Any Permitted Tickets not valid on LNER from 2nd August???

[35B]

LNER are very keen for passengers to get Advance fares, especially more expensive through fares (no splitting) and from their website.

The idea that someone may get flexible fares and/or cheaper splits and/or buy through our ticketing site seems to horrify them.

Hence, their advertising campaign (at taxpayers expense) aimed at misleading people into using their site instead of sites such as ours.

This airline-style pricing is how the DfT and people like the (now disgraced) Peter Hendy want all TOCs to be run

I have recently purchased through tickets on LNER with cross London to a further destination for 20% less than the London - destination fare. Available through all reputable retailers

 

[modernrail]

I don’t know a lot about him but I really do get the feeling Peter Hendry is about to be a significant part of the problem, especially when paired with the DfT which loves to mis-fire regularly. We need the opposite for the launch of GBR.

Is part of the reason LNER love advances bought through their site because the money goes straight to them? If so, that is example of a point that is privatisation specific and should go away when GBR rail comes into being. As revenue risk is now taken by the Gov now in any case and LNER is public the point should be made to go away now by edict from DfT, not copied into other routes.

Is there an open access angle here. Could Hull/Lumo receive a portion of ticket revenue if they did open the window to off peaks at the same time?

If so, we have set up open access badly. In other countries if you go with the challenger brand, you have to accept you are on their train only. Yes you would hope a bit of help the passenger would come in during network disruption, but if the disruption is open access originating (constantly breaking GC trains) then acceptance should come at a cost to the open access operator.

That should then remove any need to obsess about operator only tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t know a lot about him but I really do get the feeling Peter Hendry is about to be a significant part of the problem, especially when paired with the DfT which loves to mis-fire regularly. We need the opposite for the launch of GBR.

Hendy is a huge problem because he is strongly anti passenger. The whole "gaslighting" way he acted over the Euston debacle highlighted this.

 

[35B]

I don’t know a lot about him but I really do get the feeling Peter Hendry is about to be a significant part of the problem, especially when paired with the DfT which loves to mis-fire regularly. We need the opposite for the launch of GBR.

Is part of the reason LNER love advances bought through their site because the money goes straight to them? If so, that is example of a point that is privatisation specific and should go away when GBR rail comes into being. As revenue risk is now taken by the Gov now in any case and LNER is public the point should be made to go away now by edict from DfT, not copied into other routes.

Is there an open access angle here. Could Hull/Lumo receive a portion of ticket revenue if they did open the window to off peaks at the same time?

If so, we have set up open access badly. In other countries if you go with the challenger brand, you have to accept you are on their train only. Yes you would hope a bit of help the passenger would come in during network disruption, but if the disruption is open access originating (constantly breaking GC trains) then acceptance should come at a cost to the open access operator.

That should then remove any need to obsess about operator only tickets.

My understanding is that shared revenue is a small proportion of ECML revenue. Splitting revenue by flow was introduced by BR, as a way of understanding how income related to costs, and would be needed in any case within a GBR - if you've ever worked in a large organisation, you'll be aware how important it is to be able to manage budgets at a divisional level.

As for limiting OA tickets to be operator only, that is fundamentally anti-customer. The ability to use an open ticket on LNER or Hull Trains means that they provide, jointly, the overall timetable to Grantham

 

[Haywain]

The ability to use an open ticket on LNER or Hull Trains means that they provide, jointly, the overall timetable to Grantham

With single leg pricing, the only people who really benefit from that are season ticket holders. And Hull Trains, who get a little cut of every flexible ticket bought for travel with LNER.

 

[35B]

With single leg pricing, the only people who really benefit from that are season ticket holders. And Hull Trains, who get a little cut of every flexible ticket bought for travel with LNER.

Pre-Covid, I was a season ticket holder - and it was an important part of the mix.

 

[soccermad]

My understanding is that shared revenue is a small proportion of ECML revenue. Splitting revenue by flow was introduced by BR, as a way of understanding how income related to costs, and would be needed in any case within a GBR - if you've ever worked in a large organisation, you'll be aware how important it is to be able to manage budgets at a divisional level.

As for limiting OA tickets to be operator only, that is fundamentally anti-customer. The ability to use an open ticket on LNER or Hull Trains means that they provide, jointly, the overall timetable to Grantham

Retford Also

 

[Haywain]

Retford Also

As with Grantham, the only people who really benefit are season ticket holders.

 

[35B]

As with Grantham, the only people who really benefit are season ticket holders.

From fully open tickets, possibly - though there are enough flexible tickets out there that I've juggled between 1H07 and 1D32 more than once (and, yes, I recognise that's a niche choice).

 

[Krokodil]

Splitting revenue by flow was introduced by BR, as a way of understanding how income related to costs, and would be needed in any case within a GBR

Though as any ticket with an Aztec code is traceable, it should be possible to estimate the usage of most tickets, and just ORCATS the rest

 

[redreni]

I'm sure others may be familiar with data which might confirm my suspicion or otherwise, but surely one potential reason for preferring to slightly undercut off-peak tickets with Advances - and to actively hide off-peak tickets from view in the extended booking horizon - is the money you save on refunds if you can encourage people to forgo their right to a refund by buying an Advance rather than an off-peak?

Plus the money you get from Advance ticket holders who miss their train but still want or need to travel (many of whom won't travel by train again, which is nice as it saves you the trouble of pricing them off).

 

[Sealink]

RE: Grantham London fare, curiously (for me) BR Fares shows:

£57.00
Restrictions
HE HULL TRAINS OFFPK TO/FROM KGX
Journey must include travel on at least one of the following main TOCs: SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, LONDON UNDERGROUND, GREATER ANGLIA, TRANSPENNINE EXPRESS,
C2C, LONDON NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY....

Then you have RailUK Tickets which states:

£57.00
Restriction code HE applies
Valid only on Hull Trains services.
I can only think that the statement on BRFares is a general rule for each specific TOC, which would appear if LNER/Chiltern et al did an Off Peak Travelcard Day Return?

All very confusing.

 

[35B]

Though as any ticket with an Aztec code is traceable, it should be possible to estimate the usage of most tickets, and just ORCATS the rest

I quite agree - but the point remains that even in a single GBR, apportioning income to flows is important. The tech has just moved on since ORCATS was built 30 or 40 years ago

 

[Haywain]

I quite agree - but the point remains that even in a single GBR, apportioning income to flows is important. The tech has just moved on since ORCATS was built 30 or 40 years ago

And with 3 separate open access operators it will continue to be very important on the LNER routes.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I quite agree - but the point remains that even in a single GBR, apportioning income to flows is important. The tech has just moved on since ORCATS was built 30 or 40 years ago

ORCATS is absolutely not a consideration for any open access operator anymore. The revenue you can actually get from it is now little more than a rounding error.

Season ticket use on Open Access is truly negligible to non existent.

Flexible / inter available ticket usage on the East Coast InterCity operations is miniscule and decreasing further each period, pretty much everyone is either on a TOC service specific Advance or in a significantly smaller number, a TOC specific flexible single.

Revenue distribution from genuinely flexible, multi operator tickets is miniscule.

At some point, I expect ORCATS will be wound-up and decommissioned - with a much simpler arrangement put in place to reflect a modern commercial railway. Even with tickets that are/were subject to ORCATS, there are plenty of flows where special arrangements have been negotiated between operators or as private settlement agreements.

GBR doesn't really care about ORCATS anymore than the open access companies do - it's insignificant in the modern railway. They probably care more about the cost of maintaining it and all the associated infrastructure.

 

[Watershed]

At some point, I expect ORCATS will be wound-up and decommissioned - with a much simpler arrangement put in place to reflect a modern commercial railway. Even with tickets that are/were subject to ORCATS, there are plenty of flows where special arrangements have been negotiated between operators or as private settlement agreements.

GBR doesn't really care about ORCATS anymore than the open access companies do - it's insignificant in the modern railway. They probably care more about the cost of maintaining it and all the associated infrastructure.

I don't doubt that a much simpler arrangement could be put in place for GBR-only routes once they have taken over all DfT franchises, since any distribution of revenue will then purely be for internal accounting purposes. But some ORCATS-like arrangement will still be needed for flows that involve non-GBR operators.

You are also taking the position as it applies on certain long distance operators (and only some of them at any rate - Avanti and GWR are a completely different kettle of fish to LNER for example) and extrapolating it as if the entire network ran that way. Long distance operators make up only a relatively small proportion of overall journeys and revenue.

Off-Peak tickets still make up the lion's share of both, and with leisure travel continuing to grow faster than other sectors, that will be the case for the foreseeable future. They are far from the 'miniscule' part of the picture you make them out to be.

 

[35B]

ORCATS is absolutely not a consideration for any open access operator anymore. The revenue you can actually get from it is now little more than a rounding error.

Season ticket use on Open Access is truly negligible to non existent.

Flexible / inter available ticket usage on the East Coast InterCity operations is miniscule and decreasing further each period, pretty much everyone is either on a TOC service specific Advance or in a significantly smaller number, a TOC specific flexible single.

Revenue distribution from genuinely flexible, multi operator tickets is miniscule.

At some point, I expect ORCATS will be wound-up and decommissioned - with a much simpler arrangement put in place to reflect a modern commercial railway. Even with tickets that are/were subject to ORCATS, there are plenty of flows where special arrangements have been negotiated between operators or as private settlement agreements.

GBR doesn't really care about ORCATS anymore than the open access companies do - it's insignificant in the modern railway. They probably care more about the cost of maintaining it and all the associated infrastructure.

Which is absolutely consistent with my observation - if you can straightforwardly get the information without running a complex model, why wouldn't you?

But we are aligned on the core point - which is that this information will remain important, no matter what structure we end up with.

 

[Krokodil]

Flexible / inter available ticket usage on the East Coast InterCity operations is miniscule and decreasing further each period

I wonder how it compares with the West Coast, where the intercity operator hasn't had the same incentive to discourage the use of inter-available tickets (which ultimately ended in the "Simpler Fares" sham on the East Coast)

 

[Haywain]

I wonder how it compares with the West Coast, where the intercity operator hasn't had the same incentive to discourage the use of inter-available tickets (which ultimately ended in the "Simpler Fares" sham on the East Coast)

Simpler fares and single leg pricing work against revenue sharing with OA operators. But there are still a fair number of flexible tickets being used.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I wonder how it compares with the West Coast, where the intercity operator hasn't had the same incentive to discourage the use of inter-available tickets (which ultimately ended in the "Simpler Fares" sham on the East Coast)

It's pretty similar on all genuinely InterCity routes, Advance or other TOC specific fares rule the roost by a huge order of magnitude.

Avanti's Secret Fares and super cheap LNWR AP fares are extremely popular. On routes like Manchester-Wilmslow-Crewe and Manchester-Stockport-Stoke, Northern's dirt cheap AP fares are moving passengers away from the likes of Avanti and CrossCountry (which is fantastic).

I suspect TfW is having a similar effect on Manchester-Crewe and bits around Liverpool.

The only real use of truly flexible fares tends to be at network extremities, e.g. Cornwall local routes, Cardiff valleys etc, (in which case, the revenue isn't likely to be shared with anyone else anyway) or more significantly, the old Network SouthEast area.

Internal Scottish routes are also a very different market.

 

[OscarH]

Avanti's Secret Fares

If only people could actually sell these

 

[modernrail]

It's pretty similar on all genuinely InterCity routes, Advance or other TOC specific fares rule the roost by a huge order of magnitude.

Avanti's Secret Fares and super cheap LNWR AP fares are extremely popular. On routes like Manchester-Wilmslow-Crewe and Manchester-Stockport-Stoke, Northern's dirt cheap AP fares are moving passengers away from the likes of Avanti and CrossCountry (which is fantastic).

I suspect TfW is having a similar effect on Manchester-Crewe and bits around Liverpool.

The only real use of truly flexible fares tends to be at network extremities, e.g. Cornwall local routes, Cardiff valleys etc, (in which case, the revenue isn't likely to be shared with anyone else anyway) or more significantly, the old Network SouthEast area.

Internal Scottish routes are also a very different market.

So why bother trying to get rid of the ones that are left. It doesn’t sound like they create a big deal.

It really does seem to confirm the real reason is to remove the effective cap, resulting in peak travel becoming the preserve of people who are very well off or have a company paying it for them, off peak travel becoming the preserve of those who can book a long time in advance.

It is an infuriating assault on the usable railway as a form of transport.

 

[Adam Williams]

and super cheap LNWR AP fares are extremely popular

Sorry, but they're not nearly as popular as their non-Advance walk-up fares that can be sold in unlimited quantities. (And yes, I looked at sales data first)

Appreciate that doesn't align with the whole "everyone wants Advances" narrative that's being peddled here, but actual passengers like flexibility and they also like being able to refund their tickets instead of losing all of the sunk ticket cost if their plans change.

I think some of the people involved in fares policy should do front-line online retail support for a week or two; they'd get an idea as to what matters to customers in an after-sales context pretty quickly.

 

[modernrail]

Sorry, but they're not nearly as popular as their non-Advance walk-up fares that can be sold in unlimited quantities. (And yes, I looked at sales data first)

Appreciate that doesn't align with the whole "everyone wants Advances" narrative that's being peddled here, but actual passengers like flexibility and they also like being able to refund their tickets instead of losing all of the sunk ticket cost if their plans change.

I think some of the people involved in fares policy should do front-line online retail support for a week or two; they'd get an idea as to what matters to customers in an after-sales context pretty quickly.

And label all the options honestly and transparently and release the options at the sane time, rather than trying to manipulate everything to the nth degree.

 

[Haywain]

I think some of the people involved in fares policy should do front-line online retail support for a week or two; they'd get an idea as to what matters to customers in an after-sales context pretty quickly.

Try a bit of in-person retailing as well and you'll find that what people want when they are buying isn’t necessarily the same as what they want later.

 

[modernrail]

Try a bit of in-person retailing as well and you'll find that what people want when they are buying isn’t necessarily the same as what they want later.

And part of both is how well informed they are by the seller about the options before they consider the options

 

[Krokodil]

I think some of the people involved in fares policy should do front-line online retail support for a week or two; they'd get an idea as to what matters to customers in an after-sales context pretty quickly.

Should spend some time in booking offices and on trains too. It wouldn't take long for them to abandon some of their bright ideas.

 

[redreni]

And label all the options honestly and transparently and release the options at the sane time, rather than trying to manipulate everything to the nth degree.

Well, yeah. I can understand that might not be the optimum way of doing things commercially. It is, however, the only real way of settling this vexed question of what passengers prefer.

I, for one, don't find it very persuasive when I am told most people buy Advances and this proves they have an innate preference for Advances.

It's rather like a fast food joint. They probably have a menu somewhere with a full list of all the items they sell, but pretty obviously, all else being equal it will help a great deal if a particular item (or combination of items) is made prominent at the point of sale as well as just being listed on the menu. It's not only about any preferences a customer may have had when they walked in.

 

[modernrail]

Well, yeah. I can understand that might not be the optimum way of doing things commercially. It is, however, the only real way of settling this vexed question of what passengers prefer.

I, for one, don't find it very persuasive when I am told most people buy Advances and this proves they have an innate preference for Advances.

It's rather like a fast food joint. They probably have a menu somewhere with a full list of all the items they sell, but pretty obviously, all else being equal it will help a great deal if a particular item (or combination of items) is made prominent at the point of sale as well as just being listed on the menu. It's not only about any preferences a customer may have had when they walked in.

Exactly

 

[sheff1]

The only real use of truly flexible fares tends to be at network extremities, e.g. Cornwall local routes, Cardiff valleys etc, (in which case, the revenue isn't likely to be shared with anyone else anyway) or more significantly, the old Network SouthEast area.

Sheffield is not at a network extremity. Are you seriously saying "real use" of flexible tickets on significant flows* to/from the city served by two or more TOCs is not happening ?

* I am thinking of places such as Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham, Derby, Doncaster. I know I invariably use flexible return tickets when making return trips to those places.