Abolishing peak and off peak fares?

[Doctor Fegg]

Ironically it was part of Avanti's franchise agreement to reduce those, but it got forgotten when COVID got in the way. I'm not sure how much by, though.

Was that definitely Avanti? I remember it as being a big thing in the Horizon Trains bid (First's previous attempt in 2012) but not with Avanti (2019).

 

[yorksrob]

You're not alone in having missed it.

I think that travelling around London it's probably easier to miss the difference. Travelling between London and the South Coast for example, the off/on peak differential will likely have much more of an effect on peoples travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that travelling around London it's probably easier to miss the difference. Travelling between London and the South Coast for example, the off/on peak differential will likely have much more of an effect on peoples travel.

Generally the differential is only large when it involves London. Elsewhere it's generally only a small uplift of no more than about 20% which is just a nudge to travel off peak if you can rather than totally pricing people off like the ludicrous Manchester-London Anytime fares.

 

[43066]

It is worth looking at why we have any distinction between peak and off peak fares.

This suggestion is a non starter for several reasons.

Assuming that you accept that rail travel a. isn’t intended to be free at the point of use, and b. has limited capacity, it seems arbitrary to object to the cost being used to drive market segmentation, which is desirable both to maximise revenue (thereby minimising net costs), and control demand at busy times. Hence why peak fares and cheap advance fares have a symbiotic relationship.

You can argue capacity should be increased but this costs a lot and takes a long time, and it will never be infinite, so you’ll still run into the same argument eventually.

It seems wrong to me that people who have to travel before 09.00 (even 09.30 or 10.00!) should have to pay more - after all these are usually people using the railway to get to work - an activity that should be encouraged.

This cuts both ways. If trains at peak times are full of leisure travellers, and those who could just as easily travel later, it’s likely that people needing to travel to work will end up being left on the platform. Hence the current arrangements actually prioritise business travellers and commuters (albeit they have to pay more for it).

 

[Haywain]

I think that travelling around London it's probably easier to miss the difference.

I was referring to the GTR Friday off-peak Experiment.

 

[yorksrob]

I was referring to the GTR Friday off-peak Experiment.

The peak fares on South Eastern certainly make me go "ouch" at the thought of using them, so if I lived down that way, I'd probably feel freer to travel when I liked without them.

 

[Haywain]

Generally the differential is only large when it involves London.

Exacerbated by the bar on using railcards in the morning peak in the south-east, meaning that peak fares are almost 3 times the off-peak fare.

 

[Magdalia]

The point being both that there are always multiple alternatives to the status quo in offer and that the latter isn't excused from arguing on its own behalf - in 1979, you may remember Jim Callaghan said he was taking his case to the country.

I do, and the country said not you.

In the 1980s the electorate was told there is no alternative, and in 1983 and 1987 they agreed.

On the ballot paper, were you only asked whether you wished the government to be returned?

No, but tactical voting enables electors to vote on whether they wish the government to be returned, even if that's not what is on the ballot paper, by voting for the candidate that they think has the best chance of defeating the incumbent. That's more relevant now than in 1979, when it really was a binary choice. Do you really think that the electors of South West Norfolk elected a Labour MP in 2024 because that was what they wanted, or that they voted that way to get rid of Liz Truss?

To get back to the point, in elections government's have to stand on their record, oppositions have to make a case for an alternative.

The record of separate peak and off peak fares is a good one, managing capacity and maximising revenue in the peaks, while attracting off peak customers with lower fares, making extra revenue where there is spare capacity. Like in the 1980s, there is no alternative.

 

[RT4038]

Perhaps. If it were affordable, would you be in favour?

Only to a point. As, of course, most transport undertakings do. Even in your much vaunted Japan capacity is only provided so far and (in their example) passengers are 'famously' crushed on rather than provide sufficient capacity to cope with the peaks. When this country was rich with infrastructure capital we also built lavishly for the peaks of traffic (the Great Central line to London for instance) . However, since those heady days (when infrastructure spending took priority over the welfare, well being and living standards of the ordinary people) we as a country (and many others of course) have decided to use more of our money on improving the ordinary persons lot and there is less available for capacity of infrastructure. We could choose to change our priority back of course, but good luck getting that through the electorate (the additional capacity building of HS2 is really well received.....) The question everywhere is how are the peaks spread and to what extent.

We don't have to be, though. The central point of this discussion seems to me to be an insistence by certain people on 'things can never get better' outside of utopia.

By all means consider what it may be like if 'things got better' but you'll have to consider how that is going to come about and what are the economic and social consequences of that? Next consideration is how likely this will be. What you can't have is the fruits of 'better' before the nuts and bolts of how 'better' came about.

Dual systems without integration are naturally going to create inefficiency, so it's very relevant.

In other words there aren't any, and this 'integration' is nothing but a buzzword for something other than resolving any capacity issues of railways vis a vis buses.

 

[Andover]

Assuming that you accept that rail travel a. isn’t intended to be free at the point of use, and b. has limited capacity

The latter is objective fact, the former a political question, so pretty different things. I'm unsure about a. as an ultimate goal, but obviously it's a long way off either way.

it seems arbitrary to object to the cost being used to drive market segmentation, which is desirable both to maximise revenue (thereby minimising net costs), and control demand at busy times.

On what grounds is it arbitrary? Whatever you think of them, there are, after all, plenty of more and of less insane ways of determining who needs to travel.

I do, and the country said not you.

And that's fair enough, I doubt it occurred to Labour not to mount a campaign in that election though.

Only to a point. As, of course, most transport undertakings do. Even in your much vaunted Japan capacity is only provided so far and (in their example) passengers are 'famously' crushed on rather than provide sufficient capacity to cope with the peaks. When this country was rich with infrastructure capital we also built lavishly for the peaks of traffic (the Great Central line to London for instance) . However, since those heady days (when infrastructure spending took priority over the welfare, well being and living standards of the ordinary people) we as a country (and many others of course) have decided to use more of our money on improving the ordinary persons lot and there is less available for capacity of infrastructure. We could choose to change our priority back of course, but good luck getting that through the electorate (the additional capacity building of HS2 is really well received.....)

Infrastructure spending very much affects the well-being of ordinary people - if you won't accept the railway, just ask the average motorist.

I'm also not sure - and I think we may have had genuine misunderstanding here - what about my comment on Japan could be described as much-vaunted. It's a transport system I don't know very closely, and some of what I've seen seemed off to me. Total privatisation with very limited subsidy should surely be something that the advocates of the true free market enjoy though, even if not caring about how good a result it actually produces?

In other words there aren't any, and this 'integration' is nothing but a buzzword for something other than resolving any capacity issues of railways vis a vis buses.

How exactly is fare integration a buzzword rather than a reasonably clearly defined concept? I notice the question of moving working hours and early morning fares wasn't addressed, by the way, and those actually might particularly benefit from it.

What you can't have is the fruits of 'better' before the nuts and bolts of how 'better' came about.

Fully agreed. Of course, as you say, it depends what you mean by better.

 

[SynthD]

I knew they'd done something along those lines, but wasn't aware they'd stopped it (I don't really look at fares on TfL beyond tapping my oyster card).

If even you, someone who works hard to bring awareness to cheaper fares and incorrect choices by passengers and staff, did not notice then is it really worth trying again?

Encourage staggered working hours. Mandate transport integration, to remove absurd situations where, particularly in the peak, people clog up buses or trains when common sense would demand they be on the opposite.

That could be done now, but isn’t. It is a change to society, not rail operation or ticketing.

 

[The exile]

Notably Germany does I think have some level of differential flexible fare pricing, I think different days of the week can vary in price, but the price doesn't vary by time of day - the main thing people find confusing about our fare system.

The VRR (Rhein Ruhr transport authority) certainly had pre- and post-9 am pricing when I was a resident - mind you, that’s now 25 years ago.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

Because while I wouldn't advocate that last one, it's a fact of life that many other countries - the vast majority, if you consider genuine intercity networks rather than metropolitan ones - manage, in various ways, without peak fares (plenty still have Advance-equivalents, of course), and there's far too much variety in there to argue that Britain is just different.

In how many of those countries do those “genuine intercity networks” also function as commuter networks? Partly a railway problem for not providing regional alternatives (try commuting from Chippenham for example without using an “intercity” train) but also socio-economic because of the London property market making 100-150 mile commutes the lesser of two evils.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The VRR (Rhein Ruhr transport authority) certainly had pre- and post-9 am pricing when I was a resident - mind you, that’s now 25 years ago.

Ah yes, that's fairly common. Usually just differential day ticket pricing, though some have post-9am-only "leisure season tickets" (Merseytravel used to have that too) and singles.

In how many of those countries do those “genuine intercity networks” also function as commuter networks? Partly a railway problem for not providing regional alternatives (try commuting from Chippenham for example without using an “intercity” train) but also socio-economic because of the London property market making 100-150 mile commutes the lesser of two evils.

In Germany where they do the IC runs as a RB/RE for the commuter section and sits under the regional fares structure, though there aren't many such cases. The one I remember is the through Hamburg-Berchtesgaden IC which is a RB/RE* past Freilassing (or was). A GWR example might be that the Penzance might run as IC/ICE to Plymouth but as RE thereafter.

But as you say commuting of that sort of long distance really is unusual in other countries because they don't quite have the same ludicrous urban property prices. Places that do, such as New York and to an extent Paris, have the same sort of problems - people certainly do for instance commute on the Normandie Intercites services.

* RE, despite meaning RegionalExpress, can be an all-stations stopper - it's used to designate non-S-Bahn regional trains which form part of a Takt** as well as those that don't stop everywhere. There are REs that serve all stations, and RBs that don't. Confused much?

** No single word translation, but essentially "clockface standard pattern timetable with planned connections" describes it.

 

[yorksrob]

If even you, someone who works hard to bring awareness to cheaper fares and incorrect choices by passengers and staff, did not notice then is it really worth trying again?

I think it's more a function of short distance travel in an urban area being less of a "comparison good". You tap in and out, a couple of quid each time - eventually you should reach a cap (although I never seem to).

When I'm looking at a regional journey where even a day trip within Yorkshire can be over fifty pounds (as an example), the peak differential as well as other things such as missing cheap day returns are very very noticeable and affect my choice of what I do.

 

[RT4038]

Infrastructure spending very much affects the well-being of ordinary people - if you won't accept the railway, just ask the average motorist.

I never said it didn't. We do not do infrastructure spending to deal with peaks of demand on roads any more than we do on railways. There is finite amounts of money available to be spent, and our priority has not been spending on building infrastructure to cope with peak demand. We try to flatten out the peaks somehow and to some degree. One of the ways to do this is to apply peak pricing (railways, airlines), another is queues (road system).

How exactly is fare integration a buzzword rather than a reasonably clearly defined concept? I notice the question of moving working hours and early morning fares wasn't addressed, by the way, and those actually might particularly benefit from it.

Very early morning cheaper fares would be a way of spreading the peak. It has been done on my local line, to varying degrees, for quite some years. It does make the product more complicated, but could well be refined for the future. The current peak charging system is a bit blunt.
In the context of railway peaks and your 'absurd situations where, particularly in the peak, people clog up buses or trains when common sense would demand they be on the opposite' you have been unable to give any examples of people clogging up trains when 'integration' would have them go by bus. (Except possibly in the instance where there shouldn't be trains running at all in some rural areas?) Integration is mainly used as a 'buzzword' which really means cheaper fares for those using two different modes (or in the case of buses only one mode); and to somehow encourage 'modal shift' thereby potentially increasing the overcrowding. That is not to say that integtration would not be a nice thing, just that it would not relieve railway peak overcrowding anywhere, except the possibility of moving trains away from lightly used lines to bolster the overcrowded ones perhaps.

 

[43066]

The latter is objective fact, the former a political question, so pretty different things.

They are, but neither are likely to change anytime soon.

On what grounds is it arbitrary? Whatever you think of them, there are, after all, plenty of more and of less insane ways of determining who needs to travel.

Because if it’s “fair” to charge for the service, thus inevitably preventing some people from using it, why is it somehow “unfair” to also use pricing to segment the market?

Why other methods do you have in mind - train tickets allocated by lottery?! I can’t think of many (or even any) methods that will work better than pricing to segment the market and manage demand, thereby ensuring the railway remains useful to the various groups who wish to benefit from it, while also minimising cost (to the taxpayer). That’s probably why price is the method used to achieve this by all sorts of businesses worldwide.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that there are possibly two types of "peak" that we are considering here.

There's the "peak" that exists to spread the load from genuinely crowded commuter services.

Then there's the other type of "peak" that enables train providers to cart around fresh air in order to attract expense account man, whilst pushing people onto the more crowded "off peak" trains.

Needless to say, it's the second type of "peak" that needs substantial reform.

 

[crablab]

What if we did peak pricing the other way around? Instead of the default being Anytime and Off Peak being an exception, making the default assumption 'you can catch any train' except this short list of absolutely rammed services that require a supplement to travel on.

As @yorksrob says, 'peak' trains carting around fresh air (which many of the ones I observe do!) not only aren't earning money, but also make a mockery of the 'we have to charge extra to provide peak capacity' argument. If the capacity isn't being fully utilised during peak hours, the demand isn't being managed effectively and the additional peak fares are being wasted.

As I've said above, this is one of my principal objections. 'Peak' and 'Off-Peak' is too arbitrary and fails to account for changing travel patterns.

Anecdata: I simply don't take peak time trains, as there is no benefit to me paying over 2x extra to be in the office an hour earlier. Instead of sitting in an empty carriage at 7am, I sit in the vestibule of the first off-peak service. From this thread, I understand this apparently the optimal load spreading outcome the railway wants??!

 

[43066]

Instead of sitting in an empty carriage at 7am

There are very few empty carriages at 0700 in my neck of the woods. And the non-empty ones are getting steadily busier. It isn’t 2020 anymore!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've said above, this is one of my principal objections. 'Peak' and 'Off-Peak' is too arbitrary and fails to account for changing travel patterns.

That's LNER's argument, though if you look at the fares they look suspiciously traditionally peaky to me, just in Advance form.

 

[crablab]

That's LNER's argument, though if you look at the fares they look suspiciously traditionally peaky to me, just in Advance form.

Well, it may be the same root cause but I'm definitely not saying we should get rid of the walk up railway!
And I agree with your assessment of their fares

 

[Indigo Soup]

Then there's the other type of "peak" that enables train providers to cart around fresh air in order to attract expense account man, whilst pushing people onto the more crowded "off peak" trains.

These days, Expense Account Man - and I am that man sometimes - is often under closer financial scrutiny than the general public! I think there's an argument that some of the Advance fares priced three buttons under the Anytime are mostly there because of companies insisting that the cheapest fare must always be used.

 

[yorksrob]

These days, Expense Account Man - and I am that man sometimes - is often under closer financial scrutiny than the general public! I think there's an argument that some of the Advance fares priced three buttons under the Anytime are mostly there because of companies insisting that the cheapest fare must always be used.

Indeed. We've always had similar requirements. I expect the fresh air trains are even emptier now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These days, Expense Account Man - and I am that man sometimes - is often under closer financial scrutiny than the general public! I think there's an argument that some of the Advance fares priced three buttons under the Anytime are mostly there because of companies insisting that the cheapest fare must always be used.

That and because the TOC gets to keep it all.

Standard Premium is called that because it's not "first class" and thus gets under some "no first class" policies. Eurostar were first at that particular piece of dishonesty, but most expense policies are now catching up and requiring either the cheapest ticket or the cheapest class of travel (using that wording).

 

[williamn]

I travel regularly from Lewes to London. Super off peak, with a railcard a day return costs £15.95 and the trains are usually busy and often very busy mid to late morning.

Whenever I travel in the ‘rush’ hour, where a day return can cost £50 or more, the train, like my 06.18 today, is mostly empty. Most bays of four had just one person in them today.

Similarly on the ‘peak’ 08.33 from London to Manchester I’m sitting on. My one way ticket, using a split at Stafford, has cost £105. Yet the train is almost empty.

Why aren’t train companies or the DfT doing more to incentivise travel on services so lightly loaded?

 

[redreni]

They do on some routes and flows. Arguably not enough. The preferred mechanism for this seems to be Advances, rather than trying to mess around with peak / off-peak / super off-peak restrictions to more closely reflect demand.

The problem with this is pricing of Advances is calibrated to maximise yield and prevent overcrowding, rather than necessarily to try to utilise spare capacity (as a responsible public sector operator might be mandated to do, in an ideal world).

Where trains on which off-peak or super off-peak tickets can be used are overcrowded, I certainly wouldn't advocate complaining about it because such complaints only embolden the industry and government to do more quickly what they want to do anyway, and have started to do on the East Coast Mainline, namely to withdraw the cheapest walk-up fares.

 

[Magdalia]

I travel regularly from Lewes to London. Super off peak, with a railcard a day return costs £15.95 and the trains are usually busy and often very busy mid to late morning.

Whenever I travel in the ‘rush’ hour, where a day return can cost £50 or more, the train, like my 06.18 today, is mostly empty. Most bays of four had just one person in them today.

You provide the answer to your own question.

To maximise revenue, it is better to have 1 person paying £50 than 3 people paying £15.95, which only adds up to £47.85.

 

[williamn]

You provide the answer to your own question.

To maximise revenue, it is better to have 1 person paying £50 than 3 people paying £15.95, which only adds up to £47.85.

Adding a limited number of advance fares to services like the ones I mentioned would only increase income though presumably?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Adding a limited number of advance fares to services like the ones I mentioned would only increase income though presumably?

Northern certainly quite happily release often quite cheap Advances on services like these. I'd be interested to know how many commuters bother buying them - most probably use season tickets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Northern certainly quite happily release often quite cheap Advances on services like these.

Only sometimes, though. I don't see too many advances out of Leeds or Manchester at 5pm, though I may be looking in the wrong place.

Why aren’t train companies or the DfT doing more to incentivise travel on services so lightly loaded?

Yield management.

One fellow paying £195 for a single from Newcastle to London is better than two people each paying £95.

It's why the DfT are so keen to abolish walk-up off-peak fares, as we see on LNER.