Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

[D1537]

With the Yarm/Thirsk example, let's look at how you'd do that:
Flexible: Anywhere to Thirsk, Anywhere to Yarm, Anywhere to Northallerton, Eaglescliffe to Thornaby/Middlesbrough/Redcar Central
Fixed (Long distance journeys): Middlesbrough/Thornaby/Redcar Central to York, anywhere to Leeds or Manchester. Not classifying TPE as intercity means these flows wouldn't be classed as long-distance, even though they certainly are.
All on the same train. Every hour, every day of the week. While the prices go up for the average traveller.

Or you could just take the A19 and/or A1(M). Cheaper, simpler, probably faster door-to-door.

Pretty much anywhere to York isn't faster by car, and you could probably argue the same for Leeds and Manchester.

It isn't cheaper either if you're trying to park in the centre of York.

TPE prices are mostly OK. The wife and I went from Yarm to Manchester last month for £78 return (with 2T railcard) which I thought was fine.

 

[Farigiraf]

The idea that railways that preserve their flagship offering by making reservations compulsory are somehow poor public services is just kneejerk reactionary thinking

The UK 'flagship' intercity offering is different enough to some continental offerings that what they may get away with there would just make things even more complex here:

- On a lot of routes, there is no short-distance alternative. York-Doncaster, Wigan-Warrington, Chester le Street - Newcastle. No space for running any local trains

- UK long-distance trains follow the German (-speaking countries) model a lot closer than the French/Spanish model. Although not perfect, most intercity routes' timetables are regular and clockface enough that you can explain it fairly simply on a wikipedia page, for example. Most places have at least an hourly connection, or hourly when you add in 1-change options. This means that airline-style long boarding times, mandatory reservations, everyone get nice & comfortable strategies are less effective because our railway is a turn up and go one. Making it less like one is a backwards step.

- I'm still not convinced that mandatory reservation, fixed-route, dynamically priced long-distance ticketing actually is in the interest of the farepayer (and taxpayer, long-term) overall. You're removing the price cap on busy trains (which are most of them), resulting in fare increases on the majority of train services, just so that a small number of slightly quiet long-distance trains have more cheap fares. A 6am intercity from e.g. Glasgow to Liverpool is quiet for a reason, it's because not many people want to travel at that time. Forcing lower-income travellers to both book well in advance and travel at an inconvenient time just reduces their will to get out and about and spend money in local economies or apply for good jobs that are a bit far away.

Pretty much anywhere to York isn't faster by car, and you could probably argue the same for Leeds and Manchester.

It isn't cheaper either if you're trying to park in the centre of York.

It'll certainly become more and more convenient and good value, as rail services on the route get more inflexible and expensive. The train may win on speed here, but it won't necessarily win for a lot of short distance journeys with almost exclusively an intercity train offering. Modal shift should be going from car to train, not the other way round, so this is really counterintuitive.

TPE prices are mostly OK. The wife and I went from Yarm to Manchester last month for £78 return (with 2T railcard) which I thought was fine.

Would you still be taking that train service if post-TRU it was decided that this is a high-revenue train service and therefore charging £120 return (for people not booking weeks in advance) would still fill the seats on the train?

 

[D1537]

Would you still be taking that train service if post-TRU it was decided that this is a high-revenue train service and therefore charging £120 return (for people not booking weeks in advance) would still fill the seats on the train?

Good question. Probably yes, to be honest - the central Manchester hotel with no parking was the driver there - though I'd certainly be digging hard into split ticketing first...

 

[Krokodil]

The big question here is "so what"?

If IC routes became compulsory reservation - so what? Every attempt at reform is met with sacred cow objections, and frankly quite a few have been sacrificed already without much difference either to rail's national utility or the bottom line.

"So what?"

You've effectively banned a decent number of people from travelling to work by train. Less well-off people too, given the station pairs discussed. Imagine the outrage if commuters into Cannon Street were told that they would not be permitted to travel without a reservation...

If you want to stop crowding over short distances on long distance trains in the UK, then provide alternatives first.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't know why you insist that the railway should only exist as a government subsidised rich man's play thing to take people on holiday. And that no one should have a choice in the matter, and that this some how benefits those on lower incomes?

Do you not think railways which have compulsory reservations are operating as a public good at all? It's a serious question. I know comp res goes down like a lead balloon in the basher community but sometimes it's fun to drop a few grenades. That's coming down the line by the way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2026 ==

"So what?"

You've effectively banned a decent number of people from travelling to work by train.

No more so than a lot of people feel there are barriers to them taking the train for work because they'll have to stand. In the case of Wigan to Warrington, how many O+D passengers do you think there are every day, and of that, how many people are using the train to commute to work?

Less well-off people too, given the station pairs discussed

Are these commuters taking the train because it's cheap option then?

 

[redreni]

The idea that railways that preserve their flagship offering by making reservations compulsory are somehow poor public services is just kneejerk reactionary thinking. The point of compulsory reservation is actually the opposite of the free market you deride; only GBR will control the allocations, it'll all be nicely centralised and nationalised, and there will be a limit on capacity. It actually will be nearly the opposite of the "free market".

The railways are not a sewer for people to travel on as unpleasantly as possible; packing long distance expresses to the gunwales is not offering a good public service. Asking the railway to do everything and get nothing right cannot stand for much longer.

It would be a mistake to allow HM Treasury to hide their failure to invest in infrastructure by pricing off demand.

You need the overcrowding to build support for expensive capacity-boosting infrastructure projects. If you get rid of the overcrowding and make rail travel at busy times so expensive most ordinary people won't do it, you risk losing public support not only for the big, expansive infrastructure projects we need, but also for operational public subsidy of rail (even at the reduced rates the government is hoping for).

 

[Krokodil]

No more so than a lot of people feel there are barriers to them taking the train for work because they'll have to stand.

Well then, let's make the 07:48 stopper from Dorking to Waterloo compulsory reservations and see if it proves popular. I'm sure that the good people of Epsom are tired of standing and will welcome this, no?

In the case of Wigan to Warrington, how many O+D passengers do you think there are every day, and of that, how many people are using the train to commute to work?

O+D is around 14k. Which will probably increase now that barriers are installed at Wigan. Most of those short journeys will be for work, or for other important purposes like hospital visits etc.

Are these commuters taking the train because it's cheap option then?

Unless you've got an hour to waste on a bus then it is the better option. A direct bus will cost you £3 each way, a day return by train is £10.30. The extra £4.30 (less if you're using a season ticket) is well spent to save 50 minutes by taking the train. Cheaper than fronting the considerable outlay required to learn to drive, obtain a car, fuel it, maintain it, park it...

 

[yorksrob]

Pretty much anywhere to York isn't faster by car, and you could probably argue the same for Leeds and Manchester.

It isn't cheaper either if you're trying to park in the centre of York.

TPE prices are mostly OK. The wife and I went from Yarm to Manchester last month for £78 return (with 2T railcard) which I thought was fine.

Seems like extortion to me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2026 ==

Pretty much anywhere to York isn't faster by car, and you could probably argue the same for Leeds and Manchester.

It isn't cheaper either if you're trying to park in the centre of York.

TPE prices are mostly OK. The wife and I went from Yarm to Manchester last month for £78 return (with 2T railcard) which I thought was fine.

Yet again, someone assuming everyone has access to a car. The rest of us are obviously nothing. It's like we're in the 70's again (but without the comfy train carriages).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2026 ==

Pretty much anywhere to York isn't faster by car, and you could probably argue the same for Leeds and Manchester.

It isn't cheaper either if you're trying to park in the centre of York.

TPE prices are mostly OK. The wife and I went from Yarm to Manchester last month for £78 return (with 2T railcard) which I thought was fine.

I see that everyone seems to find the price ok "because they have a railcard".

I don't understand why I should be denied a railcard discount on the basis that I'm not shacked up with anyone.

 

[AlterEgo]

You need the overcrowding to build support for expensive capacity-boosting infrastructure projects.

The idea that miserable passenger journeys are a useful political tool and you wish to normalise that as a method by which change happens is not for me!

If you get rid of the overcrowding and make rail travel at busy times so expensive

I'm not advocating making it more expensive.

most ordinary people won't do it

(Most ordinary people don't do it anyway, and people on lower incomes certainly don't!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2026 ==

Well then, let's make the 07:48 stopper from Dorking to Waterloo compulsory reservations and see if it proves popular.

No, that's a dumb idea, because that is not serving any purpose unlike the commuter flows being rammed by short distance passengers eating capacity on front rank expresses. A better example is people from Milton Keynes going to London; there is no reason they can't just take the West Mids services.

O+D is around 14k.

38 people a day. 19 people in each direction. A day. Which I don't think is a lot. And I don't think is causing an issue on the WCML, so there is no reason those people couldn't get a reservation. What does cause an issue on the WCML is the Coventry to Wolves corridor and the MK to Euston runs, both of which have good alternatives.

 

[crablab]

No, that's a dumb idea, because that is not serving any purpose unlike the commuter flows being rammed by short distance passengers eating capacity on front rank expresses. A better example is people from Milton Keynes going to London; there is no reason they can't just take the West Mids services.

How do you solve Reading commuters then, if you're making all Intercity services advance/compres?

GWR are already adding pick-up/drop-off restrictions and some limited stop services to try and regulate it (which is annoying; I've been to Bristol Parkway once...)

But if you put all the Reading commuters on the Elizabeth Line & semi-fasts that would prove unpopular with everyone that lives inbetween, and be a rather expensive waste of latent capacity.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

38 people a day. 19 people in each direction. A day. Which I don't think is a lot. And I don't think is causing an issue on the WCML, so there is no reason those people couldn't get a reservation. What does cause an issue on the WCML is the Coventry to Wolves corridor and the MK to Euston runs, both of which have good alternatives.

38 people a day in 2024/2025 going directly from Wigan to Warrington.
That says nothing for everyone from the Blackpool, Southport, Bolton, Atherton, Colne, etc lines.

I generally see far over 38 people per train getting off at Warrington, understandably some of those will have come from further North, but Lancaster-Preston-Wigan-Warrington pretty much runs as a Metro using InterCity stock, and there are definitely a lot of short distance travellers just making the hop between the cities and large towns along the WCML.

 

[D1537]

I see that everyone seems to find the price ok "because they have a railcard".

I don't understand why I should be denied a railcard discount on the basis that I'm not shacked up with anyone.

I can only speak on my own experience. If the price had been £117 instead of £78 which it would have been without the railcard discount, we would probably have still travelled by rail because it was so much more convenient, but there are other journeys which we have not done by rail even with the railcard discount (hello Cross Country, I drove from Yorkshire to the West Midlands this week because you wanted to charge us £330 return and even taking much longer to do it with multiple changes and split ticketing it was still over £200).

 

[Krokodil]

And I don't think is causing an issue on the WCML, so there is no reason those people couldn't get a reservation.

Why should they have to? If there is no issue then compulsory reservations serve no purpose (just like the Dorking example you agree is a "dumb idea"). Good luck enforcing them in any case.

If you don't want local passengers on long distance services then the first step has to be providing them with a viable alternative. Don't even consider barring people from using the only service they've got without offering a reasonable alternative.

Reservations on short hops cause their own problems anyway. It's so common on XC services to see "Bristol Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway" on the screens. I doubt that the commuter who booked the ticket actually cares about the seat. In the process the unwanted reservation may well have prevented someone travelling from Exeter to Birmingham from booking it because all of the remaining otherwise unreserved seats have pointless reservations blocking them for a short section of the journey.

What does cause an issue on the WCML is the Coventry to Wolves corridor and the MK to Euston runs, both of which have good alternatives.

So how do you handle the difference between "short hop passengers are a problem who could use alternatives in the West Midlands" and "short hop passengers are not a problem and don't have any alternatives in the North West"? Your solution seems to be a blanket compulsory reservations policy on every train with a pointy end. That's not good enough. It probably looks neat and tidy to a bureaucrat but is complete nonsense in practice.

Luckily the two examples you list will eventually be solved by the diversion of the fast trains onto HS2. And that's how we should be solving this problem - by enlarging capacity so that both fast trains and stoppers can run. No objection to compulsory reservations on HS2. That said forcing people to commit to one train probably contributes to the crowding issues at Euston. If there's a Manchester or Birmingham train every 20 minutes then why force someone to wait for their booked one when there's an earlier one sat in the platform with its doors open?

It's less difficult to differentiate than you'd think. It's clear in Germany what an ICE is, it ought also to be the case here under GBR.

Just thought that I'd return to how this discussion originated: ICEs. Are you aware that domestic ICEs are no longer compulsory reservation? That Flexpreis tickets are valid on them and that these are cheaper than the equivalent Anytime tickets in the UK?

Hendy is not proposing that the UK takes the German approach to train travel. Far from it, the DfT appears to view the French model as the way to go.

GWR are already adding pick-up/drop-off restrictions and some limited stop services to try and regulate it

Even those are barely enforceable once the commuters get wise to them, there are legendary tales on here of FGW/GWR Control being forced to run trains fast because a train only booked to pick up at Reading is packed with Reading commuters regardless.

Anything which doesn't have a segregated pre-boarding ticket check (like TGV departures often have), or which doesn't actually stop at the relevant station is doomed to fail.

 

[OneOfThe48]

A question for DfT, perhaps (if that's an accurate quote from the Rail Minister)?

Inaccurate quote - in the context, Avanti would make much more sense so should read:

“I'm amazed by the relatively low seat occupation of some of the Avanti services out of Euston, and that's because fares are so high”

 

[BRX]

I don't understand why I should be denied a railcard discount on the basis that I'm not shacked up with anyone.

It doesn't get talked about a lot, but lots of these discounts (two together, groupsave, family railcard for example) are really a kind of tax on those without cars. The discounts are offered to make the train more appealing to those who have access to a car (because the car becomes more cost effective the more people you put in it). But the same discounts *aren't* extended to those without a choice - they just have to pay up, or decide they can't afford to travel. It's a revenue maximising scheme disguised as something friendly.
It's very different to schemes like the Bahncard where you are rewarded with discounts if you commit to using the train quite a lot. These schemes don't reward people for car ownership (which is effectively what we do in the UK) they reward people for reducing car usage at scale.
All moves towards making long distance travel compulsory reservation & advance purchase also disproportionately advantage those with cars.

The reality is that (unfortunately) most people in the UK, including I'm sure some people contributing to this thread, simply don't care about how the transport system works for people without cars. Because most people in the UK have cars. And so the cycle continues.

 

[Kite159]

Inaccurate quote - in the context, Avanti would make much more sense so should read:

“I'm amazed by the relatively low seat occupation of some of the Avanti services out of Euston, and that's because fares are so high”

Depends on the time of day, 16;00 heading north on a weekday where most off-peak tickets are barred the trains will be lightly loaded. Similarly trains at 09;00 before off-peak tickets become valid, based on the seat reservation displays at Euston where those last peak time trains are mostly green whereas the first off-peak trains are red for reservation levels.

Of course under GBR those pesky off-peak tickets won't exist and all those business folk wanting flexibility will end up paying over the odds for anytime tickets... Oh wait they are driving instead.

 

[Mainline421]

Do you not think railways which have compulsory reservations are operating as a public good at all? It's a serious question. I know comp res goes down like a lead balloon in the basher community but sometimes it's fun to drop a few grenades. That's coming down the line by the way.

I think the benefits of a public railway such as SNCF are significantly diminished when passengers are effectively prevented from relying on it. Over the long term, the reduction is so substantial that, if it were quantified, the figure would probably sound unbelievable.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with bashing, but I can assure you that none of my long-distance journeys in the UK over the past couple of years has been made for that purpose.

You still cannot explain why I should subsidise your comfort to the tune of thousands of pounds (as a fare payer and a tax payer) while simultaneously losing my freedom of movement and being forced to spend considerably more on food, accommodation and other necessities, even as trains depart with plenty of empty space.

If travelling conditions matter so much to you, then you are free to pay extra for first class. You cannot reasonably expect the entire country to subsidise your comfort simply because you do not wish to be exposed to the unwashed masses. That's an incredibly privileged and even selfish position.

 

[81A]

The other issue here is routes like the North Cotswolds. A journey from Worcester to Paddington is pretty obviously long distance. Still fairly solid for something like Charlbury to Paddington.

Definitely, these are long enough journeys that reservations compulsory makes some sense (and probably wouldn't be that unpopular amongst the non enthusiast public-the risks of someone occupying a reserved seat/the system being down/the train being too rammed to get to said seat are a source of stress on rail journeys, especially for groups-if you listen, many people complain about trains being "over booked").

Where this falls apart is journeys such as Hanborough to Oxford and Evesham to Worcester-both of which attract a large number of passengers. These use the same trains, with no alternative, but are obviously short distance. Should these still have Off-Peak tickets? And if they do, what is to stop those making longer journeys splitting at every station?

If we just make the North Cotswolds an exception, then we run in to the issue that (some) tickets from Worcester to London are also valid via Cheltenham. This makes "long buying" an option to get Off-Peak for everyone travelling from Cheltenham unless we remove this validity. Assuming the validity is not removed, this causes a "domino" effect making Off-Peak available for every station on a valid route from Cheltenham to London, and so on.... This doesn't seem to be very simple!

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't get talked about a lot, but lots of these discounts (two together, groupsave, family railcard for example) are really a kind of tax on those without cars. The discounts are offered to make the train more appealing to those who have access to a car (because the car becomes more cost effective the more people you put in it). But the same discounts *aren't* extended to those without a choice - they just have to pay up, or decide they can't afford to travel. It's a revenue maximising scheme disguised as something friendly.
It's very different to schemes like the Bahncard where you are rewarded with discounts if you commit to using the train quite a lot. These schemes don't reward people for car ownership (which is effectively what we do in the UK) they reward people for reducing car usage at scale.
All moves towards making long distance travel compulsory reservation & advance purchase also disproportionately advantage those with cars.

The reality is that (unfortunately) most people in the UK, including I'm sure some people contributing to this thread, simply don't care about how the transport system works for people without cars. Because most people in the UK have cars. And so the cycle continues.

Very true

The UK is a peculiar outlier in its fetishisation of the motor car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==

The other issue here is routes like the North Cotswolds. A journey from Worcester to Paddington is pretty obviously long distance. Still fairly solid for something like Charlbury to Paddington.

Definitely, these are long enough journeys that reservations compulsory makes some sense (and probably wouldn't be that unpopular amongst the non enthusiast public-the risks of someone occupying a reserved seat/the system being down/the train being too rammed to get to said seat are a source of stress on rail journeys, especially for groups-if you listen, many people complain about trains being "over booked").

Where this falls apart is journeys such as Hanborough to Oxford and Evesham to Worcester-both of which attract a large number of passengers. These use the same trains, with no alternative, but are obviously short distance. Should these still have Off-Peak tickets? And if they do, what is to stop those making longer journeys splitting at every station?

If we just make the North Cotswolds an exception, then we run in to the issue that (some) tickets from Worcester to London are also valid via Cheltenham. This makes "long buying" an option to get Off-Peak for everyone travelling from Cheltenham unless we remove this validity. Assuming the validity is not removed, this causes a "domino" effect making Off-Peak available for every station on a valid route from Cheltenham to London, and so on.... This doesn't seem to be very simple!

Compulsory reservations don't make sense anywhere IMO.

 

[JamesT]

Very true

The UK is a peculiar outlier in its fetishisation of the motor car.

What do you base that on? Car modal share in the UK is much the same as our European neighbours.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Thankfully our love affair with the car is nowhere near as significant as that in the USA. Also fairly sure that some Continental countries have more cars per 1,000 people than the UK but use them less than we do.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

O+D is around 14k. Which will probably increase now that barriers are installed at Wigan. Most of those short journeys will be for work, or for other important purposes like hospital visits etc.

Unless you've got an hour to waste on a bus then it is the better option. A direct bus will cost you £3 each way, a day return by train is £10.30. The extra £4.30 (less if you're using a season ticket) is well spent to save 50 minutes by taking the train. Cheaper than fronting the considerable outlay required to learn to drive, obtain a car, fuel it, maintain it, park it...

Interestingly, Warrington-Wigan fares are set by Northern, despite them having no trains on the route. CDR is £8.50 (SDR £10.30, SDS £7) which seem quite reasonable.
So Avanti's long-distance fares policies don't apply, despite them running all the trains, taking 10 minutes for the 12 miles at 2tph.
En route you pass through both Greater Manchester and Merseytravel zones, but PTE fare options don't apply.
Neither the Lancashire nor Cheshire Day Ranger tickets cover the direct journey either, though they will both get you to Newton le Willows.

 

[Mainline421]

Compulsory reservations don't make sense anywhere IMO.

Yep, if the purpose of passenger rail is to provide public transport, preventing it from doing so makes zero sense under any circumstances. If the purpose is to provide entertainment for wealthy car owners then sure go ahead.

Obviously the industry should cater to passengers who consider travel conditions paramount over the ability to travel, but not as a default, and not at the expense of people who need to get from a to b

 

[AlterEgo]

So how do you handle the difference between "short hop passengers are a problem who could use alternatives in the West Midlands" and "short hop passengers are not a problem and don't have any alternatives in the North West"? Your solution seems to be a blanket compulsory reservations policy on every train with a pointy end.

Who said blanket? No. You can do this easily by flow.

Just thought that I'd return to how this discussion originated: ICEs. Are you aware that domestic ICEs are no longer compulsory reservation? That Flexpreis tickets are valid on them and that these are cheaper than the equivalent Anytime tickets in the UK?

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the point was reslly being made about brand differentiation and how everyone in Germany knows what an ICE is.

38 people a day in 2024/2025 going directly from Wigan to Warrington.
That says nothing for everyone from the Blackpool, Southport, Bolton, Atherton, Colne, etc lines.

I think people are misunderstanding. I don't propose making trains "compulsory reservation" but rather problem flows. And this can be done either in a "hard" way (you need an actual reservation) or by "soft" way of restriction (not valid on GBR Intercity and no alternative like Any Permitted). We are all talking about a non-problem flow here; a better one would be MK to Euston for example.

I think the benefits of a public railway such as SNCF are significantly diminished when passengers are effectively prevented from relying on it. Over the long term, the reduction is so substantial that, if it were quantified, the figure would probably sound unbelievable.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with bashing, but I can assure you that none of my long-distance journeys in the UK over the past couple of years has been made for that purpose.

You still cannot explain why I should subsidise your comfort to the tune of thousands of pounds (as a fare payer and a tax payer) while simultaneously losing my freedom of movement and being forced to spend considerably more on food, accommodation and other necessities, even as trains depart with plenty of empty space.

If travelling conditions matter so much to you, then you are free to pay extra for first class. You cannot reasonably expect the entire country to subsidise your comfort simply because you do not wish to be exposed to the unwashed masses. That's an incredibly privileged and even selfish position.

(I do pay extra for first class, and always travel on Advances.)

Nobody here is suggesting standard class passengers subsidise anyone else's journey, or that my suggestion will result in "empty trains", that is something you've invented to get cross at.

There's no selfish motivation here, but rather a lot of experience in managing the fallout from severely overcrowded flows like COV-WVH and EUS-MKC. Those are certainly areas the railway needs to look at, dispassionately, and with a view to improving the comfort of the ordinary passenger in standard class who is currently paying a great deal of money in many cases for a poor journey.

Managing reservations or removing flows from passengers *who do have alternatives* is neither rocket science nor some sort of big conspiracy. My view, which will be difficult to change, is that long distance passengers generally prefer to have a predictable, reliable, and comfortable journey. Passengers routinely report the highest satisfaction when these metrics are met and will be more inclined to consider the train in future.

"I like the current system where I can cram onto a train and stand" is not a mainstream view among most "normie" passengers - many of whom actually believe and expect their intercity trips to be "not oversold". The able bodied male adult passenger accounts for less than 50% of the railway's long distance business. You would be interested to read the viewpoints of elderly, disabled, and female passengers who generally have a different viewpoint to "I will accept standing as long as I can cram on". Many times I have read complaints from people who complained of being sold the ticket in the first place!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==

What do you base that on? Car modal share in the UK is much the same as our European neighbours.

Another premise invented for someone to get mad at in this thread.

 

[Mainline421]

(I do pay extra for first class, and always travel on Advances.)

Nobody here is suggesting standard class passengers subsidise anyone else's journey, or that my suggestion will result in "empty trains", that is something you've invented to get cross at.

There's no selfish motivation here, but rather a lot of experience in managing the fallout from severely overcrowded flows like COV-WVH and EUS-MKC. Those are certainly areas the railway needs to look at, dispassionately, and with a view to improving the comfort of the ordinary passenger in standard class who is currently paying a great deal of money in many cases for a poor journey.

Managing reservations or removing flows from passengers *who do have alternatives* is neither rocket science nor some sort of big conspiracy. My view, which will be difficult to change, is that long distance passengers generally prefer to have a predictable, reliable, and comfortable journey. Passengers routinely report the highest satisfaction when these metrics are met and will be more inclined to consider the train in future.

"I like the current system where I can cram onto a train and stand" is not a mainstream view among most "normie" passengers - many of whom actually believe and expect their intercity trips to be "not oversold". The able bodied male adult passenger accounts for less than 50% of the railway's long distance business. You would be interested to read the viewpoints of elderly, disabled, and female passengers who generally have a different viewpoint to "I will accept standing as long as I can cram on". Many times I have read complaints from people who complained of being sold the ticket in the first place!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==


Another premise invented for someone to get mad at in this thread.

I have no idea why you're bringing gender into this, but I can asure you that has no bearing on person's willingness or ability to stand, and sounds like it may be bordering on sexism.

The railway as a whole is inherently loss making and you're suggesting it should refuse to take my and thousands of others' money, for the benefit of a small minority that bagged seats on Advances, thus massively increasing the subsidy required to transport significantly fewer people.

Satisfaction of those who did manage to get a reservation is a pointless metric. Asking people if they want a guaranteed seat is a pointless metric, since the public believe that means will add more carriages to meet demand, since "private companies are running too few carriages to save money."

Japan has coaches 1-5 unreserved, 5-10 reservation only, and 11-12 first class on many Shinkansen, and guess what, the unreserved section is massively more popular since most people prefer to just tap their smart card and hop on the next train when they're not priced out of it

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Inaccurate quote - in the context, Avanti would make much more sense so should read:

“I'm amazed by the relatively low seat occupation of some of the Avanti services out of Euston, and that's because fares are so high”

He could add that Avanti are undercut by another operator running slower trains to similar destinations at cheaper prices.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have no idea why you're bringing gender into this, but I can asure you that has no bearing on person's willingness or ability to stand, and sounds like it may be bordering on sexism.

It does, actually. Sorry to be the bearer of inconvenient news but women tolerate cramped and standing conditions much less than men do, and that was borne out by our own CRM when I worked at XC. Women are much less tolerant of being pressed against other people and some feel at risk of assault in very crowded spaces. It absolutely is a factor, as is the scientific fact women's discomfort and pain thresholds are lower than men's and fhey report both more frequently (though the upper limit of what they can tolerate is higher!).

The reality is, other people experience the same conditions differently. And the railway has to try and cater for everyone, not just men like you and I who are heavily invested in the system so much that we post on a railway forum.

I'm not going to engage in any more discussion with you because you have consecutively accused me of having a selfish viewpoint and now vaguely accusing me of having a sexist viewpoint. I would not be so unkind or uncharitable to suggest either of you, I just think my solution is better given my direct experience in dealing with passengers who have complained.

Thats about it, just an opinion on a forum, enjoy your Sunday.

 

[Farigiraf]

(I do pay extra for first class, and always travel on Advances.)

Nobody here is suggesting standard class passengers subsidise anyone else's journey, or that my suggestion will result in "empty trains", that is something you've invented to get cross at.

There's no selfish motivation here, but rather a lot of experience in managing the fallout from severely overcrowded flows like COV-WVH and EUS-MKC. Those are certainly areas the railway needs to look at, dispassionately, and with a view to improving the comfort of the ordinary passenger in standard class who is currently paying a great deal of money in many cases for a poor journey.

Managing reservations or removing flows from passengers *who do have alternatives* is neither rocket science nor some sort of big conspiracy. My view, which will be difficult to change, is that long distance passengers generally prefer to have a predictable, reliable, and comfortable journey. Passengers routinely report the highest satisfaction when these metrics are met and will be more inclined to consider the train in future.

"I like the current system where I can cram onto a train and stand" is not a mainstream view among most "normie" passengers - many of whom actually believe and expect their intercity trips to be "not oversold". The able bodied male adult passenger accounts for less than 50% of the railway's long distance business. You would be interested to read the viewpoints of elderly, disabled, and female passengers who generally have a different viewpoint to "I will accept standing as long as I can cram on". Many times I have read complaints from people who complained of being sold the ticket in the first place!

The reality is, other people experience the same conditions differently. And the railway has to try and cater for everyone, not just men like you and I who are heavily invested in the system so much that we post on a railway forum.

Chiming in here. These are all perfectly valid points. What I do think you're missing though is the fact that most passenger who experience overcrowding or chaos as a result of no guaranteed seats, are not being presented the question "would you rather have a low-flexibility, high-cost railway, that's a bit more comfortable or one where most people can actually travel if they want to, it just may be very busy at times?"

The questions that are presented are a lot more simplistic at that, and all fail to mention that a move towards a more 'comfortable' railway requires either an increase in investment, or pricing even more people off the trains. Certainly if I asked the people sitting on the floor of the morning peak King's Lynn - King's Cross train, "what would you do to fix this" they'd say "add more carriages", because that's an actually sensible solution. Pricing people off to make it nicer for others is an extreme version of robbing Peter to pay Paul, where in this case Peter is on a modest income while Paul can afford to take a high-demand train service post-price hike. I think the priorities are just in the wrong place.

In the KLN-KGX example, a lot of morning peak trains are already over double the cost of the off-peak fare for lots of people - having to pay the anytime fare + railcards not being valid that early, results in around a 60% price rise. If you want to eliminate overcrowding on this service, you'd likely have to do another 60% price rise. For those paying £60 for a peak time train ticket that's also overcrowded, the current system feels unfair. What's even less fair though, is charging £80-100 with everyone else switching to driving.

Add to that the fact that making a few dozen exceptions or additions to what's otherwise planned to be a fully French-style ticketing system, is just adding more complexity. Having people on TfGM-set fares taking an intercity operator between Wigan and Warrington, or busy peak-time trains that form commuter services (e.g. into Reading, Coventry or Wolverhampton) somehow barring short-distance travellers, are all strategies that add to the complexity of rail ticketing, they don't reduce it. When you consider that this plan would anyway result in loss of flexibility and price-hikes, I'm not a fan of that trade-off.

 

[rmHawk765]

Well then, let's make the 07:48 stopper from Dorking to Waterloo compulsory reservations and see if it proves popular. I'm sure that the good people of Epsom are tired of standing and will welcome this, no?

Or just... run more trains? Oh wait, upgrading infrastructure is too expensive isn't it so we have to half-arse the solution to overcrowding...

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Having people on TfGM-set fares taking an intercity operator between Wigan and Warrington, or busy peak-time trains that form commuter services (e.g. into Reading, Coventry or Wolverhampton) somehow barring short-distance travellers, are all strategies that add to the complexity of rail ticketing, they don't reduce it. When you consider that this plan would anyway result in loss of flexibility and price-hikes, I'm not a fan of that trade-off.

There could be mileage in having brand based ticketing of the form where a ticket was "not Avanti", "not Gross Country" or "not Great Western Inter City". Obviously there would need to be two brands or more with frequent services. For commuter routes that would have to extend to season tickets. It adds rather than removes complexity.

Such has been the rationalisation of routes and services since the 1960s that a clear line between express and local services no longer exists, if it ever did.