Lack of Advances on lightly loaded trains

[njamescouk]

There are times when this is absolutely right I am sure. But the context of the OP's post makes it pretty clear that it isn't an overstatement here. Lots of the big corporate employers are reluctant to have highly paid staff travel nowadays because it takes so much of their time up that, it's assumed, could be spent generating revenue. However they will still allow occasional travel in recognition of the benefit. Either way we still have a small but significant portion of rail journeys being made for business, around 10%.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2025 ==


Indeed. It seems clear with hindsight that Major's motivations had essentially nothing to do with the claimed benefits like cost reduction.

privatisation was always a racket, in hindsight the scale of it was breathtaking: public subsidy pre was a billion, the year after 2 billion.

 

[JonathanH]

privatisation was always a racket, in hindsight the scale of it was breathtaking: public subsidy pre was a billion, the year after 2 billion.

I don't think it has all been profit to the privatised railway operators though. A huge amount of additional spending is on staff wages, infrastructure maintenance and new rolling stock.

A lot of the increase in advance fares and reduction in availability of the cheapest fares is a fairly recent development.

 

[Sonic1234]

A lot of the increase in advance fares and reduction in availability of the cheapest fares is a fairly recent development.

Indeed, it's a post-COVID thing which is ongoing. Used to be some very cheap Advances available. Although the aftermath of COVID did mean cheap Advances appeared on commuter operators, which in some cases are now being withdrawn or increased in price.

Looks like the TOCs have been instructed to find out how much people are willing to pay, hence messing around with quotas etc (I'm looking at GWR, the lower tiers are in the data but rarely offered now). They have a living lab, they can not offer certain tiers and see what happens to sales and revenue. If they get it wrong, reinstate them in the future.

 

[PeterC]

I would say into London is the dominant flow. However, there is plenty of demand to travel out of London in the morning peak. It is a city of 8 million people with lots doing plenty outside of London work wise and for other reasons. Thousands will take to the roads every morning to travel up the M1 and A1. LNER could likely fill all of those trains if they charged the right price.

The trouble is that to reach the LNER train you first need to haul your luggage into central London on a crowded rush hour train.

 

[35B]

The trouble is that to reach the LNER train you first need to haul your luggage into central London on a crowded rush hour train.

I used to be a regular on the 6:15 out of Kings Cross, traveling from Grantham to Newcastle. It was never busy, and colleagues who caught it from London hated it. I occasionally observed the following two trains, and they were little better - I strongly suspect because of the London rush hour effect.

 

[Haywain]

The trouble is that to reach the LNER train you first need to haul your luggage into central London on a crowded rush hour train.

And pay the relevant fare, which can be surprisingly punitive if you are starting 30 or 40 miles out of London.

 

[modernrail]

And pay the relevant fare, which can be surprisingly punitive if you are starting 30 or 40 miles out of London.

Most people using early trains for work purposes don’t have huge amounts of luggage. Plus the corresponding inward trains tend to be a bit quieter as well as they are not in the super peak.

Agree the inward fare is also a problem though.

I have a colleague in Tunbridge Wells who notionally draws the short straw on the very early start, but his employer won’t sign off the peak fares (the arrangement on this job is the rail fares are part of the overall fee, they can’t be charged through to the client). They will sign off off peak plus a hotel. It’s a bit odd but not the only example I know of in policies. They also have a hotel deal which gives them the feeling of more control over this cost.

He would much rather take the early hit as he has a young family and doesn’t like to do nights away.

I have a friend who lives in the north works for a major and very wealthy IT firm who regularly impose travel bans on peak fares into/out of London. They literally do it as a response to their quarterly running revenue figures as they are so obsessed with quarterly results.

I also know of two law firms that don’t allow their people to travel on peak fares more than once a quarter on a particular job. The client has refused to allow them and says the law firm should stand the cost as BD. The law firms, whilst valuing the in person interaction, isn’t willing to let partners drawings leak into railway revenue at peak prices.

I suspect there is a huge amount of suppressed demand due to similar situations. That is before you take into account leisure demand - people wanting to start day trips early etc.

My personal view is that if you board an empty or half empty intercity train in the UK at peak times, your heart should sink. It means you are living in a country that is not remotely firing on all cylinders, one of those cylinders being its intercity rail network.

The fact that this is such a major source of national conversation should also worry people. It is a continual distraction from getting on with the job. I have personally spent hours trying to thread a reasonably priced journey through the peak, and trying to coordinate that threading with others trying to do the same to make an in-person meeting happen is a pain in the rear.

 

[Starmill]

It's always worth putting Tunbridge Wells to Leeds (or wherever) into Trainsplit a couple of days before as you may be pleasantly surprised sometimes - I would select Fast first and then compare the cheapest option on that tab to the reccomended option on the Value tab. Of course, this entirely falls apart if the policy is so rigid that non-refundable hotel rates are used to save an extra 10% or whatever, or the same goes for permitting a Trainsplit invoice to be expensed which is sometimes forbidden in favour of the awful evolvi-powered corporate booking service.

If client meetings are on Mondays you can often get good deals. Obviously I accept a lot of clients will not agree to meet at 1000 on a Monday, or whatever.

Random example this coming Tuesday is a Tunbridge Wells to Leeds Advance departing 0517 and arriving 0914 for £125. Costly, yes, but could represent value for money vs a hotel if the preference is to be at home on Monday evening. First Class is available at only £50 more.

 

[35B]

Most people using early trains for work purposes don’t have huge amounts of luggage. Plus the corresponding inward trains tend to be a bit quieter as well as they are not in the super peak.

Agree the inward fare is also a problem though.

I have a colleague in Tunbridge Wells who notionally draws the short straw on the very early start, but his employer won’t sign off the peak fares (the arrangement on this job is the rail fares are part of the overall fee, they can’t be charged through to the client). They will sign off off peak plus a hotel. It’s a bit odd but not the only example I know of in policies. They also have a hotel deal which gives them the feeling of more control over this cost.

He would much rather take the early hit as he has a young family and doesn’t like to do nights away.

I have a friend who lives in the north works for a major and very wealthy IT firm who regularly impose travel bans on peak fares into/out of London. They literally do it as a response to their quarterly running revenue figures as they are so obsessed with quarterly results.

I also know of two law firms that don’t allow their people to travel on peak fares more than once a quarter on a particular job. The client has refused to allow them and says the law firm should stand the cost as BD. The law firms, whilst valuing the in person interaction, isn’t willing to let partners drawings leak into railway revenue at peak prices.

I suspect there is a huge amount of suppressed demand due to similar situations. That is before you take into account leisure demand - people wanting to start day trips early etc.

My personal view is that if you board an empty or half empty intercity train in the UK at peak times, your heart should sink. It means you are living in a country that is not remotely firing on all cylinders, one of those cylinders being its intercity rail network.

The fact that this is such a major source of national conversation should also worry people. It is a continual distraction from getting on with the job. I have personally spent hours trying to thread a reasonably priced journey through the peak, and trying to coordinate that threading with others trying to do the same to make an in-person meeting happen is a pain in the rear.

I work for a very large firm of the kind you refer to, and I see variations on these policies at work. Some companies are very anal about it (someone I knew was required to provide proof that he'd chosen the lowest fare); others less flexible. Clients are reluctant to pay for travel - and the legal profession seems to be getting into the world most of us have long inhabited.

However, the fares won't be the issue now that those policies exist. The choice will be travel/no travel, and force much closer examination of the value of the journeys.

As someone who sometimes works at client site, I'm finding the availability of space a growing issue - again, a reason why companies may well not be willing to pay for travel.

 

[Titfield]

The assumption that LNER are a monopoly is false - they have competition on and off the rails. Fares have been held down by the existence of those competitors.

They will have a lot of data on both loadings and yields, and will have experts using that to optimise revenue - which is what government is (and has for a long time) been instructing them to do. Virgin East Coast collapsed because they couldn't pay the dividends that the government demanded - not because they couldn't cover their operating costs.

Very simply, if they sell a ticket for £50 today and sell 100 of them, they get £5000. If they reduce the price to £45, they need to sell an extra 12 tickets to earn the same income. If they put the fare up to £75, and lose only 10 customers, their revenue increases by £1750 - 35%.

The experiment they've been running in real time has been a demonstration of this at work. And, taking this sample of 1, what they've found is that as I won't buy a season (no need), I (or, in reality, my employer) will tolerate a significant price increase without telling them where to stick it.

We might hate it, we might think it really bad policy for any number of reasons, but the numbers tell us something really clear about why operators are making these choices.

The vast majority of the general public (and for that matter rail workers) have no idea of the concept of elasticity of demand and how it works in practice.

Cutting fares, as is so often proposed, very often results in less overall revenue and increased customer dissatisfaction when they wish to travel at peak times and have to endure crowded trains.

 

[35B]

The vast majority of the general public (and for that matter rail workers) have no idea of the concept of elasticity of demand and how it works in practice.

Cutting fares, as is so often proposed, very often results in less overall revenue and increased customer dissatisfaction when they wish to travel at peak times and have to endure crowded trains.

On the contrary, we all have a very good idea of how it works, apply it day to day, but expect it not to apply for the thing we value but aren’t willing to pay for.

What the great British public are poor at is stepping back, or looking at the trade offs - witness repeated demands on here for both the bun of increased flexibility and the penny of reduced fares.

 

[Starmill]

On the contrary, we all have a very good idea of how it works, apply it day to day, but expect it not to apply for the thing we value but aren’t willing to pay for.

What the great British public are poor at is stepping back, or looking at the trade offs - witness repeated demands on here for both the bun of increased flexibility and the penny of reduced fares.

Most people aren't particularly fussed about a taxi or flight from London to Manchester costing, say, £500 though, are they? Nearly everyone seeing that price would shrug and say well, if that's what it costs, that's what it costs. Even people who object to certain elements of the 'free market' would accept that this price is borne of that.

Railways on the other hand are ostensibly owned by the state and publicly subsidised (very heavily), as nearly everyone knows. This places an inevitable scrutiny on what it costs to travel on a passenger train which a lot of Railway-minded people consider very unfair. It is, in fact, perfectly proper for the public to hold these opinions, when it's being done, overwhelmingly, on their dime. It's normal behaviour that a price of £193 for the train journey generates outrage and column inches, while one well over double on the plane or in the taxi isn't commented on at all.

 

[Sonic1234]

publicly subsidised (very heavily), as nearly everyone knows

I doubt very few people would think of the railway being subsidised. The common opinion is that it extorts travellers to pay for high staff wages, executive bonuses and mega profits for foreign operators. If only the TOCs and their holding companies would accept a fair profit rather than filling their boots with gold, then it would be affordable.

 

[modernrail]

It's always worth putting Tunbridge Wells to Leeds (or wherever) into Trainsplit a couple of days before as you may be pleasantly surprised sometimes - I would select Fast first and then compare the cheapest option on that tab to the reccomended option on the Value tab. Of course, this entirely falls apart if the policy is so rigid that non-refundable hotel rates are used to save an extra 10% or whatever, or the same goes for permitting a Trainsplit invoice to be expensed which is sometimes forbidden in favour of the awful evolvi-powered corporate booking service.

If client meetings are on Mondays you can often get good deals. Obviously I accept a lot of clients will not agree to meet at 1000 on a Monday, or whatever.

Random example this coming Tuesday is a Tunbridge Wells to Leeds Advance departing 0517 and arriving 0914 for £125. Costly, yes, but could represent value for money vs a hotel if the preference is to be at home on Monday evening. First Class is available at only £50 more.

Yes both those things are true at that employer. Hotel deals which don’t look a lot like deals to me and the corporate booking service always seems to spit out the full advance fare without splits. I know if people who have gone back and said ‘but I can get it for x on trainline’ and have been told, no
- we can’t offer that and you can’t catch that train as it breaches the policy.

My previous company wouldn’t allow us to expense tickets, you had to use the corporate service, I think that sort of policy is fairly widespread.

It’s another example of where the railway could probably do a lot better in the post Covid world. Better understanding of and connection into corporate booking norms and trends.

The other one I know of is companies saying off peak or advance below £x travel only and so the only way to make the meeting work is to effectively give up your evening to travel later. Most people seem to be happier to start earlier in the morning than give up the evening but because that is not viable with the anytime fare they force the meeting online. I have done that myself a few times when it has been my decision!

 

[35B]

Most people aren't particularly fussed about a taxi or flight from London to Manchester costing, say, £500 though, are they? Nearly everyone seeing that price would shrug and say well, if that's what it costs, that's what it costs. Even people who object to certain elements of the 'free market' would accept that this price is borne of that.

Railways on the other hand are ostensibly owned by the state and publicly subsidised (very heavily), as nearly everyone knows. This places an inevitable scrutiny on what it costs to travel on a passenger train which a lot of Railway-minded people consider very unfair. It is, in fact, perfectly proper for the public to hold these opinions, when it's being done, overwhelmingly, on their dime. It's normal behaviour that a price of £193 for the train journey generates outrage and column inches, while one well over double on the plane or in the taxi isn't commented on at all.

All true. Yet my point remains valid - as demonstrated by the reluctance to support the spending on tax.

 

[Starmill]

All true. Yet my point remains valid - as demonstrated by the reluctance to support the spending on tax.

You certainly could make the argument that a lot of British people want Scandinavian style or French style public services / entitlements, and US style taxation to pay for it all.

 

[modernrail]

On the contrary, we all have a very good idea of how it works, apply it day to day, but expect it not to apply for the thing we value but aren’t willing to pay for.

What the great British public are poor at is stepping back, or looking at the trade offs - witness repeated demands on here for both the bun of increased flexibility and the penny of reduced fares.

What this member of the Great British public is not convinced of is that the great British rail industry is ensuring we are seeing the best use of peak (or other) capacity.

Let’s take the train I was on, London to York.

45 x let’s say average fare of £150 = ££6750

100 x £150 = 15,000

200 x let’s say average fare of £60 = £12,000

500 (this still leaves 111 seats empty) x 60 = £30,000

So why are we not aiming to get 500 bums on 500 seats.

My understanding is that the average loading across the day for LNER is about 250. If so, this means less than half the capacity is being utilised.

Within this context it is perfectly valid for the Great British Taxpayer and fare payer to say, show us your obsession with high peak fares is actually the right choice, because I for one don’t buy it, particularly in a post-Covid world. Let’s have some transparency and a proper debate around those figures and stats.

Bring told you are locked out of using services because those who set the algorithms up think they have got it right is just not good enough when the taxpayer is having to suck up paying vast subsidy to fund the fixed costs that create the capacity in the first place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2025 ==

I work for a very large firm of the kind you refer to, and I see variations on these policies at work. Some companies are very anal about it (someone I knew was required to provide proof that he'd chosen the lowest fare); others less flexible. Clients are reluctant to pay for travel - and the legal profession seems to be getting into the world most of us have long inhabited.

However, the fares won't be the issue now that those policies exist. The choice will be travel/no travel, and force much closer examination of the value of the journeys.

As someone who sometimes works at client site, I'm finding the availability of space a growing issue - again, a reason why companies may well not be willing to pay for travel.

Maybe we should work on TRU, which seems to be able to justify a small temporary skyscraper at Huddersfield!

 

[JamesT]

What this member of the Great British public is not convinced of is that the great British rail industry is ensuring we are seeing the best use of peak (or other) capacity.

Let’s take the train I was on, London to York.

45 x let’s say average fare of £150 = ££6750

100 x £150 = 15,000

200 x let’s say average fare of £60 = £12,000

500 (this still leaves 111 seats empty) x 60 = £30,000

So why are we not aiming to get 500 bums on 500 seats.

My understanding is that the average loading across the day for LNER is about 250. If so, this means less than half the capacity is being utilised.

Within this context it is perfectly valid for the Great British Taxpayer and fare payer to say, show us your obsession with high peak fares is actually the right choice, because I for one don’t buy it, particularly in a post-Covid world. Let’s have some transparency and a proper debate around those figures and stats.

Bring told you are locked out of using services because those who set the algorithms up think they have got it right is just not good enough when the taxpayer is having to suck up paying vast subsidy to fund the fixed costs that create the capacity in the first place.

Perhaps in the new GBR world there may be more transparency as it might not be considered commercially sensitive.
However, you can’t take a single train in isolation like that. Dropping the prices on one regularly empty train would likely result in at least some passengers switching from the other expensive trains so you’re giving away revenue. Dropping the price of all the peak trains definitely does that.
Is it really believable that all the people working on railway pricing have got it so wrong that they’ve missed such a simple scheme to take more revenue?
LNER are one of the few TOCs that manage to run subsidy free at times, which does suggest they know their market.

 

[modernrail]

Perhaps in the new GBR world there may be more transparency as it might not be considered commercially sensitive.
However, you can’t take a single train in isolation like that. Dropping the prices on one regularly empty train would likely result in at least some passengers switching from the other expensive trains so you’re giving away revenue. Dropping the price of all the peak trains definitely does that.
Is it really believable that all the people working on railway pricing have got it so wrong that they’ve missed such a simple scheme to take more revenue?
LNER are one of the few TOCs that manage to run subsidy free at times, which does suggest they know their market.

Why is is commercially sensitive in the first place?

Eurostar has previously confirmed its average loadings in open session to the Transport Select Committee. It is an entirely private, subsidy free operation. Why does a publicly owned, subsidised operation who main competition is the car think this data is more sensitive than an international operation whose main competition is air travel.

Until that transparency is there, yes I do question it and we should all question it as taxpayers. It is not all people working on the railway. It is what is probably a relatively small number of people who work on dynamic ticket pricing. The vast majority of people who work on the railway have no role in setting ticket pricing.

If LNER’s average loadings are around 50%, what it is absurd to argue is that more capacity is required on the line, and that taxpayers should fund that capacity. LNER does not operate without subsidy. Vast amounts of subsidy have been paid to LNER not least through the pandemic, so keep an essential public service running, not an exclusive gentleman’s club on rails going.

 

[35B]

What this member of the Great British public is not convinced of is that the great British rail industry is ensuring we are seeing the best use of peak (or other) capacity.

Let’s take the train I was on, London to York.

45 x let’s say average fare of £150 = ££6750

100 x £150 = 15,000

200 x let’s say average fare of £60 = £12,000

500 (this still leaves 111 seats empty) x 60 = £30,000

So why are we not aiming to get 500 bums on 500 seats.

My understanding is that the average loading across the day for LNER is about 250. If so, this means less than half the capacity is being utilised.

Within this context it is perfectly valid for the Great British Taxpayer and fare payer to say, show us your obsession with high peak fares is actually the right choice, because I for one don’t buy it, particularly in a post-Covid world. Let’s have some transparency and a proper debate around those figures and stats.

Bring told you are locked out of using services because those who set the algorithms up think they have got it right is just not good enough when the taxpayer is having to suck up paying vast subsidy to fund the fixed costs that create the capacity in the first place.

You’re making a big assumption that the demand is there, and that the extra seats filled will generate the revenue that is lost from reducing the fares.

My post Covid experience tells me that travel patterns have changed, and it is not price sensitivity that determines demand. My regular train is 1Y03, which used to be standing room only from Peterborough on a normal day - it is now never full. Effective fares have risen, yet demand has remained fairly flat, suggesting that the commuter market is fundamentally changed. I often return on 1D30, which benefits from off peak pricing - and is heaving, as are 1H07 and 1D32. But the travellers are mostly leisure travellers, not commuters.

LNER have driven fares up, and done so without cratering demand.

The obsession with revenue is delivered by operators, but is a government focus. Government is refusing to allow operators to use price to promote travel, and government is making a positive decision to target revenue.

This will always be something viewed through a glass darkly, and rightly so. Anyone with knowledge of railway history will be aware of the crippling burden of back seat management endured by the railways through the Grouping era and into nationalisation. This manifested as price controls, where the railways through had to justify increased fares based in cost, consult widely before implementing them, and run an open book. It invited competitors to eat its lunch. Let’s not go there.

 

[Haywain]

LNER does not operate without subsidy.

LNER is a profitable operation.

 

[35B]

LNER is a profitable operation.

But only because the infrastructure it operates on is subsidised.

 

[Haywain]

But only because the infrastructure it operates on is subsidised.

Maybe, but can only be measured against other train operators by the same standard, and most are not profitable.

 

[modernrail]

You’re making a big assumption that the demand is there, and that the extra seats filled will generate the revenue that is lost from reducing the fares.

My post Covid experience tells me that travel patterns have changed, and it is not price sensitivity that determines demand. My regular train is 1Y03, which used to be standing room only from Peterborough on a normal day - it is now never full. Effective fares have risen, yet demand has remained fairly flat, suggesting that the commuter market is fundamentally changed. I often return on 1D30, which benefits from off peak pricing - and is heaving, as are 1H07 and 1D32. But the travellers are mostly leisure travellers, not commuters.

LNER have driven fares up, and done so without cratering demand.

The obsession with revenue is delivered by operators, but is a government focus. Government is refusing to allow operators to use price to promote travel, and government is making a positive decision to target revenue.

This will always be something viewed through a glass darkly, and rightly so. Anyone with knowledge of railway history will be aware of the crippling burden of back seat management endured by the railways through the Grouping era and into nationalisation. This manifested as price controls, where the railways through had to justify increased fares based in cost, consult widely before implementing them, and run an open book. It invited competitors to eat its lunch. Let’s not go there.

Which modes ate their lunch? Was is not more about the massive rise in road building and car ownership at the same time, which in my mind was one of those big societal changes that happens and has to be navigated? (Just as the internet era/AI and post pandemic travel patterns now do).

I am not necessarily blaming TOCs for taking the wrong approach here, it could be Government. Equally it could be the TOCs having become so obsessed with their newish toy of algorithm based dynamic pricing that they themselves are not standing back and asking some basic non-algorithm based questions on how you best fill this capacity for maximum revenue. I think you have hit the nail on the head though by saying ‘using price to promote travel’.

What we do know is true is:
- many people think prices are far too high, particularly in the peak and a proportion of them are likely not choosing the train because of that
- There is likely significant ‘trains are too expensive’ fatigue baked in the system that needs chipping away at if possible
- Eurostar achieves loadings of approx 70%, LNER maybe 50%, and a lot of extra capacity seems to have emerged particularly in the peaks. Our national trains should be able to at least match the loadings of Eurostar.
- the rail industry is putting pressure on to increase capacity on routes like ECML, which does not make sense on an under utilised railway
- we have a very strange situation where the peaks are often now the quieter trains and the off peaks are not, yet the pricing model still penalises what are seen as ‘must travel’ users, but they are increasingly ‘won’t travel then’ users
- the Gov is subsiding the railway at a record rate

So we have a mismatch. A big one that could strangle the railway.

I don’t think the current answer is the right one. I don’t think the TOCs and DfT are having the right conversations. I suspect the DfT is asking a question and the TOC is giving the wrong answer, for instance, how do we get more revenue per passenger out of fewer passengers, rather than how do we get overall loadings up to fill that capacity and high fixed cost base we have.

All of this would be a lot easier to debate if there was a lot more transparency on basic data (as opposed necessarily to full open book). As a taxpayer I absolutely should be entitled to know what average loadings are on trains etc and the debate should not just between the TOCs and DfT.

My bet is that the demand absolutely is there. We have a much bigger population than we did even at privatisation, as it likes to be mobile.

As just one example, you could offer students/young people a super-discount on their railcard on the lighter loaded late night trains. Students can often be less sensitive to the time of day they travel and a well promoted norm (not ad hoc promotion) would let that group know - it is always worth checking to see if those fares are available.

If loadings really are at around 50% or less, that really is poor in a congested country with plenty of demand to travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

Maybe, but can only be measured against other train operators by the same standard, and most are not profitable.

Yes but they are all highly subsided in one way or another, including LNER, as a basic principle. That means everything to do with railways is, the staff, the supply chain, the lot.

 

[TrainTraveler]

Taking a slightly contrary stance, from my experience, trips which I wouldn’t contemplate driving for (as an example going to Leeds or Bradford for a day or two) can be quite reasonably priced if booked a few weeks in advance.

I would suggest that trips booked in advance starting at London compare favourably to (say) a similar distances on GWR or (to a degree) Avanti.

Having said that, my morning trains (typically a bit after 8 am from London) are extremely lightly loaded so perhaps I am the beneficiary of the dynamic pricing.

 

[JamesT]

Which modes ate their lunch? Was is not more about the massive rise in road building and car ownership at the same time, which in my mind was one of those big societal changes that happens and has to be navigated? (Just as the internet era/AI and post pandemic travel patterns now do).

I am not necessarily blaming TOCs for taking the wrong approach here, it could be Government. Equally it could be the TOCs having become so obsessed with their newish toy of algorithm based dynamic pricing that they themselves are not standing back and asking some basic non-algorithm based questions on how you best fill this capacity for maximum revenue. I think you have hit the nail on the head though by saying ‘using price to promote travel’.

What we do know is true is:
- many people think prices are far too high, particularly in the peak and a proportion of them are likely not choosing the train because of that
- There is likely significant ‘trains are too expensive’ fatigue baked in the system that needs chipping away at if possible
- Eurostar achieves loadings of approx 70%, LNER maybe 50%, and a lot of extra capacity seems to have emerged particularly in the peaks. Our national trains should be able to at least match the loadings of Eurostar.
- the rail industry is putting pressure on to increase capacity on routes like ECML, which does not make sense on an under utilised railway
- we have a very strange situation where the peaks are often now the quieter trains and the off peaks are not, yet the pricing model still penalises what are seen as ‘must travel’ users, but they are increasingly ‘won’t travel then’ users
- the Gov is subsiding the railway at a record rate

So we have a mismatch. A big one that could strangle the railway.

I don’t think the current answer is the right one. I don’t think the TOCs and DfT are having the right conversations. I suspect the DfT is asking a question and the TOC is giving the wrong answer, for instance, how do we get more revenue per passenger out of fewer passengers, rather than how do we get overall loadings up to fill that capacity and high fixed cost base we have.

All of this would be a lot easier to debate if there was a lot more transparency on basic data (as opposed necessarily to full open book). As a taxpayer I absolutely should be entitled to know what average loadings are on trains etc and the debate should not just between the TOCs and DfT.

My bet is that the demand absolutely is there. We have a much bigger population than we did even at privatisation, as it likes to be mobile.

As just one example, you could offer students/young people a super-discount on their railcard on the lighter loaded late night trains. Students can often be less sensitive to the time of day they travel and a well promoted norm (not ad hoc promotion) would let that group know - it is always worth checking to see if those fares are available.

If loadings really are at around 50% or less, that really is poor in a congested country with plenty of demand to travel.

You seem to be hanging a lot on this claim that LNER trains are all empty. Is this merely from taking the capacity of a 9-car Azuma and dividing it by the claimed 250 average loading?
That's an overly simplistic measure which ignores that not all LNER trains are that long and that demand is not constant. Even if you gave away the tickets, you might not find a trainload of people who want to travel from London to York at 6am on a Tuesday morning or 11pm on a Wednesday night. All of which will drag the average down.
I can't find the page I was looking at last night, but there was one saying that LNER had amongst the best loadings in the industry. They are filling their trains with their current methods, two years ago their passenger numbers rose to above per-pandemic levels.
The comparison with Eurostar is also spurious. Eurostar are effectively an Open-Access Operator, they don't have a DfT telling them they have to run trains at unpopular times to fulfil a social obligation.

 

[modernrail]

Taking a slightly contrary stance, from my experience, trips which I wouldn’t contemplate driving for (as an example going to Leeds or Bradford for a day or two) can be quite reasonably priced if booked a few weeks in advance.

I would suggest that trips booked in advance starting at London compare favourably to (say) a similar distances on GWR or (to a degree) Avanti.

Having said that, my morning trains (typically a bit after 8 am from London) are extremely lightly loaded so perhaps I am the beneficiary of the dynamic pricing.

I think this is part of my main point though. One of the fundamental challenges of dynamic pricing is it means big uncertainty for the user.

What seems to be happening now is that that uncertainty mixed with the knowledge the final answer might be ‘ridiculous fare hardly anybody is going to pay’ is leading to some very lightly loaded peak trains.

Better to sell a lot more of those seats in advance on a regular basis at a regular advance fare. Over time people will return to the peak trains as they learn it is actually worth checking.

I would also be very interested to see loadings on all the main intercity routes. I have seen lots of people on here saying that peak advance fares have dried up on GWR, causing big problems for people who come into London a few days a week.

What I don’t know (do any of us? Does the TOC?) are how loaded those GWR peak trains are.

If they are lightly loaded (say less than 70%) then users are being driven off the railway maybe never to return. If those trains are 90% plus loaded then then that is a different thing.

For instance, Eurostar seems to be mixing very heavily loaded trains with high fares. Hence it is good news that competition might be on its way to eat some of the spare, underutilised capacity on HS1 and the tunnel.

 

[JonathanH]

we have a very strange situation where the peaks are often now the quieter trains and the off peaks are not, yet the pricing model still penalises what are seen as ‘must travel’ users, but they are increasingly ‘won’t travel then’ users

The answer to that issue the railway and government appear to be working on is to increase the price of off peak travel towards the peak rates, not the opposite. None of us like that, but the outcome is that it is stretching up the amount that people are prepared to pay.

 

[modernrail]

You seem to be hanging a lot on this claim that LNER trains are all empty. Is this merely from taking the capacity of a 9-car Azuma and dividing it by the claimed 250 average loading?
That's an overly simplistic measure which ignores that not all LNER trains are that long and that demand is not constant. Even if you gave away the tickets, you might not find a trainload of people who want to travel from London to York at 6am on a Tuesday morning or 11pm on a Wednesday night. All of which will drag the average down.
I can't find the page I was looking at last night, but there was one saying that LNER had amongst the best loadings in the industry. They are filling their trains with their current methods, two years ago their passenger numbers rose to above per-pandemic levels.
The comparison with Eurostar is also spurious. Eurostar are effectively an Open-Access Operator, they don't have a DfT telling them they have to run trains at unpopular times to fulfil a social obligation.

What are the average loadings though? This is my whole point. Why are we forced to have this debate in an information vacuum. Sometimes the rail industry seems to think it is running MI6, not some trains.

If they are 50% or less at peak times they are massively underutilised. If the true demand (including any suppressed demand) for a peak train means there are genuinely less potential customers than 50% of the seats available, why is it designated a peak train. That sounds more like a marginal off peak train to me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

The answer to that issue the railway and government appear to be working on is to increase the price of off peak travel towards the peak rates, not the opposite. None of us like that, but the outcome is that it is stretching up the amount that people are prepared to pay.

Quite, and I think it is the most ridiculous tactic.

‘Peak trains are too expensive, I will get an off peak train’

‘Fine, we will make that too expensive as well as they are too busy now (even though we don’t know if they are - and if they are less than 100% loaded, they are not)’ (For the record. I do think there is a genuine need to take demand out of a few of peak trains, but not in the way being done)

‘Are you going to make the peak one less expensive then,

‘ No of course not, we are going to sit in continuing denial, price like we did in the 2000’s and cart loads of premium times fresh air around, but the algorithm said so and we don’t actually know what we are doing’

As for the social purpose. One of the railways biggest social purposes it to get people to where they need to be to generate economic activity. That means how peak trains are utilised is an absolutely key bellwether of whether they are fulfilling their purpose. They were built to move cargo around, and whether we like it or not, when we go to those meetings, site visits, conferences, speculative business development meetings ups etc etc we are all a form of human cargo. No railway or individual line can justify itself or large subsidy on predominantly leisure use only.

 

[Krokodil]

LNER are one of the few TOCs that manage to run subsidy free at times, which does suggest they know their market.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. LNER are an intercity operator which covers flows where its journey times are competitive with both road and air. That LNER covers its operating costs is not necessarily thanks to its pricing managers.