Modern Railways: LNER and compulsory reservations

[DB]

To answer your question, yes. And I very, very rarely do any kind of long distance journey without some form of Advance booking or reservation (and if not I have a pretty fixed idea of my intended trains). And I suspect I'm far from alone in this.

So basically your reasoning is "I do it this way, so everyone else should be forced to do the same"?

Nobody is saying you are 'alone' in this - but there are plenty of others who need the flexibility, and/or who need to use long-distance trains to do shorter journeys.

 

[Ianno87]

All trains being full in the week leading up to Christmas is not at all unusual in France, I believe.

But at the same time, it's probably well understood in France you'd be crazy not to book Christmas travel at the soonest possible opportunity (luckily I don't think Britain would be quite so extreme)

So basically your reasoning is "I do it this way, so everyone else should be forced to do the same"?

Not at all. Simply sharing my practical experience of long distance travel (usually for family or work purposes these days) and how it may be representative of general rail travellers who don't use this forum.

Nobody is saying you are 'alone' in this - but there are plenty of others who need the flexibility, and/or who need to use long-distance trains to do shorter journeys.

Not disagreeing with that. But trying to articulate what LNER's rationale *might* be to benefit more passengers overall, without excessively restricting those who need flexibility. I'm not pretending there aren't "losers" from LNER's approach.

 

[whoosh]

Oh dear. This wouldn't be too great a move on LNER's part. By doing compulsory reservations they could easily wave goodbye to those who use their services to London from Peterborough and Stevenage. If they were to go compulsory reservation it would just push people onto Great Northern.

The same would also happen to the commuters who use LNER between Dundee and Edinburgh, as well as intermediate stations who would move to the Scotrail services.

If the money from 'Any permitted' fares are ONLY shared with LNER for tickets with a seat reservation would LNER be interested then? I mean, if tickets are bought and seats not reserved on their trains, then other TOCs must have been used, so the money should be shared amongst those other TOCs only. Would LNER be up for that fair apportioning?
Or not?
I'm guessing not.
"No, we'll have the share of the tickets, but restict and constrain the amount of those ticket holders that can actually use our trains."
Yeah that sounds fair!

Agree with @AlterEgo about flexibility and competitiveness with the car.

 

[Watershed]

Like I've said upthead, LNER were (in my view) clearly the most successful long distance operator at getting passengers back last summer.

Ah, that old chestnut. Similar to the "privatisation has doubled passenger numbers" one.

Without a control group comparison there is no way whatsoever that the effectiveness of different strategies can be measured.

I submit that if LNER had higher relative passenger loadings than other operators last summer, it is simply because their market is much more leisure travellers than commuters. The former, of course, being much quicker to recover in the current circumstances.

 

[Ianno87]

Ah, that old chestnut. Similar to the "privatisation has doubled passenger numbers" one.

Without a control group comparison there is no way whatsoever that the effectiveness of different strategies can be measured.

I submit that if LNER had higher relative passenger loadings than other operators last summer, it is simply because their market is much more leisure travellers than commuters. The former, of course, being much quicker to recover in the current circumstances.

But then if, at least for the next few years, leisure travel will dominate the market, perhaps it is the right move?

The plus side is that compulsory reservations are at least easy to remove again if they do prove a flop (and I eat my hat)!

 

[DB]

Not disagreeing with that. But trying to articulate what LNER's rationale *might* be to benefit more passengers overall, without excessively restricting those who need flexibility. I'm not pretending there aren't "losers" from LNER's approach.

Beyond niche cases where people can't get to their booked seat because it's too rammed (and those cases will be few, and mostly inly involve joining at intermediate stations), you've not identified any benefits to anyone - as things stand, if someone wants to book a seat then they can do so.

The plus side is that compulsory reservations are at least easy to remove again if they do prove a flop (and I eat my hat)!

No guarantee that the former regular passengers who will switch to car will come back again though...

 

[Ianno87]

No guarantee that the former regular passengers who will switch to car will come back again though...

Depends how bad road congestion gets! My part of the world started getting shades of "old normal" back before Christmas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But at the same time, it's probably well understood in France you'd be crazy not to book Christmas travel at the soonest possible opportunity (luckily I don't think Britain would be quite so extreme)

I suppose there's also that the UK tends to be much better at providing capacity than France. The 3tph London-Manchester service with 260+ metre trains (I think a standard TGV unit is 200?) is something users of typically irregular TGV services can only dream of.

XC is an exception, and I'd be pretty firm in my view that compulsory reservations should NOT be used as a means of hiding a failure to provide anything like adequate capacity (in XC's case, unless COVID substantially reduces demand, capacity needs to be roughly doubled).

There are benefits that could come from doing it well - for example if people are encouraged to book through tickets then you know what connections are going to be made (and not made) so they can be held if possible, or capacity can be added to a train that looks like it'll book up by reshuffling the fleet (e.g. to swap a 9.390 for a 11.390) - but I don't entirely trust our railway to do those things well. (NatEx by comparison was always very good at this, though PSVAR makes it much harder as you can't add capacity unless you've got accessible coaches).

 

[DB]

XC is an exception, and I'd be pretty firm in my view that compulsory reservations should NOT be used as a means of hiding a failure to provide anything like adequate capacity (in XC's case, unless COVID substantially reduces demand, capacity needs to be roughly doubled).

The easy solution there is the Avanti 221s and the EMR 222s!

 

[Watershed]

But then if, at least for the next few years, leisure travel will dominate the market, perhaps it is the right move?

The plus side is that compulsory reservations are at least easy to remove again if they do prove a flop (and I eat my hat)!

Leisure travellers are far more likely to be seriously comparing train vs car - for commuters, rush hour traffic makes the car an unviable option, and for business travellers, the ability to work on the move gives the train an inherent advantage.

Convenience and hassle make a big difference in that comparison. I often hear relatives and other 'normals' complaining that the train is unbelievably expensive if they don't tie themselves down.

Well now it will have the worst of both worlds - it will still be expensive but you will now also have to tie yourself down!

 

[yorksrob]

A dreadful decision, which just goes to show that LNER is being used to trial every half-cocked, pointless idea from the DFT.

 

[HSTEd]

The largest successes in recent times in railways in Britain have been the creation of turn-up-and-go systems which ultimately seek to emulate the London Underground in conception.

All the successes have been allowing relaxation of journey planning, I can't think of a single time adding restrictions like this has actually suceeded in improving the railway's financial position or the experience of the travelling public.

Indeed as a taxpayer, I am struggling tos ee why the state should continue to pour endless piles of money into a railway that is so full of itself that it is willing to turn away passengers that it could easily carry just so the rich elite can avoid having to see peasants in the vestibules. After all this will deliberately constrain capacity and allow them to hike fares still further.

Why are we building HS2 when the existing railway is willing to throw away substantial surplus capacity to impose artificial scarcity?

Railways are a mass transport system, hamstringing the system achieves nothing in the long run.

 

[IanXC]

There is a big question of how this fits with the future of ticketing. If we're going to end up with advance purchase with reservations for long distance travel and pay as you go for shorter distance travel, then thats fine, but as things currently stand the Intercity operators have to accept that they are providers of shorter distance travel and that passengers using PAYG must be accommodated. Lots of this comes down to how the PAYG options is set up, if there are to be regional PAYG schemes then that probably works with boundary stations. Your Yorkshire PAYG card would be valid Doncaster to Northallerton for example, and if travelling with it no reservation would be required within its boundaries.

I do wonder whether a certain Open Access bidder might be rubbing their hands together at this idea. First East Coast made their ticketing arrangements a significant part of their bid and demonstrated passengers being brought to the railway as a result which delivered their Not Primarily Abstractive result. If there is no walk up train available between, say Doncaster to York, added to serving a new station at Doncaster Sheffield Airport and adding a York to Lincoln service might be a good base to build an Open Access bid. I'm sure creating the circumstances for yet more OAO on the East Coast Mainline is exactly what LNER would want to avoid.

 

[Ianno87]

0

The largest successes in recent times in railways in Britain have been the creation of turn-up-and-go systems which ultimate seek to emulately the London Underground in conception.

All the successes have been allowing relaxation of journey planning, I can't think of a single time adding restrictions like this has actually suceeded in improving the railway's financial position or the experience of the travelling public.

Indeed as a taxpayer, I am struggling tos ee why the state should continue to pour endless piles of money into a railway that is so full of itself that it is willing to turn away passengers that it could easily carry just so the rich elite who can afford to pay inflated rates can avoid having to see peasants in the vestibules.

Weird. If you're standing in the vestibule you're more likely to have paid a more expensive walk-up fare than someone with an cheap Advance that comes with a seat reservation.

LNER's decision is very much in favour of the Advance fare brigade.

 

[HSTEd]

LNER's decision is very much in favour of the Advance fare brigade.

Except the artificial scarcity imposed will result in the advanced fare prices soaring to be similar to the walk up fares, or higher.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A dreadful decision, which just goes to show that LNER is being used to trial every half-cocked, pointless idea from the DFT.

Them and Northern.

 

[yorksrob]

Them and Northern.

Yes, although I've not noticed anything particularly annoying being trialled on Northern - not yet anyway.

 

[Class360/1]

I’m against permanent seat reservations, let’s say I suddenly needed to take a train from Newcastle to Morpeth, and I had just missed a TPE and the northern service. There would be no time to get on a lner service, which provides a limited service only. I would be stuck at the station for at least 30 minutes, putting a spanner in the works

 

[Ianno87]

Except the artificial scarcity imposed will result in the advanced fare prices soaring to be similar to the walk up fares, or higher.

Or you tactically price advances to manage demand between trains. As long distance operators have done for years.

 

[HSTEd]

Or you tactically price advances to manage demand between trains. As long distance operators have done for years.

Manage demand to a level far below the level what the train can actually carry?


The railway is not the only long distance transport system available, if you start trying to force people who would have stood to go when they want to go into a seated train at an inconvenient hour, they will simply make other arrangements.

The rise of electric cars will make this effect even more pronounced.

 

[Skutter]

“Reservations compulsory” introduces new negative connotations... What happens if I miss my train? What happens if the train is cancelled? What happens if the person compulsorily reserved next to me has a BO problem?

You could frame it as a positive too, with the current ticket there is no guarantee that you"ll be carried by a train (not a bus/taxi), or even, at all to your destination. Accepting a booking with reservation puts more of a requirement on the TOC that they have the obligation to carry you.

More generally, why are LNER trains different to planes, coaches, ferries and taxis, all with reservations required yet don"t seem to be unsucessful?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could frame it as a positive too, with the current ticket there is no guarantee that you"ll be carried by a train (not a bus/taxi), or even, at all to your destination. Accepting a booking with reservation puts more of a requirement on the TOC that they have the obligation to carry you.

This has never bothered airlines before.

More generally, why are LNER trains different to planes, coaches, ferries and taxis, all with reservations required yet don"t seem to be unsucessful?

Because trains primarily compete with cars, which don't require reservations. The other modes don't so much.

Actually, London-Scotland is probably the only UK rail market that probably primarily competes with planes (as it's a long way to drive). So you could (as I think someone else said) see the sense in compulsory reservations on London-Scotland services only? It's entirely possible Horne's comment could imply something like that rather than all services.

 

[Hadders]

LNER have been surveying passengers about this sort of thing (I often get their surveys and I started a thread following a survey about checking in before your journey)

The survey questions will be skewed to give them the answers the want and we need to be very wary of the impact this will have on fares, especially as the DfT/RDG and TOCs are saying there needs to be fares reform. Although I don't disagree about the need for fares reform I expect this sort of thing:

- Fares are too complicated
- Passengers want fares simplification
- Passengers want the guarantee of a seat
- No need to stand any more on LNER trains

Expect Super Off Peak and Off Peak fares to be abolished. TOCs will say we'll replace with loads of cheap Advance fares. The Super Off Peak fare provides an effective ceiling on fares but if this no longer exists expect Advance fares at popular times to increase exponentially (e.g. Sunday afternoons).

Passengers will be priced off the railway at busy times.

 

[Roast Veg]

All trains being full in the week leading up to Christmas is not at all unusual in France, I believe.

This is a frankly terrifying prospect. I almost couldn't make it to work in the inter-lockdown period because of the situation with XC, and that was with the notice my employer had given me. How am I supposed to tell my employer that I can't get across the country to the office because the train is sold out? I'm not lucky enough to be able to expense a taxi 200 miles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I bet if you averaged it out, there is more than enough capacity across (say) a Sunday evening for everybody that wants to travel. It's just that the current ticketing set up means some trains at the "ideal" time oversubscribed with others running with plenty of free seats.

Part of that is because (unlike SBB) loadings aren't shown on the journey planner so people have no idea which trains are busy. Personally I near-always travel walk-up, but when I'm in Switzerland I often look for the capacity readout on the planner and adjust slightly to avoid "3 red men" trains. And I do use the LNR timetable to avoid any south WCML 4-car train as I know it'll always be heaving.

I have gone down to the platform at Euston, seen a very busy train and given up and gone to the pub to wait for the next one, but I'd venture that most people won't do that.

Edit: here's the SBB planner display - very clear which of those I'd go for. I believe it shows the worst case for all trains if it's connectional, there's a cheap "Advance" going on it too:

 

[yorksrob]

TOCs will say we'll replace with loads of cheap Advance fares.

Often promised, not always delivered.

David Horne ? Perhaps Kenneth Horne would have come up with better ideas for running the railway ! (with Julian and Sandy advising on fares).

 

[PeterC]

0


Weird. If you're standing in the vestibule you're more likely to have paid a more expensive walk-up fare than someone with an cheap Advance that comes with a seat reservation.

LNER's decision is very much in favour of the Advance fare brigade.

I would expect to get the discounted fare in return for taking a punt on having to stand.

 

[AlterEgo]

You could frame it as a positive too, with the current ticket there is no guarantee that you"ll be carried by a train (not a bus/taxi), or even, at all to your destination. Accepting a booking with reservation puts more of a requirement on the TOC that they have the obligation to carry you.

More generally, why are LNER trains different to planes, coaches, ferries and taxis, all with reservations required yet don"t seem to be unsucessful?

The type of ticket you have, or whether you have a reservation or not makes absolutely no difference either in principle or practice in your right to alternative transport.

 

[43096]

I do wonder whether a certain Open Access bidder might be rubbing their hands together at this idea. First East Coast made their ticketing arrangements a significant part of their bid and demonstrated passengers being brought to the railway as a result which delivered their Not Primarily Abstractive result. If there is no walk up train available between, say Doncaster to York, added to serving a new station at Doncaster Sheffield Airport and adding a York to Lincoln service might be a good base to build an Open Access bid. I'm sure creating the circumstances for yet more OAO on the East Coast Mainline is exactly what LNER would want to avoid.

If LNER is going "res only" they are all but opting out of National Rail. In that case, we might as well abandon that franchise and make it fully open access, with LNER having to bid for paths against anyone else who wants to run.

 

[bramling]

Like I've said upthead, LNER were (in my view) clearly the most successful long distance operator at getting passengers back last summer.

Last summer was hardly a normal situation, and there’s no evidence that compulsory reservations played any part in any success in getting passengers back.