Harper confirms GBR to go ahead

[geoffk]

"maximising competition” - “a guiding mind to coordinate the entire network”. Are we going to have competition or co-ordination? I would rather just have the latter, a unified railway with no single-operator tickets (apart from advances). Let's hope costs can be reduced by doing away with much of the duplication and inefficiency built into the old franchised system.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I spent a good ten minutes today trying to explain to a friend the difference between GBR and GBRf!

 

[Facing Back]

Demand-based pricing tends to result in headline-grabbing high fares that then create the public image that travelling by train is unaffordable.

I would be interested the background for this. Any examples? The Avanti anytime first return from Manchester to London costs about the same as a small car already.

 

[KGX]

Could be a real benefit to the travel experience if they push LNER to demand based pricing. They might actually be able to manage loads across their high frequency service, instead of having people sitting on the floor with a train full of super off-peak tickets.

 

[Skymonster]

Its another step closer to reservation only intercity travel like on the continent....

Somehow I don’t see that as a foregone conclusion. The industry still makes good money from business travellers who travel on open tickets who currently may sometimes have to stand for at least a part of longer distance journey because they haven’t reserved a seat and just want turn up and go when they’re ready. If these customers aren’t allowed to board because it’s reservation only and they can’t get a reservation at short notice because all seats have been reserved, they may well not bother with the train - or they’ll suck up the need to commit in advance, potentially paying less for a ticket in the process. The railway would then potentially be alienating or reducing take from some of its most profitable customers, not something that should really be done when when the government‘s aim is to reduce the industry’s cost to the taxpayer.

 

[Iskra]

I am - expecting it to be more expensive (see below)…



Indeed…

During the speech, he said:


Now in my mind there’s only two ways of making the railway more financially sustainable - you either grow revenue (more precisely, margin rather than revenue), or you cut costs. Right now, it seems unlikely the unions are going to accept much cost cutting. And while there are other cost-saving avenues to exploit, staffing is a large part of the railway’s ongoing costs. That means increasing margin is going to have to carry a fair bit of the burden. You do that by growing the profitable customer base, and/or asking the customer to pay more. Do we really believe the operational cost of the railway can become acceptably sustainable just by growing the customer base (i.e. increasing ridership)? I don’t. I’m pretty confident that while there will be winners and losers when it comes to comparing fares now to those innthisnbrave new world, the latter will be in the majority.

If you price your customers out of the railway, revenue will drop, requiring more cuts. The railway is the least essential it has ever been to its customers. The union gravy train days are over, but a few people are yet to realise that yet.

 

[KGX]

Somehow I don’t see that as a foregone conclusion. The industry still makes good money from business travellers who travel on open tickets who currently may sometimes have to stand for at least a part of longer distance journey because they haven’t reserved a seat and just want turn up and go when they’re ready. If these customers aren’t allowed to board because it’s reservation only and they can’t get a reservation at short notice because all seats have been reserved, they may well not bother with the train - or they’ll suck up the need to commit in advance, potentially paying less for a ticket in the process. The railway would then potentially be alienating or reducing take from some of its most profitable customers, not something that should really be done when when the government‘s aim is to reduce the industry’s cost to the taxpayer.

Or you offer a system/tech that facilitates easy on the day amendments. Problem solved from the customer point of view.

 

[Iskra]

But that's my point! It doesn't matter if no actual passengers are paying them, headline-grabbing high fares drive potential passengers away from the railway.

Okay I see what you mean now, but I think you phrased it slightly confusingly originally.

 

[Andrew1395]

British Rail managed the railway in a financially stable way. With Freight, Inter City and Network South East turning out annual operating profits. Not sure what the percentage of its total budget was made up of public grant and subsidy. But an overall, Corporate, controlling mind with commercial freedoms within its business-sectors was a model that delivered a financially stable (but always under Treasury threat) industry. Whether you think it was a model that was delivering the best for customers, employees and the tax payer is another matter. As is, could such a model deliver similar outcomes in 2023 that was achieved in 1993.

As an aside was the commitment to GBR to implement enabling legislation before November 2024?

 

[Iskra]

British Rail managed the railway in a financially stable way. With Freight, Inter City and Network South East turning out annual operating profits. Not sure what the percentage of its total budget was made up of public grant and subsidy. But an overall, Corporate, controlling mind with commercial freedoms within its business-sectors was a model that delivered a financially stable (but always under Treasury threat) industry. Whether you think it was a model that was delivering the best for customers, employees and the tax payer is another matter. As is, could such a model deliver similar outcomes in 2023 that was achieved in 1993.

As an aside was the commitment to GBR to implement enabling legislation before November 2024?

Pretty sure BR had to ask for additional subsidy in the wake of the failed Modernisation Plan…

 

[Skymonster]

Or you offer a system/tech that facilitates easy on the day amendments. Problem solved from the customer point of view.

Not really, if a train is reservation-only no tech is going to allow more people on than there is seating capacity available for. Unless of course it becomes possible to reserve occupying the vestibule floor or a standing space in the aisle. Plenty of intercity trains still depart full and standing at peak times. Some people, particularly those who buy higher walk-on / anytime / flexible fares, want to be able to travel when they choose / need to and an all-reservation railway would preclude that when it’s “full” (i.e. all seats reserved but when space is still effectively available to those prepared to stand for at least part of the journey). If people need to be flexible but know there is potential for them not to be allowed to travel when they need to, they will opt for other means of transport or accept the restrictions associated with trading down to a cheaper fare that lacks flexibility. Either way, it risks reducing revenue take from such customers.

 

[Facing Back]

Somehow I don’t see that as a foregone conclusion. The industry still makes good money from business travellers who travel on open tickets who currently may sometimes have to stand for at least a part of longer distance journey because they haven’t reserved a seat and just want turn up and go when they’re ready. If these customers aren’t allowed to board because it’s reservation only and they can’t get a reservation at short notice because all seats have been reserved, they may well not bother with the train - or they’ll suck up the need to commit in advance, potentially paying less for a ticket in the process. The railway would then potentially be alienating or reducing take from some of its most profitable customers, not something that should really be done when when the government‘s aim is to reduce the industry’s cost to the taxpayer.

I agree. Fixing your outward leg is one thing, fixing your return leg is rather harder. Unless we see an advance in ticketing systems where you can get a reservation a few minutes ahead of the train you want to catch or even at the station there will be a demand for walk on tickets. Flexibility is important to many and we pay a premium for it but that doesn't mean we can't find cleverer ways to provide it.

If I knew a certain train was full of confirmed reservations (bearing in mind that at the moment a great number of people do not travel on the train they have a reservation for) and therefore I would be standing, I would arrange to be at the station for a different train - most of the time

 

[ashkeba]

Because there still will be Anytime and a cheaper more restrictive alternative (let’s call that Off-Peak for simplicity…)

So is Super Off Peak being abolished?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or you offer a system/tech that facilitates easy on the day amendments. Problem solved from the customer point of view.

Binning the admin fee would make me considerably more likely to use Advances.

 

[45669]

That's true tbf...

No it's not! When I go up to London I normally buy a One Day Travelcard. That get me to Waterloo and I can then travel all over London, trains, buses and trams, as long as I don't stray beyond Zone 6. All one one paper ticket.

 

[Skymonster]

But that's my point! It doesn't matter if no actual passengers are paying them, headline-grabbing high fares drive potential passengers away from the railway.

Only in the odd newspaper headline. I’ve never seen a TOC advertising its most expensive fare options, and it won’t happen in the future - the cheapest fares will be promoted and those will for the most part garner the greatest public attention, except on odd occasions when a tabloid editor fancies a whinge about the railway.

 

[Hadders]

Demand based pricing concerns me because it indicates a further shift towards Advance fares.

Single leg pricing is potentially attractive but not if it means the cost of making a returnn journey increases. LNER abolished off peak fares during their trial leaving just SUper Off Peak and Anytime. This meant that passengers who previously used an Off Peak ticket ended up paying more.

Combine the comment about making the railway less ress reliant on the taxpayer along with the rail industry's poor historical record on fares reform and I fear for what the future will look like. I can see a day when on long distance services the only tickets will be Advance and Anytime.

 

[KGX]

Not really, if a train is reservation-only no tech is going to allow more people on than there is seating capacity available for. Unless of course it becomes possible to reserve occupying the vestibule floor or a standing space in the aisle. Plenty of intercity trains still depart full and standing at peak times. Some people, particularly those who buy higher walk-on / anytime / flexible fares, want to be able to travel when they choose / need to and an all-reservation railway would preclude that when it’s “full” (i.e. all seats reserved but when space is still effectively available to those prepared to stand for at least part of the journey). If people need to be flexible but know there is potential for them not to be allowed to travel when they need to, they will opt for other means of transport or accept the restrictions associated with trading down to a cheaper fare that lacks flexibility. Either way, it risks reducing revenue take from such customers.

Disagree. Firstly, the tech will signpost the availability and manage loads more effectively. Some people may be happy to wait a couple of hours longer and get a seat. Secondly, you can still offer standing capacity with such a system. The difference is that you are now managing the expectations of the customer by making them aware that, if they choose to amend, they are standing. Current system creates high expectations and disappointing delivery if the train is full. Ultimately if the train is full, those flexible fares aren't getting a seat regardless. Far better to make people aware of that before they board. The mindset then changes & people are grateful to be travelling. In my experience.
This is regarding long distance operators.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ticketing changes seems to be the majority of the last 90 posts but Harper also made competition and more open access operators a key plank of reform

Open access operators will play an important role in the industry’s future, especially as we grow new markets and make best use of spare capacity on the network

That will be interesting given how NR frustrates many requests for paths ie Grand Union service into Wales

 

[Jimini]

So is Super Off Peak being abolished?

Avanti have already done this, sadly.

 

[eldomtom2]

Only in the odd newspaper headline. I’ve never seen a TOC advertising its most expensive fare options, and it won’t happen in the future - the cheapest fares will be promoted and those will for the most part garner the greatest public attention, except on odd occasions when a tabloid editor fancies a whinge about the railway.

Of course the TOCs don't promote them. But I think you're underestimating the reach of things like the semi-recent blowup of train vs. plane fares around COP27, or someone uninitiated in the ticketing system telling a friend "I tried to take the train but it was just too expensive".

Ask people why they don't use the railway., and the number one reason you'll hear is "it's too expensive".

 

[Facing Back]

Now in my mind there’s only two ways of making the railway more financially sustainable - you either grow revenue (more precisely, margin rather than revenue), or you cut costs. Right now, it seems unlikely the unions are going to accept much cost cutting. And while there are other cost-saving avenues to exploit, staffing is a large part of the railway’s ongoing costs. That means increasing margin is going to have to carry a fair bit of the burden. You do that by growing the profitable customer base, and/or asking the customer to pay more. Do we really believe the operational cost of the railway can become acceptably sustainable just by growing the customer base (i.e. increasing ridership)? I don’t. I’m pretty confident that while there will be winners and losers when it comes to comparing fares now to those innthisnbrave new world, the latter will be in the majority.

None of the options are especially palatable - depending on your perspective.

The government seems quite determined to remove cost despite the objections of the unions. There has been plenty of discussion on this so I'm not going to risk getting the thread closed by discussing it now, however I don't think we know how this will end up.

We can increase revenue/margin (they are not interchangeable) with fuller trains. You can increase revenue further potentially with more trains as long as they full. Part of Harper's statement was about getting better value from the NR estate - this I want to see.

Other options are increasing subsidy, increasing fares or cutting unprofitable routes. None of which I want to see happen.

I do agree that there will inevitably been winners and losers will any change of this scope.

 

[Fazaar1889]

No it's not! When I go up to London I normally buy a One Day Travelcard. That get me to Waterloo and I can then travel all over London, trains, buses and trams, as long as I don't stray beyond Zone 6. All one one paper ticket.

Ah fair enough. My dad hates technology and does the same

 

[Facing Back]

Ticketing changes seems to be the majority of the last 90 posts but Harper also made competition and more open access operators a key plank of reform


That will be interesting given how NR frustrates many requests for paths ie Grand Union service into Wales

good point

 

[Skymonster]

LNER abolished off peak fares during their trial leaving just SUper Off Peak and Anytime. This meant that passengers who previously used an Off Peak ticket ended up paying more.

Yep. And, when the full details of the proposed reforms become available, this is the sort of issue those campaigners who prefer the status quo to remain should be attempting to raise in public awareness.

I can see a day when on long distance services the only tickets will be Advance and Anytime.

Yes, I see this as a much more likely outcome than an all-reservations intercity railway.

 

[KGX]

Binning the admin fee would make me considerably more likely to use Advances.

Agree. That needs to go. Its suspension during covid switched me over to more advances.

 

[Howardh]

Ask people why they don't use the railway., and the number one reason you'll hear is "it's too expensive".

Or/and the ticketing system so darned complicated they can't find...or even know how to find...the cheapest fare?

 

[physics34]

Theres not a huge amount of detail in there, or dates or deadlines? I suggest that with an election next year, it will all change again anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

That will be interesting given how NR frustrates many requests for paths ie Grand Union service into Wales

and the ORR too.

 

[Llandudno]

As ever the devil will be in the detail, but

With the possible introduction of ‘Demand Pricing’ it hopefully should lead to cheaper contra-flow peak fares..?