Should peak fares in England be abolished?

[yorksrob]

Peak fares for long-distance service are pointless IMO, it's a blunt tool where we have better methods available. Much better to have an actual demand management system via advance-only for IC services (i.e. the LNER trial).

That's a terrible system. And the LNER "trial" doesn't even abolish the peak fare, it abolishes the off-peak one.

 

[Manutd1999]

That's a terrible system. And the LNER "trial" doesn't even abolish the peak fare, it abolishes the off-peak one.

I see peak fares as a demand management tool - increasing prices to reduce demand on the busiest services. The problem is that is that generic blocks of time don't always correlate with demand. So somebody travelling on a quieter friday AM service has to pay peak fares, whereas someone travelling on a packed mid-afternoon before a weekend football game gets to benefit from lower fares. Is that fair?

The LNER trial system addresses this by pricing based on actual demand, not a pre-determined assumption. It doesn't seem to work perfectly, but the principle is that it works on a train-by-train basis and not just by targeting a generic block of services.

I'm intrigued why most people here seem to support peak fares but are strongly against extending the same principles to off-peak.

 

[PeterC]

When were these premium fares for peak travel introduced? In my younger days there was a standard fare and a few discounted fares like cheap day returns..

 

[Mainline421]

The LNER trial system addresses this by pricing based on actual demand, not a pre-determined assumption. It doesn't seem to work perfectly, but the principle is that it works on a train-by-train basis and not just by targeting a generic block of services.

No it doesn't quite simply. Advances are priced to maximise revenue based on what people are willing to pay, not based on the volume of demand per train.

 

[LLivery]

Personally, I'd axe it in most cases. But that's my political/economic ideology talking.

I see peak fares as a demand management tool - increasing prices to reduce demand on the busiest services. The problem is that is that generic blocks of time don't always correlate with demand. So somebody travelling on a quieter friday AM service has to pay peak fares, whereas someone travelling on a packed mid-afternoon before a weekend football game gets to benefit from lower fares. Is that fair?

The LNER trial system addresses this by pricing based on actual demand, not a pre-determined assumption. It doesn't seem to work perfectly, but the principle is that it works on a train-by-train basis and not just by targeting a generic block of services.

I'm intrigued why most people here seem to support peak fares but are strongly against extending the same principles to off-peak.

Well, quite. Peak fares are seen as that, I'm not convinced it works very well in all honesty. If it was really a good system, then why reduce peak capacity after Covid? Because demand fell. So if demand fell, what's the need for the demand management? On many routes, not all, but many, there is no need for it. It's fleeing passengers.

No only that, but you're then ripping people off travelling against the peak flow on pretty empty trains. If you want to manage demand, then here it should be managed to increase passengers, not further reduce numbers on empty trains and force potential passengers onto the roads.

In my view, dynamic pricing off peak goes against what a public rail service should be in all honesty. I hate it. I can understand it on HSR with limited seating, but this is the ECML, not HS2. People should be able to travel and affordably so when they want to. I'll happily stand to Newcastle for an affordable fare than get priced off it.

 

[JonathanH]

Well, quite. Peak fares are seen as that, I'm not convinced it works very well in all honesty. If it was really a good system, then why reduce peak capacity after Covid? Because demand fell. So if demand fell, what's the need for the demand management? On many routes, not all, but many, there is no need for it. It's fleeing passengers.

The premise has long been that so-called 'peak extras' cost a lot to provide, relative to running the same service all day. At the same time, the demand hasn't fallen because necessarily of high prices, but because of a structural change in how people work. The funder of the railway doesn't really have the desire to continue to provide additional capacity if a timetable without peak extras can be proven to be sufficient. It doesn't want to reduce revenue paid by a smaller customer base.

 

[LLivery]

The premise has long been that so-called 'peak extras' cost a lot to provide, relative to running the same service all day. At the same time, the demand hasn't fallen because necessarily of high prices, but because of a structural change in how people work. The funder of the railway doesn't really have the desire to continue to provide additional capacity if a timetable without peak extras can be proven to be sufficient. It doesn't want to reduce revenue paid by a smaller customer base.

Exactly. So, the reason for peak fares is no longer demand management, it's about retaining revenue. Which in principle is fine, but let's not pretend it's about anything else.

And that still doesn't make sense for counter-peak-flow. Some of these are so empty, it's got to make more sense lowering those fares and trying to attract custom. I can imagine there are a lot of school children who'd use the train if it wasn't peak fare vs often a free bus.

Ironically, the routes which need some demand management (London Overground) has lower fares than the rest of the network.

 

[JonathanH]

And that still doesn't make sense for counter-peak-flow. Some of these are so empty, it's got to make more sense lowering those fares and trying to attract custom.

Isn't that also very much about retaining revenue? A view that lower prices wouldn't stimulate demand.

 

[LLivery]

Isn't that also very much about retaining revenue? A view that lower prices wouldn't stimulate demand.

Maybe, but it's not a view I agree with. I know when I had a lower paid job, I often chose the bus because I couldn't justify double the cost to get home. And I know others in the same boat to this day. People who live in South London who, for example, work in Bromley's shopping centre actively choose the bus when they could take a train, simply because of the price. Buses are busy in Lewisham, Bromley, Croydon heading to the the same suburbs the much emptier trains are.

 

[blimmo]

If it isn't about changing people's behaviour then the fares structure is simply a question of what the fairest way to fund the railway is.

I don't think that it's particularly fair to charge extra to people just because you don't have much choice about when you travel. Maybe the peak commuters are the only reason we spend so much money on infra etc. but especially after COVID that doesn't really seem fair.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll happily stand to Newcastle for an affordable fare than get priced off it.

The vast majority of passengers don't agree with you - by far the biggest complaint on the railway is overcrowding. While I support walk-up fares I don't even agree with you - serious overcrowding (as distinct from a couple of standees in each vestibule) seriously impacts upon the quality of a journey and we really should not be setting up a fares system that will encourage that to happen.

I assume you are relatively young and fully able bodied?

In practice we couldn't do a serious price dump to fares if we didn't also do enforced compulsory reservation, maybe with a 5-10% counted place quota above the actual seats, to keep things within some level of reason. I'd rather slightly higher fares (i.e. fares as they are now outside of the LNER trial) than any of that.

 

[blimmo]

Could we not just charge for seat reservations? Then the people who really care about getting a seat can do that and those of us that want to be able to get somewhere for a reasonable price can do it even if we have to stand. Leaving people behind on the basis that it'll inconvenience the people who are on the train is not really acceptable imo.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

The vast majority of passengers don't agree with you

Is this infrequent intercity passengers who will always want a seat reservation or commuters who just want their commutes to be more pleasant? I think those two groups need to be separated out here

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could we not just charge for seat reservations? Then the people who really care about getting a seat can do that and those of us that want to be able to get somewhere for a reasonable price can do it even if we have to stand. Leaving people behind on the basis that it'll inconvenience the people who are on the train is not really acceptable imo.

I don't think we're really talking about leaving people behind (the vast majority of long distance trains don't, not even chronically-overcrowded XC, it only really happens when there's a short form, and that's better than leaving everyone behind by cancelling - I've declined to board a busy long distance train because I preferred to wait for another one, but the only train I've been physically unable to board in the last 10 years or so was a TfW on a Saturday when there were no WCML North West-Birmingham services due to engineering works and it showed up as a 2 car). We're talking about not price dumping fares so as to create huge extra demand the railway couldn't handle and losing the ability to price people around between busier and less busy trains using Advance fares.

 

[blimmo]

losing the ability to price people around between busier and less busy trains using Advance fares.

I wasn't advocating removing advances (where appropriate i.e. intercity) rather removing time restricted tickets. I wonder how effective variable seat reservation fees would be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wasn't advocating removing advances (where appropriate i.e. intercity) rather removing time restricted tickets.

So the LNER trial you mean? That would certainly manage overcrowding, but most on here wouldn't like it due to the lack of flexibility.

If you meant ScotRail style, the difference between IC peak and off peak is too great to do that.

You could probably do something like DB, whereby there's just one flexible fare but it differs by day of the week rather than time? Feasibly you could possibly just have Tuesday to Thursday at the highest rates (most business travel on those days), Monday in the middle (bit of both), and Friday, Saturday and Sunday at the lowest (almost all travel is probably leisure). (Walk up fares on Avanti are off peak all day on Fridays).

I wonder how effective variable seat reservation fees would be.

The Riviera sleeper does that - the fare component is a Super Off Peak Single or portion of a return, and there are variable berth prices on top if you want a berth.

 

[blimmo]

If you meant ScotRail style, the difference between IC peak and off peak is too great to do that.

Because it would require too much subsidy?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because it would require too much subsidy?

That's the main reason, yes. Though it was part of Avanti's franchise agreement (which COVID knackered) to knock I think about 20-30% off Anytime fares. The effect of that had it happened would have been an interesting study.

 

[blimmo]

In that case we are back to just questioning how to fairly split the cost of running the service.

Effectively I'm saying reducing anytimes to off peak prices and continuing to sell advances would retain the ability to shift demand in general (and therefore hopefully assuage the overcrowding fears) while rebalancing the distribution of the cost of the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that case we are back to just questioning how to fairly split the cost of running the service.

It would certainly be possible to do it by working out the average fare paid and distributing it differently, but if you did just one single fare from Euston-Manchester with no Advances or peak/off peak differentiation it would probably be about 80-120 quid, and I doubt people would tolerate that. If you added Advances in it'd have to be even higher, though Euston-Manchester Anytime is a particularly swingeing example as it's almost as high as Kings Cross-Edinburgh which is twice as far and could realistically come down a fair bit.

 

[blimmo]

Yeah I don't think the price should be calculated based on the costs tbh. I'd rather it was calculated to be an attractive alternative to driving/whatever mode the railway is competing with on a given flow and subsidy used to make up the difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah I don't think the price should be calculated based on the costs tbh. I'd rather it was calculated to be an attractive alternative to driving/whatever mode the railway is competing with on a given flow and subsidy used to make up the difference.

I agree in principle, but you also need to manage overcrowding. If you suddenly made Euston-Manchester 50 quid Anytime Single, for example, it'd be swamped. It might be feasible to do that if some 400m platforms were built and the HS2 units were very high density, though, as in that case you could get close to tripling capacity and could price dump to fill it.

 

[blimmo]

I agree in principle, but you also need to manage overcrowding. If you suddenly made Euston-Manchester 50 quid Anytime Single, for example, it'd be swamped. It might be feasible to do that if some 400m platforms were built and the HS2 units were very high density, though, as in that case you could get close to tripling capacity and could price dump to fill it.

Is that not what the whole discussion about advances was about? You can still push people to the less crowded services with cheaper tickets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

I suspect the difference here is that I'm ok with an overcrowded service if the alternative is those people driving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that not what the whole discussion about advances was about? You can still push people to the less crowded services with cheaper tickets.

If you drop your walk up fares *too* much people won't use Advances, though, and so that ability is weakened.

One upside of the LNER fares trial off-peak is that they have a much more effective way of pricing people around which allows for vastly more efficient rolling stock deployment as a peak 5 car is no longer going to be absolutely horrible, you just only offer your £80 fares until the last few seats then crank it up to £200. If the 5 car 1500 is £200 and the 10 car 1530 is £80, which are most people going to choose?

 

[blimmo]

Even if they're both £80 I bet most flexible leisure passengers would take the 10 car if they are told they won't get a seat on the 5 car and it will be overcrowded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if they're both £80 I bet most flexible leisure passengers would take the 10 car if they are told they won't get a seat on the 5 car and it will be overcrowded.

That it would be overcrowded probably says otherwise. I personally always avoid 4 car trains on the south WCML (and 2s on the Chiltern Met), but a lot of people don't!

 

[blimmo]

I guess the other difference is that if I have a seat I don't find an overcrowded train that uncomfortable?

I don't think my desire to wander around the train sometimes outweighs the people who could be standing in the aisle's desire to travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess the other difference is that if I have a seat I don't find an overcrowded train that uncomfortable?

It's unpleasant. It's hard to board, stressful to alight and difficult to get to the toilet and buffet/the trolley can't come through. A few standees are OK, but a rammed-and-standing train is just nasty.

I don't think my desire to wander around the train sometimes outweighs the people who could be standing in the aisle's desire to travel.

There's no need to ban them from travelling, but pricing them around (as aside from commuter services Tuesday-Thursday and special events like Glastonbury it's rare for EVERY train to be heaving) is a powerful tool to keep a quality environment of travel.

 

[bramling]

Moderator note - split from:

Staff being difficult over attempts to break journey

Something I seem to be noticing more and more on the railway are staff at ticket gates trying to say that my ticket is not valid for a break of journey when presented. There have been a few instances of this lately, like when I showed a Hove to London Victoria ticket at the barriers at Clapham...

www.railforums.co.uk

We should just scrap peak times. (And possibly SailRail, to Dublin at least). That would be real fares simplification.

Are you going to achieve this by raising all fares to peak rate, reducing all fares to off-peak rate, or averaging out the remaining fares so that revenue remains the same?

If you are going to choose the second of those, how will you make up the revenue shortfall, and for both the second and third of those how will you manage capacity at busier times?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

For example if you want to travel half way to London on a peak train, there will be plenty of capacity in a seat that'll later be re-used by one of commuters in dormitories like Hitchin or Broxborne. Very early trains also may well have spare capacity - i.e. *before* the morning peak.

On the latter point, for much of the London area this has become less and less over the last generation or so. Generally you'll only find significant spare capacity before 0600 going in to London. I agree that it's hard to justify charging a premium on some contra-peak services, 05:31 King's Cross to Cambridge being a good example, a 12-car train that normally leaves London with no more than a handful of people on. There is more commuting into places like Cambridge than a generation ago, though.

 

[blimmo]

There's no need to ban them from travelling, but pricing them around (as aside from commuter services Tuesday-Thursday and special events like Glastonbury it's rare for EVERY train to be heaving) is a powerful tool to keep a quality environment of travel.

Fair enough, up to a cost that is still attractive compared to other modes. My problem is when the pricing around involves the kind of sums that mean that those people will drive instead (and therefore feel the need to own a car).

Also this thread was about time restricted tickets (or at least that's how I read it) so what about abolishing those for non-intercity routes where there are no advances?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough, up to a cost that is still attractive compared to other modes. My problem is when the pricing around involves the kind of sums that mean that those people will drive instead (and therefore feel the need to own a car).

Peak fares probably do that most of the time, charging £100 for one train and £80 for the less busy ones probably doesn't, people just switch to the £80 one.

Also this thread was about time restricted tickets (or at least that's how I read it) so what about abolishing those for non-intercity routes where there are no advances?

With Northern's fare differentials about the same as ScotRail's were, you probably could do it there, at least outside the cities. Some more rural routes don't have differentiation anyway.