Saver Half (SVH) product on Avanti West Coast to end from May fares round

[alistairlees]

It looks like the Saver Half (SVH) product is discontinued by Avanti from the May fares round.

I haven't checked, but other similar products may be continuing on LNER (SSU) and EMR (SS2).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they implementing the proposed reduction to regular Singles to 60% of the Return at the same time?

 

[alistairlees]

I haven’t looked

 

[greatkingrat]

What journey are you looking at? I've just searched London - Manchester for a random day in June and the SVH tickets are still being offered on the Avanti website.

 

[JonathanH]

What journey are you looking at? I've just searched London - Manchester for a random day in June and the SVH tickets are still being offered on the Avanti website.

Isn't that because the May fares don't apply until four weeks before the change?

 

[yorkie]

What journey are you looking at? I've just searched London - Manchester for a random day in June and the SVH tickets are still being offered on the Avanti website.

you'd need to look at the fares data.

I'll download it now and take a look...

 

[alistairlees]

you'd need to look at the fares data.

I'll download it now and take a look...

Correct. It's in the data, but you won't see it on public websites until the fares change date (about two weeks)

A

 

[Paul Kelly]

Isn't that because the May fares don't apply until four weeks before the change?

New fares go on sale on Sunday 19 April for travel on Sunday 17 May or later.

 

[Kite159]

I wonder what the reasoning is behind removing some passenger friendly fares which allowed someone to travel somewhere on an advance when they might not necessary know which train they would be catching back.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder what the reasoning is behind removing some passenger friendly fares which allowed someone to travel somewhere on an advance when they might not necessary know which train they would be catching back.

The plan is to replace it with all singles being 60% of returns so removing this quirk of the fares system - this is part of the franchise agreement (and I guess trying a different model to LNER). I don't know if they're doing both at the same time, though?

 

[jfollows]

I wonder what the reasoning is behind removing some passenger friendly fares which allowed someone to travel somewhere on an advance when they might not necessary know which train they would be catching back.

I agree.
I travel to London to meet friends, go shopping, and enjoy myself. It's entirely voluntary and something I'm likely to continue to want to do in the future. Currently, I'll get an advance ticket to London on a Friday, and then a SVH for the return journey on the Sunday. Removing the SVH means that I will probably need to get an advance ticket for the Sunday as well, and that's enough to put me off the trip around 50% of the time. So, for me at least, this represents journeys not made and money not paid to the operator. Bad move.

EDIT but if there's an alternative single ticket in place of the SVH, that might work, I agree. What's key to me, at least, is the ability to buy a reasonably priced flexible ticket for the return journey (I usually buy a first class weekend upgrade as well), which I admit matters for about 50% of the weekend journeys I make.

 

[Kite159]

I agree.
I travel to London to meet friends, go shopping, and enjoy myself. It's entirely voluntary and something I'm likely to continue to want to do in the future. Currently, I'll get an advance ticket to London on a Friday, and then a SVH for the return journey on the Sunday. Removing the SVH means that I will probably need to get an advance ticket for the Sunday as well, and that's enough to put me off the trip around 50% of the time. So, for me at least, this represents journeys not made and money not paid to the operator. Bad move.

EDIT but if there's an alternative single ticket in place of the SVH, that might work, I agree.

Other than that single ticket being 60% rather than 50% so you end up paying more.

The example I was thinking about was a football supporter of a London team playing one of the Manchester teams with a lunchtime kick-off, leg to Manchester will most likely be an advance, but the return leg can't necessary be fixed as they don't know how long it might take to reach Piccadilly from the stadium.

------

I would imagine the result of the "new" 60% fares will be advance fares being increased so the bulk when released won't offer much of a saving over the walk-up ticket, assuming Avanti gets the bulk of the revenue under ORCATS. For example Manchester - London, the cheapest advance for the majority of trains will become £48 [assuming the new 60% single fare will be ~ £55.25], maybe the odd cheaper advance available on the trains at the start of the day

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine the result of the "new" 60% fares will be advance fares being increased so the bulk when released won't offer much of a saving over the walk-up ticket, assuming Avanti gets the bulk of the revenue under ORCATS. For example Manchester - London, the cheapest advance for the majority of trains will become £48 [assuming the new 60% single fare will be ~ £55.25], maybe the odd cheaper advance available on the trains at the start of the day

This wouldn't surprise me. FirstGroup don't seem to be big into Advances - for the GWR journeys I've done I'm yet to have one where an Advance would have made sense financially. I don't often choose them anyway, but on the WCML it's usually a case that I'm paying more for flexibility - on GWR it very much hasn't been the case for me.

 

[jfollows]

Other than that single ticket being 60% rather than 50% so you end up paying more.

The example I was thinking about was a football supporter of a London team playing one of the Manchester teams with a lunchtime kick-off, leg to Manchester will most likely be an advance, but the return leg can't necessary be fixed as they don't know how long it might take to reach Piccadilly from the stadium.

Good thought. I have a friend who lives in London but has reasons to visit Manchester on occasions. Today he gets an advance for the morning journey to London, then he can go home with the SVH. This allows him to be flexible in his choice of return train, and it also allows him to break his return journey in Wilmslow, so on the occasions when I don't go into Manchester to meet him we can meet in Wilmslow instead.

This works well. Trying to educate him to buy the correct ticket is sometimes hard, but I've managed it in the past! If he can continue to do something similar in future it won't be a major problem, although it's likely to be another price increase by stealth by the sound of it.

 

[MKB]

We regularly travel out in the evening and back in the morning peak. The existence of SVH means we can apply railcard discount to the outbound SVH, and no railcard discount on the return. Presumably this will be lost now?

If the proposal is to make you pay 120% of the current price for two singles, then that is shocking. That's pure greed. No wonder they're trying to do it now when everyone's attention is elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the proposal is to make you pay 120% of the current price for two singles, then that is shocking. That's pure greed. No wonder they're trying to do it now when everyone's attention is elsewhere.

How's it "pure greed" when it will make things far cheaper for those making single and three-point journeys?

 

[MKB]

How's it "pure greed" when it will make things far cheaper for those making single and three-point journeys?

If your assertion is that they are netting off gains for one set of passengers against losses for another group, then, if that's the case, the accusation changes to one of appalling rough justice. Are you able to share any estimates demonstrating a netting off, that would mean this is not purely a greedy cash grab?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If your assertion is that they are netting off gains for one set of passengers against losses for another group, then, if that's the case, the accusation changes to one of appalling rough justice. Are you able to share any estimates demonstrating a netting off, that would mean this is not purely a greedy cash grab?

Clearly not being party to Avanti's commercially confidential figures I have no idea, but personally I prefer to assume the good in people rather than the bad. And what's unfair about it? The present situation of those making one way journeys or multi-point journeys costing more is to me far less fair.

 

[MKB]

Clearly not being party to Avanti's commercially confidential figures I have no idea, but personally I prefer to assume the good in people rather than the bad. And what's unfair about it? The present situation of those making one way journeys or multi-point journeys costing more is to me far less fair.

I agree that those single fares that are currently priced at more than half the return cost are unfair. Fixing that should be done, but not by charging return passengers more, as is proposed in the example I cited.

Introducing new single fares at 50% of returns on its own is not necessarily a net revenue loser for the train operating companies. It could increase revenue. I think it opens up a whole load of journey possibilities by train that are currently not cost-effective. For example, I frequently need a one-way journey to meet up with my partner on an evening out in Birmingham (travelling back in his car as there are no late trains back), but the prohibitive cost of single tickets means that we go in separate cars instead.

 

[Hadders]

How's it "pure greed" when it will make things far cheaper for those making single and three-point journeys?

Most people don’t make single or three-point journeys so the majority get hit with a hidden price rise under the guise of ‘simplification’.

I thought the idea of the LNER single leg pricing trial was to roll out nationally if successful. Has this trial been declared unsuccessful?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that those single fares that are currently priced at more than half the return cost are unfair. Fixing that should be done, but not by chIntroducing new single fares at 50% of returns on its own is not necessarily a net revenue loser for the train operating companies.

And that is precisely the objective (or one of them) of the LNER trial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the idea of the LNER single leg pricing trial was to roll out nationally if successful. Has this trial been declared unsuccessful?

It is still ongoing, and wasn't even in place (I think) at the point the Avanti franchise was let with the 60% commitment.

 

[Hadders]

It is still ongoing, and wasn't even in place (I think) at the point the Avanti franchise was let with the 60% commitment.

If that's the case then you have to question if the left hand at the DfT knows what the right hand’s doing.

At the same time:

DfT do a single leg pricing trial with LNER to simplify fares that if successful will roll out nationally.

DfT award a franchise to Avanti that includes getting rid of SVH tickets and replacing them with singles at 60% of the price of a Return.

You couldn’t make this up!

 

[Bletchleyite]

DfT do a single leg pricing trial with LNER to simplify fares that if successful will roll out nationally.

DfT award a franchise to Avanti that includes getting rid of SVH tickets and replacing them with singles at 60% of the price of a Return.

You couldn’t make this up!

Well, you could, as then you've got two tests going on - one for abolishing returns and pricing singles at 50%, and another one for retaining returns and pricing singles at 60%.

There has already been one of retaining returns and pricing singles at 50% - GWR.

 

[Hadders]

Well, you could, as then you've got two tests going on - one for abolishing returns and pricing singles at 50%, and another one for retaining returns and pricing singles at 60%.

There has already been one of retaining returns and pricing singles at 50% - GWR.

Why do they need to do a 60% trial on the WCML? They’ve had 60% pricing on GWR for years so will know the impact.

A typical example of the rail industry claiming that they are simplifying things while actually making it more complicated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do they need to do a 60% trial on the WCML? They’ve had 60% pricing on GWR for years so will know the impact.

A typical example of the rail industry claiming that they are simplifying things while actually making it more complicated.

There are downsides of it, but it absolutely is not making things complicated. Removing the SVH, which is quite an awkward ticket with some awkward properties[1], is a clear simplification. The result will be us returning (ha!) to the position where all tickets can be bought on their own at all sales points, which is how it should be. Not a ticket that could only be bought from some websites and not elsewhere.

Simplifications, as people are well aware, have winners and losers. Same as the LNER trial.

[1] For instance that you can't change it to another day without paying the same amount again to convert it to a regular single.

 

[yorkie]

The plan is to replace it with all singles being 60% of returns so removing this quirk of the fares system - this is part of the franchise agreement (and I guess trying a different model to LNER). I don't know if they're doing both at the same time, though?

Interesting. Can you link to, and quote from, the relevant section please? thanks

Why do they need to do a 60% trial on the WCML? They’ve had 60% pricing on GWR for years so will know the impact.

A typical example of the rail industry claiming that they are simplifying things while actually making it more complicated.

Perhaps because they need to be seen to be 'doing something' now, and they don't want to admit that this has already been done for many years on some routes because it would make them look bad, as well as the fact they'd be under pressure to release the results now. Also maybe they aren't allowed to divulge the data from GWR for commercial reasons. Either way, it seems daft to those of us who are 'in the know' while most people will have no idea that fares have already been priced in this manner for years, so will think it's something new.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting. Can you link to, and quote from, the relevant section please? thanks

I'm not party to the franchise agreement, but it's referred to in the attached (I can't get a link to it without all the Google stuff in it, so I've attached it instead, but it's on Avanti's website).

Page 13 says:

We’ll work to make Off-Peak Singles cheaper
than 70% of our Off-Peak Returns

So I was wrong about 60% - it could be 69% - but the overall point stands. It could also mean something like "the singles are cheaper than our 70% most expensive fares" but that seems devious even for FirstGroup.

 

[yorkie]

I am not sure "We’ll work to make Off-Peak Singles cheaper than 70% of our Off-Peak Returns" is quite what they meant to say!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not sure "We’ll work to make Off-Peak Singles cheaper than 70% of our Off-Peak Returns" is quite what they meant to say!

I think it's clearly "We'll work to make each Off Peak Single cost no more than 70% of the relevant Off Peak Return fare" but publicity people often don't quite get that sort of thing right!