High fares - The issue that won't go away

[yorksrob]

Just picking up on this one point, though not wanting to go off-topic - TfL's travel research shows there are certain demographics (lower income backgrounds and black passengers) who disproportionately use the bus even when it's not the best value or most convenient way to make their journey.

They struggled to get to the bottom of the reason for this, particularly on the cost front, but did note the following, which is going to affect migrants more (who are in turn more likely to be on lower incomes):



That quote was from research in 2012 mind, so may be less relevant in the world of Google/Apple Maps/Citymapper/etc.

Agree with your post though. And I've travelled enough on long distance trains and Megabus/Flixbus/NX long distance coaches to know that there are plenty of people who would take the train for long distance journeys should it be more affordable (and publicly recognised as such).

Not to mention that it would help our environmental impact, given long-distance electrified rail trumps coaches for emissions. They fall behind for shorter journeys running DMUs. So if anything, the long distance journeys would help us more with our environmental targets, as well as making comfortable travel more affordable for passengers, regardless of level of income.

I think the research may well be relevant.

A lot of usage is probably down to perception, so if some sections of society perceive the railway as being expensive or for rich people, they may well choose the bus even if it's poorer value.

 

[styles]

I think the research may well be relevant.

A lot of usage is probably down to perception, so if some sections of society perceive the railway as being expensive or for rich people, they may well choose the bus even if it's poorer value.

Absolutely, perception is a massive part of it.

I've often had people say oh that train must've cost a fortune, but then I break down the alternative (usually driving), and actually not owning a car saved me a fortune at the time.

We've recently gone down to a one car household (owing to one being uneconomical to repair), and it took me a while to knock on the head the idea of replacing the second car. Something inside me just felt we should have two cars, as a two adult household and a driveway with space for both. But I stood back after a while and considered that really it doesn't make financial sense. Even where public transport wouldn't be an option, the cost of a 3-day car rental every now and then would be cheaper than buying, VED'ing, MOT'ing, servicing, insuring, fuelling a second motor. I think deep down it was a perception thing more than anything, sad to say.

 

[redreni]

You don't live in a political utopia. You have to play the field as it lies and argue for incremental and achievable changes.


What is the definition of insanity?

If people call for lower fares but fares go up a little bit, does it necessarily mean calling for lower fares was a waste of time? Depends what would have happened to fares if nobody was arguing that they are far too high and should be reduced. There will, after all, always be right wing think-tanks saying subsidies are far too high and fares need to go up.

 

[AlterEgo]

Asking for affordable fares is not utopia (certainly not as much as the range of infrastructure improvements you seem to be calling for as a pre-condition for meaningful fares reform).

Getting things like new stations built or integrating modes better - or even electrifying the vast, embarrassing swathes of our stinky diesel network, are much more politically achievable than "axe or cap all the fares" which doesn't deliver a better network and is not in any way proven to really make a step change in modal shift. The reasons people don't use the train are various, and actually not a huge amount is to do with the fares but about aesthetic/cultural perception, journey opportunities, comfort and accessibility.

Non-users are much more likely to be put off by rail's idiosyncracies and perceive it as full of hassle.

I think the research may well be relevant.

A lot of usage is probably down to perception, so if some sections of society perceive the railway as being expensive or for rich people, they may well choose the bus even if it's poorer value.

There are loads of reasons (especially) nonwhite immigrants use the bus over the train as well as just cost, for example. I bet a lot of it has to do with the familiarity and ubiquity of buses worldwide, plus the ability to ask the driver if the bus will stop somewhere if they are less literate. The ability to see landmarks as they approach, and the frequency and closeness of stops mean there is no dread if a stop is missed.

As I've said upthread, most non-users don't know or care about train fares; it's not just the cost putting them off. It's a host of other things. The railway actually does not properly understand a lot of this and continues to talk to itself (see the usual "St Pancake" stuff for how non-inclusive the railway can be!). In London, some of the changes to be made to encourage rail use are literally *free* and come at no political cost at all.

 

[JonathanH]

And I've travelled enough on long distance trains and Megabus/Flixbus/NX long distance coaches to know that there are plenty of people who would take the train for long distance journeys should it be more affordable (and publicly recognised as such).

No one must fall into the trap of suggesting that travelling by coach or interurban bus is a bad thing, and all such journeys should be made by train.

 

[35B]

I think that we can all agree that any "fares reform" that doesn't address overall affordability will be pointless and probably counterproductive.

See such mealy mouthed phrases as "revenue neutral" and "fair to taxpayers and farepayers".

As passengers we need to be explicit in what we do need from fares reform, which is greater affordability.

Reform and reduction are not the same. By conflating the two, you make yourself appear like you want the bun and the penny. There are good arguments for simplifying fares, and there are reasonable arguments for the taxpayer bearing a greater share of the cost of the railway. But if you assume the two are the same, you are doomed to disappointment.

"Revenue neutral" does not have to be mealy mouthed - there is a perfectly legitimate policy objective of keeping subsidy the same, and changing fares to achieve that. It may or may not be what you would want to see, but that is a fundamentally different question.

 

[AlterEgo]

No one must fall into the trap of suggesting that travelling by coach or interurban bus is a bad thing, and all such journeys should be made by train.

No, but in fairness, (electrified) train beats bus hands down over a long distance. It really would be good if we could get a lot of the NX crowd onto the train.

 

[styles]

No one must fall into the trap of suggesting that travelling by coach or interurban bus is a bad thing, and all such journeys should be made by train.

I don't believe anybody is, so that's good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but in fairness, (electrified) train beats bus hands down over a long distance.

I'm not sure it does to be honest. With buses being so light compared to trains and running at much lower speeds the bus, even if on diesel, is likely to be environmentally much better than a train. Certainly better than a diesel train, though. And coaches are heading for battery-electrification, many Scottish domestics already are.

What we do need to do is to go for more integrated services within urban areas where buses just fill gaps in rail as per most civilised countries, but that isn't for environmental reasons, it's more about cost efficiency and quality of service as well as avoiding traffic congestion that large parades of buses into city centre bus stations cause.

It really would be good if we could get a lot of the NX crowd onto the train.

I'm not sure I would bother TBH. Coaches aren't a problem in any form, if anything there should be more of them. Concentrate on single occupancy and dual occupancy cars and air (at least until domestic flights use electric aircraft). (A family EV with a family in it is environmentally and road space efficient too!)

 

[yorksrob]

Reform and reduction are not the same. By conflating the two, you make yourself appear like you want the bun and the penny. There are good arguments for simplifying fares, and there are reasonable arguments for the taxpayer bearing a greater share of the cost of the railway. But if you assume the two are the same, you are doomed to disappointment.

"Revenue neutral" does not have to be mealy mouthed - there is a perfectly legitimate policy objective of keeping subsidy the same, and changing fares to achieve that. It may or may not be what you would want to see, but that is a fundamentally different question.

Revenue neutral might be a "legitimate policy objective", but it is a poor one for passengers.

Why do you think people say they want "simplified" fares ? Is it to make it easier to find a first class fare, or a fare via Riccarton Junction ?

No. In the vast majority of cases, people want simpler fares to make it easier to find the cheaper ones, ergo they want cheaper fares first and foremost.

A fares "simplification" that does not deliver more affordable fares is fundamentally against what most passengers want. Governments using fares simplification to hike fares (as with the crooked LNER fares trial) is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A fares "simplification" that does not deliver more affordable fares is fundamentally against what most passengers want. Governments using fares simplification to hike fares (as with the crooked LNER fares trial) is disingenuous in the extreme.

It isn't possible for a revenue neutral fares simplification to make travel cheaper for everyone. That requires increased subsidy in a context (LNER) of limited and not easily expandable capacity. Otherwise if you reduce for one group you have to increase for another to counter it.

Though it will be interesting to see what happens to fares when the third north ECML train goes in in December. Logically they should go down a bit, certainly on the slower services (I can see LNER wanting to charge more for the fastest Edinburgh service).

 

[yorksrob]

No one must fall into the trap of suggesting that travelling by coach or interurban bus is a bad thing, and all such journeys should be made by train.

I agree. Coach is a niche product, but an important one with its own market.

Interurban bus I'm less convinced about, mainly because it takes so long.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interurban bus I'm less convinced about, mainly because it takes so long.

I don't think interurban bus will ever effectively compete with rail. I still think for instance that the Oxford-Bedford X5 will be killed (or at least seriously reduced) by the opening of the first phase of East West Rail, as Buckingham alone isn't enough to sustain it. However, what it does do is fill gaps in the railway network that the railway is not ever intending to fill, and in some cases augment it where the rail service is very poor (e.g. some services around Leeds like the Transdev 36).

 

[yorksrob]

It isn't possible for a revenue neutral fares simplification to make travel cheaper for everyone. That requires increased subsidy in a context (LNER) of limited and not easily expandable capacity. Otherwise if you reduce for one group you have to increase for another to counter it.

Though it will be interesting to see what happens to fares when the third north ECML train goes in in December. Logically they should go down a bit, certainly on the slower services (I can see LNER wanting to charge more for the fastest Edinburgh service).

Agree - you could also have something like a railcard which generates lower fares but increases revenue to cover them.

The problem with fares simplification at the moment is the Treasury seeing pound signs !

 

[AlterEgo]

Revenue neutral might be a "legitimate policy objective", but it is a poor one for passengers.

Why do you think people say they want "simplified" fares ? Is it to make it easier to find a first class fare, or a fare via Riccarton Junction ?

It's actually because most infrequent users find the railway confusing and complicated, and are worried about being ripped off and paying more than they have to. It's the element of transparency and fairness which hits home to those users. If you made every train £100 in standard class all day every day between London and Edinburgh, and £150 in first class, people would actually appreciate the simplicity if nothing else. Nine tiers of advances, which you can change to any train via Seatfrog, 70 minute flex tickets (impenetrable nonsense fare) or off peaks if you book from further afield, plus all the other guff that goes with LNER's "simpler" "trial" are unappealing.

It's why Oyster and contactless are popular in London. It's simple to use, the interaction between user and fare taker is simple and hassle free, many people literally have no idea what they're even paying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seatfrog is particularly unhelpful as it removes the principle that the same fares set is sold by all retailers. I think overall it causes more harm than good.

The 70 Minute Flex is basically a £20 insurance policy against missing your train, though it does have the amusing side effect that sometimes if you want to travel on the 1800 it is better to buy a ticket for the 1730 or 1830. I can't help but think a more easyJet style approach of charging a flat "missed train fee" if you only miss it by an hour or two would be less impenetrable than these. Though they would admittedly solve most of the arguments that occur on Northern about "I bought an Advance, travelled ten minutes earlier on a train showing at the same price and got prosecuted" type nonsense.

 

[yorksrob]

Getting things like new stations built or integrating modes better - or even electrifying the vast, embarrassing swathes of our stinky diesel network, are much more politically achievable than "axe or cap all the fares" which doesn't deliver a better network and is not in any way proven to really make a step change in modal shift. The reasons people don't use the train are various, and actually not a huge amount is to do with the fares but about aesthetic/cultural perception, journey opportunities, comfort and accessibility.

Enough with the modal shift - it is meaningless to those of us who have already shifted.

I fundamentally disagree with your point about infrastructure/service improvements being easier than affordable fares.

Look at the trouble we have:
- Trying to get more OLE
- Trying to infill the third rail gaps
- Getting a new station built at a reasonable price

Given all of this, something with a modest cost such as a national railcard would be a quick win by comparison.

Non-users are much more likely to be put off by rail's idiosyncracies and perceive it as full of hassle.


There are loads of reasons (especially) nonwhite immigrants use the bus over the train as well as just cost, for example. I bet a lot of it has to do with the familiarity and ubiquity of buses worldwide, plus the ability to ask the driver if the bus will stop somewhere if they are less literate. The ability to see landmarks as they approach, and the frequency and closeness of stops mean there is no dread if a stop is missed.

As I've said upthread, most non-users don't know or care about train fares; it's not just the cost putting them off. It's a host of other things. The railway actually does not properly understand a lot of this and continues to talk to itself (see the usual "St Pancake" stuff for how non-inclusive the railway can be!). In London, some of the changes to be made to encourage rail use are literally *free* and come at no political cost at all.

I'm sure you're right to an extent about idiosyncrasies of rail being off-putting - particularly for some not already steeped in the national culture. I agree with some of those low cost/no cost changes that could make it easier for people unfamiliar with the train to use it.

But on top of all of that is cost.

I used to find buses difficult to use because unlike trains where there was generally a big sign saying what the station was called, at bus stations there was little to tell where you were except for a difficult to see number. So its not just the railway !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2025 ==

It's actually because most infrequent users find the railway confusing and complicated, and are worried about being ripped off and paying more than they have to. It's the element of transparency and fairness which hits home to those users. If you made every train £100 in standard class all day every day between London and Edinburgh, and £150 in first class, people would actually appreciate the simplicity if nothing else. Nine tiers of advances, which you can change to any train via Seatfrog, 70 minute flex tickets (impenetrable nonsense fare) or off peaks if you book from further afield, plus all the other guff that goes with LNER's "simpler" "trial" are unappealing.

It's why Oyster and contactless are popular in London. It's simple to use, the interaction between user and fare taker is simple and hassle free, many people literally have no idea what they're even paying.

Agree with this 100%.

It's so frustrating to see the railway going ever more towards confining people to this or that train on advanced tickets with onerous penalties. Transparency of fares is an important part of affordability so that people can predict what they will need to pay.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2025 ==

I don't think interurban bus will ever effectively compete with rail. I still think for instance that the Oxford-Bedford X5 will be killed (or at least seriously reduced) by the opening of the first phase of East West Rail, as Buckingham alone isn't enough to sustain it. However, what it does do is fill gaps in the railway network that the railway is not ever intending to fill, and in some cases augment it where the rail service is very poor (e.g. some services around Leeds like the Transdev 36).

I agree with this. This is often how I use it.

 

[JonathanH]

It's so frustrating to see the railway going ever more towards confining people to this or that train on advanced tickets with onerous penalties.

The challenge is that even if fares had only gone up with retail inflation from BR days, they would still be much more now than they were in 1994. In essence, advance fares have allowed some journeys to be made now at the level of flexible fares 30 years ago.

 

[D6975]

The challenge is that even if fares had only gone up with retail inflation from BR days, they would still be much more now than they were in 1994. In essence, advance fares have allowed some journeys to be made now at the level of flexible fares 30 years ago.

I've been looking up some fares recently and found that the advance fare seems to have disappeared completely. A journey down to west Wales that I was planning to do has gone from about £35 with two advance singles is now £106 with two anytime singles, no other fare available. Needless to say I am not going anymore.

ps, I have tried numerous different dates and it's the same for tham all, the Advance doesn't seem to exist anymore in this area.

 

[yorksrob]

The challenge is that even if fares had only gone up with retail inflation from BR days, they would still be much more now than they were in 1994. In essence, advance fares have allowed some journeys to be made now at the level of flexible fares 30 years ago.

This is true to an extent - everything's gone up. I can remember being in the pub in the nineties and discussing how a pint of beer in London was over £2 (can you imagine !?).

Looking at the inflation calculator, £20 from 1992 should now be around £44.

I wonder how many IC walk on fares have only gone up by that much !

I wonder how much advance purchase fares have made it easier for them to hike up the walk on fare !

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've been looking up some fares recently and found that the advance fare seems to have disappeared completely. A journey down to west Wales that I was planning to do has gone from about £35 with two advance singles is now £106 with two anytime singles, no other fare available. Needless to say I am not going anymore.

And this is one big problem with Advances, they can just disappear (or sell out). LNER for instance can just up all Edinburgh-London fares to £200 during the Fringe, for instance, and one bets they will do exactly that. I bet they would even like to get rid of the Anytime so it can be £500, certainly the hotels are all at it!

 

[modernrail]

Only if people are reserving seats between London and Stevenage. I'd suggest few people do, and if they do it is only because journey planners do this automatically and without asking even when retailing flexible tickets (and then the passenger probably doesn't use the reservation anyway). I don't know how you solve it, but it is quite unnecessary to automatically give seat reservations to people going from London to Stevenage at peak times if they select an LNER train when buying a flexible ticket.

People travelling on those trains without a reserved seat are not stopping long distance passengers booking onto those trains, nor should they be (and I suspect they're not) preventing those passengers sitting down when they board at Kings Cross. Most of them are standing in the vestibules, as @Hadders has explained. And even if they did occupy seat reserved by a long distance passenger, they wouldn't prevent that passenger sitting down when the train reaches Stevenage. What would be a waste of capacity would be running those trains without utilising the standing room in the vestibules (and, where necessary, the aisles) between London and Stevenage - people travelling further don't want to stand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2025 ==


Absolutely!

The peak fares are stopping the train being utilised for longer distance journeys. The Stevenage etc passengers get the benefit but the result is still a lack of utilisation for over half the journey and a lack of availability of reasonably affordable tickets to those who might use them, whether they be in Yorkshire, The North West, West Country or Wales.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2025 ==

No one must fall into the trap of suggesting that travelling by coach or interurban bus is a bad thing, and all such journeys should be made by train.

That’s not what is being said though. It is that a proportion of those users would prefer to use the railway. There is no must or should being suggested.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2025 ==

I do find this debate very hard to have without any loadings data for the various lines for different services. Do we really not have that?

If we don’t, I assume the TOCs themselves do, down to a fairly granular level?

 

[Richardr]

Becoming bigger should absolutely be the aim, but it's not a precondition of being able to make and win the argument.

The motorist lobby was extremely small in the 1950s when it was able to persuade politicians to knock down people's houses (among other things) so that other people could pay for the construction of roads for a tiny minority to drive their private cars on. Far more people walked, cycled or used public transport at that time than drove cars. The growth in the number of car owners and drivers followed on from those successes - it wasn't required in order for successful lobbying and campaigning to take place.

Advocates of greater subsidy of rail have a much better argument than the road lobby ever did at that time.

At the time as a country we were building infrastructure. Now we can't or if we do the price is stupidly high for all sorts of reasons. It is not as if we are still building motorways - only the M6 Toll has been built this century and that was over two decades ago. We were able to build the new towns then, now we can't build anywhere near enough houses.

 

[modernrail]

At the time as a country we were building infrastructure. Now we can't or if we do the price is stupidly high for all sorts of reasons. It is not as if we are still building motorways - only the M6 Toll has been built this century and that was over two decades ago. We were able to build the new towns then, now we can't build anywhere near enough houses.

I am convinced part of the reason for this is because we have let the consultancy and contractor market get completely out of control whilst at the same time not directing it properly, which is a recipe for disaster.

On the capital programme I work on, I think we are spending at least double if not triple what needs to be spent on pre-construction development and the consultancies involved are having a feeding frenzy.

A Gov insider once said to me the tragedy of the railways is that everything gets spent up before you get to the bit where you buy the train so that unless London commuter trains, you end up with really undersized services, because that is the bit where the Gov flinches. No idea what truth there is in it but it does feel about right for nonsense like transpennine and XC running around half sized.

 

[Magdalia]

It is not as if we are still building motorways - only the M6 Toll has been built this century and that was over two decades ago.

They may not be motorways, but new roads are being built.

In recent years we have had the Girton-Brampton Hut A14 improvement, which included about 10 miles of new road between the Trinity Foot and Brampton Hut, and a giant new grade separated junction with the A1 at the latter. This project cost about £1.5bn.

Currently going on is the Black Cat-Caxton Gibbet A428 improvement, which also includes about 10 miles of new road, and a new grade separated junction with the A1. This project is costing about £1bn.

And the Lower Thames crossing was approved recently.

 

[talldave]

Absolutely, perception is a massive part of it.

I've often had people say oh that train must've cost a fortune, but then I break down the alternative (usually driving), and actually not owning a car saved me a fortune at the time.

We've recently gone down to a one car household (owing to one being uneconomical to repair), and it took me a while to knock on the head the idea of replacing the second car. Something inside me just felt we should have two cars, as a two adult household and a driveway with space for both. But I stood back after a while and considered that really it doesn't make financial sense. Even where public transport wouldn't be an option, the cost of a 3-day car rental every now and then would be cheaper than buying, VED'ing, MOT'ing, servicing, insuring, fuelling a second motor. I think deep down it was a perception thing more than anything, sad to say.

I think you've hit on a very good example of how car transport has gained totally new approaches in the form of car clubs for very short term rentals - almost a drive yourself Uber.

Rental bike schemes are similarly providing something that just didn't exist previously.

For London buses the Hopper fare was an inspirational solution - focusing on the journey rather than the physical transport facilities utilised.

It feels as if rail is having a go, with, say, flexi-seasons, but are there other approaches we haven't thought of yet? (Eg discounts based on frequency of use?).

 

[gc4946]

This morning I applied for my senior railcard (plastic, not digital) having just turned 60.
With the prospect of saving up to a third off rail fares, it means I can afford to travel further, especially with the new football season starting in August.
Up to now - and will continue to do so - I've taken advantage of split fares and special offers if relevant and available, but for those less aware of the fares system, choosing the right fare is a minefield.
Price perception is king, if people struggle to understand the complexities, and fear the consequences of a mistake resulting in a penalty fare or worse, they opt for bus or coach because they're perceived as cheaper alternatives.

 

[redreni]

At the time as a country we were building infrastructure.

No rail infrastructure.

Now we can't or if we do the price is stupidly high for all sorts of reasons.

Chief among which is industry has absolutely no idea what is going to be required, in terms of specific projects or even just in terms of what the overall level of demand for particular skills, capabilities and equipment might be over any vaguely sensible time horizon, and even then it has no idea if specs will be changed or funding pulled well into the planning and preparation stage or, indeed, well into the construction phase. This isn't an imponderable - the solutions to this are very obvious, it's just that the Treasury doesn't like and won't implement the solutions.

It is not as if we are still building motorways - only the M6 Toll has been built this century and that was over two decades ago.

No but we are building new roads, and widening roads, including motorways and major routes like the A14. In a way that we are not able to widen, for example, problematic railway bottlenecks like the line through Manchester Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

We were able to build the new towns then, now we can't build anywhere near enough houses.

Possibly outside the scope of this thread, but I don't accept that we can't build them. Perhaps we can agree that we aren't building them? The notion that these things are for some reason impossible (as opposed to politically difficult and not currently within the Overton window) despite the fact we could do it 70 years ago when we were broke, would require a very good explanation indeed. The lack of available funds wasn't a problem then, not because funds were available, but because we decided it wasn't a problem. Having spent a lot of money we didn't have (which you can do if you issue the currency and own the central bank), we controlled inflation by taxing it back from those who could pay. Again, something that is politically very difficult now, but not impossible. And it's not going to get any easier the longer we allow the super rich to accumulate more and more wealth and power.

 

[crablab]

Price perception is king, if people struggle to understand the complexities, and fear the consequences of a mistake resulting in a penalty fare or worse, they opt for bus or coach because they're perceived as cheaper alternatives.

A Bahncard 100 (2nd class) is €5000. This allows unlimited travel across Germany on all IC and RE.

A Reading to London annual 2nd class season is £5000.

NS have a similar pass (which is usually paid for by employers directly).

I currently spend nowhere near the annual season on the railway, yet if a Bahncard 100 equivalent product was available I would strongly consider it. The journeys above that (eg.) £5k of spend would be fairly marginal cost to the railway, and they'd guarantee a nice yearly lump sum. Whereas, there's absolutely zero incentive to waste money on an inflexible annual season.

My view is posters are entirely correct when they state it's not just about price; it's about ease of use & accessibility. The current fares structure achieves neither.

I suggest that's why products like Interrail are so popular, despite being relatively niche & not necessarily best value for money (vs. buying fixed tickets, given reservation costs) - they are simple to understand and offer unlimited flexibility. You do not need to understand the esoteric fares system of $country to use it.

Instead of faffing around with 8 (?) different Railcards with varying terms & entitlements, FlexiSeason, 70 Min flex, Advance etc. etc. it would be far simpler and more passenger friendly to ditch Railcards and introduce something like the Bahncard 25/50/100 structure, along with a simple Sparpreis, Flexpreis etc.

There will always be people that just want to go from A to B one off, for which an Advance or even a flexible ticket is appropriate. But it is fallacy to suggest that's what everyone wants.

How much time and money is expended on ever increasing fares complexity, which is purely to extract maximum revenue?

 

[redreni]

A Bahncard 100 (2nd class) is €5000. This allows unlimited travel across Germany on all IC and RE.

A Reading to London annual 2nd class season is £5000.

You would hope even a Minister would appreciate that this is embarrassing, and shows what happens when you price off demand instead of acknowledging the need to lay on adequate capacity.

There will always be people that just want to go from A to B one off, for which an Advance or even a flexible ticket is appropriate. But it is fallacy to suggest that's what everyone wants.

Agreed. It treats rail travel as a novelty rather than anything anybody can rely on, and is this specifically unhelpful if the aim is to persuade people they can manage without a car (I know that's not the aim, but it needs to be).

Horne said in an interview with Green Signals last week that Advances are what people want and off-peak tickets are "a marginal product", ignoring the fact his company has been pushing people onto advances for decades by pricing them lower than off-peak for trains where off-peak would be valid (with the withdrawal of said off-peak fares being absolutely necessary for completion of the bait-and-switch).

Saying people want whatever slop you happen to be dishing out because they're consuming it seems to be a winning argument with Ministers currently, who appear to think he's got the answers that the entire network needs. But they'll perform whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to avoid the conclusion that we require significant new capacity.