How to make the intercity fare system better.

[JonathanH]

How are reservations enforced today?

It is very rare to charge someone extra simply for sitting in the seat of their choosing when that isn't the one they were allocated.

 

[Llanigraham]

Eh?
I didn't say day trippers didn't take luggage, read again what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote; your exact words:

Business people going for day trips do not take large pieces of luggage. Daytrippers do not take large pieces of lugagge. That isn't me, it's everyone with a one or two really limited exceptions.

Note the "do not".

My argument hasn't changed at all either. It's a simple fact that daytrippers and most traveling businessmen don't take anything larger than hand luggage.
What is more complicated about it too?

Because it blatently isn't true. I regularly see day trippers with push chairs, especially in the summer.

How are reservations enforced today?
Anyway, I never said that I have all the answers to life's problems. This is just an idea how to increase ridership, revenue and profitability.

Making the system more complicated, which is exactly what your proposals are, are not going to do that, quite the opposite in fact.
And I ask again, why are you only concentrating on the London - Scotland services and completely ignoring the rest of the inter-city network.

 

[tbtc]

People on this forum want more flexible fares. The vast majority of the public, when traveling long-distance, pick a train they want to travel on and buy a ticket for it

Everyone says that they want "simple" fares and also have "more choice"

Obviously that is an issue of revenue management. My feeling is demand is exceptionally elastic and the current system lowers demand considerably. Low cost carriers in Europe have stimulated billions of additional journeys (I am not over exaggerating) over the last couple of decades. Journeys that never would have taken place under the old system of traditional carriers with traditional fare structures.

Everyone on here seems to think that fare elasticity is such that any cut in ticket prices would mean an increase in revenue

But everyone on here seems to think that trains are overcrowded and there's insufficient capacity

So, if you think that cutting fares will double passenger numbers then where are these extra seats? Where are the extra carriages? How easy is it going to be to extend platforms beyond the "two hundred metre" capacity that they currently have? Where are the extra paths on our already congested network for additional services? And, again, how many sandwiches and cups of coffee will you need to flog to each passenger to cover the fact that their ticket was £100 cheaper?

 

[TravelDream]

Note the "do not".

Note 1: I said there were one or two exceptions.
Note 2: Pushchairs are not 'large pieces of luggage'.

So, if you think that cutting fares will double passenger numbers then where are these extra seats? Where are the extra carriages? How easy is it going to be to extend platforms beyond the "two hundred metre" capacity that they currently have? Where are the extra paths on our already congested network for additional services? And, again, how many sandwiches and cups of coffee will you need to flog to each passenger to cover the fact that their ticket was £100 cheaper?

The fare system should be designed to better spread peaks in demand.
On the last point, again, why are you picking just one example of ancillary revenue when there are a whole range? And I'll say again that you don't understand the modern airline revenue model if you don't get how LCCs revolutionised the industry.

 

[JonathanH]

Everyone on here seems to think that fare elasticity is such that any cut in ticket prices would mean an increase in revenue

But everyone on here seems to think that trains are overcrowded and there's insufficient capacity

As has been pointed out in another thread...

What does that mean about accommodating future growth? You don’t worry about that - the Treasury will tell the DfT to get it priced off, just like BR had to do. Fighting for any investment or extra services then becomes a Herculean task.

...it does look that prices are going to rise to remove excess demand than be reduced to encourage it, no matter what people think.

 

[Llanigraham]

Note 1: I said there were one or two exceptions.
Note 2: Pushchairs are not 'large pieces of luggage'.

Sorry, but I think you are now clutching at very small straws, especially with that last note. My grand daughter's certainly is large.

The fare system should be designed to better spread peaks in demand.

It is, that is why we have peak and off-peak fares.

 

[tbtc]

The fare system should be designed to better spread peaks in demand

So, several tiers of tickets rather than a simple "peak" / "off peak" then - adding more complexity?

On the last point, again, why are you picking just one example of ancillary revenue when there are a whole range? And I'll say again that you don't understand the modern airline revenue model if you don't get how LCCs revolutionised the industry.

Because airlines can "upsell" in many ways (priority boarding, selling in-flight movies etc) - there are limited ways that railways can do this (despite you repeatedly suggesting that we can just copy airlines) - given that the vast majority of rail journeys are ones where people don't book months in advance etc, where are you planning to raise revenue? Have people wander down the aisle flogging scratch cards like on Ryanair? Force passengers who didn't buy your "upsold" premium to wait until other passengers have boarded the train before they are allowed on... can't see that going down well at intermediate stations where the dwell is only a couple of minutes anyway

As has been pointed out in another thread...

...it does look that prices are going to rise to remove excess demand than be reduced to encourage it, no matter what people think.

I think you're right - BR used to price people off to deal with "demand" when it was too awkward to increase "supply" to accommodate it - we are heading back to those days

 

[TravelDream]

So, several tiers of tickets rather than a simple "peak" / "off peak" then - adding more complexity?

And I'll say again that you don't understand the modern airline revenue model.

 

[takno]

And I'll say again that you don't understand the modern airline revenue model.

I suspect the reason you keep having to repeat may be that you don't really understand the modern train revenue model.

Ultimately of the SE-Scotland operators one is an entirely commercial operation, one is a profitable public sector operation and the other broadly seems to break even. All of them get pretty good seat occupancy on most of their services (subject to some people not going the entire length of the journey), and in contrast to airlines are actually able to carry more passengers than they even have seats on some services. In spite of all this, many travellers pay significantly less on the train because they are carrying luggage or travelling from somewhere closer to a station than an airport.

Basically, train operators are offering a range of different options which serve their sector of the market rather well, and until HS2 is built they have limited capacity to "steal" passengers from the airlines anyway. It's entirely unclear why forcing airline-style ticketing inconvenience onto the rail sector would benefit anybody.

 

[bingleybong]

This discussion does seem to have devolved to if I repeat myself enough I must be right. The main issue being ignored is the actual position for rail operators - they would far rather sell tickets to/from intermediate destinations where one London - York plus one York-Edinburgh at say £60 each is much better than one London-Edinburgh at £75. Lumo are going for the ultra-cheap London-Scotland, it remains to be seen if this is profiable. I think the actual numbers doing day trips to Scotland from London are very small too and as soon as you include an overnight stay the train can be a much better option. TravelDream seems to be demanding that things are changed to suit his use case while ignoring the fact that the core business is different.

 

[tbtc]

And I'll say again that you don't understand the modern airline revenue model.

Okay... you've started this thread... now we are going round in circles...

Here's a few points I'll make (apologies for repeats)

1. Planes are different to trains because trains generally serve lots of intermediate places whilst flights tend to just link two places. Nobody complains that a flight from London to Paris might cost more than a flight from London to Barcelona because they are two different flights. But if you want to sell train tickets from London to Edinburgh for a penny then do you extend that offer to journeys with no airline competition - e.g. Peterborough/ York/ Newcastle (etc) passengers? Do you still expect them to pay hundreds of pounds for their fares? How would you stop someone buying the one pence ticket and doing a shorter journey (given the lack of ticket barriers at some stations)? You'll also enrage other people paying full price (e.g., since we are talking about the ECML, you'd upset the people of Leeds/ Hull because they are still paying hundreds of pounds whilst people travelling much further are doing so for pennies

2. Planes are different to trains because flights take place in an environment where things are very carefully controlled. This allows airlines to make a lot of extra revenue. If you want to bring on extra luggage then there's a charge for that. If you want to board the flight earlier then there's a charge for that. You obviously can't bring your own liquids onto the plane for security reasons, which means that airlines have plenty opportunities to sell drinks (or include "free" drinks in the ticket price). Despite your best efforts to suggest that it'd be easy to "upsell" on trains, there are limited opportunities. You can't charge passengers for the size/weight they bring onto trains. You can't charge passengers for boarding the train earlier. You can't make a packet flogging drinks to thirsty train passengers who had their own drinks confiscated by security staff (because, not only does that not happen, but most big stations either have or are within very short distance of various food places - M&S Simply Food/ Greggs/ Subway etc)

3. If demand for train travel is elastic as you suggest, and we could slash fares whilst bringing in more revenue, then where are the extra seats? Where are the extra carriages? Are you going to extend platforms beyond their current limits? Increase electrify supply to power the trains?

4. Given all of the alternative ways of buying food/drinks, it's not very profitable - margins are thin - so you have to sell a heck of a lot of items to be equivalent to a hundred pounds of lost ticket income. It's not like a flight where you can charge a few quid for a tiny tube of Pringles because there's no alternative.

5. To echo @bingleybong 's comment above (welcome to the Forum by the way!), intermediate tickets can be much more lucrative to the railway since you get to sell the same seat multiple times, and we don't know whether Lumo will be profitable (the PR suggests that they targeting airlines rather than other TOCs, but it remains to be seen how that goes and whether there are enough bums on seats to cover their costs - there's obviously a lot of excitement on the Forum at the moment with people suggesting other places where the model could be rolled out but let's wait and see before we know if it's worth pursuing this kind of service

6. @TravelDream seems to be more interested in telling other people that they "don't understand" things than they are about explaining how the amazing airline business model can be translated onto the completely different railway market

7. They've also not explained why it's better to have several passengers paying a combined £500 than a handful of passengers paying a combined £600 (given the thin margins on food/drink required to compete with alternative purveyors)

 

[TravelDream]

Sorry for the delay is replying!

1. Planes are different to trains because trains generally serve lots of intermediate places whilst flights tend to just link two places. Nobody complains that a flight from London to Paris might cost more than a flight from London to Barcelona because they are two different flights. But if you want to sell train tickets from London to Edinburgh for a penny then do you extend that offer to journeys with no airline competition - e.g. Peterborough/ York/ Newcastle (etc) passengers? Do you still expect them to pay hundreds of pounds for their fares?

It's obvious that trains serve intermediate stops whilst aircraft very rarely do. Even under the current system, it is very often cheaper to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance. There are too many examples to list but Bristol to London often sees advance fares available quite late in the day when fares from closer destinations are more expensive.
I am not a yield manager and it will take intensive work by any organisation to put such a fare structure into practice.

Despite your best efforts to suggest that it'd be easy to "upsell" on trains, there are limited opportunities.

4. Given all of the alternative ways of buying food/drinks, it's not very profitable - margins are thin - so you have to sell a heck of a lot of items to be equivalent to a hundred pounds of lost ticket income. It's not like a flight where you can charge a few quid for a tiny tube of Pringles because there's no alternative.

I've already listed many opportunities. People always come back to you can't sell that many coffees which is of course true, but fails to see the bigger picture.
The opportunities as in the air are not exactly the same, I know, but there are corssovers.
Seats is one example where a significant chunk of revenue could be made on your Liverpool-London or Bristol-Manchester runs.
Don't believe me? Well neither did many people in the aviation industry a decade or two ago and look how that's turned out.

3. If demand for train travel is elastic as you suggest, and we could slash fares whilst bringing in more revenue, then where are the extra seats? Where are the extra carriages? Are you going to extend platforms beyond their current limits? Increase electrify supply to power the trains?

The idea of domestic holidays has come back strongly into the public imagination since Covid. It is currently constraned by high costs. High travel costs and high accommodation costs. It's a bit like a chicken and egg, when one comes something from the other will have to follow. We've already seen it to some extent with the likes of Megabus and Flixbus etc.
Outside of these two factors, I think demand is exceptionally elastic. Not just in terms of taking people off planes/ out of cars, but transporting people who wouldn't have considered traveling before.
I know some people can't see this, but look at passenger numbers from a whole multitude of airports across Europe (and in the last couple of years Asia). Millions of people who had never traveled before suddenly took holidays and passenger numbers boomed. It's migrant workers some will say and, yes, in some cases it is. But in a whole lot of cases it isn't.

7. They've also not explained why it's better to have several passengers paying a combined £500 than a handful of passengers paying a combined £600 (given the thin margins on food/drink required to compete with alternative purveyors)

Who has said that?

6. @TravelDream seems to be more interested in telling other people that they "don't understand" things than they are about explaining how the amazing airline business model can be translated onto the completely different railway market

Long-distance (UK long distance before anyone bites my head off) trains have huge crossover with the short-haul aviation market. That's just a fact. Obviously the markets are not exactly the same, but the crossover is huge.
That's all I have said is look at the numbers and profitability now versus 30 years ago. That should speak for itself.
The railway is very much like the aviation industry of the 80s.

Edit: I forgot to talk about capacity.
We currently have a green government who are pushing zero carbon extensively. Britain is not going to get there with millions of internal combustion engines on the road. To me, and this is political more than anything, rail investment is an investment in Britain's green econonmy. If only our government could see it.

 

[6Gman]

Edit: I forgot to talk about capacity.

So please do.

If the trains are currently full along with the tracks on which they run* with x million people paying £80 each how do you fit in 2x million people paying £40 each ?


* I know there are places where this isn't the case, but these tend to be places where the latent demand is also likely to be low.

 

[tbtc]

I've already listed many opportunities. People always come back to you can't sell that many coffees which is of course true, but fails to see the bigger picture.
The opportunities as in the air are not exactly the same, I know, but there are corssovers.
Seats is one example where a significant chunk of revenue could be made on your Liverpool-London or Bristol-Manchester runs.

Seating maters on a plane:

• priority boarding means getting on the plane earlier than the rabble of other passengers
• the tiny windows on planes mean that some people will pay a priority for a window seat because you can't see much from the other seats on the plane (especially if a plane has seats in something like a 2 + 3 + 2 width)
• people are restricted to the seat that the airline allocates them, so the airline can worry people into paying extra to sit together
• the one door on a plane (sometimes two) means that some people will pay a premium for sitting closer to the exits

None of this matters so much on a train - you're not going to open the doors significantly earlier for the "premium" passengers, you're not going to be able to get people to pay a huge difference to guarantee a window seat (since you can see out of the windows on both sides from most seats) - normal people don't worry about which seats on trains are safest (in the way that people do worry about air crashes)

I know some people can't see this, but look at passenger numbers from a whole multitude of airports across Europe (and in the last couple of years Asia). Millions of people who had never traveled before suddenly took holidays and passenger numbers boomed. It's migrant workers some will say and, yes, in some cases it is. But in a whole lot of cases it isn't

You're right to identify migrant workers as one of the reasons for the increase in air travel - but a lot of the holidays succeeded by offering something "different" - I can be sitting with my toes in the Mediterranean in a couple of hours - whereas domestic train travel can't offer the same degree of "different"

Who has said that?

You keep talking of the "fallacy" that it's better to have a high revenue from one passenger than have several people paying a lower combined fare

Long-distance (UK long distance before anyone bites my head off) trains have huge crossover with the short-haul aviation market. That's just a fact. Obviously the markets are not exactly the same, but the crossover is huge

They serve the same two cities, sure, but the economics are very different and the opportunities to "upsell" are very different (e.g. airlines have a captive market and can exploit this - railways have to accept that they can't)

You seem to have decided that you want trains to do what planes do, but the flexibility and "upselling" are much more limited with trains

 

[Starmill]

And I'll say again that you don't understand the modern airline revenue model if you don't get how LCCs revolutionised the industry.

With respect I don't think anyone you're saying this to again and again doesn't understand what you're saying. They're just trying to explain to you politely how you're mistaken.

 

[TravelDream]

With respect I don't think anyone you're saying this to again and again doesn't understand what you're saying. They're just trying to explain to you politely how you're mistaken.

I realise I am repeating myself, but I am trying to explain that ancillary revenue is a core part of the airline revenue model. I think some people don't quite get quite how much of an airline's revenue comes from it.
If I asked people to guess a percentage, I think they'd be miles off. Essentially, all the big low cost carriers earn more than 50% of their revenue from ancillary fees. Over 50%! We are not talking loose change, but a core part of their revenue model.
(Traditional carriers earn less, but their model is actually more different to trains than LCCs as a fair chunk of their revenue comes from cargo and premium cabins)
I don't know how much the railway makes, but I imagine it's comfortably under 1%.

Now don't get me wrong. What I am not saying is that the railway should aim to or ever would get 50% of their revenue from these types of fees (though no doubt someone below will bite my head off saying that I did say that).
Obviously there are certain things that are basically impossible on trains. Speedy boarding, luggage fees (though things like bikes could be charge for as they are in other countries) and similar wouldn't really work on our railway network.
Other areas would be more than doable. Booking seats with some seats costing more than others, 'fare holds', expanding food offerings (see Lumo/ LNER), lounges, wifi and similar could easily be monetised/ further monestised.

I doing this, headline fares (and total cost) have fallen dramatically and billions of people have traveled when they never would have before.

On train capacity, this is a point I totally understand. However, there are a few things about it. One is that many many trains, even some during peak, leave with plenty of spare capacity. This simply should not be happening. Not from just a revenue perspective, but also from an environmental one.
We are told continuously that we have basically no time left to stop a climate catastrophe. I have defended the domestic APD cut on this forum several times, however, fundamentally, I do not believe that (the millions of) people should be flying on the many relatively short routes they do each year. Fundamentally, we need to get people off aircraft and out of their cars and onto public transport. I know our government doesn't have many plans to do this outside of HS2 and a few other regional projects, but this is fundamentally flawed and investment in infrastructure is, if anything, much more important than importing wind turbines from China or batteries made with raw materials dug by slave child labour in the Congo with great environmental cost there.
(As a semi-serious aside, there are some who would see crowded trains as a revenue generator. More people would be willing to book seats and pay more for them if they knew there was a reasonable chance they wouldn't get a seat).

You're right to identify migrant workers as one of the reasons for the increase in air travel - but a lot of the holidays succeeded by offering something "different" - I can be sitting with my toes in the Mediterranean in a couple of hours - whereas domestic train travel can't offer the same degree of "different"

Staycaytions are the 'in-thing' at the moment and their popularity was growing pre-Covid.
Yes, they don't replace the week in the sun, but the numbers taking multiple annual holidays and short-breaks has surged over the years. Part of the popularity of Prague, Barcelona etc. is that a flight is cheaper than a (for example) Cardiff - Leeds railfare.




This might also be of some interest in terms of this thread. Whilst Lumo doesn't really follow this model, it'll be interesting to see how well it does.

Lumo and the airline model - works for the railway?

I write this on board a Lumo service just leaving Newcastle - and events whilst we were stationary made me wonder, is Lumo’s low cost model for onboard service sustainable long term without reputational damage? Good to see the train fully loaded and there are certainly positives to the Lumo...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

I realise I am repeating myself, but I am trying to explain that ancillary revenue is a core part of the airline revenue model. I think some people don't quite get quite how much of an airline's revenue comes from it.

No, we completely get it. What we have done over the 3 pages of this thread is explained that just because it works for air doesn't mean it will work for rail, and why it won't.

 

[TravelDream]

No, we completely get it. What we have done over the 3 pages of this thread is explained that just because it works for air doesn't mean it will work for rail, and why it won't.

You've reduced my paragraphs of text to just 'you're wrong' when I have clearly explained why I think it would work.

I also think what we have actually seen is people whose mentalities are stuck in BR era thinking.

 

[tbtc]

I realise I am repeating myself, but I am trying to explain that ancillary revenue is a core part of the airline revenue model. I think some people don't quite get quite how much of an airline's revenue comes from it.
If I asked people to guess a percentage, I think they'd be miles off. Essentially, all the big low cost carriers earn more than 50% of their revenue from ancillary fees. Over 50%! We are not talking loose change, but a core part of their revenue model.
(Traditional carriers earn less, but their model is actually more different to trains than LCCs as a fair chunk of their revenue comes from cargo and premium cabins)
I don't know how much the railway makes, but I imagine it's comfortably under 1%

I think we all know that airlines are able to squeeze a lot more "non-ticket" money out of passengers than TOCs are (most of us have been passengers on both at some time, so can relate to the different kinds of costs) - they have a very different business model (get people in the door then charge for everything you can) - good luck to them and all that

The problem act we keep coming back to is that there are many reasons why TOCs are unable to significantly increase their "ancillary revenue"...

...most trains have multiple stops so the idea of getting people to fork out for "priority boarding" seems a bit optimistic (unless you plan to have dwells of fifteen minutes at intermediate stations so that "priority" passengers can board significantly earlier than the plebs?)...

...airlines take passengers who've not had much opportunity to buy food other than an Airport WH Smith, and haven't been able to take liquids onto the plane - given how long you can take between arriving to the airport and the plane getting in the air that means that people have had a long time getting hungry/thirsty, so there's ample opportunity to make them pay through the nose for food/drink (whereas every big trains station have plenty of places selling a selection of fairly reasonably priced food/drink nearby, and you can be on a moving train within a minute or two of arriving at the station entrance, so there's not much chance to make the huge profits that Ryanair etc must get from people who've had their drinks confiscated at security...

...airlines can charge a lot of money for "excess baggage" - TOCs don't charge you for your suitcases, so this is another lucrative stream for airlines that the railway cannot replicate...

...yet you keep saying that airlines make a lot of money by "upselling" , as if this magically means that the railway can simply do the same - how would that work? Have staff on platforms weighing all luggage and taking any liquid off passengers to force them to pay through the nose for whatever the trolley has?

Either come up with some sensible ways that TOCs will be able to significantly "upsell" or accept that your whole suggestions are based on comparing apples with oranges

 

[Starmill]

You've reduced my paragraphs of text to just 'you're wrong' when I have clearly explained why I think it would work.

Because you haven't mentioned anything that's not already been responded to. You've restated your original case with different words.

You've said you're not suggesting at seat sales of scratchcards or perfume. You've acknowledged that catering isn't an upsell that can grow by much on trains because there's already a lot of provision and no security to boost cold drinks sales.

We've already explained that nobody cares at all about priority boarding on a train because in this country long-distance trains stop at multiple places to pick up and set down en route. Basic yield management is something you're wrong about and I've given an example leaked from Avanti's evening peak service. Segmentation can't get as strong as it can on an aircraft because flexible fares are required by regulation, and in general trains aren't permitted to sell out.

That leaves just seat selection from your suggestions, which is indeed given away for for now by some retailers and probably could well be charged for in the future, including by seating attribute, but because trains are not reservation compulsory there's still no exclusive product there to sell.

One thing I noticed you haven't mentioned is vending machines. One thing that probably actually would work well on trains that has never been tried (or has it??) in this country. Time to give it a go.

 

[takno]

I realise I am repeating myself, but I am trying to explain that ancillary revenue is a core part of the airline revenue model. I think some people don't quite get quite how much of an airline's revenue comes from it.
If I asked people to guess a percentage, I think they'd be miles off. Essentially, all the big low cost carriers earn more than 50% of their revenue from ancillary fees. Over 50%! We are not talking loose change, but a core part of their revenue model.
(Traditional carriers earn less, but their model is actually more different to trains than LCCs as a fair chunk of their revenue comes from cargo and premium cabins)
I don't know how much the railway makes, but I imagine it's comfortably under 1%.

Now don't get me wrong. What I am not saying is that the railway should aim to or ever would get 50% of their revenue from these types of fees (though no doubt someone below will bite my head off saying that I did say that).
Obviously there are certain things that are basically impossible on trains. Speedy boarding, luggage fees (though things like bikes could be charge for as they are in other countries) and similar wouldn't really work on our railway network.
Other areas would be more than doable. Booking seats with some seats costing more than others, 'fare holds', expanding food offerings (see Lumo/ LNER), lounges, wifi and similar could easily be monetised/ further monestised.

I doing this, headline fares (and total cost) have fallen dramatically and billions of people have traveled when they never would have before.

On train capacity, this is a point I totally understand. However, there are a few things about it. One is that many many trains, even some during peak, leave with plenty of spare capacity. This simply should not be happening. Not from just a revenue perspective, but also from an environmental one.
We are told continuously that we have basically no time left to stop a climate catastrophe. I have defended the domestic APD cut on this forum several times, however, fundamentally, I do not believe that (the millions of) people should be flying on the many relatively short routes they do each year. Fundamentally, we need to get people off aircraft and out of their cars and onto public transport. I know our government doesn't have many plans to do this outside of HS2 and a few other regional projects, but this is fundamentally flawed and investment in infrastructure is, if anything, much more important than importing wind turbines from China or batteries made with raw materials dug by slave child labour in the Congo with great environmental cost there.
(As a semi-serious aside, there are some who would see crowded trains as a revenue generator. More people would be willing to book seats and pay more for them if they knew there was a reasonable chance they wouldn't get a seat).


Staycaytions are the 'in-thing' at the moment and their popularity was growing pre-Covid.
Yes, they don't replace the week in the sun, but the numbers taking multiple annual holidays and short-breaks has surged over the years. Part of the popularity of Prague, Barcelona etc. is that a flight is cheaper than a (for example) Cardiff - Leeds railfare.




This might also be of some interest in terms of this thread. Whilst Lumo doesn't really follow this model, it'll be interesting to see how well it does.

Lumo and the airline model - works for the railway?

I write this on board a Lumo service just leaving Newcastle - and events whilst we were stationary made me wonder, is Lumo’s low cost model for onboard service sustainable long term without reputational damage? Good to see the train fully loaded and there are certainly positives to the Lumo...

www.railforums.co.uk

Again, a long and detailed series of claims that we just don't get your argument. It's fairly clear that everybody basically gets it, and I suspect most people would absolutely guess that there are low-cost operators making more than 50% of their revenue from ancillary services. The point you are so determinedly failing to understand is that trains just *are* different.

You correctly identify that trains can't readily charge almost any of these ancillary fees, yet persist in claiming that seat selection is still on the table (it isn't - there are too many doors, the seats are too similar, and being split up for the whole of a 4 hour journey just because the train company wanted to chisel an extra fiver out of each of you "for convenience" isn't going to play. In any case seat selection alone isn't going to get your revenue anywhere this 50% figure, so really you're just demonstrating the invalidity of your own argument.

There is less space on peak trains than you seem to believe, and even where there is, people are often paying for through expensive open tickets. Airlines of course deal with people who need flexibility (at eye-watering expense) through standby travel and overselling, but train companies don't have a lengthy check-in and boarding window to sort that sort of thing out.

Most importantly though at the end of the day, the rail network provides a valuable public service. Unless theres 6 feet of snow it will get me home as a last resort for a price that's lower than remortgaging my home. Airlines in those circumstances are useless. I well remember a couple of years ago a short spell of fog closing Exeter airport for the morning. The result was that the airline had no ability get 400 people to Scotland and the north for at least 3 days. No great issue for most because we all squeezed on the train, and paid high but generally not crippling fares to get home. If Cross Country had sold all those seats for a quid just to ensure that the train was full, then quite a few people would have been spending several winter nights sleeping in a tiny airport.

I'm a big fan of the flat fare Lothian Buses charge on their city network. I don't think it should be applied to trains or planes though. Sometimes these things are just different

 

[TravelDream]

Now don't get me wrong. What I am not saying is that the railway should aim to or ever would get 50% of their revenue from these types of fees (though no doubt someone below will bite my head off saying that I did say that).
Obviously there are certain things that are basically impossible on trains. Speedy boarding, luggage fees (though things like bikes could be charge for as they are in other countries) and similar wouldn't really work on our railway network.
Other areas would be more than doable. Booking seats with some seats costing more than others, 'fare holds', expanding food offerings (see Lumo/ LNER), lounges, wifi and similar could easily be monetised/ further monestised.

I was confident is writing what I have bolded as I knew it would happen, and it is exactly what @tbtc and @Starmill have done. I clearly say in my post that I don't believe speedy boarding and baggage fees would work on their rails. Their posts essentially accuse me of saying that.

...airlines take passengers who've not had much opportunity to buy food other than an Airport WH Smith, and haven't been able to take liquids onto the plane - given how long you can take between arriving to the airport and the plane getting in the air that means that people have had a long time getting hungry/thirsty, so there's ample opportunity to make them pay through the nose for food/drink (whereas every big trains station have plenty of places selling a selection of fairly reasonably priced food/drink nearby, and you can be on a moving train within a minute or two of arriving at the station entrance, so there's not much chance to make the huge profits that Ryanair etc must get from people who've had their drinks confiscated at security...

Airport outlets and train station outlets charge comparable amounts (the majority at both are actually run by the God-awful SSP).
People keep saying airline passengers are a 'captive audience'. Well you can take sandwiches and whatever else you want from home on a plane as a train. Liquids are a bit tougher, but all airports have outlets selling bottles of water for a quid or so (or you could take a bottle and fill it up yourself for free though I realise the majority don't).
It's not as if I can pop-off my Bristol to London train at reading and run to the coffee shop whilst the train waits for me. I am 'captive' on the train too.

One thing I noticed you haven't mentioned is vending machines. One thing that probably actually would work well on trains that has never been tried (or has it??) in this country. Time to give it a go.

It's been tried in other countries. Not too successfully I think. They take up a significant chunk of space and still require man-power to restock them and handle cash.

 

[tbtc]

I was confident is writing what I have bolded as I knew it would happen, and it is exactly what @tbtc and @Starmill have done. I clearly say in my post that I don't believe speedy boarding and baggage fees would work on their rails. Their posts essentially accuse me of saying that

I'm not claiming that you suggested rail could make 50% of it's revenues from "upselling" - but if the true figure at the moment is under 1% as you suggest then I don't think you could easily get up to even 5% (without massively inconveniencing passengers to force them to begrudgingly pay for something that used to be free)

You started this discussion - you keep suggesting there are loads of untapped ways of bringing in huge sums of money (e.g. the ticket revenue in 2019 was over ten billion pounds, so if you think you can make 5% of that from "upselling" then you're talking hundreds of millions of pounds each year)

So, if not from speedy boarding or baggage fees or food/drink (and we accept that seat reservations and seat selection are both things that passengers expect for free) then... from where?

Airport outlets and train station outlets charge comparable amounts (the majority at both are actually run by the God-awful SSP)

Large stations tend to have a choice of shops (M&S Simply Food etc), plus a range of alternative places nearby (which major station doesn't have at least a couple of Greggs/ McDonalds/ Subways etc within a couple of minutes walk?)

So it's easy for airlines to charge through the nose for food/drink but a lot harder for TOCs (the SSP places are only one option for rail passengers)

People keep saying airline passengers are a 'captive audience'. Well you can take sandwiches and whatever else you want from home on a plane as a train

You're limited to the amount you can bring onto planes (and there's nothing like as many places to buy reasonably priced sandwiches within a five minute walk of most airports!)

It's not as if I can pop-off my Bristol to London train at reading and run to the coffee shop whilst the train waits for me. I am 'captive' on the train too

But you can be buying your grub in a Bristol sandwich shop and be on the departing train five minutes later (or be leaving Chicken Cottage in London and boarding your train home a few minutes later) - so the TOC can't guarantee that you'll pay top dollar for some grub from the trolley

Obviously some people prefer the convenience of buying food/drink on board trains - there's some market for it - but not anything like your suggestion that we could slash ticket prices and make up the difference through "upselling"

(you can break journeys on trains though)

 

[Starmill]

The other obvious thing is that if you're in an airport departure lounge you're stuck there waiting for however long your airline scared you into waiting there for. In a major station in a city centre (like most) you've the whole of the city centre at your disposal if you're waiting.

So that leaves as far as I can see only fare holds as an idea. We had extensive discussion on this recently and I'm reluctant to try fitting it in here but it's still worthy of conversation if you're dedicated, so feel free to start a new thread.

It's been tried in other countries. Not too successfully I think. They take up a significant chunk of space and still require man-power to restock them and handle cash.

No need, of course, for any new application to handle cash - indeed several operators don't accept cash onboard already. And the infrastructure to load and unload trains is naturally already in place, it has to be to serve any food. Expanding that out and reducing on-train staff is definitely worth an experiment. The only downside is taking up space where there could otherwise be seating - but then, almost any quality improvement will do that.

If you were desperate, and classless, you could even try fitting those awful pub gambling machines!

 

[TravelDream]

Large stations tend to have a choice of shops (M&S Simply Food etc), plus a range of alternative places nearby (which major station doesn't have at least a couple of Greggs/ McDonalds/ Subways etc within a couple of minutes walk?)

Major airports also have a whole range of outlets to purchase food.

Boots charges the same at airports for its food and drink as they do on the high street. WH Smiths travel division is seperate to their high street one, but train station and airport ones are both run by that division and charge the same. Superdrug (Co-op food) charges the same as the Co-op. Greggs in Bristol Airport is the same price as the high street. I have only been to M&S Food at Heathrow, and prices there are the same as the high street. As far as I remember, Starbucks also charges the same at airports as their London prices.
There are places that charge more too of course. Burger King is usually a pound or so more than the high street and Wetherspoons a couple of quid more than their London prices.

So, if not from speedy boarding or baggage fees or food/drink (and we accept that seat reservations and seat selection are both things that passengers expect for free) then... from where?

Why on Earth would anyone think passengers expect seat reservations for free? Yes, that is what happens now, but it's no different to saying passengers expect to smoke on trains as they did before it was banned or that people expect milk delivered to their door in a glass pint bottle when that was still a thing nationwide.
Even with no other change to the current ticketing system, seat reservation charges should still be brought in.

No need, of course, for any new application to handle cash - indeed several operators don't accept cash onboard already. And the infrastructure to load and unload trains is naturally already in place, it has to be to serve any food. Expanding that out and reducing on-train staff is definitely worth an experiment. The only downside is taking up space where there could otherwise be seating - but then, almost any quality improvement will do that.

I don't mind card only, but you'll hear howls off certain people of excluding the elderly and what not.
The problem is the the Department for Transport would never allow it as a single vending machine would take up the space of at least four seats.

 

[Starmill]

The problem is the the Department for Transport would never allow it as a single vending machine would take up the space of at least four seats.

That's not a problem at all. They'd 'never allow' many of your suggestions!

 

[6Gman]

You've reduced my paragraphs of text to just 'you're wrong' when I have clearly explained why I think it would work.

I also think what we have actually seen is people whose mentalities are stuck in BR era thinking.

No, with respect you haven't "clearly explained" it at all. You have said that low cost airlines operate a particular model, which works for them, and then asserted that the railways could use a similar model.

So, to take an example, how would this work on a Euston-Glasgow Pendolino? How would you revise the fares structure? What "add ons" would you offer; how would you implement them; and would they apply to all relevant journeys?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==

Why on Earth would anyone think passengers expect seat reservations for free? Yes, that is what happens now, but it's no different to saying passengers expect to smoke on trains as they did before it was banned or that people expect milk delivered to their door in a glass pint bottle when that was still a thing nationwide.
Even with no other change to the current ticketing system, seat reservation charges should still be brought in.

There used to be a charge for seat reservations. I suspect the TOCs prefer free reservations as it then means (like the meal offering in First) it's a complimentary service and therefore there's no comeback if the reservation cannot be fulfilled. (Which is wise given the unreliability of seat reservations.)

And do you think charging for reservations would bring in an appreciable extra income?

 

[miklcct]

but it sounds like the proposal in this thread is to abolish Off Peak fares, force people to use Advance fares, disallow spontaneous walk-up travel, abolish unreserved seating and make people pay for seat selection and various other add-on extras in the hope that the additional revenue generated by add-ons can reduce the cost of the Advance fares.

Sorry if this becomes the reality my only response is to damage the environment (i.e. use a car).

I'll never want to pay the ridiculous peak fares but I still need flexibility on weekends.

 

[Starmill]

I still have my milk delivered in pint glass bottles overnight too. Although fortunately it's no longer the kind that comes from a cow!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==

There used to be a charge for seat reservations. I suspect the TOCs prefer free reservations as it then means (like the meal offering in First) it's a complimentary service and therefore there's no comeback if the reservation cannot be fulfilled. (Which is wise given the unreliability of seat reservations.)

There actually is a claim under the NRCoT if you can't sit down (not necessarily if you don't get your reservation). Relevant operator's charters also provide for specific 'liquidated' compensation sometimes.

 

[stuu]

@TravelDream

You started this thread with the title of making intercity fares better, however every single suggestion you have made would make it worse, from a passenger's point it view. How does introducing different charges make it better for anyone?