Rail operators call for leisure fares (especially day returns) to increase

[Bletchleyite]

If the Manchester to London fares had the same sensible pricing structure as LNER, what would those fares be?

I'd guess at something like the LNR fares now roughly are:

Super Off Peak: £65 return, valid only for arrival into London after 1300 and not for departure between 1600-1900, restriction also applies Saturday
Off Peak: £110 return, valid only for arrival into London after 1030 but no evening peak restriction
Anytime: unchanged

 

[yorkie]

If the Manchester to London fares had the same sensible pricing structure as LNER, what would those fares be?

The Off Peak fare would be renamed Super Off Peak and a new Off Peak fare would be introduced, priced at a level that is lower than the Anytime fare, which would be valid on some of the trains which the existing Off Peak fare isn't. Furthermore, LNER seem to offer more Advance fares, and at more reasonable prices, on "peak" time trains, than Virgin do.

Virgin could fill their "peak" trains if they wanted to, using the existing fares structure. They just choose not to!

How many of those business users using the full fat anytime return fare for London - Manchester are paying for it out of their own pocket, rather than claiming it back on business expenses (or it having been purchased for them)?

I suspect the proportion claiming the fares from expenses will be well over 90%. In short, this is about reducing the cost to businesses and making leisure passengers pay for it!

And has anyone seen GROUPSAVE TICKETS ARE NOT VALID ON THIS SERVICE. seems to only apply to cross country services.

I suspect we will see the end of GroupSave under these proposals, as it will be seen as not "simple" enough.

We should consider having a unified discount scheme for groups across all passengers, but if anyone wishes to explore that further I'd suggest a new thread would be best.

I don't agree that Cross Country had no need to introduce a blanket 2V restriction on their Off-Peak fares. If it makes them more money, and is within the law, don't they have an obligation to their shareholders to do it?

It only makes them more money if people don't "split". I would suggest that such behaviour encourages people to use split ticketing websites, which would have the effect of reducing XC's revenue compared to the through fare that was previously valid for the journey, even if the overall amount paid was higher. This is because a greater proportion of the revenue from shorter distance fares will go to other operators who share various parts of the overall XC route.

I think that the blanket 2V restriction backfired on XC.

 

[Starmill]

Super Off Peak: £65 return, valid only for arrival into London after 1300 and not for departure between 1600-1900, restriction also applies Saturday

I would imagine more people than VT would like will switch to this fare, losing them £25 on hundreds of thousands of sales.

Off Peak: £110 return, valid only for arrival into London after 1030 but no evening peak restriction
Anytime: unchanged

Adding £20 to a significant chunk of travellers' bills would cause massive negative publicity, which VT are very scared of. It would also give coach companies and maybe even airlines a huge new selling point.

Obviously there's also a significant upside - in particular anybody who wants to arrive in London around 1100 or 1045 can benefit from a much more reasonable Off Peak price. But who would this benefit, how could it be marketed and would it increase the market share VT hold? It seems it would be very difficult. Also Saturday passengers would be hugely disillusioned, and that in itself would create significant negative publicity.

From a technical perspective it may well be better. But is it revenue positive? And more importantly is it practical?

 

[Starmill]

If the Manchester to London fares had the same sensible pricing structure as LNER, what would those fares be?

I've always thought LNER's services are both worse and typically costlier than VT's - as someone who wouldn't ever buy a long-distance Anytime ticket. Need I make the point it's now £225 for a Darlington to London Off Peak Return and that restricts trains home from King's Cross hugely in the evening? This is well over double the price of the Off Peak Return from Oxenholme to London which doesn't apply any ludicrous evening restrictions.

I'm never going to pay £250 for an Anytime Return any more than I'm going to pay £350. Make it £500 or £1,000 and there won't be a change to my position. But my view will change significantly when considering buying an Off Peak ticket between one priced at £90 and one priced at £110.

 

[anme]

I don't thing a cherry picking competition is appropriate in this thread but on every commuter route that I have looked at the annual season is priced between 1/2 and 2/3 of the anythime fare assuming a typical 232 return journeys.

An annual ticket for my journey is 75% of the cost of 232 anytime returns. Maybe for longer routes the proportion is lower, but that's pretty typical. That's much higher than buying an off peak return every day.

The "hands over thousands of pounds per year" argument is irrelevant as they are getting between 'thousands of pounds' x 1.5* worth of travel for their money. The comment "is being subsidised by someone who makes the occasional leisure journey" is fatuous because there are millions of occasional leisure journeys made.

It is absolutely not irrelevant. If we make one London to Brighton commuter so unhappy they stop travelling, we lose 4456 pounds. If we make one off peak traveller who makes that journey once per month so unhappy they stop travelling, we lose 232 pounds. The additional cost of carrying either passenger is close to zero. Now, of course the leisure traveller is much more discretionary than the commuter, so we have to be careful. But each commuters is worth enormously more to the railways than each leisure traveller.

Please understand that I'm not advocating raising leisure fares. But if we are in a situation where we need to raise more income, then I would prefer target leisure travellers than commuters (although see below).

It's a bit more than that. If leisure travel is discouraged, then the case for expenditure to provide for just the peaks becomes even harder to justify. The subsidy/return situation would get worse and peak fares could well rise once the leisure travel was no longer there to subsidise the capital and operational costs of operating an underused fleet/infrastructure. I'm sure that coach companies are sitting in the wings waiting for a sizeable share of leisure travellers who won't tolerate large hikes in prices. Not all rail leisure passengers are enthusiasts.

Then you have nothing to worry about. It obviously doesn't make sense to raise off peak fares to such a degree that it reduces overall income. The question is whether the current balance is optimal - either commercially (in terms of overall income) or politically (how are the costs shared between commuters, business travellers, leisure travellers and the tax payer, and also wider political priorities such as making it beneficial for people to work).

For example, it might be that we can raise leisure fares by 10%, while only losing 5% of passengers. (The price of the leisure journey I make most often has more than doubled in the least ten years, and I still buy the ticket just as often). Let's say a fare is 10 pounds, then a train of 100 passengers brings an income of 100*10 = 1000 pounds before the price rise, and after the price rise, the train of 95 passengers paying 11 pounds brings in 95*11 = 1045 pounds. So we have 45 pounds (4.5%) extra income we can use to cut the price of peak time travel, or for other investment.

Of course, whether this works depends on the effect of the price rise on leisure passenger numbers. If a 10% price rise caused a 20% fall in passenger numbers, it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don't agree that Cross Country had no need to introduce a blanket 2V restriction on their Off-Peak fares. If it makes them more money, and is within the law, don't they have an obligation to their shareholders to do it?

It's much more nuanced than that, as explained by another poster.

For better or for worse, this is how we have chosen to run our railways. Blaming a private company for maximising their profit is like blaming a lion for eating a gazelle. What else are they supposed to do?

Companies (should) have more than just profit as a bottom line. Ever heard of a "triple bottom line"? Companies like CrossCountry eminently don't give a hoot about that. They're in it for the money, nothing else. But in any case - the DfT should have been regulating the likes of CrossCountry much more heavily, to prevent the ridiculous situations that have resulted.

You didn't fill in the fares at the time of privatisation, so I fear you wrote your argument before knowing the facts...

There was an issue with the editing synchronising over different devices, and I've fixed it now! Having seen the figures before, I knew that what I was saying was correct. Everyone except Off-Peak Daytrippers has been absolutely shafted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine more people than VT would like will switch to this fare, losing them £25 on hundreds of thousands of sales.

Possibly. But then possibly not - for instance, it's no use for a day trip other than on a Sunday.

From a technical perspective it may well be better. But is it revenue positive? And more importantly is it practical?

LNR is not VT, but LNR have just implemented exactly this (and the same fare sets and restrictions are used for all their services serving London, either on fares they set or on LNR Only fares where they don't set the base fare). A rough comparison with figures relating to the fares from Bletchley are what I used to work out the numbers. Clearly they think it is viable.

For VT I think you'd sensibly get a different set of restrictions. I could see that the Super Off Peak might be better with no Saturday evening restrictions (because people need to travel a bit earlier; there isn't the option of the 0015 home), but that it might also make sense for it to have a "no travel after 1400 on a Sunday" restriction too; the busiest times on VTWC are by far Friday evening northbound and Sunday late afternoon southbound, which also coincides with when the M1 and M6 are at their worst.

 

[infobleep]

Anyway, RDG proposals to get rid of the "cliff edge" are at odds with this evidence in the Transport Committee report from 2005 'How fair are the fares?'

So, who is right?

What were the fares like in 2005? Playing devil's advocate, have people's travel habits changed since then or has new research found, that what was stated then to be the case, is in fact factually incorrect?

 

[anme]

Virgin could fill their "peak" trains if they wanted to, using the existing fares structure. They just choose not to!

Presumably because they make more money this way.

I suspect the proportion claiming the fares from expenses will be well over 90%. In short, this is about reducing the cost to businesses and making leisure passengers pay for it!

What's wrong with that? Businesses are not a magic money tree. Why should businesses subsidise leisure travellers?
Also, I think we're talking about commuters more than businesses.

It only makes them more money if people don't "split". I would suggest that such behaviour encourages people to use split ticketing websites, which would have the effect of reducing XC's revenue compared to the through fare that was previously valid for the journey, even if the overall amount paid was higher. This is because a greater proportion of the revenue from shorter distance fares will go to other operators who share various parts of the overall XC route.

I think that the blanket 2V restriction backfired on XC.

If that's true, then as a commercial entity I assume XC will soon reverse the decision.

 

[Starmill]

Clearly they think it is viable.

Why something that would be described as 'viable' for somewhere with half an hour journeys to London is neccasarily also suitable for travel from Liverpool, Preston and Glasgow to London I don't know...

All they have done (they haven't actually done what you said, although it's close) is make their fares structure more similar to the one that has prevailed at SW and SE for years. The same thing happened a while ago to TL North and then more recently to GN.

Having three price tiers has been common for years. But introducing it in a revenue neutral way is probably almost impossible, given the limitations on capacity and the politics. WMT have effected a rise in yield with their changes.

 

[anme]

It's much more nuanced than that, as explained by another poster.

Companies (should) have more than just profit as a bottom line. Ever heard of a "triple bottom line"? Companies like CrossCountry eminently don't give a hoot about that. They're in it for the money, nothing else.

This post seems very confused.

I had never heard of the "triple bottom line", but I genuinely like the idea. What do you think the chances are of convincing XC's shareholders to accept a bit less cash in return for some societal and environmental benefits?

On the other hand, if XC are only in it for the money, the 2V restriction seems like a good move.

But in any case - the DfT should have been regulating the likes of CrossCountry much more heavily, to prevent the ridiculous situations that have resulted.

The XC 2V restriction is clearly ridiculous and I would also like it to be dropped. But it's a result of the system that encourages and rewards companies for doing things like that. Attacking XC for this is missing the point. You need to change the system but get the outcomes you want.

There was an issue with the editing synchronising over different devices! Having seen the figures before, I knew that what I was saying was correct. Everyone except Off-Peak Daytrippers has been absolutely shafted.

Please could you post the fares?
BTW, your conclusion is interesting. If everyone apart from off peak daytrippers have been absolutely shafted, maybe it's time for the off peak daytrippers to share some of the pain.

 

[anme]

Having three price tiers has been common for years. But introducing it in a revenue neutral way is probably almost impossible, given the limitations on capacity and the politics. WMT have effected a rise in yield with their changes.

Introducing a third price tier will also mean winners and losers...

 

[Starmill]

Introducing a third price tier will also mean winners and losers...

Isn't that literally what my post said? Obviously it will. Where it has been done, it has been done to increase average revenue. This excersise, as has been stated again and again and again, is supposed to be "revenue neutral".

 

[yorkie]

What were the fares like in 2005?

On most routes there won't be a fundamental change to how they are today (but adjusted for the fare increases which typically occur annually), and if using the London to Manchester route as an example the structure hasn't changed at all.

Why should businesses subsidise leisure travellers?

If this is to be discussed further, I suggest creating a new thread. But I suggest you research yield management techniques.

Also, I think we're talking about commuters more than businesses.

I don't think so; sticking with the London to Manchester example a 7 day season is only 10% more than the cost of one Anytime Return.

If that's true, then as a commercial entity I assume XC will soon reverse the decision.

No, because they see the revenue gained as a result of the decision as their rightful revenue. Any revenue lost through splitting will not be attributed to this decision, but to the "system" and used as an excuse to demand a system that suits their needs better and allows them to charge higher fares to savvy price conscious passengers (some of whom will abandon rail as a result of any fare rise, but XC want that to happen because their trains are already very full, so it will reduce the burden of providing extra capacity, so a double win for them!)

The XC 2V restriction is clearly ridiculous and I would also like it to be dropped. But it's a result of the system that encourages and rewards companies for doing things like that.

The fares structure does not "encourage" this and for many years Virgin XC did not do it. What encouraged it is the DfT's insistence that the franchise operates on a reduced subsidy, with a greater proportion of costs coming from fare payers. This resulted in fare rises.

Attacking XC for this is missing the point.

Not really.

You need to change the system but get the outcomes you want.

The fares system cannot change in a manner that is acceptable to passengers unless subsidy is increased. However the Government appears to have ruled out increased subsidy. Therefore, the system cannot change.

We will not accept a "revenue neutral" change that results in leisure fares increasing in order to allow the most expensive fares (generally paid for on business expenses) to reduce. While you might welcome it, there are enough of us who won't welcome it, to cause a fuss and ensure it does not happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why something that would be described as 'viable' for somewhere with half an hour journeys to London is neccasarily also suitable for travel from Liverpool, Preston and Glasgow to London I don't know...

Because it's exactly the same structure as used on the Trent Valley services and from Liverpool (WMT Only).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

An annual ticket for my journey is 75% of the cost of 232 anytime returns. Maybe for longer routes the proportion is lower, but that's pretty typical. That's much higher than buying an off peak return every day.

Having just checked for all the main commuter lines into London, for one example station from each, here's the more scientific answer:

London Northwestern (Leighton Buzzard): 61%
Thameslink (Luton): 62%
Great Northern (Hitchin): 66%
Greater Anglia (Chelmsford): 59%
C2C (Shoeburyness): 80%
Southeastern (Sevenoaks): 65%
Southern (Three Bridges): 33%
SWR (Guildford): 61%
GWR (Twyford): 57%
Chiltern Railways (High Wycombe): 56%

So, for most lines, the balance is around 60% or so.

Presumably because they make more money this way.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it's morally or environmentally justifiable.

Fundamentally, the RDG are leading onto a public debate about the level that the rail industry should be subsidised by, and once that is decided, how the remaining balance should be split up between business users, commuters, and leisure travellers.

The current balance is that each is designed to pay as much as they will bear - something that irks leisure travellers who don't like the time restrictions that the above approach requires. And commuters don't like the continuous rise in fares. But without extra subsidy, it's purely a question of who is going to pay more and who is going to pay less.

I would suggest that, for most routes, the business and commuter demand is fairly price inelastic, thus they could actually increase prices there further. But if they think that increasing leisure fares - which is perhaps the most price sensitive market of all - is going to work, such as that businesses and commuters can pay less, then they have another thing coming...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This post seems very confused.

I had never heard of the "triple bottom line", but I genuinely like the idea. What do you think the chances are of convincing XC's shareholders to accept a bit less cash in return for some societal and environmental benefits?

On the other hand, if XC are only in it for the money, the 2V restriction seems like a good move.

I'm not sure what's confused about it. The TOCs, through the RDG, which is effectively their PR agency here, are saying that they think the system is unfair, and are implying that they are on the passenger's side. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is abhorrent but hardly surprising that the likes of XC are spouting that kind of nonsense.

A responsible shareholder would accept that it isn't all about profit, and that the triple bottom line actually matters too - i.e. the third party impacts of the businesses should be taken into consideration (e.g. in the case of XC, that increasing fares will be severely detrimental to the environment).

At the end of the day, this is all by the bye - the DfT can't know what a particular company is going to do with a franchise. So it must increase regulation and control - somewhat like the kind of management contract that GTR is run on - if it is to prevent excessive profiteering. Or alternatively, there would need to be a new kind of structure (e.g. nationalisation or complete privatisation). But at the end of the day, different structures are not going to be able to result in different outcomes, when the base starting point - an unachievably low level of subsidy - is the starting point.

The XC 2V restriction is clearly ridiculous and I would also like it to be dropped. But it's a result of the system that encourages and rewards companies for doing things like that. Attacking XC for this is missing the point. You need to change the system but get the outcomes you want.

Perhaps true, but XC deliberately chose to make a very stretched bid, in order to win. And they must have known that that was only achievable through unpalatable fare rises. The blame for that lies on no-one other than them - Virgin could no doubt have continued, without the silly restrictions that have resulted from CrossCountry's reign.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Introducing a third price tier will also mean winners and losers...

The only advantage to passengers has been the simplification of restrictions. But prices have gone up, at the end of the day, so really there have been no winners at all.

 

[anme]

If this is to be discussed further, I suggest creating a new thread. But I suggest you research yield management techniques.

I dislike this idea that companies are a magic money tree and that increasing their costs to subsidise leisure travellers is a good idea for a publicly subsided service. I am not arguing that business travellers should pay the same as leisure travellers, but I am arguing that increasing costs for businesses to further subsidise leisure travellers is not an appropriate redistribution of wealth.

Also, can I suggest you read some modern literature on yield management techniques? Businesses, in fact, are not as stupid as people here assume. Businesses do not unthinkingly buy anytime tickets for their staff. Every business I have worked for (including very large international companies) has a policy of buying the cheapest available flight and train tickets. I travel for business a lot and I very rarely travel with full price tickets. I suspect these policies are better developed for flights than for trains, but increasing the price of anytime tickets will simply push more companies to find alternatives.

A true anecdotal example - my boss recently insisted I rent a car for a day rather than pay the 178 pounds anytime return between London and Birmingham.

I don't think so; sticking with the London to Manchester example a 7 day season is only 10% more than the cost of one Anytime Return.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I doubt that there are many commuters from London to Manchester and vice versa. The major commuter routes are much shorter.

Incidentally, this particular weekly ticket is cheap enough that I could imagine it encouraging some really long distance commuting. I assume it's a regulated fare and can't increase alongside the anytime price.

No, because they see the revenue gained as a result of the decision as their rightful revenue. Any revenue lost through splitting will not be attributed to this decision, but to the "system" and used as an excuse to demand a system that suits their needs better and allows them to charge higher fares to savvy price conscious passengers (some of whom will abandon rail as a result of any fare rise, but XC want that to happen because their trains are already very full, so it will reduce the burden of providing extra capacity, so a double win for them!)

I'm not sure whether you are arguing for or against XC's decision here. If they only count revenue gained and disregard revenue lost, that would be highly incompetent. If they got some other benefits (such as not having to invest), maybe it was worth it anyway?
As I said, and to be clear, I'm not in favour of XC's 2V restriction. But it happened and we should understand why.

The fares structure does not "encourage" this and for many years Virgin XC did not do it. What encouraged it is the DfT's insistence that the franchise operates on a reduced subsidy, with a greater proportion of costs coming from fare payers. This resulted in fare rises.

That's a useful clarification, thanks. The government reduced the subsidy and the fares structure allowed XC to compensate and get more money from passengers by changing the peak time restrictions. Either way, the structure we operate the railways within encourages (or forces, if you prefer) this kind of behaviour. If we don't like it, we need to change the that structure.

Not really.

I stand by my claim that simply attacking XC for this is attacking the problem from the wrong direction.

The fares system cannot change in a manner that is acceptable to passengers unless subsidy is increased.

Which passengers are you referring to and when were they asked?

However the Government appears to have ruled out increased subsidy. Therefore, the system cannot change.

Governments change policies from time to time. Governments change from time to time. The system has changed in the past. Who says it cannot change in the future?

We will not accept a "revenue neutral" change that results in leisure fares increasing in order to allow the most expensive fares (generally paid for on business expenses) to reduce. While you might welcome it, there are enough of us who won't welcome it, to cause a fuss and ensure it does not happen.

Who is we and why would you not accept it? I don't wish to discourage any protest you might undertake, but protests against fare rises by commuters have not been successful so far.
I have also never welcomed the idea of increasing leisure fares - I have said that I don't agree with targetting businesses and commuters for more money to subside leisure travellers. If we have to increase revenue, it needs to come from somewhere.

 

[swt_passenger]

Having just checked for all the main commuter lines into London, for one example station from each, here's the more scientific answer:

London Northwestern (Leighton Buzzard): 61%
Thameslink (Luton): 62%
Great Northern (Hitchin): 66%
Greater Anglia (Chelmsford): 59%
C2C (Shoeburyness): 80%
Southeastern (Sevenoaks): 65%
Southern (Three Bridges): 33%
SWR (Guildford): 61%
GWR (Twyford): 57%
Chiltern Railways (High Wycombe): 56%

So, for most lines, the balance is around 60% or so.

I reckon a Southampton regular commuter with an annual season is paying only about 24% of the Anytime Day fare, and only about half of the super off peak Day Return. There must be many more amazing bargains out there, I don’t think Guildford is necessarily that typical for SWR mid to long distances.

I’ve often wondered how they would ever fix the extreme anomalies, even if they were to try and move towards your suggested 60%. It’s also why they’ve left themselves no headroom for part time seasons.

 

[anme]

I'm not sure what's confused about it. The TOCs, through the RDG, which is effectively their PR agency here, are saying that they think the system is unfair, and are implying that they are on the passenger's side. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is abhorrent but hardly surprising that the likes of XC are spouting that kind of nonsense.

A responsible shareholder would accept that it isn't all about profit, and that the triple bottom line actually matters too - i.e. the third party impacts of the businesses should be taken into consideration (e.g. in the case of XC, that increasing fares will be severely detrimental to the environment).

At the end of the day, this is all by the bye - the DfT can't know what a particular company is going to do with a franchise. So it must increase regulation and control - somewhat like the kind of management contract that GTR is run on - if it is to prevent excessive profiteering. Or alternatively, there would need to be a new kind of structure (e.g. nationalisation or complete privatisation). But at the end of the day, different structures are not going to be able to result in different outcomes, when the base starting point - an unachievably low level of subsidy - is the starting point.

I agree with most of this, and it's in line with what I have been saying. I think you are being rather naive about the motives of shareholders though. Do you buy shares based on the share price and expected dividends, or based on the environmental good the company does?

Perhaps true, but XC deliberately chose to make a very stretched bid, in order to win. And they must have known that that was only achievable through unpalatable fare rises. The blame for that lies on no-one other than them - Virgin could no doubt have continued, without the silly restrictions that have resulted from CrossCountry's reign.

But that's the system the government has put in place! The highest bidder will win! XC played the game by the rules that were set and they won fair and square. I agree this needs to be changed and I have said so many many times on this forum. But we fix this by changing the rules, not by complaining about the outcome.
I think it's also very naive to believe that Virgin would not have made a similar change to the off peak restrictions. I remind everyone that Virgin charge 350 pounds for a peak time return between London and Manchester.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, indeed. My mail was obviously a simplification, and for example, pursuit of short term profit might not be in the company's long term interests. But in this case, Cross Country's actions regarding the 2V restriction seem to be fully in line with those legal requirements. From XC's point of view, these actions increase revenue and profit, and therefore promote "the success of the company for the benefit of its members". When choosing whether to add these restrictions, the company will have to decide whether doing so is overall in their interests. Are there any reasons to believe that XC made the wrong decision in this regard.
Yes, I appreciate such a decision will not necessarily have been made by the directors themselves.

I think it goes well beyond simple sales and marketing at XC, and the profit motive.
The former operation (BR and VT) lost money heavily, and Arriva bid to significantly improve financial performance.
SRA/DfT made it clear that no significant increase in rolling stock was possible, and I expect that "pricing people off the train" was encouraged by DfT.
It was, after all, a technique used by BR when it didn't have the means to increase capacity.
People may dislike restriction 2V (I do myself), but it was inevitable given the franchise context.
Note that higher premiums/lower subsidy at the TOCs means the DfT/taxpayer gains as well as the TOC.
Now it's time for a franchise rebid with a much healthier XC performance, maybe we'll get something more attractive from the bidders.

 

[Silverdale]

The Off Peak fare would be renamed Super Off Peak and a new Off Peak fare would be introduced, priced at a level that is lower than the Anytime fare, which would be valid on some of the trains which the existing Off Peak fare isn't. Furthermore, LNER seem to offer more Advance fares, and at more reasonable prices, on "peak" time trains, than Virgin do.

Virgin could fill their "peak" trains if they wanted to, using the existing fares structure. They just choose not to!

If it is the case that the LNER fares structure (and availability of Advances) does lead to a better match between capacity and demand on trains to/from London, your suggestion of making a shoulder out of the cliff edge would push Manchester-London gently along in that direction. The critical thing would be the fare you set for your (new) Off-Peak ticket.

If you wanted to replicate the LNER structure as closely as possible, it would probably involve reducing the Anytime fare while increasing the (renamed) Super Off-Peak as well as introducing the (new) Off-Peak to have broadly the same levels of discount over the Anytime as LNER do. But that would amount to raising "leisure" fares and cutting "business" fares, which you say is completely unacceptable.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I think it's also very naive to believe that Virgin would not have made a similar change to the off peak restrictions. I remind everyone that Virgin change 350 pounds for a peak time return between London and Manchester.

But there is a clearly defined peak time for traveling to and from London. I would argue that is an entirely different situation to CrossCountry journeys, e.g. for a route like Bristol to Leeds, that you can't really argue has a peak. Many Off-Peak fares that Virgin set for journeys that don't go anywhere near London still have effectively no time restrictions at all (e.g. Rugby to Chester), and long may it stay that way!

 

[anme]

But there is a clearly defined peak time for traveling to and from London. I would argue that is an entirely different situation to CrossCountry journeys, e.g. for a route like Bristol to Leeds, that you can't really argue has a peak. Many Off-Peak fares that Virgin set for journeys that don't go anywhere near London still have effectively no time restrictions at all (e.g. Rugby to Chester), and long may it stay that way!

You really believe Virgin Trains would have chosen not to introduce the 2V restriction, just because they are nicer people than XC?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You really believe Virgin Trains would have chosen not to introduce the 2V restriction, just because they are nicer people than XC?

I don't think VT would have introduced 2V specifically (i.e. the blanket 0930) because it isn't their style. They'd have introduced a load of different restrictions for different journeys as per VTWC. In particular, unlike 2V, there would certainly have been evening restrictions from many large cities.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Incidentally, this particular weekly ticket is cheap enough that I could imagine it encouraging some really long distance commuting. I assume it's a regulated fare and can't increase alongside the anytime price.

It's hardly cheap, as it must be bought as a monthly or longer tickets. That's a lay-down of at least £1500 (near enough). I can hardly imagine there are many people that are willing to pay that - in fact, I would suggest the majority of such ticket holders are simply business travellers that make the return journey on a regular basis, with a frequency of at least once a week.

I think the price of the season ticket is a good indication of what a more reasonable price might be for an ordinary Anytime Return. If we use the 60% figure (as the percentage of the Anytime fare that it's typical for a commuter to pay) I derived earlier in the thread, that would be around £127 return. Not a million miles off £179.40, the inflation-adjusted cost of the Open Return at the time of privatisation, and still more than £84.04, the cost of the Saver Return at the time of privatisation, to account for the improvements the service has indeed seen since then.

I think it goes well beyond simple sales and marketing at XC, and the profit motive.
The former operation (BR and VT) lost money heavily, and Arriva bid to significantly improve financial performance.
SRA/DfT made it clear that no significant increase in rolling stock was possible, and I expect that "pricing people off the train" was encouraged by DfT.
It was, after all, a technique used by BR when it didn't have the means to increase capacity.
People may dislike restriction 2V (I do myself), but it was inevitable given the franchise context.

I think the critical issue is how these services, which are nominally "InterCity" (both now and under BR), are actually not really InterCity at all nowadays, at least not in the traditional sense, and how many journies are now shorter and less profitable for the operator. I don't think it's fair or realistic to expect CrossCountry to deliver the same kind of taxpayer subsidy (or lack thereof) as a true InterCity operator can be expected to deliver.

Now it's time for a franchise rebid with a much healthier XC performance, maybe we'll get something more attractive from the bidders.

I fear that it's going to be used as the justification for further rises, to 'reduce overcrowding'. But that's something that can best be elaborated on in another thread.

Overall, my view is that the following outcomes are now possible, with the following probabilities:

1. The Government, under political pressure, persuades the Treasury to find the money to give to the DfT, to give the TOCs additional subsidy, enabling peak-time fares to be reduced and leisure fares to be maintained at current levels (with slight adjustments to allow for single leg pricing). 15% likelihood.
2. The proposals go ahead in their current form - i.e. peak and off-peak are normalised into one fare, with decreases in peak-time fares and increases in off-peak fares. 30% likelihood.
3. Nothing happens. 15% likelihood.
4. The Government agrees to waive fares regulation in place of overall revenue regulation, but separate peak and off-peak fares are maintained. 15% likelihood.
5. A mixture of the above. 25% likelihood.

I expect that single leg pricing will happen no matter what, since ultimately the number of people who actually only make a single journey is very much less than the number who make return journeys. But I expect it will mean a small, inflation-like, additional fares increase, unless (which I don't expect will happen), the DfT/Government pays for return prices to maintain stable.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don't think VT would have introduced 2V specifically (i.e. the blanket 0930) because it isn't their style. They'd have introduced a load of different restrictions for different journeys as per VTWC. In particular, unlike 2V, there would certainly have been evening restrictions from many large cities.

I'm not sure if you're aware of how fares regulation even works on ex-Savers if you're saying that! Ex-Saver fares must, in general, be valid at all times after 10:30. The only exception is departing the "London area" in a direction away from London, where restrictions are permitted between 15:00 and 19:00, inclusive. The only place where the CrossCountry network goes within the "London area" (at least nowadays) is Reading.

They could have introduced evening restrictions, but only if they introduced additional (unregulated) Off-Peak Day Returns.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

say, there is a two-hourly service, and one train runs just before the peak cut-off for a few stations, before suddenly becoming off-peak, it should be valid for off-peak fares throughout.

This could be achieved by having offpeak fares available from the "last train departing before 10.00": where a service is every 30 mins, then offpeak applies to departures as early as 0930, but where two-hourly, offpeak starts as early as 0800.

 

[squizzler]

As the discussion of the Rail Delivery group's latest proposals, I think the title of this thread is deliberately provocative and somewhat misleading in only mentioning some fares would be going up, not that this will be mirrored by others going down. At worst, "revenue neutral" changes to the fare structure are a zero-sum game: the winers and losers balance out.

I personally reject that fares reform would lead to a zero-sum outcome. If a better ticketing algorithm is getting more seats filled throughout the day, then the average (mean price) fare per person goes down because more people are travelling.

Perhaps the reviewer of passenger fares can be combined with review of the cost to the operator of actually getting a train out on the rails? track access charges might be increased and the premiums paid to operate the franchise going to government reduced. This would make Network Rail a little more more financially self supporting, and if the cost of each train path were increased the TOC's have more incentive to make sure more of the seats were filled rather than carting round fresh air.