Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
And from a legal perspective you are no doubt correct. But any business which operates on the basis of providing the legal minimum and no more, without consideration of the quality of service it provides won't succeed for long. A successful railway network needs to consider the quality of service it provides to customers and leaving customers standing for long periods when other seats are available is very bad service.
If you visit a restaurant where the service is slow and the food is tasteless, the restaurant is still meeting its legal obligations, but you'd never go back. Many standard class train tickets cost considerable amounts of money, the idea that people could be expected to stand for long periods, receiving such a poor service for their money is bizarre.
Approach the Train Manager.
If he grants you permission to sit there, fine. If he doesn't ask about an upgrade.
But, ultimately, if you want to sit in First Class you need a First Class ticket.
Can't agree with that, if the HSTs linking other Scottish cities have First Class, surely the EMUs connecting Scotland's capital with its biggest city should too? And the 385/1s are the only Scotrail trains with First Class other than the HSTs, something of a contrast from my first Scottish Region Railrover in 1979 when paying for the First Class version was well worthwhile!
And from a legal perspective you are no doubt correct. But any business which operates on the basis of providing the legal minimum and no more, without consideration of the quality of service it provides won't succeed for long. A successful railway network needs to consider the quality of service it provides to customers and leaving customers standing for long periods when other seats are available is very bad service.
So if we follow that to it's logical conclusion, you want a railway where every passenger has a seat, so therefore all seats will have to be booked before travel, and if there are no seats available then you won't be travelling at the time you want, and if you are lucky you might be able to get a seat on a later train, but even that can't be guaretenteed. Just like happens in the airline industry or even National Express.
Funny how we've been managing to run an open railway system for over a century.
Many standard class train tickets cost considerable amounts of money, the idea that people could be expected to stand for long periods, receiving such a poor service for their money is bizarre.
So if we follow that to it's logical conclusion, you want a railway where every passenger has a seat, so therefore all seats will have to be booked before travel, and if there are no seats available then you won't be travelling at the time you want, and if you are lucky you might be able to get a seat on a later train, but even that can't be guaretenteed.
Indeed, compulsory reservation on long distance services has been discussed before, not least in this forum, and generally agreed to be impractical; For the reasons Llanigraham explains, plus the fact that many long distance trains also serve local flows; eg the Glasgow-Euston route I used yesterday also provides the local service between Wigan and Crewe.
How does that work for a walk-up ticket, or when your travel arrangements are flexible, when you don't know when your meeting will finish and which train you will be catching?
There's another thread running at the moment about 'Delay Repay' and it's interesting to contrast the two very different attitudes taken to what is a similar matter of customer service. Being without a seat for an extended period is every bit as inconveniencing and uncomfortable as a simple time delay on arriving at the destination, indeed given the choice of no seat for a long journey, or having a seat and arriving late, I think most people would choose the later. But delays are compensated, whereas uncomfortable travel without a seat appears to be something passengers are expected to simply accept, but there's no logical reason why these two similar issues are treated completely differently.
How does that work for a walk-up ticket, or when your travel arrangements are flexible, when you don't know when your meeting will finish and which train you will be catching?
There's another thread running at the moment about 'Delay Repay' and it's interesting to contrast the two very different attitudes taken to what is a similar matter of customer service. Being without a seat for an extended period is every bit as inconveniencing and uncomfortable as a simple time delay on arriving at the destination, indeed given the choice of no seat for a long journey, or having a seat and arriving late, I think most people would choose the later. But delays are compensated, whereas uncomfortable travel without a seat appears to be something passengers are expected to simply accept, but there's no logical reason why these two similar issues are treated completely differently.
So again I say, if we follow your ideas to their logical conclusion, if all passengers need to have a seat then the only way will be for them to book a seat in advance, just like it is on National Express. Therefore you will have to book your ticket before you travel; now that could be a week before or it could be 10 minutes, but if there are no seats available then sorry sunshine you ain't travelling until there is a seat available, and that could be the next trainor it could be tomorrow.
So do you really want to promise EVERY pasenger a seat?
Be careful what you wish for!
How does that work for a walk-up ticket, or when your travel arrangements are flexible, when you don't know when your meeting will finish and which train you will be catching?
There's another thread running at the moment about 'Delay Repay' and it's interesting to contrast the two very different attitudes taken to what is a similar matter of customer service. Being without a seat for an extended period is every bit as inconveniencing and uncomfortable as a simple time delay on arriving at the destination, indeed given the choice of no seat for a long journey, or having a seat and arriving late, I think most people would choose the later. But delays are compensated, whereas uncomfortable travel without a seat appears to be something passengers are expected to simply accept, but there's no logical reason why these two similar issues are treated completely differently.
If you went into a shop to buy a new phone and there was a standard version and a 'pro' version, would you expect to get the 'pro' version at the same price as the standard one if the latter was out of stock? Because that is effectively what you're arguing for.
But delays are compensated, whereas uncomfortable travel without a seat appears to be something passengers are expected to simply accept, but there's no logical reason why these two similar issues are treated completely differently.
Because, quite simply, our railways are not set up that way. The logical conclusion of pushing that argument is compulsory reservations, with all the issues that brings instead.
Because, quite simply, our railways are not set up that way. The logical conclusion of pushing that argument is compulsory reservations, with all the issues that brings instead.
That isn't the logical conclusion at all. It just needs some flexibility and a focus on customer service, that when passenger numbers on the train are excessive such that standard class seating capacity is grossly inadequate, that passengers are allowed to use all available seats.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you went into a shop to buy a new phone and there was a standard version and a 'pro' version, would you expect to get the 'pro' version at the same price as the standard one if the latter was out of stock? Because that is effectively what you're arguing for.
If I paid for the standard phone and it turned up damaged or with parts missing then I'd expect either some form of refund, a suitable discount or an upgrade. And given that some standard class tickets can cost as much as a basic smart phone, I think its reasonable to expect a seat.
If I paid for the standard phone and it turned up damaged or with parts missing then I'd expect either some form of refund, a suitable discount or an upgrade. And given that some standard class tickets can cost as much as a basic smart phone, I think its reasonable to expect a seat.
That isn't the logical conclusion at all. It just needs some flexibility and a focus on customer service, that when passenger numbers on the train are excessive such that standard class seating capacity is grossly inadequate, that passengers are allowed to use all available seats.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If I paid for the standard phone and it turned up damaged or with parts missing then I'd expect either some form of refund, a suitable discount or an upgrade. And given that some standard class tickets can cost as much as a basic smart phone, I think its reasonable to expect a seat.
These are the two I know of - I'm not sure whether more do offer this or not. I have used GWR's before (it actually used to be 100% of the single fare).
I don't agree though that if, in this example, my iPhone 13 was delivered damaged, I should be entitled to an iPhone 13 Pro - I'd expect a repair of my iPhone 13, or a replacement. If you translate this to the railway, if they're "guaranteeing" you a seat like LNER specifically state, they're right to offer a refund if this isn't available. If they're not guaranteeing you a seat, and only a position on the train, then I'm not really sure what to say to you - everything has already been said in this thread but you don't seem to understand the point. It is logical, and you may not like it, but I'm not convinced that just opening up First Class is the answer.
Having said that - I'm not necessarily against the idea of offering a partial refund if you haven't been able to get your reserved seat (TOCs would have to be careful that this is not abused - LNER requests endorsement of ticket or a reason why it couldn't be endorsed). Note the key point - you are expecting a seat if you have reserved one. You may well be hoping for one if you haven't - but if you're travelling far enough that it matters, such as on intercity, most companies allow you to reserve anyway (some at very short notice e.g. LNER)
People want to sit in standard class, the issue is they cannot and from that, how long it is reasonable to expect people to stand in standard class before they get offered a seat, any seat that is available.
The answer to that needs two other questions answering first:
a) how many standard class seats do you think that the railway should provide, - enough for the busiest part of the rush hour, enough for a major event along the route?
b) how much extra on your fare are you prepared to pay for this excess provision which might not be used all the time?
Answer those and get support from others who would also have to contribute more through fare increases, and you might just be lucky.
If they don't want to stand they always have the option of buying a 1st Class ticket. As for customer service, what about customer service for those who do have a 1st Class ticket?
I don't know why they do but they do. I used to travel to London on a Sunday evening from the North West. I would often have a 1st Class carriage pretty much to myself while people were sitting on the floor in Standard. The absolutely stupid thing was a 1st Advance on the train I used to catch wasn't that much more than a Standard one so I can't say I had much sympathy.
If they got a standard advance, they'd be given a seat (and be restricted to that train, like you) so perhaps some people buy an open standard ticket and end up standing as a result, and wouldn't have paid for a 1st advance because they wanted the flexibility?
The solution is more standard seating and less first, but with the right balance to not cut off the benefits of first class and lose revenue (which can subsidise the other fares).
And, for those advocating getting rid of first class on Intercity services, what about the people who actually want to pay for the improved service (we can debate how great it is on a weekend, but if you consider the lounge and extra room, some can and do willingly pay for that). My parents are retired and don't travel that much, but do shell out for first class for a more relaxed journey experience.
So, just as some standard class passengers may say 'sod this' and get in the car, axing first class may also stop people using the train.
There are also the well off passengers who have no idea of what the cost of living crisis is, and are also going to pay the extra - however crazy it might seem.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And from a legal perspective you are no doubt correct. But any business which operates on the basis of providing the legal minimum and no more, without consideration of the quality of service it provides won't succeed for long. A successful railway network needs to consider the quality of service it provides to customers and leaving customers standing for long periods when other seats are available is very bad service.
How do you propose the railway accounts for varying levels of traffic at off-peak times that varies based on the weather and large scale events (like people travelling to London to pay their respects to the Queen)? There will always be people standing on busy services, which is why the IC operators offer seat reservations. Even buying a flexible ticket doesn't stop you making a reservation, so surely there's some personal responsibility?
Sure, we've all had to travel at very short notice - but that's when you generally accept that if you suddenly need to jump on a long-distance train, you might end up sat in a vestibule.. or you might just decide to speak to the TM and upgrade to first or standard premium or whatever. At that point in time, your journey is so essential that you'll accept the consequences.
Clearly not enough people are driving, or else the trains would always have loads of seats.
I don't agree though that if, in this example, my iPhone 13 was delivered damaged, I should be entitled to an iPhone 13 Pro - I'd expect a repair of my iPhone 13, or a replacement. If you translate this to the railway, if they're "guaranteeing" you a seat like LNER specifically state, they're right to offer a refund if this isn't available. If they're not guaranteeing you a seat, and only a position on the train, then I'm not really sure what to say to you - everything has already been said in this thread but you don't seem to understand the point. It is logical, and you may not like it, but I'm not convinced that just opening up First Class is the answer.
And if they did not repair, replace or refund your phone, what would you expect then? Some form of an upgrade I would expect, or would you simply accept the damaged phone?
But frankly this isn't a complicated issue, it's trivial, there's a train with a load of seats, some in section A, some in section B. If there's too many people crammed into section A, then let some people sit in the empty seats in section B. The world won't end, the train company won't collapse, everything goes on as normal.
At the end of the day it comes down to customer service, how well a business treats and cares for the comfort of its customers.
How does that work for a walk-up ticket, or when your travel arrangements are flexible, when you don't know when your meeting will finish and which train you will be catching?
Possibly not getting a seat is an inevitable consequence of the flexibility of a walk-up railway, and heaven forbid that ever changes, because it is a major advantage of rail over competing forms of transport. The railway does actually know when its busy times are, and does attempt to provide for them, but there are practical, operational and financial limits on what can be done.
But which people?!! Maybe survival of the fittest, the Guard announces 'as this train is busy, Standard Class passengers may now sit in First Class', triggering a race to First, quite likely including some who did have a seat in Standard!
What I would concede is that elderly or infirm passengers unable to find a seat should be treated with compassion and offered seats in First, if available. Of course, younger and fitter passengers in Standard could offer to give up their seats, but that is something which rarely seems to happen these days.
What I would concede is that elderly or infirm passengers unable to find a seat should be treated with compassion and offered seats in First, if available.
So a free upgrade to first class for a group of deserving passengers, giving them a more enjoyable journey, releasing seats and space for the passengers in standard class making their journey better, making good use of empty seats and the free upgrade might even get a few of those passengers to consider travelling first class in future.
If you give standard class passengers the automatic right to user first class if the train is busy, at what point does this right end on a journey?
Take a Kings Cross to Aberdeen standard class passenger, on the cheapest tier advance, boarding a busy train, first stop Stevenage, with standard full and standing to the point he can't access his booked seat. Ok, self upgrades as per this thread, but when standard is all but empty after Peterborough, is he still entitled to his first class seat, or is he supposed to go back and check if he can now get into his original seat? Does that self upgrade allow him to travel all the way to the other end of the country, just because the first couple of stops were busy?
So a free upgrade to first class for a group of deserving passengers, giving them a more enjoyable journey, releasing seats and space for the passengers in standard class making their journey better, making good use of empty seats and the free upgrade might even get a few of those passengers to consider travelling first class in future.
How long before somebody here posts yet another rant about 'privileged pensioners'. It's bad enough now when an elderly or disabled passenger struggles to stand on a full train and the able-bodied look the other way with a 'not my problem,- I was here first' attitude. Imagine the tutter's whining at yet another privilege paid for by hard-working taxpayers!
I think a lot of people who propose abolishing first class find it unfair that it should be possible to pay extra to travel in a less crowded area with more space. This benefit is at its most valuable when the train is very busy - so in my opinion this is actually the most important time for it to be retained and enforced. This reinforces the value of first class tickets (which are more profitable to the railway) and encourages their purchase.
But is it really any different to a rail enthusiast using their knowledge and experience of quirks in the timetable to work out which trains will be quieter and seeking them out? Or travelling on an expensive "peak" train in the knowledge that there will be much more space than on the first "off-peak" train of the evening? In both those cases there is often a big inequality in space-per-passenger between different trains. So why is it such a problem that the inequality in space-per-passenger is allowed to exist within one train?
I think a lot of people who propose abolishing first class find it unfair that it should be possible to pay extra to travel in a less crowded area with more space. This benefit is at its most valuable when the train is very busy - so in my opinion this is actually the most important time for it to be retained and enforced. This reinforces the value of first class tickets (which are more profitable to the railway) and encourages their purchase.
But is it really any different to a rail enthusiast using their knowledge and experience of quirks in the timetable to work out which trains will be quieter and seeking them out? Or travelling on an expensive "peak" train in the knowledge that there will be much more space than on the first "off-peak" train of the evening? In both those cases there is often a big inequality in space-per-passenger between different trains. So why is it such a problem that the inequality in space-per-passenger is allowed to exist within one train?
The existence of first class is of no consequence to a standard class ticket holder if the train has plenty of vacant seats.
If the train is full then it is a personal comfort issue that encourages those that 'need' a seat to either book 1st class, or reserve a standard class seat (at no cost).
If the train is crush loaded such that some passengers cannot board, there is an impact that removing 1st class seating might improve although usually fairly marginal. Note, declassifying 1st class doesn't alter the capacity of the train.
So the matter is really one of the system's ultimate capacity. Once all trains are run at the longest length that the route can handle and at the maximum frequency, there is a decision to be made about removing 1st class altogether.
Once all trains are run at the longest length that the route can handle and at the maximum frequency, there is a decision to be made about removing 1st class altogether.
immediately for this train, by the difference between the std-1st excesses that must be refunded to the 1st class passengers, and the extra std fares paid by the passengers who couldn't previously board
more importantly (in my opinion) it devalues first class and makes those passengers who experienced the declassification less likely to buy a first class ticket in future. This one is much harder to measure and less tangible.
So again I say, if we follow your ideas to their logical conclusion, if all passengers need to have a seat then the only way will be for them to book a seat in advance, just like it is on National Express. Therefore you will have to book your ticket before you travel; now that could be a week before or it could be 10 minutes, but if there are no seats available then sorry sunshine you ain't travelling until there is a seat available, and that could be the next trainor it could be tomorrow.
So do you really want to promise EVERY pasenger a seat?
Be careful what you wish for!
We don't have to abolish first class, just rationalise it down so that everyone on 95% of journeys gets a seat, not a bay of 4 to themselves. There seems to be a sense of entitlement that all trains should waste two carriages on hauling fresh air around so half a dozen people don't have to sit vaguely near anyone at all. The "but you can just self-upgrade if you want a seat on a crowded train" argument appears not to apply in reality: I'm an avid user of Seatfrog and advance first, and I've never noticed the loading in standard affecting the loading in first at all.
And from a legal perspective you are no doubt correct. But any business which operates on the basis of providing the legal minimum and no more, without consideration of the quality of service it provides won't succeed for long. A successful railway network needs to consider the quality of service it provides to customers and leaving customers standing for long periods when other seats are available is very bad service.
If you visit a restaurant where the service is slow and the food is tasteless, the restaurant is still meeting its legal obligations, but you'd never go back. Many standard class train tickets cost considerable amounts of money, the idea that people could be expected to stand for long periods, receiving such a poor service for their money is bizarre.
The cost is minimised by providing the bare minimum, as in standard class travel. If you want anything else beyond getting carried from your origin to destination on time safely, please buy a first class ticket. The standard class is nicknamed cattle class not without reasons.
If I visit a restaurant where the service is slow and the food is tasteless, I will still go back if it is cheap enough, e.g. £5 for a set lunch.
If, by only providing the bare minimum in the standard class, the railway can operate at profit by pricing London - Edinburgh super off-peak walk ups at £20, I will support doing that. This is similar to how low-cost airlines operate. Why bother flying with British Airways when no-frill airlines can get me from London to Stockholm under £20? The sole purpose of public transport is just to carry mass of people from the origin to the destination, nothing else. If you want any extra, pay for it.
My opinion is that, 1st class should never be declassified unless standard class passengers are at risk of being left behind. 1st class should remain a premium product exclusively for the wealthy. The fare for standard class should be reduced, especially on long-distance routes, exaggerating the ticket price difference that a walk-up first class ticket costs at least 2x of the standard class one.
The main hassle of using a car is to find a parking space, and to find a charging point which allows you to stay long enough to get enough charge for the next segment of the journey.
If you own the car, there is an additional hassle of maintaining it in a roadworthy state as well.
If I visit a restaurant where the service is slow and the food is tasteless, I will still go back if it is cheap enough, e.g. £5 for a set lunch.
If, by only providing the bare minimum in the standard class, the railway can operate at profit by pricing London - Edinburgh super off-peak walk ups at £20, I will support doing that. This is similar to how low-cost airlines operate. Why bother flying with British Airways when no-frill airlines can get me from London to Stockholm under £20? The sole purpose of public transport is just to carry mass of people from the origin to the destination, nothing else. If you want any extra, pay for it.
And if the most expensive standard class ticket was £20 to £30 then your argument would have some merit, but when a standard class ticket can be approaching £100 or more, then the 'expect poor service because it's cheap' argument doesn't hold water because it is not cheap. When you reach those prices its reasonable to expect some basic level of service, like the railway company making some reasonable endeavors to ensure you have a seat.
My opinion is that, 1st class should never be declassified unless standard class passengers are at risk of being left behind. 1st class should remain a premium product exclusively for the wealthy. The fare for standard class should be reduced, especially on long-distance routes, exaggerating the ticket price difference that a walk-up first class ticket costs at least 2x of the standard class one.
I'd class myself as wealthy enough to afford first class but I'd not dress up for it. 'Exclusively for the wealthy' is a bizarre measure - and I'd love to know how you might attempt to enforce it?
My opinion is that, 1st class should never be declassified unless standard class passengers are at risk of being left behind. 1st class should remain a premium product exclusively for the wealthy. The fare for standard class should be reduced, especially on long-distance routes, exaggerating the ticket price difference that a walk-up first class ticket costs at least 2x of the standard class one.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
