trains via Leeds because I couldn't get a ticket* for a train with a scheduled departure time in the past.

The problem could be solved if tickets could be bought online or at TVMs for trains which had not yet arrived but you can't do that now on the 'journey planner' TVMs even when reservations are not compulsory (or even possible) unless you ignore the on screen times.

Northern and Chiltern's awful journey planner based TVMs have the same problem. It wouldn't strike me as difficult to allow purchase up to say 5 minutes before the "expected" time of a delayed train, and indeed to calculate connections based on the current delay. The data is all there, after all.

To be fair, the same problem exists with planes. I'm fairly sure I once rocked up at Geneva (which has a several-a-day service to Luton) with everything running about 2 hours late, and went to the desk to ask to be moved to the earlier flight (which was running at about the time of my intended one), and they said they had closed the passenger list already (because everyone already booked on it had checked in) and so they couldn't, which was a bit annoying. That said, I'm also sure I recall they did on another occasion do it because they hadn't closed the list yet.

What is also fairly awkward, though, is where you put the cut-off - do you allow purchase right up to departure, but then someone purchasing 30 seconds before might miss it and lose their ticket value, or do you have a cut off in which case people might be refused access unnecessarily? I've certainly arrived at MKC about 2 minutes before my train, purchased a walk-up ticket from the TVM and still made it.

 

[sheff1]

What is also fairly awkward, though, is where you put the cut-off - do you allow purchase right up to departure, but then someone purchasing 30 seconds before might miss it and lose their ticket value, or do you have a cut off in which case people might be refused access unnecessarily? I've certainly arrived at MKC about 2 minutes before my train, purchased a walk-up ticket from the TVM and still made it.

Yes ...... buying a ticket at Manchester Piccadilly and catching a train from platform 3 is rather different to buying one and travelling from platform 13.

Not an insurmountable problem though, if the will were there.

 

[181]

This thread has over 17 pages (plus more on the other thread) consisting to a large extent of people pointing out the obvious absurdity of compulsory reservation in most situations (and some raising the possibility of associated changes which would further reduce the flexibility and/or affordability of rail travel), and a smaller number of people who fail to see that absurdity; but we don't actually know a) what exactly is planned, b) how likely it is to happen, and c) what to do about it.

On a), “compulsory reservations will be a part of LNER’s future” could mean universal compulsion (with all the disadvantages that have been described upthread), or apply only to departures from King's Cross at a few busy times (which would probably have a net detrimental effect, but wouldn't be entirely pointless), or something in between (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we ended up with a system where reservations were theoretically compulsory for all travel on LNER but this was only enforced at particularly busy times).

On b), it could be that LNER have been given a firm instruction by the government, or that Mr. Horne was just flying a kite on his own account to see what the reaction was, or again something in between.

On c), we can argue all we like here, but decisions about these things are made by the senior people in the DfT, LNER and the other TOCs. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how best to influence their decisions in a passenger-friendly direction?

 

[zwk500]

This thread has over 17 pages (plus more on the other thread) consisting to a large extent of people pointing out the obvious absurdity of compulsory reservation in most situations (and some raising the possibility of associated changes which would further reduce the flexibility and/or affordability of rail travel), and a smaller number of people who fail to see that absurdity; but we don't actually know a) what exactly is planned, b) how likely it is to happen, and c) what to do about it.

to be fair, there are a fair number of people who are challenging the objections raised by proposing realistic solutions. With travel patterns changing dramatically in the next few years (and we don't yet know how, or for how long) the railway is going to have to change what it offers to remain a useful, but sustainable service. The problem is how do you work out what to offer when you don't know what people will want? You either sit on your hands and get caught unprepared, or you prepare for many scenarios and accept that some work will, ultimately, be abortive.

On a), “compulsory reservations will be a part of LNER’s future” could mean universal compulsion (with all the disadvantages that have been described upthread), or apply only to departures from King's Cross at a few busy times (which would probably have a net detrimental effect, but wouldn't be entirely pointless), or something in between (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we ended up with a system where reservations were theoretically compulsory for all travel on LNER but this was only enforced at particularly busy times).

True. Many forms are possible.

On b), it could be that LNER have been given a firm instruction by the government, or that Mr. Horne was just flying a kite on his own account to see what the reaction was, or again something in between.

Also true, although it could also have been that LNER were given a firm instruction by the government to fly this particular kite, and to trial the various operational difficulties/problems. That doesn't mean the government won't withdraw the instruction at a later date. But having run it in anger does give it a clear idea of the costs, challenges, and accuracy of the modelling.

On c), we can argue all we like here, but decisions about these things are made by the senior people in the DfT, LNER and the other TOCs. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how best to influence their decisions in a passenger-friendly direction?

Best way to influence the DfT is to hope your local MP is good mates with the Secretary of State for Transport, and get in touch. The best way to influence TOCs will be to demonstrate that there will be a significant effect on revenue. Petitions and Surveys are a good starting point, but you would need a significant number from a representative sample of the travelling public. You'd also need to make sure to demonstrate that the revenue concerned is of genuine concern to the TOC involved.

 

[gaillark]

This thread has over 17 pages (plus more on the other thread) consisting to a large extent of people pointing out the obvious absurdity of compulsory reservation in most situations (and some raising the possibility of associated changes which would further reduce the flexibility and/or affordability of rail travel), and a smaller number of people who fail to see that absurdity; but we don't actually know a) what exactly is planned, b) how likely it is to happen, and c) what to do about it.

On a), “compulsory reservations will be a part of LNER’s future” could mean universal compulsion (with all the disadvantages that have been described upthread), or apply only to departures from King's Cross at a few busy times (which would probably have a net detrimental effect, but wouldn't be entirely pointless), or something in between (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we ended up with a system where reservations were theoretically compulsory for all travel on LNER but this was only enforced at particularly busy times).

On b), it could be that LNER have been given a firm instruction by the government, or that Mr. Horne was just flying a kite on his own account to see what the reaction was, or again something in between.

On c), we can argue all we like here, but decisions about these things are made by the senior people in the DfT, LNER and the other TOCs. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how best to influence their decisions in a passenger-friendly direction?

DfT are not interested in anybody's opinion but of their own. They control all the TOC's by keeping them afloat otherwise all would be bankrupt by now.
I would say the only people that the DfT would listen to is those from HM Treasury.

 

[Journeyman]

DfT are not interested in anybody's opinion but of their own. They control all the TOC's by keeping them afloat otherwise all would be bankrupt by now.
I would say the only people that the DfT would listen to is those from HM Treasury.

DfT aren't interested in opinions here which are likely to be significantly different to the travelling public as a whole.

 

[paul1609]

Northern and Chiltern's awful journey planner based TVMs have the same problem. It wouldn't strike me as difficult to

To be fair, the same problem exists with planes. I'm fairly sure I once rocked up at Geneva (which has a several-a-day service to Luton) with everything running about 2 hours late, and went to the desk to ask to be moved to the earlier flight (which was running at about the time of my intended one), and they said they had closed the passenger list already (because everyone already booked on it had checked in) and so they couldn't, which was a bit annoying. That said, I'm also sure I recall they did on another occasion do it because they hadn't closed the list yet.

With planes its a complicated calculation of weight/passengers/freight/fuel/terminal capacity. I think they generally will accommodate you but there is a cut off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With planes its a complicated calculation of weight/passengers/freight/fuel/terminal capacity. I think they generally will accommodate you but there is a cut off.

With low-cost airlines it's just about the seats being full. They don't do complex stuff like freight. The decider is just if they've closed check-in or not (after which as you say fuel calculations etc are done).

With Sleasy I think it depends on how early the delay is known about as to whether check-in gets left open. I've had it where they have delayed the flight by about 6 hours in advance due to a known aircraft issue and so they delayed check-in too, but if the delay was last-minute and everyone is already checked in who was originally booked on it they might close it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

DfT are not interested in anybody's opinion but of their own. They control all the TOC's by keeping them afloat otherwise all would be bankrupt by now.
I would say the only people that the DfT would listen to is those from HM Treasury.

Once the Treasury realise just how many passengers would be put off by compulsory reservations, the DfT might change their tune pretty sharpish...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once the Treasury realise just how many passengers would be put off by compulsory reservations, the DfT might change their tune pretty sharpish...

I am not convinced that this forum is representative of the views of the general public more widely. It often isn't. I think you will find that the general public tends towards the view that they should not sell more tickets than seats.

 

[Watershed]

I am not convinced that this forum is representative of the views of the general public more widely. It often isn't. I think you will find that the general public tends towards the view that they should not sell more tickets than seats.

I think the public would be strongly against it if they knew the full implications.

However, it's easy to push through the outcome you want if you only advertise the benefits.

 

[Bikeman78]

I am not convinced that this forum is representative of the views of the general public more widely. It often isn't. I think you will find that the general public tends towards the view that they should not sell more tickets than seats.

Having re-read the item, I'm not convinced that they propose to make all trains reservation only. It will be impossible to police on short hop journeys anyway. I don't think I've ever been gripped between Leeds and Wakefield or vice versa.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the public would be strongly against it if they knew the full implications.

Would they? The majority of the public don't use long distance trains like we do.

Having re-read the item, I'm not convinced that they propose to make all trains reservation only. It will be impossible to police on short hop journeys anyway. I don't think I've ever been gripped between Leeds and Wakefield or vice versa.

I increasingly get the feeling that they might make specific known-problem trains "white R", which is what BR did, plus possibly the Edinburgh fasts which don't serve any local purpose.

 

[Bikeman78]

Would they? The majority of the public don't use long distance trains like we do.



I increasingly get the feeling that they might make specific known-problem trains "white R", which is what BR did, plus possibly the Edinburgh fasts which don't serve any local purpose.

Which makes a lot more sense. I don't think I've ever seen Leeds trains, or the stoppers to Newark/York, full and standing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which makes a lot more sense. I don't think I've ever seen Leeds trains, or the stoppers to Newark/York, full and standing.

Similarly on GWR I could see the sense in Penzance trains (only) being "white R" between Paddington and the first stop after Reading, but not other GWR trains which are mostly just a semifast regional operation with fancy trains. And the Avanti fast Glasgows as far as Warrington BQ, south of which they do not serve a local purpose.

This would all be a rather different game than everything.

 

[Watershed]

Would they? The majority of the public don't use long distance trains like we do.

Imagine the if all stops at Grantham, Retford etc. were withdrawn. It would be pretty raucous politically speaking. Well that's effectively what this proposal means.

Of course anyone who's in favour of it will conveniently brush the problems under the carpet.

 

[Starmill]

I am not convinced that this forum is representative of the views of the general public more widely. It often isn't. I think you will find that the general public tends towards the view that they should not sell more tickets than seats.

A very common view. But again the reality will be that the industry hasn't tried to cut costs and will still need every bit of money it can get - if people want to stand it will need fare from people standing.

Plus, as we've explained, the people travelling from Wakefield Westgate to Leeds are perfectly happy to be standing, just as long as they're on a train and moving.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the public would be strongly against it if they knew the full implications.

Given that no one on this forum knows the detail of what might (or might not) be proposed, and how such a proposal might actually work*, and thus the implications, it’s pretty certain the public won’t know the implications either.

* for example:

1) Whether some seats / coaches are kept unreserved (as all comp res trains have now)
2) how you may be able to reserve a seat - e.g. immediately before boarding via an app perhaps
3) the cost of reserving - could be free
4) visibility of reservation status of any train by seat - again via an app perhaps
5) of comp res applies to the whole journey of a train or just part
6) relaxations for special events
7) Etc.

None of the above is known.

 

[bramling]

I am not convinced that this forum is representative of the views of the general public more widely. It often isn't. I think you will find that the general public tends towards the view that they should not sell more tickets than seats.

There's also a likelihood that the general public will tend towards the view that sufficient seats should be provided to meet infinite demand, which is clearly unrealistic.

It's all very well people wanting TOCs not to sell more tickets than seats, providing it's *someone else* who gets denied travel.

 

[Bevan Price]

Out of curiosity, I wonder what proportion of those in favour of compulsory reservations are employed by "the railway" ?

 

[moggie]

Out of curiosity, I wonder what proportion of those in favour of compulsory reservations are employed by "the railway" ?

Well being as those 'employed by the railway' needing to travel are supposed to give up their seat to fare paying customers if the the train is full I fail to see why they would be in favour of compulsory seat reservation. Indeed it could result in a wholly random number of services being barred to rail employees instead of just the list of published services for each TOC as at present.

For staff in the course of their duties it will become another bone of contention as it will be nigh impossible to prevent those with a valid travel ticket from boarding the train along the whole route, particularly at major interchange stations. Then of course there's the added factor of automated barriers which presumably will have no capability to check seat reservations or extra boarding times to manually check valid seat reservations and tickets while ensuring right time departures.

The whole subject matter is complete nonsense on so many levels, so typical of a closed mindset which really needs to get out a bit more and experience what they preside over. After all, if people want a seat on a specific service they can just reserve one before travel, just like they have always been able.

 

[mikeg]

This exactly. I always said when on a full and standing train to anyone who complained,"Nothing stopped you from reserving a seat".
To which the answer was usually "It said it was unable to make a reservation".
Well didn't that tell you something?

Why is this country - from politics to public and commercial services increasingly run for stupid people at the expense of intelligent people? Nothing stops people reserving seats. But I need to get to work sometimes at a time other than when TPE services suit. I'd rather stand than be late for work.
Such people are dangerous if listened to . So they shouldn't be listened to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is this country - from politics to public and commercial services increasingly run for stupid people at the expense of intelligent people? Nothing stops people reserving seats. But I need to get to work sometimes at a time other than when TPE services suit. I'd rather stand than be late for work.
Such people are dangerous if listened to . So they shouldn't be listened to.

I'm afraid that is hyperbolic in the extreme. A different pricing or reservation model for the railway cannot possibly be dangerous, neither politically nor physically. It is simply not to your preference.

 

[SuperNova]

I'm afraid that is hyperbolic in the extreme. A different pricing or reservation model for the railway cannot possibly be dangerous, neither politically nor physically. It is simply not to your preference.

And? If it's not to those people's preferences they simply won't use the railway and in this current climate those people should not be ignored. I very good friend of mine used Avanti pre-pandemic to commute - if the industry suddenly makes long-distance operators reservation only, his commute will be significantly longer and he will simply not travel on rail.

Then you've got an issue I saw personally last summer, with mandatory reservations. A customer who missed his connection to an LNER service then had to use TPE/Avanti to get where he needed to be because of mandatory reservations. There's an entire heap of problems created by mandatory reservations for all services, especially long-distance ones as it doesn't allow for any flexibility, disruption etc.

Now there is an argument to be had to have specific services as mandatory reservations only and it will be interesting to see how the East Coast Open Access operation goes over the next few years. But you shouldn't dismiss those who are fairly regular rail users who require flexibility (in fact I'd prioritise them over the once a year travellers who think rail is like Airlines) just because, ironically, it doesn't suit your views.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then you've got an issue I saw personally last summer, with mandatory reservations. A customer who missed his connection to an LNER service then had to use TPE/Avanti to get where he needed to be because of mandatory reservations.

Presumably also because for COVID reasons the railway is operating well below capacity, and LNER are only reserving 50% of seats as well as operating a reduced timetable?

There's an entire heap of problems created by mandatory reservations for all services, especially long-distance ones as it doesn't allow for any flexibility, disruption etc.

Now there is an argument to be had to have specific services as mandatory reservations only and it will be interesting to see how the East Coast Open Access operation goes over the next few years. But you shouldn't dismiss those who are fairly regular rail users who require flexibility (in fact I'd prioritise them over the once a year travellers who think rail is like Airlines) just because, ironically, it doesn't suit your views.

Yes, there are issues with it - I sit on the fence at about 50-50 on my views on it, but as most people are against on here that's tended me towards arguing for. What I was taking issue with was suggestions that it's dangerous, it's really not, and that really does down the issue with views that are dangerous, such as facism and the likes.

 

[greyman42]

Which makes a lot more sense. I don't think I've ever seen Leeds trains, or the stoppers to Newark/York, full and standing.

Regarding LNER trains to the north and Scotland, it is usually the semi-fasts that are the busiest. Heading south from York, the semi-fasts always seem busier than the fasts.

 

[Watershed]

Presumably also because for COVID reasons the railway is operating well below capacity, and LNER are only reserving 50% of seats as well as operating a reduced timetable?

That's one problem, but demand was well below 50% and yet the issue was being seen on many services. The amount of standing that would normally happen on some services makes it pretty easy to understand the scale of the issue.

 

[SuperNova]

Presumably also because for COVID reasons the railway is operating well below capacity, and LNER are only reserving 50% of seats as well as operating a reduced timetable?

And at that time rail patronage was around 40-45%? So having mandatory reservations would just exacerbate that issue, especially as PPM has on the whole been in the mid-90's throughout. Mandatory reservations don't take into account connections at all.