Lack of Advances on lightly loaded trains

[AlterEgo]

It still means a flight over a much longer distance than a train or flight to Manchester is cheaper than either.

The flight from Manchester exists to serve connections. The flights to and from Melbourne and Sydney principally do not. It is a meaningless comparison; the MAN-LHR flights don’t exist to serve people travelling O+D.

 

[modernrail]

The flight from Manchester exists to serve connections. The flights to and from Melbourne and Sydney principally do not. It is a meaningless comparison; the MAN-LHR flights don’t exist to serve people travelling O+D.

As long as the rail fare setting algorithms are definitely not picking it up!

I heard a great story of a guy who runs judo competitions in a small UK town who received complaints that the accomodation was super expensive. He was very confused because he had literally checked the prices shortly before posting details of the competition for that year. They had suddenly doubled.

Once of his judo chaps works in that industry and said the algorithms search for major events in a place and then look at the population/other trends and then might decide to whack up the prices.

It was a small town and his event is big for that town (and it had the numbers on the website), so prices had suddenly jumped.

The following year, he emailed everybody first before advertising. Lots of people booked and the capacity that was left still didn’t rise in price significantly. Then the day he posted the full details on the website, prices shot up again.

 

[35B]

I agree with most of that, but still think loading data is pretty critical to show how well the asset and capacity we are paying for is being used and whether the politicians and operational managers are getting it right.

There does of course need to be the ability in a representative democracy for the electorate to assess how well people are doing, so they can assess whether the they should continue to represent.

The politicians current answer is heavily influenced by the quality of the information and thinking coming up from the railway managers. As a worker in a country that needs to get working more, as a taxpayer in a country that is not collecting enough tax to pay its bills and fund its aging population, it is reasonable for me to be able to question whether this very expensive capacity is being used and used well.

At the moment we are only having half a debate, if that.

I disagree with the elision between the data quality provided by subsidy recipients to subsidy providers, and the need for that information to be available for individuals to be able to challenge it in detail. I also think that the single minded focus on loadings and AP tickets is in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

 

[modernrail]

I disagree with the elision between the data quality provided by subsidy recipients to subsidy providers, and the need for that information to be available for individuals to be able to challenge it in detail. I also think that the single minded focus on loadings and AP tickets is in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

We can agree to disagree on the first point. For me, use of the capacity is a critical part of the justification for subsidy. I do not personally want to see a penny of my tax going to capacity enhancement if peak services are not near fully loaded most of the time. I am personally happy to subsidise the railway if and only if it’s peak capacity is providing valuable capacity to drive the economy, relieve some pressure on the roads and provide a viable alternative to road transport in general.

It is not a single minded focus. However, a single minded focus on revenue without a clear focus on loadings is definitely far too narrow a focus.

 

[35B]

We can agree to disagree on the first point. For me, use of the capacity is a critical part of the justification for subsidy. I do not personally want to see a penny of my tax going to capacity enhancement if peak services are not near fully loaded most of the time. I am personally happy to subsidise the railway if and only if it’s peak capacity is providing valuable capacity to drive the economy, relieve some pressure on the roads and provide a viable alternative to road transport in general.

It is not a single minded focus. However, a single minded focus on revenue without a clear focus on loadings is definitely far too narrow a focus.

I think your focus on peak load is misplaced, and misses an important part of the value offered by rail, especially as routine commuting has declined.

It's a mentality that presumes that capacity that is not fully utilised at all times is wasted, but doesn't acknowledge that some "spare" capacity is necessary to make things work (see also hospitals and bed utilisation). My observations of ECML trains is that loadings are high, but not necessarily in the traditional peak.

I'd also suggest that if there is residual capacity available, it leaves room for more economic growth at lower cost - if trains were already fully laden at peak, you would either have to consider pricing off demand, or make some very expensive purchases.

 

[modernrail]

I think your focus on peak load is misplaced, and misses an important part of the value offered by rail, especially as routine commuting has declined.

It's a mentality that presumes that capacity that is not fully utilised at all times is wasted, but doesn't acknowledge that some "spare" capacity is necessary to make things work (see also hospitals and bed utilisation). My observations of ECML trains is that loadings are high, but not necessarily in the traditional peak.

I'd also suggest that if there is residual capacity available, it leaves room for more economic growth at lower cost - if trains were already fully laden at peak, you would either have to consider pricing off demand, or make some very expensive purchases.

I am sorry, but I don’t agree with any of those arguments.

Effective use of peak capacity is critically important in the intercity routes for a whole host of reasons. We should not have trains running around half empty in the peaks for want of thinking again on ticketing strategy.

The comparison with hospitals doesn’t work. Once the seat has not been used, it will never be used for that journey. The capacity has been wasted even though the costs of providing it have been paid.

In a hospital, you ideally need an element of spare capacity to deal with a surge. It is a very different situation.

A train with 611 seats can take 611 customers sat in those seats perfectly well day in day out.

The residual capacity argument doesn’t work, because our economy is not growing. Therefore we need to create economic activity now, utilising assets and capacity that we have already paid for first. We do not have the luxury of being able to waste that capacity.

The idea that you somehow pay the very expensive infrastructure costs for capacity to be available, pay for the running costs to keep it available, but then actively accept not utilising it does not work.

If trains are regularly less than 50% loaded, they should probably cut the number of services in half. If they did that, they would have to say ‘we couldn’t work out a way to fill the peak trains’. The country would scream back ‘it is the fares - we want to use them’.

 

[35B]

I am sorry, but I don’t agree with any of those arguments.

Effective use of peak capacity is critically important in the intercity routes for a whole host of reasons. We should not have trains running around half empty in the peaks for want of thinking again on ticketing strategy.

The comparison with hospitals doesn’t work. Once the seat has not been used, it will never be used for that journey. The capacity has been wasted even though the costs of providing it have been paid.

In a hospital, you ideally need an element of spare capacity to deal with a surge. It is a very different situation.

The residual capacity argument doesn’t work, because our economy is not growing. Therefore we need to create economic activity now, utilising assets and capacity that we have already paid for first. We do not have the luxury of being able to waste that capacity.

The idea that you somehow pay the very expensive infrastructure costs for capacity to be available, pay for the running costs to keep it available, but then actively accept not utilising it does not work.

If trains are regularly less than 50% loaded, they should probably cut the number of services in half. If they did that, they would have to say ‘we couldn’t work out a way to fill the peak trains’. The country would scream back ‘it is the fares - we want to use them’.

Just picking up on the economic capacity, the economy is already at a historically high employment level. That suggests that, whatever the challenges to growth may be, they aren't particularly driven by the ability to get to jobs.

 

[fandroid]

I too think that @35B's argument is nonsense. The capacity exists in the peak at the stations at each end, on the train itself, in the power supply and in terms of staffing. Again, I suggest some entrepreneurial 3rd party is offered blocks of those empty seats and challenged to fill them on a no abstraction of current income basis.

The railway can't moan about needing extra capacity if the trains that run at the times of highest actual demand aren't nearly full. The public at large would just think "here we go again!"

 

[JonathanH]

Again, I suggest some entrepreneurial 3rd party is offered blocks of those empty seats and challenged to fill them on a no abstraction of current income basis.

Is that even feasible? If they are offered cheaper than the existing operator, then won't the passengers just switch their booking, causing abstraction?

What entrepreneurial thing, other than price, might they use to fill the block of seats?

 

[Benjwri]

Is that even feasible? If they are offered cheaper than the existing operator, then won't the passengers just switch their booking, causing abstraction?

What entrepreneurial thing, other than price, might they use to fill the block of seats?

I think effectively what is being suggested here is effectively trying privatisation all over again.

It hasn’t worked the first time around, it won’t work now when they wouldn’t even be able to reduce costs.

There would be no need for a third party to try this. Take a train, or even all trains on a fairly isolated route, release lots of advances on the morning peak. You get a definitive answer. The cost to the railway would be minuscule compared to the rest of its costs. No need to even say it’s happening.

The issue comes that most like the result will be a loss in revenue to the railway, because all the cheap advances will be taken by commuters who can commit to travel patterns long before the booking horizon.

Even without it though, the Scottish Off Peak trial proved the answer is it is a revenue negative change. Until the Government see that there is a worth from the societal benefit, like the Scottish did, it just won’t happen.

 

[fandroid]

We're into the speculative realm here. Advances are secret unless they're convincingly advertised, and that's not easy as people know the bargains will have mysteriously disappeared before they look. BR would just have advertised heavily that for a particular month there would be a 25% discount (say) on a batch of normal fares of any sort on peak trains for tickets bought a month ahead. The whole Advance shindig has muddied the waters so that no-one actually knows what good value is any more without delving around speculatively online and hoping for the best.

The idea would be to actually find out if that could be done on at least a cost-neutral basis. If there are bums on nearly all seats, there will be people who will be more willing to take the train in future

 

[Starmill]

Surely the pricing software used by the TOC should aim to achieve high occupancy?

Ryanair have 95% occupancy.

I consider half-full peak time trains as a failure.

It doesn't. Although LNER get a lot closer to it than say Avanti do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2025 ==

Even without it though, the Scottish Off Peak trial proved the answer is it is a revenue negative change.

In that case it actually demonstrated a proportionally very small deficit. This is being funded by public money and made permanent. This will also bring some small savings in terms of quicker and easier revenue protection and perhaps more importantly an improved customer experience when it's easier to be confident of getting the correct ticket. So while yes there were costs I really don't think the trial concludes it's a bad thing overall. It appears to be a pretty sensible model for regional and medium distance express services at least.

 

[Sleepy]

I think effectively what is being suggested here is effectively trying privatisation all over again.

It hasn’t worked the first time around, it won’t work now when they wouldn’t even be able to reduce costs.

There would be no need for a third party to try this. Take a train, or even all trains on a fairly isolated route, release lots of advances on the morning peak. You get a definitive answer. The cost to the railway would be minuscule compared to the rest of its costs. No need to even say it’s happening.

The issue comes that most like the result will be a loss in revenue to the railway, because all the cheap advances will be taken by commuters who can commit to travel patterns long before the booking horizon.

Even without it though, the Scottish Off Peak trial proved the answer is it is a revenue negative change. Until the Government see that there is a worth from the societal benefit, like the Scottish did, it just won’t happen.

To see commuters booking up Advances you only have to look at 0630 or 0700 Norwich to Liverpool St. services, full & standing most mornings. They generally have minimum 65 - 70% of travellers on Advance tickets, about 25% on Season tickets with less than 10% on Anytime tickets. Seems strange when we have reports of GWR reducing/eliminated the quota of Advance tickets on peak time journeys ?

 

[JonathanH]

Seems strange when we have reports of GWR reducing/eliminated the quota of Advance tickets on peak time journeys ?

Greater Anglia haven't really caught up with the pricing policies being applied elsewhere. Perhaps they arent on DfT's radar. It is incredible (and welcome) that you can still buy £12 advances from London to Norwich on a range of trains in four week's time, which on other routes of a similar distance would now be set at around £30.