How to get people back on trains post COVID-19?

[ABB125]

A couple of (probably unviable) suggestions from me:

• One free return ticket to anywhere per person
• Half-price all line rover
• Promotion and discounting of local rover tickets
• Perhaps some sort of joint venture with English Heritage/National Trust etc, along the lines of "take the train to Whitby Abbey* and save 10%". This should hopefully encourage leisure/family travel

*Other historic sites available

 

[Bletchleyite]

The latter (given that there are the long-running 2 for 1 promotions in London) sounds the most likely of the options.

 

[AM9]

Indeed. Particularly for areas outside of London which were never really resourced to cope with a peak in the same way as the south east in the first place.

It's true thatv the South-east has had infrastructure shaped to cope with an ever increasing demand from commuters, but until this year it was still a work in progress, e.g. CR2, Croydon upgrade, OOC development etc.. Also, there is a considerable all-day demand for leisure/tourist use that generally earns revenue. If the commuter demand fell permanently, I doubt that the infrastructure would be scaled back much, but maybe future rolling stock orders would be less for trains that spend 4 hours in use and 20 hours in stabling sidings every weekday.

 

[JonathanH]

A couple of (probably unviable) suggestions from me:

• One free return ticket to anywhere per person
• Half-price all line rover
• Promotion and discounting of local rover tickets
• Perhaps some sort of joint venture with English Heritage/National Trust etc, along the lines of "take the train to Whitby Abbey* and save 10%". This should hopefully encourage leisure/family travel

*Other historic sites available

Again, as AM9 points out, these are things that readers of this forum want rather than things which maximise revenue against mileage travelled. It is 'normal' passengers travelling for shopping, family visits, holidays etc and people travelling for work who need to be encouraged back to the railway, not people making unlimited journeys on rover tickets. There is actually an argument for 'unlimited travel' type tickets to be withdrawn not extended, (not that I would actually want to see this happen).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Bar the odd tickbox thing on the website I think EMR already have. I've noticed in the last couple of days the unfriendly posters have been removed and the social media messages changed a few days before that.

There is still some pushing to consider if you have to do what you're doing and also whether you have to do it by train, but given over the last few days there has been a bit of a spike in usage on local services and limited carriages with which to strengthen them that is not surprising.

Today's tweets seem to disagree with your first sentence:

The weather is great but please remember that public transport is still for essential journeys only. Because of social distancing, we have limited space on trains, please keep it available for those who need it by not travelling for leisure.

As shops and hospitality settings begin to re-open please remember that public transport is still only for those making essential journeys. Please stay local, consider all other methods of transport and don’t travel by train for leisure.

 

[yorksrob]

Rovers are an interesting one.

NSE greatly increased the profile of their network to the travelling public through their network days.

Then, as in the near future the point of such promotions would need to be to bring the railway system to the attention of those who wouldn't otherwise use it. For that, some sort of impressive, time limited "big bang" promotion might be worthwhile.

Currently, the railway's promotional system has encouraged discretionary travel by some sectors of the population such as the elderly whilst discouraging working age single people under the assumption that they would use the train anyway. In the near future, a lot of those who were previously encouraged by promotions (such as the elderly) will avoid public transport regardless, whilst some of the working age single population who had been taken for granted might be tempted to avoid public transport, but could be encouraged back. Therefore it might be worth making the network more affordable for these.

 

[MikeWM]

Rovers are an interesting one.

Certainly if Rovers were removed, I'd do a lot less leisure travel by train. I wouldn't replace the travel I do with a Rover with a bunch of singles/returns, I'd just do a different type of holiday altogether.

 

[MrTurbostar170]

Good sign of people coming back already at Bournemouth today! Wow!

https://twitter.com/SophietheOT/status/1275761205005758465?s=09

 

[Huntergreed]

Good sign of people coming back already at Bournemouth today! Wow!

https://twitter.com/SophietheOT/status/1275761205005758465?s=09

Hardly a 'good' sign according to the user who posted this.

It's encouraging to see more people back on trains, but it is not encouraging to see them not following the social distancing guidance.

 

[Bikeman78]

Hardly a 'good' sign according to the user who posted this.

It's encouraging to see more people back on trains, but it is not encouraging to see them not following the social distancing guidance.

Social distancing on public transport is a non starter. I think this proves the point.

 

[Mag_seven]

Social distancing on public transport is a non starter. I think this proves the point.

Problem is the powers that be think that it is a starter!

 

[yorksrob]

Certainly if Rovers were removed, I'd do a lot less leisure travel by train. I wouldn't replace the travel I do with a Rover with a bunch of singles/returns, I'd just do a different type of holiday altogether.

I certainly wouldn't get rid of any !

 

[yorksrob]

Hardly a 'good' sign according to the user who posted this.

It's encouraging to see more people back on trains, but it is not encouraging to see them not following the social distancing guidance.

I wouldn't trust the motives of the poster, given her observation had the strapline "please go home".

The level of compliance on board with facecoverings might be a more relevant question to ponder.

 

[317 forever]

Indeed. Come 4th July when the tourism and leisure industry is expected to re-open, it really will be absolutely ridiculous and appalling if certain train operators such as Northern Rail and Scotrail are STILL continuing with their unwelcoming "Essential travel only", "Our services are for key workers and essential workers ONLY" and "Please do not use our trains to go shopping or for leisure trips!" messages. In just under 2 weeks now I want to see all train operators welcoming towards ALL passengers whether they're commuting to work, going to visit family, going on a day trip, or going on a short break/holiday. Let's see what happens.....

Yes, I hope the compulsory face coverings on public transport law is dropped fairly soon. I think chances are it won't be in the next easing of lockdown on 4th July though, but surely it must be come the next easing of lockdown again on 1st August when we will then have a limited amount of this summer to enjoy. It is indeed not very comfortable or pleasant to be wearing a face covering for long periods on public transport. And I can't see many people atall booking long journeys by train for leisure purposes, if they have to wear a face covering throughout!

We are making excellent progress now in beating this awful virus. Just 15 deaths since yesterday, the lowest since mid March. This was a weekend figure of course which is always lower, and tomorrow's figures will probably be over 100 again. But I feel we are within a few weeks now, where daily Coronavirus deaths will be consistently very low. And we need to start properly getting things back to normal again and restarting the economy in full, by scrapping social distancing and the requirement of face coverings.

Where this "Essential travel only" message is only on notices and in announcements, we just need to take a more thick-skinned view. If no member of staff is saying this to us individually, we can just look at it as a bit of temporary noise as it were. But yes, travel would be more pleasant without this.

 

[Huntergreed]

Where this "Essential travel only" message is only on notices and in announcements, we just need to take a more thick-skinned view. If no member of staff is saying this to us individually, we can just look at it as a bit of temporary noise as it were. But yes, travel would be more pleasant without this.

This is true for us, as we are members of a railway forum who understand the railway and the relevant legislation to a greater extent than most of the general public.

I know many people who still think you can only travel if you are a key worker, with some even thinking you must carry a work ID or letter as proof or face fines from the BTP.

 

[Bikeman78]

Problem is the powers that be think that it is a starter!

Well hopefully this will discourage them. Anyway, the answer to the thread title appears to be: wait for the sun to shine.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Anyway, the answer to the thread title appears to be: wait for the sun to shine.

ScotRail may be in for a difficult time then!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I certainly wouldn't get rid of any !

I've done "Rover" style journeys using walk-up singles and returns and a smattering of on the day Advances. It's a bit more expensive, but done off-peak it's not always prohibitively so. If we moved to single-fare pricing it would be even less so.

Yes, it's great having them, but not having them would not be the end of the world. That said, I don't see any reason why coronavirus (or indeed anything else) should lead to abolition - they clearly serve a purpose.

 

[yorksrob]

I've done "Rover" style journeys using walk-up singles and returns and a smattering of on the day Advances. It's a bit more expensive, but done off-peak it's not always prohibitively so. If we moved to single-fare pricing it would be even less so.

Yes, it's great having them, but not having them would not be the end of the world. That said, I don't see any reason why coronavirus (or indeed anything else) should lead to abolition - they clearly serve a purpose.

Yes, they have their place. However I think the industry will need to pull something a bit more substantial out of the hat to re-establish rail travel.

 

[AM9]

This is true for us, as we are members of a railway forum who understand the railway and the relevant legislation to a greater extent than most of the general public.

I know many people who still think you can only travel if you are a key worker, with some even thinking you must carry a work ID or letter as proof or face fines from the BTP.

Whilst for obvious reasons, this forum is a concentration of railway knowledge in general, despite the frequent airing of opinions about legal matters here I haven't noticed any understanding of the current legislation related to the pandemic that is necessarily greater than that of the general public.

 

[Hadders]

XC is a good example of a leisure orientated operator, so arguably the 'innovations' they have brought to the market in terms of their ticketing and reservations should find their way onto other operators.

Arguably, the fares reform proposed by the RDG under their 'Big Plan Big Changes' will bring all this and more, which is why I personally am in favour of it. The legacy fares system was already from a very different world before C19, and the market for business travel in particular might have changed more in the last three months than it had since the early 1990s when the current ticket framework was fixed.

I'm not sure what you mean by XC's innovations. Things that spring to mind are:

- huge increases in fares
- blanket 09:30 off peak restrictions meaning it's not possible to many some long distance journeys without using a combination of tickets
- grossly over crowded trains

I'm not against fares reform as such but I want to make sure that good value fare aren't withdrawn which I strongly suspect will be the case with reform.

 

[AM9]

I'm not sure what you mean by XC's innovations. Things that spring to mind are:

- huge increases in fares
- blanket 09:30 off peak restrictions meaning it's not possible to many some long distance journeys without using a combination of tickets
- grossly over crowded trains

I'm not against fares reform as such but I want to make sure that good value fare aren't withdrawn which I strongly suspect will be the case with reform.

As it so many things in life, one man's 'good fare' is another's loss of (potential) profit.

 

[squizzler]

Like it or not, XC have introduced advanced fares on day of travel, last minute seat reservations and other features that are widely used, have reduced their financial support, and that people here find annoying. And rightly so - these are kludges on the BR legacy National Rail fares structure.

As an operator that is mostly used by leisure travellers what XC do is a good case study for other intercity operators, since more telecommuting means that discretionary travel will make up a similar proportion of rail travel on their routes.

A clean sheet fares system would allow us to move away from the contradictions XC fare kludges introduce. I also reckon that breaking the idea of a National fares system is a good thing, so the devolved nations and metropolitan areas within GB have the freedom to better integrate their own transport networks. In the context of growing rail use after the pandemic, allowing the city regions and nations the ability to use their local knowledge to attract traffic. We are in uncharted territory, so the more different fares structures that are tried, the more likely it is that somebody will hit upon the winning formula.

 

[yorksrob]

Like it or not, XC have introduced advanced fares on day of travel, last minute seat reservations and other features that are widely used, have reduced their financial support, and that people here find annoying. And rightly so - these are kludges on the BR legacy National Rail fares structure.

As an operator that is mostly used by leisure travellers what XC do is a good case study for other intercity operators, since more telecommuting means that discretionary travel will make up a similar proportion of rail travel on their routes.

A clean sheet fares system would allow us to move away from the contradictions XC fare kludges introduce. I also reckon that breaking the idea of a National fares system is a good thing, so the devolved nations and metropolitan areas within GB have the freedom to better integrate their own transport networks. In the context of growing rail use after the pandemic, allowing the city regions and nations the ability to use their local knowledge to attract traffic. We are in uncharted territory, so the more different fares structures that are tried, the more likely it is that somebody will hit upon the winning formula.

I'd say that the innovations introduced by XC are a sticking plaster to mitigate the main issue that has dogged XC up until now - the lack of capacity. Given the situation now, we don't know how long it will be before there is a lack of capacity more widely, so we will need things to entice people on the railway.

I'm wary about moving away from the concept of a national fares structure. Whilst I'm all for strenth for the role of PTE's etc, there has been a neglect of areas outside of PTE's in the past with extream hikes in fares over the border. We will need a national approach to rebuilding confidence in railway travel I think.

 

[AM9]

I'd say that the innovations introduced by XC are a sticking plaster to mitigate the main issue that has dogged XC up until now - the lack of capacity. Given the situation now, we don't know how long it will be before there is a lack of capacity more widely, so we will need things to entice people on the railway.

I'm wary about moving away from the concept of a national fares structure. Whilst I'm all for strenth for the role of PTE's etc, there has been a neglect of areas outside of PTE's in the past with extream hikes in fares over the border. We will need a national approach to rebuilding confidence in railway travel I think.

I agree absolutely with that. If the national network is seen to be broken up by prospective leisure passengers, apart from profitable direct journeys entirely within a TOC's area, all other journeys will get unnecessarily complex and inevitably more expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree absolutely with that. If the national network is seen to be broken up by prospective leisure passengers, apart from profitable direct journeys entirely within a TOC's area, all other journeys will get unnecessarily complex and inevitably more expensive.

I don't overly agree. You're falling into the trap of considering people in here to be the norm. The absolute simplest fare structure to understand is one where you require one ticket per person per vehicle journey (like a bus), and where that ticket specifies which train and seat you must use (like a plane). It would not be hard for sales sites to aggregate those tickets in one journey, just like Trainsplit etc already do. Most people book long-distance journeys in advance, I expect there are at least some users of Avanti and LNER who don't even know you can just walk up and buy a ticket, and even more that don't know you can buy a through ticket from Altnabreac to Lympstone Commando if you felt like (though it's a whopping £816.00 for a First Anytime Return via London if you were feeling posh, but don't worry, that includes the couple of quid for the Tube across to Paddington! )

That doesn't mean to say that that's the right choice to do something like that. But people in here really need to remember that experts who can get the most out of a flexible ticket are very much in the minority, and it's the present system that has issues with complexity, not that one. That one would have issues with flexibility, but that wasn't the point being made. Do I want this? Not really. Would it make things simpler for the vast majority of users and thus attract more users? Absolutely.

Any simplification, even if it did reduce flexibility, would probably overall do more to get people back on trains (per the thread subject) than complicating things or even leaving them in their present complex form for which the railway has a rather negative reputation.

 

[AM9]

I don't overly agree. You're falling into the trap of considering people in here to be the norm. The absolute simplest fare structure to understand is one where you require one ticket per person per vehicle journey (like a bus), and where that ticket specifies which train and seat you must use (like a plane). It would not be hard for sales sites to aggregate those tickets in one journey, just like Trainsplit etc already do. Most people book long-distance journeys in advance, I expect there are at least some users of Avanti and LNER who don't even know you can just walk up and buy a ticket, and even more that don't know you can buy a through ticket from Altnabreac to Lympstone Commando if you felt like (though it's a whopping £816.00 for a First Anytime Return via London if you were feeling posh, but don't worry, that includes the couple of quid for the Tube across to Paddington! )

That doesn't mean to say that that's the right choice to do something like that. But people in here really need to remember that experts who can get the most out of a flexible ticket are very much in the minority, and it's the present system that has issues with complexity, not that one. That one would have issues with flexibility, but that wasn't the point being made. Do I want this? Not really. Would it make things simpler for the vast majority of users and thus attract more users? Absolutely.

Any simplification, even if it did reduce flexibility, would probably overall do more to get people back on trains (per the thread subject) than complicating things or even leaving them in their present complex form for which the railway has a rather negative reputation.

Well I'll give you one specific example of through ticketing that is significant that I have personal experience with and relates to lots of similar journeys:
We've been to the south west for holidays three times in the last six years. Each time we've chosen to go by train, - it's a 6 hour drive (if done safely) and driving around the south-west - especially Cornwall is not much fun unless you enjoy looking at hedgerows and playing hunt the carparking space. Therefore normal through route from here (St Albans) is Thameslink to Fafrringdon, Met/Circle to Paddington and GWR the rest of the route. The price of 2 together (not both seniors yet) is around £71 each for PGN, £81 each for PAR and £85 each for SIV. so in general terms better valuse than 12+ hours of driving. There is the benefit of guaranteed onward travel after missing a connection due to an earlier delay, and a partial or total refund if the delay significantly affects the arrival time at the final destination. They are also flexible walk-up fares.
If the journeys involved a Thameslink ticket, followed by an LU ticket then a GWR ticket, with no aggregation of interchange times, nobody would end up with the railway taking much responsibility for delays or cancellations.
I don't see that as much of an incentive for travel that involves two or more carriers.

 

[greyman42]

This is true for us, as we are members of a railway forum who understand the railway and the relevant legislation to a greater extent than most of the general public.

It has astonished me how many forum members did not understand the relevant legislation regarding travel despite Yorkie posting it on numerous occasions. Many still believed all the essential travel/key worker rubbish.

 

[Huntergreed]

It has astonished me how many forum members did not understand the relevant legislation regarding travel despite Yorkie posting it on numerous occasions. Many still believed all the essential travel/key worker rubbish.

Agreed!

And if this is the case on a rail forum, you can only imagine what the general public understanding of the messaging must be. Indeed I have friends who think you need a letter or work ID to prove you are a key worker to get into a train station!

 

[Romsey]

I'm not sure what you mean by XC's innovations. Things that spring to mind are:

- huge increases in fares
- blanket 09:30 off peak restrictions meaning it's not possible to many some long distance journeys without using a combination of tickets
- grossly over crowded trains

I'm not against fares reform as such but I want to make sure that good value fare aren't withdrawn which I strongly suspect will be the case with reform.

I would also add reservations being added while the train is en-route as being another dubious innovation.
Any coach apart from "C" which I think is the unreserved one, it's a shambles in standard class. Last year travelling from Winchester to Birmingham NS no less than three seats were reserved mid journey in one coach between Basingstoke and Reading. It continued in the same manner to Banbury where I gave up and caught the following Chiltern service.

Oxford to Manchester seems sensible for a reservation, but Banbury to Leamington?? All it does is annoy people who have just found a non reserved seat and those with reservations made 20 minutes before who expect the seat to be vacant.
It used to work much better when the reservation system has failed!