London Midland to be broken up?

[Bletchleyite]

The other reason for the cheap fares is that they are LM fares it means that LM gets all the money from that fare (minus the selling fee if they didn't sell it). The Open fare Virgin usually gets most of the money.

True. The question is whether LM gets sufficient of these fares to commercially provide the required additional capacity (i.e., as it's a long-distance off-peak service, seats for everyone). If they don't, it's non viable. If they do, under the current system[1] good luck to them.

But the main thing I have an issue with is that those travelling from the Trent Valley stations mainly served by these services and mainly not by VT are having to stand in crush-loaded conditions precisely because these super-low walk-up fares exist. They were good for priming the market on a temporary basis, including from those stations, but they are now not necessary.

So I think my solution here (bar a complete change to the fares and franchising system required for [1]) would be that the (all LM only) Super Off Peak should be increased to the present Off Peak fare with current restrictions, the Off Peak increased by about a tenner on Euston-Crewe, and if that leaves seats empty an increased Advance quota should be released on those trains where there are empty seats (but only those trains - Advance tickets should in my view never be sold at all on any train that on an ongoing basis carries a standing load).

[1] Ignoring that I would ideally like to see a single national fare system and the abolition of TOC specific fares entirely, but that's one for a different thread.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can see both sides of the argument on this one. Competition between TOCs is a good thing, and I'd hate to see it restricted where it currently exists. I've said this on the other thread about East Coast, and previously about Thameslink and Southern.

But there is something very skewed about the way competition is working on the Trent Valley. London Midland attract a lot of custom from places like Stafford and Stoke and this makes their trains very full. This would be fine if they would otherwise be carting around fresh air. But they're not. The cheap LM-Only tickets mean the trains are full of passengers avoiding Virgin's fares, and this means that those passengers from places like Nuneaton or Tamworth- who have no option but to use London Midland and pay fares that reflect this- are being squeezed out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there is something very skewed about the way competition is working on the Trent Valley. London Midland attract a lot of custom from places like Stafford and Stoke and this makes their trains very full. This would be fine if they would otherwise be carting around fresh air. But they're not. The cheap LM-Only tickets mean the trains are full of passengers avoiding Virgin's fares, and this means that those passengers from places like Nuneaton or Tamworth- who have no option but to use London Midland and pay fares that reflect this- are being squeezed out.

And that is precisely my point. I don't, as I guess you've picked up by now, like inter-TOC competition as to me it misses the bigger picture (most travel in the UK is by car, and done right a big chunk of that is possibly for the picking rather than squabbling about the tiny proportion of UK travel done by rail at present). So I think if TOCs worked together (yes, as some put it, as cartels - I actually find cartels work well for public transport, and it, rather than regulation, is how the hugely successful German Verkehrsverbuende originally came about) it would far more serve the greater good. The time for competition between TOCs (or rather between companies to become TOCs) is at the time of franchising in my view.

However, inter-TOC competition is permitted by the current structure, so my main argument is indeed that this situation is causing a severe disadvantage to those who have no choice (rail-wise) but to use London Midland, i.e. those from the Trent Valley local stations.

If LM were carting around huge amounts of fresh air, I could see the point of these tickets - and as someone who always travels walk-up (near enough) I do quite like having the option of cheap walk-up tickets. However, they aren't - quite the opposite. And there is a financial cost to getting more stock out for use, which clearly is not financially viable from the revenue from these tickets alone - if it was, I'm certain they'd do it.

FWIW, on similar lines, I was strongly in support of the introduction of evening peak restrictions out of London (then their extension to include the chronically overcrowded[1] 1849 departure), as prior to those peak trains full of those paying high Anytime fares (including me at least once a week) and bread-and-butter season ticket holders were being crowded out by people taking day trips on dirt-cheap fares.

[1] Well it was until VT opened the 1843 Brum to MKC passengers, anyway...now they have, potentially the restrictions could viably be rolled back.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't, as I guess you've picked up by now, like inter-TOC competition as to me it misses the bigger picture (most travel in the UK is by car, and done right a big chunk of that is possibly for the picking rather than squabbling about the tiny proportion of UK travel done by rail at present).

People travel by car when it is either cheaper, faster or more convenient. The railway industry is generally moving towards quota-managed Advance fares, meaning that people who need to travel at short notice will generally be priced off the trains and on to the roads. The only time this doesn't happen is where there is genuine inter-TOC competition, such as London-Brighton or London-Birmingham. If there is no TOC competition, as there isn't in most of the country, then you see huge levels of price gouging on walk-on fares. Virgin and East Midlands Trains are two of the biggest culprits for price-gouging- I'm sure there's a common link between the two franchises.

I'd be quite happy to see inter-TOC competition be restricted if other price controls are put in place. But as we've previously seen on Ipswich-London and we're about to see on Brighton-London, when DafT take away the competition the prices revert to the high point not the low point. The TOCs can't be trusted to "work together" on lowering prices because the directors' Ferraris and luxury yachts don't buy themselves.

Competition isn't working on the Trent Valley because people are being priced off the big trains and on to the small trains. That's not an argument for hiking up the prices on the little trains.

 

[infobleep]

Me too ... I can't recall ever having a single complaint against London Midland, and I'm a regular passenger. The service from Northampton to Euston is the best it has ever been in my opinion (although I did used to prefer it when they used the Cobbler rakes )

May be they work well to and from Northampton but when I use to travel on them to and from Harrow and Wealdstone, they were rarely on time into Harrow or Euston. Late Midland would describe them perfectly. Perhaps it was only their Tring services which had such poor performance but as I mostly used the Tring services all I seemed to experience was delays.

South West Trains seem to be good at make up lost train by the time they reach the terminuses but London Midland seemed to be very poor at even doing that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

May be they work well to and from Northampton but when I use to travel on them to and from Harrow and Wealdstone, they were rarely on time into Harrow or Euston. Late Midland would describe them perfectly. Perhaps it was only their Tring services which had such poor performance but as I mostly used the Tring services all I seemed to experience was delays.

Some of the slow-line services seem to suffer from sloppy running - though this is often caused by the Southern service being slightly late and getting in the way around Wembley.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps it was only their Tring services which had such poor performance but as I mostly used the Tring services all I seemed to experience was delays.

The Trings always have horrendous punctuality and are the first to be binned or short formed when they are short of trains. I normally take the 0804 Tring to Euston train to work, and this train has been late (usually only 2-3 minutes late, but still late) on about 80% of the journeys since August (I was sad enough to count it on Raildar last week).

This is usually caused by two trains: one is the Freightliner that goes into the Kings Langley loop just ahead of it, and the other is the 0815 Watford-Euston which is always late leaving. Though recently we seem to be getting held at Willesden so they can put the sleeper in Wembley yard ahead of us.

Given that we're the people paying the eye-watering fares that allow them to charge £6 for a Euston-Birmingham advance, this sloppiness and disregard for passengers simply isn't good enough.

And don't even get me started on the disgusting state of the 321s and the 350/1s. The train I took on Friday was short-formed, had no working toilet on board all day and absolutely stunk of vomit and urine because it hadn't been cleaned. And the train home, the 1730, managed to be five late back here despite the fact it had absolutely nothing in front of it at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Virgin and East Midlands Trains are two of the biggest culprits for price-gouging- I'm sure there's a common link between the two franchises.

I'd be quite happy to see inter-TOC competition be restricted if other price controls are put in place.

This is the bit I don't quite get. VT certainly do quite openly price-gouge on Anytime fares. But their Off-Peak fares are regulated, and are 5-10% lower than other IC TOCs because they were reduced to the average of the Saver and SuperSaver when the SuperSaver was abolished soon after privatisation, and as they are regulated fares have simply increased as per the national formula every year. (Sure, VT could have held back some of those increases or not imposed the maximum permitted peak restriction, but has *any* TOC done that?)

So if you think walk-up Off Peak fares are a bit pricey generally, which I can see why they might be seen that way, that is the fault of the Government wishing to transfer more of the cost of the railway onto the passenger, not the fault of VT. But you cannot reasonably accuse VT of price gouging on Off-Peak walk-up fares, as they are not permitted to do any such thing and as such have not done so.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And don't even get me started on the disgusting state of the 321s and the 350/1s. The train I took on Friday was short-formed, had no working toilet on board all day and absolutely stunk of vomit and urine because it hadn't been cleaned.

I haven't used a Dusty Bin in a while, and I tend to avoid them because there are only 4 good seats in Standard in the entire unit (the airline seats backing onto First Class) and it's hard to ensure you get one. But I don't find what you say of the 350/1s to be true. If short-formings are occurring, it might well have been that the unit you got was meant to be cleaned before use but had to go out to cover for failures.

Neil

 

[455driver]

So you want LM to remove their cheap fares (which they get 100% of) and instead make them sell more expensive multi operator tickets which Virgin will get most of the ticket price!
I dont think LM or the passengers will be very happy but Virgin will be laughing all the way to the bank!

 

[Class 170101]

So you want LM to remove their cheap fares (which they get 100% of) and instead make them sell more expensive multi operator tickets which Virgin will get most of the ticket price!
I dont think LM or the passengers will be very happy but Virgin will be laughing all the way to the bank!

Exactly however I think if the don't then they need to either manage their quotas better or increase the length of the trains from 4 to 8 carriages. However it would be interesting to see how much supressed demand is still out there.

London Re-Connections suggested that the lngthened Jubilee Line trains ate that capacity in 10 weeks. How long would it take LM services to be full again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you want LM to remove their cheap fares (which they get 100% of) and instead make them sell more expensive multi operator tickets which Virgin will get most of the ticket price!

Assuming no change of industry structure per my note, I just want LM to increase their dedicated fares to the point they cease causing overcrowding and/or it is commercially viable to increase the train lengths so everyone gets a seat. Or if they prefer, to use more Advances and fewer walk-ups to quota-control the discounts again such that the trains are as close to (but not over) 100% seated load as possible.

There may be people who at twenty whatever quid return are happy with a crush load from Euston to Crewe. However, it's rather unfair on those who use the Trent Valley local stations to be forced to put up with this, as they cannot choose to use Virgin unless they drive to a Virgin-served station.

If these were Open Access trains, I wouldn't overly care - if someone hypothetically wanted to set up an Open Access operator on the basis of running crush-loaded single-car dogboxes with all the seats removed from Euston to Crewe for £2.50 a pop they're welcome to, though I'm staying well away. But they are not. They are subsidised trains being used to provide the PSR to certain stations. That they are being overcrowded because of LM playing at being InterCity at bargain basement fares is not acceptable, IMO.

I dont think LM or the passengers will be very happy but Virgin will be laughing all the way to the bank!

ORCATS should deal with that and give LM the correct allocation, no? And who'd use LM for Euston-Crewe if Any Permitted was the only fare?

Neil

 

[455driver]

So you want to price people off the trains, or as you put it-

I just want LM to increase their dedicated fares to the point they cease causing overcrowding

Which is exactly the same thing in government speak!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you want to price people off the trains

If you prefer that, yes, I want to price people off those trains. Or more specifically, to stop artificially pricing them *onto* those trains when at least some of those passengers *would* use VWC otherwise and are only not doing because of LM's price-dumping.

At those fares, sometimes it's hard to justify spending 2.5 times as much to travel on Virgin even if you could afford it. That's the problem. Multiply the LM fares by say 1.5 and they'll still be cheaper than VT but this effect will be reduced.

Neil

 

[Starmill]

The super-off peak restriction of not arriving before 1300 are ridiculous - that's not a peak restriction, it's a 'no day-trippers' restriction. If you take into account the off peak fares that leaves a couple of options. One is that the masses don't know or care about the Super Off Peak restrictions, which I think unlikely as ticket offices and journey planners don't sell them. Although the train is usually so packed ticket checks cannot take place. The second is that this isn't really related to LM value VT competition, it's just the availability of services. It's a waste of time increasing the fares and thusly reducing your own revenue to combat overcrowding of the TV services. What's necessary is some actual capacity, 8 car trains have proved too difficult for LM and Network rail to handle (which IMO is shameful, it shouldn't be that hard to ensure a safety case can be put together for this). In that case, it's time to look at 2tph again. The railways shouldn't be pricing people off at all, we should just make room for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a waste of time increasing the fares and thusly reducing your own revenue to combat overcrowding of the TV services.

It is by no means a given that increasing the fares would reduce revenue. The reason VT's Anytime fares are so high is that they are set to maximise revenue, not to maximise bums-on-seats. The two do not necessarily go together.

What's necessary is some actual capacity, 8 car trains have proved too difficult for LM and Network rail to handle (which IMO is shameful, it shouldn't be that hard to ensure a safety case can be put together for this). In that case, it's time to look at 2tph again. The railways shouldn't be pricing people off at all, we should just make room for them.

It depends what you mean by "pricing people off". These fares are artificially cheap, and if the railway cannot achieve acceptable levels of loadings with them in existence without added subsidy, they shouldn't exist.

If you charged 50p walk-up return from Euston to Crewe on these trains, I'm sure you could fill 12 cars 4 times an hour. But that would be utterly stupid.

Neil

 

[DarloRich]

If you prefer that, yes, I want to price people off those trains. Or more specifically, to stop artificially pricing them *onto* those trains when at least some of those passengers *would* use VWC otherwise and are only not doing because of LM's price-dumping.

At those fares, sometimes it's hard to justify spending 2.5 times as much to travel on Virgin even if you could afford it. That's the problem. Multiply the LM fares by say 1.5 and they'll still be cheaper than VT but this effect will be reduced.

Neil

You really dont get it do you? Many of the people you have to squash up with on LM would not travel if they had a choice of only the Virgin fare. It is that simple. Whilst you may be happy and able to afford the more expensive Virgin fare many of us can not.

You keep saying the Virgin fares are reasonable. They simply aren't if you are a real person on a budget or you want to go for a day out with the kids.

London Euston to Crewe tomorrow, off peak return c.158miles: £29 LM £72.40 VT. Terribly reasonable prices there :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

You really dont get it do you? Many of the people you have to squash up with on LM would not travel if they had a choice of only the Virgin fare. It is that simple. Whilst you may be happy and able to afford the more expensive Virgin fare many of us can not.

Sometimes things are unaffordable. You are not necessarily entitled to public subsidy to allow you to make a discretionary long-distance day trip for pleasure. Or if you are, that is best paid as a general benefit rather than as a discounted rail fare, as others may prefer to spend it on other things.

Edit: As a kid in the North West, my Dad would take myself and my sister on a day trip to London by train once every two years (alternating each year). Plenty of time to save up, and I always used to look forward to it.

You keep saying the Virgin fares are reasonable. They simply aren't if you are a real person on a budget or you want to go for a day out with the kids.

London Euston to Crewe tomorrow, off peak return c.158miles: £29 LM £72.40 VT. Terribly reasonable prices there :roll:

Then use a Family Railcard (you mentioned kids), or book in advance, or both. To be honest, if I were taking my kids (if I had any) on a long-distance rail journey I'd be reserving anyway. Actually a very good reason *not* to use the LM service, as reservations are not available.

The LM fare at £29 is in my view price-dumped. That fare would be better set to around £45-£50, and I think that would reduce the overcrowding problem while still providing a cheaper option. It might even make the provision of additional Desiros affordable.

Neil

 

[DarloRich]

Sometimes things are unaffordable. You are not necessarily entitled to public subsidy to allow you to make a discretionary long-distance day trip for pleasure.

Edit: As a kid in the North West, my Dad would take myself and my sister on a day trip to London by train once every two years (alternating each year). Plenty of time to save up, and I always used to look forward to it.



Then use a Family Railcard (you mentioned kids), or book in advance, or both. To be honest, if I were taking my kids (if I had any) on a long-distance rail journey I'd be reserving anyway. Actually a very good reason *not* to use the LM service, as reservations are not available.

The LM fare at £29 is in my view price-dumped. That fare would be better set to around £45-£50, and I think that would reduce the overcrowding problem while still providing a cheaper option. It might even make the provision of additional Desiros affordable.

Neil

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

The fare might be better for you at c.£50 but it wont be better for most of us. Why cant you grasp that? Why can you not understand how that fare is excessive for most people. I wish i was a pound behind you, i really do.

I cant ask this any other way: Why do you dislike having to share trains with people like me? What have we done wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fare might be better for you at c.£50 but it wont be better for most of us. Why cant you grasp that? Why can you not understand how that fare is excessive for most people. I wish i was a pound behind you, i really do.

No, the *fare* is not excessive. *You* cannot afford it. They are not the same thing at all.

I cannot afford to buy a brand-new BMW. That does not make the price of one excessive, it just means I cannot afford to buy one.

By contrast, the Anytime Return fare from Manchester to London *is* in my view excessive, regardless of whether if I had to make that journey on business my employer would pay it or not. (No way would I be paying it myself, I'd go by car or coach).

I cant ask this any other way: Why do you dislike having to share trains with people like me? What have we done wrong?

I don't care who I share trains with, provided they have a basic standard of personal hygiene and are polite and considerate (and I have no reason to believe you would be anything other than that). Though I have sadly found that a noticeable minority of rail users in the North (particularly on TPE WCML services) these days *are* people who I do, on those grounds, object to sharing a train with. As examples I cite excessive alcohol consumption either during travel or prior to it, poor behaviour, shouting/swearing and the use of personal stereo equipment and DVD players etc without headphones.

But I digress, as that behaviour should have nothing to do with how much money any given person might have. What I do object to sharing a train with is *too many* other people. Long-distance trains should be occupied at no more than 100% seated, no standing (ideally as close to that as possible). The TOC needs to make a commercial business decision on how they achieve that, within the constraints of the regulated system in which they operate. Part of that will be setting their fares.

The Government has decided it does not wish to increase subsidy. Therefore, if LM wish to charge low fares, they must pay commercially including providing sufficient capacity. If they don't, they are non-viable.

That might mean you can't afford a day-trip to London every month. But life isn't fair like that. Edit: And it isn't the rail system's role to do that for a small number of people who happen to have LM as an option. If it is felt that everyone should be able to afford a monthly day trip to London, then that's a matter for the benefits system, not the railway.

Neil

 

[455driver]

Then use a Family Railcard (you mentioned kids), or book in advance, or both. To be honest, if I were taking my kids (if I had any) on a long-distance rail journey I'd be reserving anyway. Actually a very good reason *not* to use the LM service, as reservations are not available.

The LM fare at £29 is in my view price-dumped. That fare would be better set to around £45-£50, and I think that would reduce the overcrowding problem while still providing a cheaper option. It might even make the provision of additional Desiros affordable.

Neil

Maybe better for you (why should you share a train with the great unwashed) but it wouldnt be better for anyone else especially if LM have to share the revenue with somebody else (it is better to get 100% of £29 than 50% of £50) or if they double the ticket price but lose 60% of their passengers.

If you are so rich why dont you travel on Virgin trains, that would free up a seat on the LM service for somebody else!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe better for you (why should you share a train with the great unwashed) but it wouldnt be better for anyone else especially if LM have to share the revenue with somebody else (it is better to get 100% of £29 than 25% of £100) or if they double the ticket price but lose 60% of their passengers.

As I stated above I don't care (within reason[1]) who I share a train with provided the train is not overcrowded.

So what LM should do is some commercial calculations to determine at what level those fares should be set to achieve 100% occupancy on those trains. Not severe overcrowding. Or as an alternative, probably a preferable one, to determine how they should be set to make 8-car working affordable.

It might be they need to double - it might be that putting them up by a fiver is enough.

[1] You joke about the great unwashed, but I genuinely do object to sharing a train with someone who cannot be bothered to wash

Neil

 

[DarloRich]

No, the *fare* is not excessive. *You* cannot afford it. They are not the same thing at all.

I cannot afford to buy a brand-new BMW. That does not make the price of one excessive, it just means I cannot afford to buy one.

They are the same thing o na practical level. If i can not afford something the price is excessive. The BMW is excessivly priced for your budget. The train ticket is excessively priced for my (and many many others) budget. Lets not worry about semantics.

By contrast, the Anytime Return fare from Manchester to London *is* in my view excessive, regardless of whether if I had to make that journey on business my employer would pay it or not. (No way would I be paying it myself, I'd go by car or coach).

Agreed - it is excessive for both of our budgets!

What I do object to sharing a train with is *too many* other people. Long-distance trains should be occupied at no more than 100% seated, no standing (ideally as close to that as possible). The TOC needs to make a commercial business decision on how they achieve that, within the constraints of the regulated system in which they operate. Part of that will be setting their fares.

The Government has decided it does not wish to increase subsidy. Therefore, if LM wish to charge low fares, they must pay commercially including providing sufficient capacity. If they don't, they are non-viable.[/QUOTE]

I agree that long distance trains should bot have standing passengers but they do. So if LM provide more accommodation the fares are acceptable then? I agree that LM should offer more thaqn 4 car trains off peak on these routes. That they dont is a management failure. My view is that there is more untapped demand for travel.

What happens if their accounts show an increase in revenue because of these cheap tickets? Should that not be allowed? They are certainly increasing their market share

That might mean you can't afford a day-trip to London every month. But life isn't fair like that. Edit: And it isn't the rail system's role to do that for a small number of people who happen to have LM as an option. If it is felt that everyone should be able to afford a monthly day trip to London, then that's a matter for the benefits system, not the railway.

Neil

What on earth are you talking about? Only decent chaps like you should be allowed to use the train seems to be the central theme of your view! We cant have the oiks and plebs getting in the way of YOUR monthly trip to London can we :roll:

We should offer a spread of fares and services to suit everyone ( as far as practicable - clearly free travel for winos isn't an option ) and there should be MORE competition on fares and services. We all benefit then, not just the affluent.

BTW do Virgin get a subsidy? Are they suffering damaging financial loss because of these cheap fares?

 

[Lampshade]

I call troll on this one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that long distance trains should bot have standing passengers but they do. So if LM provide more accommodation the fares are acceptable then?

If it's commercially viable for them to do so, yes. (The Government has stated it is not willing to increase subsidy, which is the other option).

What happens if their accounts show an increase in revenue because of these cheap tickets? Should that not be allowed?

No TOC should be allowed to maximise profit by disregarding the comfort and health of their passengers, particularly those who have no (rail) choice but to use the service i.e. passengers from Trent Valley local stations - this is why we check PIXC (Passengers in Excess of Capacity) figures.

So, if these fares are profitable *and* a seat can be provided for everyone, great, let's keep them. If they are only profitable at a crush load, no, they should not exist at that level.

Unless we consider that Standard should be standing room only, and First Class is the only way to get a seat? Or we go compulsory reservations, first booked, first served? This doesn't seem sensible, though if an Open Access operator wanted to do this that's their own call. LM are not an Open Access operator, though - they are receiving a subsidy for running the Trent Valley stopper, and the reason for that subsidy is to provide a rail service to people who don't have another one.

What on earth are you talking about? Only decent chaps like you should be allowed to use the train seems to be the central theme of your view! We cant have the oiks and plebs getting in the way of YOUR monthly trip to London can we :roll:

We should offer a spread of fares and services to suit everyone ( as far as practicable - clearly free travel for winos isn't an option ) and there should be MORE competition on fares and services. We all benefit then, not just the affluent.

Which would again be fine in a purely commercial environment. In a subsidised environment it isn't that simple, because...

BTW do Virgin get a subsidy? Are they suffering damaging financial loss because of these cheap fares?

I would imagine they certainly are losing out as a result of people switching to LM, yes. As a result of which, they may require more subsidy / pay a lower premium.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I call troll on this one.

You call wrong.

Neil

 

[infobleep]

Sometimes things are unaffordable. You are not necessarily entitled to public subsidy to allow you to make a discretionary long-distance day trip for pleasure. Or if you are, that is best paid as a general benefit rather than as a discounted rail fare, as others may prefer to spend it on other things.

Edit: As a kid in the North West, my Dad would take myself and my sister on a day trip to London by train once every two years (alternating each year). Plenty of time to save up, and I always used to look forward to it.



Then use a Family Railcard (you mentioned kids), or book in advance, or both. To be honest, if I were taking my kids (if I had any) on a long-distance rail journey I'd be reserving anyway. Actually a very good reason *not* to use the LM service, as reservations are not available.

The LM fare at £29 is in my view price-dumped. That fare would be better set to around £45-£50, and I think that would reduce the overcrowding problem while still providing a cheaper option. It might even make the provision of additional Desiros affordable.

Neil

Wrong. Reservations are available on LM. It's just that you are reserving your right to travel on a set train rather than an actual seat on a set train.

Where the seat number would be are some stars and these stars seem to indicate that you have reserved yourself a place on the train, just not a particular seat.

Well that's my understanding of what the stars mean on the ticket.

 

[455driver]

I call troll on this one.

I call blinkered, self obsessed without the ability to consider others!

As for the 'Inter City trains shouldnt have any standing, he needs to have a look at Reading during the peaks!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wrong. Reservations are available on LM. It's just that you are reserving your right to travel on a set train rather than an actual seat on a set train.

It doesn't give you a right to travel on any given train if it happens that it's full and standing and you can't fit on. Those with train reservations do not get to board first (it's not like the way the budget airlines used to do things, or NatEx/Megabus still do). They don't get to kick someone off with no reservation. The only purpose of those "train reservations" are to allow NRS to operate an Advance ticket quota for those trains.

Therefore, to call them "reservations" is misleading at best.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for the 'Inter City trains shouldnt have any standing, he needs to have a look at Reading during the peaks!

You know my view on that one, though capacity on the line probably precludes it, which is that those trains should be u/s at Reading in the manner VTs are at MKC, and a sufficient fast/semifast 12-car service should be being provided instead.

Neil

 

[455driver]

No TOC should be allowed to maximise profit by disregarding the comfort and health of their passengers, particularly those who have no (rail) choice but to use the service i.e. passengers from Trent Valley local stations - this is why we check PIXC (Passengers in Excess of Capacity) figures.

Why do none of these vastly overfull trains ever appear on the most crowded list then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I call blinkered, self obsessed without the ability to consider others!

Such as those boarding at Atherstone, say, to a train that is already full and standing because of the fact that someone from Crewe could pay a far lower fare and use it when otherwise they'd be using a VT with plenty of capacity?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do none of these vastly overfull trains ever appear on the most crowded list then?

Because they aren't as overcrowded as many commuter services. But the issue is different, because in this case the stock needed to extend them or increase frequencies (on weekends at least, when they are at their worst) *does* exist, and to get it out only requires it to be commercially viable to do so.

Neil

 

[DarloRich]

@Neil Williams

May we agree that:

a) no more subsidy should be offered to anyone
b) London Midland should be using more of their trains to run these services?
c) more thought needs to be given to serving the Trent Valley stations that have no other services.

I think there is a solution here that should please almost everyone without removing a useful service.

The MK stop seems to be a large part of the problem but will generate a lot of the revenue as there are quite a few Nunaeton/Tamworth/Rugby - MKC season tickets floating about. They aren't served by another provider and explain a lot of the loadings coming from the south.