Possibly - but that also depends on the willingness of people to pay more. What LNER shows, and will be seen as such by DfT, is that price rises do increase revenue rather than reducing it. They will therefore be reluctant to conclude that reductions will increase revenue.
Do you genuinely think that HM Treasury will give a tinkers?
And is therefore an entirely rational course of action for LNER management. Maximising profit (or minimising subsidy, which is the same thing) may not always be the priority for public policy, however.
Yes, I have always wondered as a northerner down south what is going on with the Network Railcard, the condition of entry of which seems to be being alive and able to board trains in the SE.
The revenue could have been covered by just not dropping the fare by quite as much as the railcard discount? That would probably be only a tiny difference of spread across all fares?
Apart from being almost 200 miles shorter than Penzance to Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is entirely within the validity of an English bus pass.
I can see the logic of that more though because of the highly competitive nature of the sector. Try and book somebody into just using your supermarket.
It is a bit of a silly extreme example, and I am not sure exactly what this proves? The number of passengers going from Wick to Stranraer must be very small indeed. Vanishingly small. People do not generally travel such distances, with such changes, by bus. I cannot imagine that those very few who make such a journey would go by bus. Only a minority of the population are motivated by saving money at every turn, and those travelling from Wick to Stranraer are hardly statistically reliable to base a theory on.
Entirely within the validity, but not within one day's journey, so intermediate accommodation costs have to be factored into the cost of making the trip. It is certainly going to be niche for most pass holders.
And, so long as we are clear about the difference between political and commercial arguments, that's fine - my issue is when a political choice is justified on commercial grounds that simply don't stack up.Well, that's always a good question
HM Treasury does often seem like a Government within a Government. That said, if a flagship policy was being damaged by Treasury intransigence, I would expect the PM's people to smack a few Treasury heads together. This is a Government that appears to need good news stories.
Price rises can reduce revenue if you price enough people off, price cuts can increase it if you attract enough.
As I've said previously, Governments have been willing to lose revenue for transport benefits.
It was called franchising.
I thought most things were pretty much set in stone within a franchise contract. So, for instance, if GNER had approached the DfT part way through the term of the franchise and said, we would like to get rid of flexible off-peak return tickets and replace them with a ticket that only allows flex one train either side of the booked one, they would have been told - no.
The only thing against that is I suspect per carriage loadings in the regions are probably higher throughout the day than in NSE land - as demand for available seats seems to be more even throughout the day than in the SE where it is massively underutilised outside peaks. I would still like to see it though!
And the 26-30 Railcard, Veterans Railcard, 16-17 Saver.
Not really. They were free to maximise revenue within the framework of regulated fares. This is where the aggressive marketing of Advance fares came from, and the extreme level of Anytime fares on the West Coast. And the logical extension of that freedom is removal of regulated fares as we see now on the East Coast route.
Yes it does feel a bit like that doesn’t it.
The problem is that the LNER approach, measured in terms of revenue, appears to be a winner. Whatever we think of it
It is not that logical, because the other moves were to increase choice. LNER’s is to restrict choice. It is fundamentally different, basically the opposite.
Are there figures that separate this out from other growth? It would be interesting to see what revenue increases they are attributing to which factors.
It is not that logical, because the other moves were to increase choice. LNER’s is to restrict choice. It is fundamentally different, basically the opposite.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Are there figures that separate this out from other growth? It would be interesting to see what revenue increases they are attributing to which factors.
That is not a problem either, it is just something else to be considered as part of the debate. It is a trial after all and I am sure passengers views are being carefully considered
I was under the impression that they were restricted to the holder's local authority, though perhaps this has changed at some point?
Zero, in fact, by rail - for the last three years. And probably also zero by bus.
Whether one likes it or not, it is a logical extension of maximising revenue. You may feel it restricts choice, but that a different matter.
+1 as its my local station!
It changed in 2008 in England with the introduction of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme.
The problem is that most people most of the time would only make local/regional rail journeys and so £100 would appear an excessive cost, especially when compared to the Network Railcard price.
