Thameslink charging Anytime fares for an off-peak service level (for the third year in a row)

[mmh]

What he seems to be missing is that because loads of people didn't travel Thameslink have had less income for providing the service.

Except Thameslink don't get the fare revenue, so unlike a conventional TOC this isn't the case for them.

 

[jon0844]

What he seems to be missing is that because loads of people didn't travel Thameslink have had less income for providing the service.

Indeed. Twitter is full of photos of trains and tubes half empty, or even almost completely empty, with comments about how nice it is (or how bad it is to be working this week).

I doubt any TOC sets out fares based on a daily income, but rather looks at a bigger picture of the whole year.

It would be stupid to run a normal peak service when so many people are away, or at home.

 

[MikeWh]

Except Thameslink don't get the fare revenue, so unlike a conventional TOC this isn't the case for them.

[pedant]
What he seems to be missing is that because loads of people didn't travel the DfT have had less income to pay Thameslink for providing the service.
[/pedant]

 

[JonathanH]

Less people are at work, which means Thameslink/HMG can save resources.

Presumably less people were at your place of work today. Did you reduce your prices (or your income) to compensate for this?

 

[AM9]

[pedant]
What he seems to be missing is that because loads of people didn't travel the DfT have had less income to pay Thameslink for providing the service.
[/pedant]

Of course that is more relevant than it may at first seem. Peak fares are (and should be) priced to recover proportionately the total additional costs of providing the high capacity and frequency required to carry the peak load. On Thameslink routes, that includes:

a nearly new specialised trains fleet - 115 very high capacity trains (1160 or 1750 passengers per train) with fast acceleration, wide doors for easy access, and provision for automatic operation
an enhanced infrastructure route - many 12-car platform extensions, an ECTS signalling installation in the core, improved track layouts at major junctions and an upgraded autotransformer OLE supply
training sufficient drivers and other staff to operate the system at the peak level​

All of this has been provided in the last 15 years at a cost of £7bn, most of which would not be required were it not for the high peak time travel loads.
So, most of these costs are there whether the trains are stabled or fully loaded with passengers. If those passengers whose needs have mandated such high expenditure (both capital and running) decide that they will have a few days holiday, the costs don't suddenly disapper. However, delberately running 3-4 times the off-peak trains in the peak when they aren't required would be environmentally irresponsible, even if some regular travellers do think that they are entitled to travel in empty trains.
Peak-hour travellers really need to understand that they are not the providers of the most railway income, - more the cause of most of the costs of running them.

 

[Djgr]

Can I just say "Home Counties problem".

Meanwhile half the train service between York and Scarborough is cancelled week in week out.

 

[infobleep]

[pedant]
What he seems to be missing is that because loads of people didn't travel the DfT have had less income to pay Thameslink for providing the service.
[/pedant]

If they reduced the fares would that lead to a good news story and encourage people to travel?

I use to object to not being able to use my network away break on the morning of 27 December, in order to get into work.

I couldn't use on the 26th as South West Trains ran no services. I didn't begrudge them the time off but I'd have liked some leeway the next morning. Network away breaks only last 5 days

 

[Starmill]

...and they have done every year since railways were invented.

The railway charges peak fares for travel before a certain time in the morning on working weekdays. The number of people travelling and the service offered has nothing to do with it.

I'm afraid this isn't true. Different companies adopt different policies. Some do a better job than others.​

Can I just say "Home Counties problem".

I don't think so. Northern charge the morning and afternoon peak fares on the days in question, in contrast to Thameslink's decision to ease some, though not all, restrictions.

 

[Starmill]

But peak / off-peak is nothing to do with service provision, just time of travel.
I have to say, I'm amazed they gave you anything at all.

I think the more important question is whether or not the OP had the right to expect a better service than they received for the price paid.

The fact that normally those paying the rate he did get a much faster service, at a more convenient time, does demonstrate that the OP paid more and received less. The problem which you are trying to explain, as I see it, is that the OP had an expectation which may have been unjustified.

Now, for example, if they had booked their ticket in advance and at that time the better service was shown as being available, but then only an inferior service were actually delivered, it would be clear that the OP's point about partial compensation is legitimate.

 

[Par]

Can I just say "Home Counties problem".

Which was pretty much my point, elsewhere in the country many, many commuters would be cock-a-hoop with 4TPH.

The OP however has a sense of entitlement to compensation because his service was reduced to 4TPH and it took slightly longer. This despite him travelling on a Peak time train on a normal working weekday, carrying a half loading (so presumably pretty comfortable) and despite his own assessment that:-

“I'm very happy with the level of service today”.

It’s borderline tragic and sounds like he has an agenda with Thameslink.

 

[Starmill]

It’s borderline tragic and sounds like he has an agenda with Thameslink.

It could simply be that they dislike being charged a higher price than normal for what they can legitimately regard as an inferior service, regardless of your ideas about what services elsewhere might be like by comparison.

It could equally be that the only available remedy for this dissatisfaction is that they do not use the service. On the days in question, driving most of the way is likely to provide far better value for money than using Thameslink, with a similar journey time at a far lower price. Perhaps they should do that instead.

 

[Par]

It could simply be that they dislike being charged a higher price than normal for what they can legitimately regard as an inferior service

But he’s happy with the service, quoting the OP verbatim:- “I'm very happy with the level of service today.”

His objection is presented as being unhappy that it has cost Thameslink less to run their services today and as a result he should have paid less, despite travelling on a peak time train that he was very happy with.

 

[transmanche]

The OP however has a sense of entitlement to compensation because his service was reduced to 4TPH and it took slightly longer.

Of all the complaints about service I have seen on this forum, IMHO the OP's gripe has to be one of the most pathetic.

In any event, for a significant proportion of the commuting public, whether the fares are charged are peak, off-peak or super-off-peak is irrelevant as they'll be using a season ticket.

 

[Starmill]

His objection is presented as being unhappy that it has cost Thameslink less to run their services today and as a result he should have paid less, despite travelling on a peak time train that he was very happy with.

That's perfectly legitimate though, and it's childish of you to pretend it isn't just so that you can look good on a forum.

Everyone is entitled to decide that the price of something is too high if they want to. They could ask for it to be sold more cheaply to see if they get agreement. If they don't get it, though, they should be prepared to decline to pay it. If they aren't prepared to do that, they don't lose the right to point out that it's too expensive, even if they don't have anything beyond that to add.

 

[ashkeba]

Presumably less people were at your place of work today. Did you reduce your prices (or your income) to compensate for this?

Some time-sensitive London retailers do. There were some great lunch deals around the banking districts today to entice people in. Why shouldn't Thameslink reduce fares if they're providing a reduced service on a weaker demand day? It might attract more travelers and avoid what some call carting fresh air.

 

[Mag_seven]

Why shouldn't Thameslink reduce fares if they're providing a reduced service on a weaker demand day?

Because they can still extract the maximum peak fare from those who have no choice but to come into work today regardless of what service they are running.

 

[ashkeba]

Because they can still extract the maximum peak fare from those who have no choice but to come into work today regardless of what service they are running.

Sorry if I expressed it badly but I was asking if it was morally justified. Shouldn't not couldn't because they could, can and do charge peak fares for off peak service levels.

 

[Mag_seven]

Sorry if I expressed it badly but I was asking if it was morally justified.

Probably not but then who says that TOCs need to be moral!

 

[Starmill]

Except Thameslink don't get the fare revenue, so unlike a conventional TOC this isn't the case for them.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter, and Thameslink's contract is hardly the only one that has ever been which is on a gross cost basis... They exist elsewhere in rail operations too.

 

[Mathew S]

I think the more important question is whether or not the OP had the right to expect a better service than they received for the price paid.

The fact that normally those paying the rate he did get a much faster service, at a more convenient time, does demonstrate that the OP paid more and received less. The problem which you are trying to explain, as I see it, is that the OP had an expectation which may have been unjustified.

Now, for example, if they had booked their ticket in advance and at that time the better service was shown as being available, but then only an inferior service were actually delivered, it would be clear that the OP's point about partial compensation is legitimate.

Yes, that's a better way of explaining what I was trying to get at. I would argue that the very fact this is the third year means that the OP knew even more so what they were getting when they bought the ticket.

 

[transmanche]

I would argue that the very fact this is the third year means that the OP knew even more so what they were getting when they bought the ticket.

I seriously doubt it's only occurred over the past three years. It's always happened.

 

[Mathew S]

I seriously doubt it's only occurred over the past three years. It's always happened.

I know that, but the OP specifically mentioned that this is the third year in a row.

 

[bb21]

While I can sort of understand where the OP was coming from, I don't think this discussion will lead to anything meaningful. I also think some of you have been pretty harsh on him too, although I do agree with some of the points made. So time to move on.