• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Lord Hendy decides that Advances are the Way Forward

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nicholas43

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
652
Location
Radley
The Government has announced that Advances are the way forward, at least in the north. The press release claims that:
Publicly owned train operators, LNER, TransPennine Express and Northern, worked with Network Rail to launch a joint initiative to provide more options to people travelling across the North by making fares cheaper on routes that required an interchange between the operators.

Following a pilot launched June 24 2025, operators have found this initiative has already:

delivered significant passenger savings by making advance fares available across the whole route at the same time
generated £200,000 in additional revenue for the railway, encouraging people to choose public transport.
Personally, I regard 'Advances' sold a few minutes before your train is due, and ensnaring you if you get in a slight muddle, as a Cruel Deception.
Link to press release:
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
2,713
Location
Slade Green
Is the study going to be published, or will we have to FOI them for it? Where did they get people's geo-data? How much of that sort of data did they have and what was the methodology?

In fairness, the system of not having good value walk-up fares, and only offering value through advances where commercially advantageous, already applies. It's just that what is commercially advantageous to the operator will be different where there's only really one operator rather than several, as they have the ability to price Advances on the entire route where previously they'd have had to have an "& connections" fare. Presumably an '& Connections' fare involving other operators' services means you have to add the other operator's walk-up fare to whatever you as the fare-setter want to charge for the Advance fare for your portion of the journey?

I'd like to see more information, but my provisional and tentative view would be that this is a rationalisation within an already stupid and wrong-headed system, which possibly could make the passenger experience a bit less awful if GBR wants it to.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,364
Location
Yorks
Well, advances can provide people with good options.

The issue is with what they are going to take away to support the policy.

The problem is that LNER's crooked fares trial has made me cynical that an increase in advanced fares will mean some flexible fares will be withdrawn.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,102
Location
Redcar
Am I going mad or is this not what we already had with "& Connections" tickets?
 

fandroid

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2014
Messages
2,565
Location
Hampshire
It would help the public's understanding if they stopped calling them Advance tickets, given that Northern sell them up to 15 mins before departure so they're no more actually advance than flexible tickets are.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,282
Well if they can get everyone in the north using ‘advance fares’ on their local commute, they’ll also be able to ching them again for a PF when they use the wrong train...
 

Nicholas43

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
652
Location
Radley
It would help the public's understanding if they stopped calling them Advance tickets, given that Northern sell them up to 15 mins before departure so they're no more actually advance than flexible tickets are.
Yes yes yes! They could call them, for example, 'annoyingly inflexible tickets tying you to particular trains'.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,876
"generated £200,000 in additional revenue for the railway"

As a result of passengers being done for being on the wrong train?
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,581
Location
Wales
Well if they can get everyone in the north using ‘advance fares’ on their local commute, they’ll also be able to ching them again for a PF when they use the wrong train...
So passengers in the South East get the flexibility, convenience and simplicity of "tap-in, tap-out" contactless while passengers in the North must decide precisely which train they want to board for their return journey or else be stung.

Some people call me cynical.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,923
Location
Mold, Clwyd
So is this anything more than an agreement for Northern/TPE/LNER to release Advance fares at the same time, for northern routes?
With Advance fares being variable it's hard to know if they are now cheaper or more flexible than before.
And the TOCs could be told to do this in their operating contracts whether they are in public ownership or not.

The press release has two dates in it for the trial period, one from June 2024, the other from June 2025.
How can they know that there has been £200K extra revenue if the trial only starts today?

Along with the news that you can use any public TOC without formality during disruption, it looks like a new set of rules applying to public (ie GBR) TOCs is emerging.
But only for DfT-run public TOCs (ie not Scotrail/TfW/Merseyrail or TfL).
 

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
2,713
Location
Slade Green
I support nationalisation in principle, and therefore support regulation rather than competition and market forces as the way fares should be set. Because I'm an idealist.

In the real world, of course, taking a flow like Leeds to Manchester as an example, when TPE and Northern were in genuine competition with each other and with the coach operators, that led to lower fares on that flow than on comparable flows without meaningful competition. One notices this when trying, for instance, to travel from Halifax to Manchester and realising it costs far more than a Leeds to Manchester ticket on the same train, because only Northern are serving Halifax and therefore they're not in competition with TPE or coaches.

A commitment to unregulated Advance fares in the era of nationalisation worries me. I'd be interested in the views of anyone with expertise in competition law as to what risks, if any, they may be running if they create a state monopoly and then tell the public authority that runs it to just maximise revenue.
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
4,410
This is an astonishiingly self-congratulatory announcement that is actually announcing something done already (it's nothing to do with nationalisation), that I very much doubt on the revenue front, and that is going down exactly the route that customers don't want. And it includes the phrase "world class" in paragraph two - anything that includes this phrase can safely assumed to be far from "world class".
 

Tazi Hupefi

On Moderation
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
1,838
Location
Nottinghamshire
The concept is pretty neat really.

Take all the mobile phone mast data between various geographic points (which all mobile operators sell along with anonymised demographic data of mobile phone owner/SIM subscriber).

Exclude people who are travelling by train.

Identify market segments such as coach, car, bus etc.

Work out a pricing/ marketing strategy to target the segments you want to switch to rail.

Implement the pricing / marketing strategy.

See if the rail market grows at the expense of the other segments.

That's quite a neat use of data. Can moan/argue about which fares are used, but the concept is more than sound.

You can even model whether multi-modal journey opportunities would have been viable etc or whether a car would always win for that specific subscriber's journey.

You can even see how often that subscriber is travelling etc, where else they go etc - but you can't link back to a specific individual in terms of personal level information.
 

MarlowDonkey

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,869
The Government has announced that Advances are the way forward, at least in the north
I notice they use the term "advance" throughout the statement. They don't say anywhere that "Advance" tickets are a special type of ticket restricted for validity to a single train.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
6,060
Location
Sheffield
Am I going mad or is this not what we already had with "& Connections" tickets?
I am not sure, but are the Northern/LNER 'Advances' which are on sale up to a few minutes before departure available on any "% connections" flows or just on journeys on the setting TOC ?

Certainly if I wanted to travel from York to Sheffield now it is considerably cheaper to book an LNER Advance to Doncaster on the 2119 and an onward Northern Advance to Sheffield. No Advances are available for a through ticket.
 
Last edited:

sh24

Established Member
Joined
28 Sep 2023
Messages
1,500
Location
London
Smart of use of data to refine commercial proposition isn't the worst thing in the world?
 

thedbdiboy

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
1,210
I support nationalisation in principle, and therefore support regulation rather than competition and market forces as the way fares should be set. Because I'm an idealist.
But 'Regulation' only actually applies where you have privatisation. Fare regulation did not exist under BR. Even though GBR is not yet established, Government has already nationalised the farebox, every TOC had to sign away their right to benefit from fares revenue in order to be bailed out during COVID.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
22,795
Location
West of Andover
So passengers in the South East get the flexibility, convenience and simplicity of "tap-in, tap-out" contactless while passengers in the North must decide precisely which train they want to board for their return journey or else be stung.

Some people call me cynical.
Agreed there, especially on the routes which have multiple trains per hour.

"Sorry Sir, your ticket was for the train was for 10 minutes later, we will take your details down and send a £100 penalty 'fake' in the post"
 

nwales58

Established Member
Joined
15 Mar 2022
Messages
1,365
Location
notsure
The concept is pretty neat really.

Take all the mobile phone mast data between various geographic points (which all mobile operators sell along with anonymised demographic data of mobile phone owner/SIM subscriber).
[snip]

Let’s move from that concept to the real world.

About a decade ago the mobile operators and a few consultancies started pushing the idea of origin-destination matrices from cell exit data, even better multi-mode trip stages would automatically be linked andtrip purpose and other segmentation could magically be inferred. Expensive surveys would be history.

We tried to validate a sample we’d been given. Assigned to the network not even the road flows validated acceptably against count data and the bus data seemed more like random noise.

I can guess why, all the assumptions and sub-models involved in turning cell data into transport data add unknown error.

So please point me at a solid piece of research showing that this stuff validates. I retired over 5 years ago so I’ve no idea what happened since.

Salesmen always tell you this kind of thing works, but often you are buying an expensive random number generator.

You can even see how often that subscriber is travelling etc, where else they go etc - but you can't link back to a specific individual in terms of personal level information.
In the demo, probably O2 were showing, they were proud of linking all the stages of a car wandering around south London with frequent trips to Gatwick and back. So probably a private hire driver. Parked in the same place each night apparently. Pretty close to personally identifiable information in my view.

Then Detica started telling us how good they are at linking apparently unlinked data. Nowadays Palantir are probably doing it even better.

Is everyone happy their movements are being sold to marketing firms and others?

Back on the main topic, I’d really like to see some hard data on these revenue increases from selling low value shortish distance advances. Are there genuinely enough new trips to offset the reduced average fare paid? If so, how much comes from new versus existing users? Does it persist after marketing ceases? What if the non-advance fare was reduced to the new yield, would you get the same revenue with increased user convenience?
 

fandroid

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2014
Messages
2,565
Location
Hampshire
Do Cross Country still offer fee free changes for Advance tickets? If so does it apply to other TOCs or only XC?
All Advance tickets that they sell via their website/app for any appropriate journey
 

Tazi Hupefi

On Moderation
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
1,838
Location
Nottinghamshire
[snip]

Let’s move from that concept to the real world.

About a decade ago the mobile operators and a few consultancies started pushing the idea of origin-destination matrices from cell exit data, even better multi-mode trip stages would automatically be linked andtrip purpose and other segmentation could magically be inferred. Expensive surveys would be history.

We tried to validate a sample we’d been given. Assigned to the network not even the road flows validated acceptably against count data and the bus data seemed more like random noise.

I can guess why, all the assumptions and sub-models involved in turning cell data into transport data add unknown error.

So please point me at a solid piece of research showing that this stuff validates. I retired over 5 years ago so I’ve no idea what happened since.

Salesmen always tell you this kind of thing works, but often you are buying an expensive random number generator.


In the demo, probably O2 were showing, they were proud of linking all the stages of a car wandering around south London with frequent trips to Gatwick and back. So probably a private hire driver. Parked in the same place each night apparently. Pretty close to personally identifiable information in my view.

Then Detica started telling us how good they are at linking apparently unlinked data. Nowadays Palantir are probably doing it even better.

Is everyone happy their movements are being sold to marketing firms and others?

Back on the main topic, I’d really like to see some hard data on these revenue increases from selling low value shortish distance advances. Are there genuinely enough new trips to offset the reduced average fare paid? If so, how much comes from new versus existing users? Does it persist after marketing ceases? What if the non-advance fare was reduced to the new yield, would you get the same revenue with increased user convenience?
I think that's quite wrong with respect.

Even if the data wasn't great a decade ago, it was a decade ago!

Data analytics and underlying technology has evolved considerably over that time, and it is something that AI is genuinely suited to - letting it analyse huge datasets. A decade is like going from coal to nuclear in technological terms.

TfL has been using WiFi data and (now) mobile phone signal data for their own purposes for years to count passengers and work out how people are travelling.

Your movements aren't being sold either. Movements are being sold, along with your probable demographic background. Anonymised to the extent that they can't reasonably be reverse engineered. So ultimately it's not my data to worry about.

Given this data is quite expensive to purchase, with further costs then in analysing it and transforming it into a useful strategy for your business - there must be a solid business case for it - or it simply wouldn't have left the drawing board.

If they expand / extend this further - then you will have absolute certainty that it is generating genuine new revenue/ custom. It doesn't really matter if people are paying lower fares, if it aligns with other government objectives such as moving people from road to rail.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,553
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Back to this proposal, isn't it just sorting out stuff like quotas so through Advances come up for sale again? This has long been a problem since pretty much every train on the network became "reservable" - because each TOC does the quotas its own way we have ended up with a situation where non-aligning quotas mean through Advances often don't come up for sale. Thus those not using a splitting site (though admittedly almost everyone is because of Trainline) pay way over the odds.
 

thedbdiboy

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
1,210
Back to this proposal, isn't it just sorting out stuff like quotas so through Advances come up for sale again? This has long been a problem since pretty much every train on the network became "reservable" - because each TOC does the quotas its own way we have ended up with a situation where non-aligning quotas mean through Advances often don't come up for sale. Thus those not using a splitting site (though admittedly almost everyone is because of Trainline) pay way over the odds.
I think this is a critical point - the 'reform' which started off as 'TOC trials' is now very much looking towards a future GBR managed fare structure, and if the expansion of yield managed fares is going to work with everyday customers, it will need to function at a network level. Under the TOC structure, non-Intercity operators had no business case to run the type of yield management capability needed to ensure accurate management of availability but as we leave TOC land behind, you don't need a system per TOC - it becomes an industry level capability The days of the Excel spreadsheet to manage Advance quotas are numbered.
 

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
2,713
Location
Slade Green
I think this is a critical point - the 'reform' which started off as 'TOC trials' is now very much looking towards a future GBR managed fare structure, and if the expansion of yield managed fares is going to work with everyday customers, it will need to function at a network level. Under the TOC structure, non-Intercity operators had no business case to run the type of yield management capability needed to ensure accurate management of availability but as we leave TOC land behind, you don't need a system per TOC - it becomes an industry level capability The days of the Excel spreadsheet to manage Advance quotas are numbered.
Then let me leave this here as a sort of a bookmark for in 5 or 10 years time when people are pointing at GBR's shortcomings and saying it proves that nationalisation can never work and those who supported it were fools:

I never said I supported yield management at the network level. It is perfectly possible to do nationalisation badly, and this is not a good sign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top