Network Rail bets on mindfulness (and err...Greggs) to lure commuters back

[Craig1122]

Prices don't automatically have to rise, though. If you increase passenger numbers, then revenue increases without price rises. In fact, depending upon elasticity of demand, you could increase revenue by reducing prices if passenger numbers increase high enough.

It's like our local council's car parks. They put up prices and a year later discovered total revenue fell because people didn't use them. Instead of reducing prices, they put prices up again, and even fewer people used them, so total revenue fell for the second year running.

Reverse example. Vue cinemas halved their ticket prices pre covid. My local one appeared to get much more than twice as many customers and of course they benefited from additional concession sales.

Cheap day returns at 10p more than a single was a similar idea. It was basically introduced as a promotion: return off peak for the same price as a single. The network card was also an exercise in reducing fares in exchange for increased volume so these are hardly new ideas even on the railway.

 

[urbophile]

Not much chance under the present regime (or its likely successor) but we need to get out of the mindset that sees the railway as a commercial business whose aim is to make a profit, and to see it as a necessary public service. Even the most dogmatic of Tories rarely argues for road pricing – in fact they are more likely to be against such things as congestion zones – but takes for granted that the road network will be maintained by the government for the benefit of all who want to use it.

 

[TPO]

Passengers just like to whinge when it comes to customer service; rail staff are doing the best they can in difficult circumstances, because of the reduction in services brought by the DfT and not enough investment.

The potential is there to get people out of their cars and onto the train, but a small reduction in fares won't be enough. The government just need to prioritise their spending on rail more so than they do on other stupid projects like smart motorways

The whole product (hard and soft) needs redefining, really. The things people in here love about the fares system, esoteric policies etc are negative in the wider market.



Roads (and buses) benefit more people than trains.

Indeed there is an argument that investing in good buses benefits far more less well off people that much rail investment. Rail needs some of the vision of the local managers on the Cardiff Valley Lines in the latter days of BR.

We also need a proper conversion about the future of rail, what it is for. In a world where there has been a shift to wfh and online shopping, a railway oriented to freight + leisure may better meet population needs than one heavily focused on the London commuter.

It may be that the future of rail is not so much getting people out of cars as boxes off lorries, with a quality leisure offering and useful local suburban services thrown in.

TPO

 

[TUC]

When the emphasis is to get away from a London-centric approach to the country, it sends the wrong message for national organisations to have offers from businesses such as Pure which are just a local London chain of coffee shops.

 

[philosopher]

We also need a proper conversion about the future of rail, what it is for. In a world where there has been a shift to wfh and online shopping, a railway oriented to freight + leisure may better meet population needs than one heavily focused on the London commuter.

It may be that the future of rail is not so much getting people out of cars as boxes off lorries, with a quality leisure offering and useful local suburban services thrown in.

TPO

To me this whole approach of trying lure back commuters onto the railways is wrong. Those who prefer WFH are not to switch back to commuting regularly just because they get a free coffee worth about £2. The people who will benefit from this scheme are either those who have no choice to commute or prefer office working in any case so would not need to be attracted to the railways.

The rail industry should focus their efforts on attracting leisure passengers. In the short term this could perhaps include things such as discounts on entry tickets to attractions if travelling by rail.
Longer term things could include introducing more comfortable seating and rewriting timetables to remove uneven gaps in service (e.g a 15 minute gap followed by 45 minute gap).

 

[ar10642]

To me this whole approach of trying lure back commuters onto the railways is wrong. Those who prefer WFH are not to switch back to commuting regularly just because they get a free coffee worth about £2. The people who will benefit from this scheme are either those who have no choice to commute or prefer office working in any case so would not need to be attracted to the railways.

The rail industry should focus their efforts on attracting leisure passengers. In the short term this could perhaps include things such as discounts on entry tickets to attractions if travelling by rail.
Longer term things could include introducing more comfortable seating and rewriting timetables to remove uneven gaps in service (e.g a 15 minute gap followed by 45 minute gap).

I'm not so sure people who still commute not needing to be won back other than Central London commuters. Many are now working hybrid 2 days a week or less and have switched to using cars during the pandemic. They aren't going to come back if the flexi season is the best the railway come up with, but they might if the price was more competitive.

Leisure's a tough one as well because again other than central London it's often massively cheaper to drive if there are even two of you in the car let alone a whole family. Ask almost anyone and they will tell you: "trains are too expensive"

 

[Grumpy Git]

I just availed myself of a free Greggs sausage bap and cappuccino at Crewe and very nice it was too.

This despite the spotty oik on the till telling me I was too late for breakfast (it was 10:58) and that the food would be cold. Fortunately there was a second older lady in the shop who served me a hot sausage bap with pleasure. The yoof of today just went down a notch in my eyes.

 

[LowLevel]

I just availed myself of a free Greggs sausage bap and cappuccino at Crewe and very nice it was too.

This despite the spotty oik on the till telling me I was too late for breakfast (it was 10:58) and that the food would be cold. Fortunately there was a second older lady in the shop who served me a hot sausage bap with pleasure. The yoof of today just went down a notch in my eyes.

Bravo for living up to your username, enjoy a complimentary browse of the Daily Mail

 

[Grumpy Git]

Bravo for living up to your username, enjoy a complimentary browse of the Daily Mail

The attitude of the two people working in the shop could not have been any more at polar opposites.

The young lad wasn't interested (the clock in the shop showed 10:58, but he was arguing his phone was showing the right time at 11:00). The lady came from the back and said "of course you can have a breakfast", to which the lad then said "but it will all be cold".

People like him need a kick up the arse.

 

[seagull]

If that's the Greggs the other side of the car park, then that could have been the same spotty oik that told me recently they had no sausages left for the requested sausage baguette, only to have a more senior member of staff chime in and say "yes we do, there's loads left".
Seems like he couldn't be bothered to make it.

 

[LowLevel]

The attitude of the two people working in the shop could not have been any more at polar opposites.

The young lad wasn't interested (the clock in the shop showed 10:58, but he was arguing his phone was showing the right time at 11:00). The lady came from the back and said "of course you can have a breakfast", to which the lad then said "but it will all be cold".

People like him need a kick up the arse.

I agree with that entirely, it sounds like crap service, but judging "the yoof of today" by a bored kid working in a Greggs in Crewe is the epitome of Grumpy Old Man syndrome and would be right at home in the Daily Mail's reader's letters section or other similar hotbeds of negativity.

 

[Phil56]

I agree with that entirely, it sounds like crap service, but judging "the yoof of today" by a bored kid working in a Greggs in Crewe is the epitome of Grumpy Old Man syndrome and would be right at home in the Daily Mail's reader's letters section or other similar hotbeds of negativity.

I agree, poor customer service isn't restricted to today's "yoof" - there are lots of grumpy unhelpful middle aged and older staff too. Conversely, some of today's "yoof" can be quite surprisingly helpful.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Fair comment, I'll reserve judgment for that particular useless streak of urine.

.....and I wouldn't pick-up the DM to wipe my backside.

 

[jayah]

If they want people to use "greener" forms of transport, then yes



£180 for an Anytime Return using Avanti services is ridiculously high (for comparison, it is £90 for LNWR services to London return, about £90 to Liverpool return, and about £107 to Manchester return). My company has to pay the price if they want me to travel down to London



To travel to London by car, including all of the mileage, congestion, ULEZ, and car parking charges (excluding things like insurance & maintenance as I would have them anyway), you would still look at a price comparable with the LNWR ticket price.

That was a reasonable argument 10 years ago, but the alternative is working at home.

The cost of a one day per week trip to the office is now a huge barrier on medium / long distance as these journeys were perceived as expensed.

 

[Horizon22]

The tapering of peak/off-peak fares will need some serious looking at. Advance tickets at peak times? Why not?

There is no point trying to run a railway carting around fresh air. Whilst there are some genuine grievances about slashing #tph at some commuter TOCs, some of it will be inevitable in a balanced way if Anytime fares look ridiculous to many that are not caught in a captive market any more. Peak rail travel into London was often the "least worst" option as opposed to driving or a bus or a coach. Now that it isn't necessarily a given - and whilst there will still be a peak of sorts, - its going to be a lot less "peaky". That being said most TOCs know that and are adapting, albeit in many places rather slowly. Some of the fares reform is going to be needed at a much faster pace before it is too late as the occasional hybrid worker might switch away from rail permanently.

As for the freebies, it feels more like a PR stunt than anything and probably ranks fairly low down in someones reasons for getting onto the train to work.

 

[tbwbear]

The tapering of peak/off-peak fares will need some serious looking at. Advance tickets at peak times? Why not?

100% Agree.

And, if the bacon rolls don't work, do you think we could see the end of peak (anytime) tickets in some places eventually. Plenty of precedents in other countries and it would make fare review a lot easier ? Or is it one step too far ?

 

[JonathanH]

The tapering of peak/off-peak fares will need some serious looking at. Advance tickets at peak times? Why not?

There are already plenty of advance tickets at peak times on most of the routes where they exist at off-peak times. They just aren't at the same rates as those available late evening or during the middle of the day.

some of it will be inevitable in a balanced way if Anytime fares look ridiculous to many that are not caught in a captive market any more.

That depends on the numbers of people who are still caught in a captive market and are still paying the higher fares. It is a hostage to fortune - less revenue from those who have to travel made up by those for whom it is more discretionary.

Some of the fares reform is going to be needed at a much faster pace before it is too late as the occasional hybrid worker might switch away from rail permanently.

There is a practical limitation to how quickly the South East fares reform can be done given the need to get the single fare / Contactless PAYG solution in place.

And, if the bacon rolls don't work, do you think we could see the end of peak (anytime) tickets in some places eventually. Plenty of precedents in other countries and it would make fare review a lot easier ? Or is it one step too far ?

I suspect that will lead to higher off-peak fares. (One practical way it could be done, and there have been examples in the past, is to reduce the anytime fare and withdraw the off-peak fare.)

 

[Geezertronic]

That was a reasonable argument 10 years ago, but the alternative is working at home.

In my job (IT) working from home is sometimes not possible. Yes, many remote options exist which I wholly take advantage of, but a lot of time I cannot do my job unless I am onsite, particularly where no remote options exist

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my job (IT) working from home is sometimes not possible. Yes, many remote options exist which I wholly take advantage of, but a lot of time I cannot do my job unless I am onsite, particularly where no remote options exist

Depends what IT. I am 100% remote. With companies having their own data centres being on the wane, and cloud services being in massive growth (and laptops and VPNs dealing with most of the rest), this will be more and more the case all the time.

Obviously if you service the on-site hardware remote won't work, of course.

There is a practical limitation to how quickly the South East fares reform can be done given the need to get the single fare / Contactless PAYG solution in place.

Reform alongside that is probably the way to go, but you could put the fare structure in place but on paper/e-ticket before it's ready, and there is a big case to do that. Unless you want to charge extra for paper tickets (in which case just add a flat £1 or something) there's no reason to operate two parallel fare structures in that way.

The tapering of peak/off-peak fares will need some serious looking at. Advance tickets at peak times? Why not?

Because Advance tickets on short journeys are pointless complication and confusion. Advances are for long distance journeys where booking ahead is the norm and where people typically have more flexibility of when to travel.

The old system of them only being available on trains with seat reservations was the right distinction to me.

Some of the fares reform is going to be needed at a much faster pace before it is too late as the occasional hybrid worker might switch away from rail permanently.

I would agree that something like "every day is a fares Saturday for 12 months" announced now would be a good plan. But if something favourable is done and is well-publicised, people might switch back.

 

[JonathanH]

Reform alongside that is probably the way to go, but you could put the fare structure in place but on paper/e-ticket before it's ready, and there is a big case to do that. Unless you want to charge extra for paper tickets (in which case just add a flat £1 or something) there's no reason to operate two parallel fare structures in that way.

No, that just gives passengers the ability to select the best fares against the train companies and leads to even more complaints about complication and passengers being concerned about whether they have selected the best option.

 

[Geezertronic]

Depends what IT. I am 100% remote. With companies having their own data centres being on the wane, and cloud services being in massive growth (and laptops and VPNs dealing with most of the rest), this will be more and more the case all the time.

Obviously if you service the on-site hardware remote won't work, of course.

For what it's worth, it's not just about maintaining onsite hardware - it's instances where a private network (SA for example without going into too much detail) is not remotely accessible for security or technological reasons, or a Use Case is not remotely controllable unless you are onsite

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, that just gives passengers the ability to select the best fares against the train companies and leads to even more complaints about complication and passengers being concerned about whether they have selected the best option.

I'm confused. How does replacing the present fare structure with the new contactless one (simplified, I guess to singles only and fewer variations) before contactless is actually implemented do that?

For what it's worth, it's not just about maintaining onsite hardware - it's instances where a private network (SA for example without going into too much detail) is not remotely accessible for security or technological reasons, or a Use Case is not remotely controllable unless you are onsite

The number of such cases are reducing all the time.

But even so, there is no need (typical Forum!) to go after exceptions. That some jobs can't be done from home doesn't mean those which can shouldn't be.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm confused. How does replacing the present fare structure with the new contactless one (simplified, I guess to singles only and fewer variations) before contactless is actually implemented do that?

I read it as there being two systems in place at the same time which categorically should not happen. A one off replacement of the fare structure before Contactless seems fine and indeed might be the right first step.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A one off replacement before Contactless seems fine and indeed might be the right first step.

Yes, that's what I was proposing. The £1 thing was maybe a distraction and was a "once contactless is implemented you might want to charge a higher fare for paper tickets" idea, as per LU, but really another discussion entirely and probably one for another thread if anyone does want to discuss it.

That is, implement the contactless fare system on paper, replacing the existing paper fares, and then roll out contactless as the tech is ready.

 

[OliverReed]

It won’t happen.

People simply don’t need offices. My wife has worked from home for the last two years. So have many friends. Another mate has just been taken on by his old employer part time for a higher rate of pay. Because they want him to work remotely. Ten years ago he was in Bloomsbury. But now they’ve abandoned their office space. Save for an archive. He’s talking about moving to Thailand.

The reason they want people back in offices is because the people who own corporate real estate usually get a super cheap loan (called an ELOC or equity line of credit from the bank). So it’s affecting the debt profile of the 1%. I imagine those same people have shares or interests in ROSCOE’s too. Renting a train is like corporate real estate to some extent.

We need to rethink cities. Society is changing. Trying to force people into offices won’t work. It’s at odds with the tenet of choice in neoliberalism.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It won’t happen.

People simply don’t need offices. My wife has worked from home for the last two years. So have many friends. Another mate has just been taken on by his old employer part time for a higher rate of pay. Because they want him to work remotely. Ten years ago he was in Bloomsbury. But now they’ve abandoned their office space. Save for an archive. He’s talking about moving to Thailand.

Tax-complication-tastic!

Anywhere in the UK would be fine, though.

The reason they want people back in offices is because the people who own corporate real estate usually get a super cheap loan (called an ELOC or equity line of credit from the bank). So it’s affecting the debt profile of the 1%. I imagine those same people have shares or interests in ROSCOE’s too. Renting a train is like corporate real estate to some extent.

Yep. The people shouting are not shouting for the employee, they are shouting for the investors.

We need to rethink cities. Society is changing. Trying to force people into offices won’t work. It’s at odds with the tenet of choice in neoliberalism.

Exactly. It was happening anyway, COVID sped it up by 10 years or so.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

If the railway is wanting to compete for business and increase patronage perhaps it could start by addressing the obvious- the ridiculous cost of travel. When it’s cheaper for me to drive, something is very wrong…

Token offers and gestures aren’t going to achieve much.

Getting shut of that daft 1601 - 1829 evening peak restriction across the North would go a long way and would be a start.

Other ideas on getting communtors back could be having unusual fare offers such as Halifax / Brighouse / Huddersfield / Hebden Bridge to Bracknell / Reading / Melksham / Frome (and vice-versa) for £60 return. It'd bring tourists in to Halifax for certain and may even pave the way for a new cross country route!

It'd make more sense to have the above rather than some greasy, flakey crap from Greggs and a coffee which tastes as if its come out of the river.

It won’t happen.

People simply don’t need offices. My wife has worked from home for the last two years. So have many friends. Another mate has just been taken on by his old employer part time for a higher rate of pay. Because they want him to work remotely. Ten years ago he was in Bloomsbury. But now they’ve abandoned their office space. Save for an archive. He’s talking about moving to Thailand.

The reason they want people back in offices is because the people who own corporate real estate usually get a super cheap loan (called an ELOC or equity line of credit from the bank). So it’s affecting the debt profile of the 1%. I imagine those same people have shares or interests in ROSCOE’s too. Renting a train is like corporate real estate to some extent.

We need to rethink cities. Society is changing. Trying to force people into offices won’t work. It’s at odds with the tenet of choice in neoliberalism.

The company's I work for still require their premises as the workshop floor, warehouse and offices aren't able to be reduced to being done out of the employees homes as there's only one set of major equiptment on either site which cannot be replicated in the same manor as basic office type work can. Plus where does the stock go? There's no where to put it in a residential property.

 

[urbophile]

It won’t happen.

People simply don’t need offices. My wife has worked from home for the last two years. So have many friends. Another mate has just been taken on by his old employer part time for a higher rate of pay. Because they want him to work remotely. Ten years ago he was in Bloomsbury. But now they’ve abandoned their office space. Save for an archive. He’s talking about moving to Thailand.

The reason they want people back in offices is because the people who own corporate real estate usually get a super cheap loan (called an ELOC or equity line of credit from the bank). So it’s affecting the debt profile of the 1%. I imagine those same people have shares or interests in ROSCOE’s too. Renting a train is like corporate real estate to some extent.

We need to rethink cities. Society is changing. Trying to force people into offices won’t work. It’s at odds with the tenet of choice in neoliberalism.

I'm sure you are right. But we don't just need to rethink transport patterns; housing and planning are equally important. In theory working from home might be ideal; in practice, unless you've got a house with plenty of space, this can be difficult. Especially in London where such space is beyond the dreams of many workers on average incomes. Even outside of London, even in 'cheap' property regions, the rent or mortgage payment on a house or flat with room for a home office can be much more than half a wage. In London that would be the stuff of dreams: one room in a shared house isn't going to leave you much if any change from £1k monthly.

And why the faith in neoliberalism? It's what's got us into the mess we are in now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure you are right. But we don't just need to rethink transport patterns; housing and planning are equally important. In theory working from home might be ideal; in practice, unless you've got a house with plenty of space, this can be difficult. Especially in London where such space is beyond the dreams of many workers on average incomes. Even outside of London, even in 'cheap' property regions, the rent or mortgage payment on a house or flat with room for a home office can be much more than half a wage. In London that would be the stuff of dreams: one room in a shared house isn't going to leave you much if any change from £1k monthly.

If you worked 100% from home, why would you live in London? It has the potential for some true "levelling up" there. Wouldn't it be good if people could live on the Cumbrian Coast and do a London job, say? Much better than holiday homes, as their money will go into the local economy unlike the holiday home owners who just rock up twice a year with a car already full from Tesco.

Clearly not everyone (a) can or (b) wants to work from home.

But if everyone who can work from home and wants to work from home did, that's a load of travel reduced and better quality of life all round.

 

[Geezertronic]

But even so, there is no need (typical Forum!) to go after exceptions. That some jobs can't be done from home doesn't mean those which can shouldn't be.

Since I am one of those exceptions (10% office based requirement), I am surely allowed to have an opinion that way, right?