Abolishing peak and off peak fares?

[Bletchleyite]

The bizarre thing about the LNER thing is that it's allegedly turned out to be revenue neutral. So it must be putting some people off - either that or people (like me) who were buying walk-up off peaks by default have switched to buying Advances well in advance and paying less, bringing the average fare paid down. I don't see what's in the remotest bit positive about any of that - if it was bringing in more money I'd understand, but if it isn't what is the point other than Horne wishing he was CEO of an airline instead?

When you look at the fares on that they don't even seem to be particularly variable between trains other than that the slower ones are a bit cheaper (which Avanti also does, but simply by pricing the Advances on those down slightly, not removing the off peaks).

In short, it isn't really dynamically priced at all - it's a very fat-fingered and bodged attempt at yield management but not a good one at all.

 

[Bald Rick]

The bizarre thing about the LNER thing is that it's allegedly turned out to be revenue neutral.

Where have you heard that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where have you heard that?

There was a fairly lengthy article in Modern Railways about LNER a couple of months back in which Horne basically admitted such (in amongst a load of spin in which he still said it was wonderful as you might expect). I'd quote it but I tend not to keep them once I've finished reading them. It's been mentioned on the dedicated thread too.

 

[JamesT]

As I posted above, I would be in favour of removing this arbitrary distinction between peak/off-peak and the consequential rise in average fare.

The point I'm making is that the punitive anytime pricing doesn't necessarily reduce the demand, it mearly bunches it at a different time so other trains are overcrowded. It's proving a few poor load balancing mechanism.

As Bletchyrite says, LNER seem to view the market as very elastic and want to increase prices commensuratly on their leisure services.
But I don't think that's so true of the previously stable commuter market, which can choose to WFH, which days they do travel and flex the time at which they travel. Why pay 3x the price, if you can come in an hour later?

I imagine more people (like me) would choose to travel earlier if they weren't penalised for doing so; instead many commuters are cramming onto off-peak services.

As I say, my experience is some peak time trains are very lightly loaded - especially at the beginning and end of the week. I'm comparison, I'm regularly left on the platform or standing when catching the off-peak services.

I think this very much depends on where in the country you are.
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ays-in-major-cities-in-england-and-wales-2023 appears to be the most recent set of data comparing passenger numbers in the peak and off-peak.

An average of 1,137,800 rail passengers a day arrived into London city centre in autumn 2023. Of these, 45% (513,700) were during the AM peak. This ws higher than the equivalent figure outside London, suggesting commuter traffic plays a much larger role in the London metropolitan rail network than other cities in England and Wales.

and

In London, 24.9% of rail passengers were standing during the AM peak. This was 4.0 pp higher than the equivalent figure in autumn 2022. The station within London with the highest proportion of passengers standing during the AM peak was Liverpool Street with 39%, 4.0 pp higher than autumn 2022. The city with the highest proportion of passengers standing during the AM peak was Liverpool with 11.2%, 9.4 pp higher than autumn 2022 due to changes in capacity on Merseyrail services.

So especially for commuting into London, but to a lesser degree elsewhere, we have peak time services that are overloaded. And this is with the current carrot/stick of the higher peak time fares.

To be revenue neutral, that suggests a rather large increase in the offpeak price if you're no longer charging a peak rate. It also suggests some peak trains may get even more overcrowded as people are no longer put off by the peak fare.

I agree the peak/off-peak split is a very blunt tool, but how do you otherwise spread the load? Insert an intermediate level between peak and off-peak priced appropriately?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree the peak/off-peak split is a very blunt tool, but how do you otherwise spread the load? Insert an intermediate level between peak and off-peak priced appropriately?

You can smooth the peak with Advances. But TOCs seem to be surprisingly bad at it.

A third "business saver" level also works, GWR has that and LNER did until single fare pricing was introduced.

 

[crablab]

appears to be the most recent set of data comparing passenger numbers in the peak and off-peak.

Thanks for linking this data - I didn't know it existed.

Essentially, it disproves my assertions up thread. This graph is particularly illuminating:
Percentage of Passenger Arrivals and Departures by Hour, London stations

I would say that, looking at the comparisons, my experience (from Reading) is not representative of other railways into London (eg. SWR). I'm referring specifically to PIXC & % standing passengers.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would say that, looking at the comparisons, my experience (from Reading) is not representative of other railways into London (eg. SWR). I'm referring specifically to PIXC & % standing passengers.

Dont forget that from Reading you have a LOT more capacity into central London than you had in, say, 2018. Much, much higher capacity trains.

Elsewhere the peak is heaving. The lines I use in the peak are all now back to similar loadings to pre covid, albeit not consistently and with a narrower high peak, ie the trains are very busy (say) 0730-0830 rather than 0700-0900.

 

[43096]

Elsewhere the peak is heaving. The lines I use in the peak are all now back to similar loadings to pre covid, albeit not consistently and with a narrower high peak, ie the trains are very busy (say) 0730-0830 rather than 0700-0900.

What is capacity like compared to pre-Covid?

Round here, it’s heaving in the peak, but the peak service has gone from 4 x 10-car per hour to 2 x 8-car i.e. a 60% cut. So not surprising that it appears so busy!

 

[yorksrob]

I would agree with @Bald Rick that the peak is busy - in so far as my local half hour commute into Leeds is concerned.

What I'm not convinced about is that long distance and InterCity peak services are heaving. These are often the ones with silly peak fares where the TOC often says "don't worry about those - hardly anyone buys them anyway".

In those cases there's probably a case for one or a combination of the following - reduce peak fares, reduce the peak period, reduce peak days etc. This to make use of that expensively provided capacity.

 

[43066]

I would agree with @Bald Rick that the peak is busy - in so far as my local half hour commute into Leeds is concerned.

What I'm not convinced about is that long distance and InterCity peak services are heaving. These are often the ones with silly peak fares where the TOC often says "don't worry about those - hardly anyone buys them anyway".

In those cases there's probably a case for one or a combination of the following - reduce peak fares, reduce the peak period, reduce peak days etc. This to make use of that expensively provided capacity.

Ours IC peak services are heaving, anecdotally. The issue also is that short trains are used on many IC services, which makes them all the more crowded.

 

[yorksrob]

Ours IC peak services are heaving, anecdotally. The issue also is that short trains are used on many IC services, which makes them all the more crowded.

Admittedly short trains on IC services will distort things. Which bit of the railway is that out of interest ?

 

[43066]

Admittedly short trains on IC services will distort things. Which bit of the railway is that out of interest ?

Bedpan +

 

[yorksrob]

Bedpan +

Oh yes, well you can probably guess where I think that line's IC service went wrong !

 

[Doctor Fegg]

In those cases there's probably a case for one or a combination of the following - reduce peak fares, reduce the peak period, reduce peak days etc. This to make use of that expensively provided capacity.

Part time seasons (3+ days a week) pro rata with the full weekday season ticket price, but without weekend validity.

So if a weekly season is £50, price the three-day season around £30.

Then slim down peak services on Mondays/Fridays according to demand. (That would potentially mean fewer Sunday evening/Monday morning positioning movements, which would be a tidy saving in itself.)

It would need modelling, but my suspicion is that this would be revenue neutral or even slightly positive, and would help to alleviate crowding in the shoulder peak. But this is very much “the view from the Cotswolds” and other areas may have different patterns.

 

[Bald Rick]

There was a fairly lengthy article in Modern Railways about LNER a couple of months back in which Horne basically admitted such (in amongst a load of spin in which he still said it was wonderful as you might expect). I'd quote it but I tend not to keep them once I've finished reading them. It's been mentioned on the dedicated thread too.

I’ve dug it out (Dec 24 issue). There is no mention of the impact on revenue. What it said was:

“Market research suggests the new ticket has had little influence on traffic trends but what it has done is increase customer satisfaction, which is rated higher than on routes with conventional tickets.“ (my bold).

What that means is that (broadly) the same number of people are travelling, they are paying more and are happier. That is holy grail stuff for long distance travel.

 

[yorksrob]

I’ve dug it out (Dec 24 issue). There is no mention of the impact on revenue. What it said was:

“Market research suggests the new ticket has had little influence on traffic trends but what it has done is increase customer satisfaction, which is rated higher than on routes with conventional tickets.“ (my bold).

What that means is that (broadly) the same number of people are travelling, they are paying more and are happier. That is holy grail stuff for long distance travel.

"They" is a nebulous term. I don't doubt that the large bulk of advanced purchase travellers are happy with the added flexibility of the flex fare and will pay more for it.

Those of us who use the flexibility of off peak fares are not happy.

It needn't be a zero sum game. If all options including proper off peak were available, passengers would be even happier and pay even more.

(I'm an example of a long distance passenger who usually uses advanced purchase, but sometimes shells out for a long distance off peak ticket where I require the flexibility. I certainly will not shell out for this country's preposterous long distance anytime fares, so if this nonsense is rolled out across the country, the railway will certainly lose out on income from me).

 

[Bald Rick]

They" is a nebulous term. I don't doubt that the large bulk of advanced purchase travellers are happy with the added flexibility of the flex fare and will pay more for it.

Fair point, I should have said that, on average, passengers are paying more (more revenue) and better customer satisfaction (happier).

That is very definitely not a zero sum game, yes there will be some people who lose out, but it seems the number of people who win outweigh them. The railway can’t (and never has) pleased all the people all of the time.

 

[yorksrob]

Fair point, I should have said that, on average, passengers are paying more (more revenue) and better customer satisfaction (happier).

That is very definitely not a zero sum game, yes there will be some people who lose out, but it seems the number of people who win outweigh them. The railway can’t (and never has) pleased all the people all of the time.

It would be interesting to see LNER's numbers on this. Ultimately the railways are political, and the travelling public should be allowed to have a say on whether any increase in revenue is big enough to justify turning the IC railway into advanced purchase only (I ignore the ridiculous long distance anytime fares as these are an irrelevance for most people).

 

[crablab]

Dont forget that from Reading you have a LOT more capacity into central London than you had in, say, 2018. Much, much higher capacity trains.

I wasn't there in 2018, but yes :P

We also pay for that provision; £60 Anytime Day Return is quite pricey!

whether any increase in revenue is big enough to justify turning the IC railway into advanced purchase only

Any expansion beyond LNER would be quite public and, especially with the railways moving back into public ownership, presumably attract scrutiny in Parliament.
It'd also be difficult (if not impossible) to enforce on some routes - eg. Swindon/Reading/Oxford to Paddington

 

[yorksrob]

I wasn't there in 2018, but yes :P

We also pay for that provision; £60 Anytime Day Return is quite pricey!

Any expansion beyond LNER would require be quite public and, especially with the railways moving back into public ownership, presumably attract scrutiny in Parliament.
It'd also be difficult (if not impossible) to enforce on some routes - eg. Swindon/Reading/Oxford to Paddington

I hope so anything to kill the experiment off once and for all would be excellent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve dug it out (Dec 24 issue). There is no mention of the impact on revenue. What it said was:

It may not have been that article, then. I've definitely read one that said it hadn't increased revenue.

Obviously a survey of only those who are travelling is a faulty survey. You also want to survey those who are NOT travelling by train (at airports, motorway services and coach stations) to find out why, and I'd bet many are because it's too expensive.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I’ve dug it out (Dec 24 issue). There is no mention of the impact on revenue. What it said was:
“Market research suggests the new ticket has had little influence on traffic trends but what it has done is increase customer satisfaction, which is rated higher than on routes with conventional tickets.“ (my bold).
What that means is that (broadly) the same number of people are travelling, they are paying more and are happier. That is holy grail stuff for long distance travel.

I agree this implies the same number of people are travelling but it does not tell us whether they are paying more, the same or less or whether the revenue from these particular LNER services has increased, stayed the same or decreased. I do know of people who decided to travel by car instead of using these LNER services because they needed flexibility on the time of day they made their journeys so only the anytime tickets were suitable and they were too expensive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2025 ==

The LNER press release dated 16 January 2024 implied they believed removing affordable off peak fares and leaving the very expensive anytime fares of around £200 for each single journey between London Kings Cross and Newcastle Edinburgh and other stations as the only flexible fare with advance and sometimes 70 minute tickets as the only other option would encourage more people to choose to travel by rail. If the same number of people are using the services on which this applies it has not encouraged more people to choose to travel by rail.

LNER Launches Pioneering Pilot To Further Simplify Fares | LNER

LNER is proud to launch a new Simpler Fares pilot scheme for selected journeys along the East Coast route, further enhancing its customer experience.

www.lner.co.uk

We believe that making fares simpler, smarter, and fairer, while introducing value for money and modern flexibility, will encourage more people to choose to travel by rail

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2025 ==

The Government including HM Treasury and the Department for Transport and their staff and advisers and LNER and other train operating company managements have to understand that flexibility on the time of travel is essential for many journeys and has always been the reason for many journeys being made by rail. If they continue to block this for many long distance rail journeys by setting the anytime standard class fare at a level which rail passengers cannot or will not pay these journeys will instead be made by car or not made at all. The removed LNER off peak fares certainly need to be reinstated but there also needs to be a cap on the anytime standard class fare for any single journey made entirely by rail within Great Britain at a level which while encouraging rail passengers to travel at less busy times would also ensure that some rail passengers at least who either need total flexibility on the time of travel or have to travel at busy times are prepared to pay to make their journey by rail. Even setting this cap at £150 would amount to a substantial reduction on many long distance anytime standard class rail fares to a level which some rail passengers would be prepared to pay. It is not just LNER that has exorbitant anytime standard class class fares, other long distance rail journeys such as London to Manchester and Glasgow also have this though they at least still have off peak fares.