LENNON and ORCATS - should these really have had their day?

[Bletchleyite]

As reported here:

LENNON fare settlement system to be upgraded to incorporate real-world data and support better planning

A major project is underway to renew the LENNON computer system which allocates revenue from two million rail journeys per day to the relevant train operators. Johnny Astbury, CEO for Transport & Mobility at technology company Magellan, tells Rail Business UK how changing from a...

www.railbusinessuk.com

I wonder whether this will spell the death of open access operators attempting ORCATS "raids", and how it will impact TOC only walk-up fares. With a greater degree of accuracy as to how many passengers actually use a given operator perhaps the latter will no longer provide a financial benefit?

Seems a bit late in the privatisation day... surely a simpler "you scan it, you get it" approach would work for allocating between GBR and TfW/ScotRail/Lumo/GC? Doesn't seem to be any likelihood of fully DOO (without other on board staff to scan tickets) open access any time soon, and that sort of approach would make allocation properly accurate as well as encouraging scans and thus discouraging misuse?

 

[NCT]

Heavens no.

You end up with the Dutch situation of having to touch out at a yellow pole and in at a blue pole when changing between operators. It’s ridiculous.

LENNON + ORCATS is far superior a system.

 

[Newtonian]

Seems a bit late in the privatisation day... surely a simpler "you scan it, you get it" approach would work for allocating between GBR and TfW/ScotRail/Lumo/GC? Doesn't seem to be any likelihood of fully DOO (without other on board staff to scan tickets) open access any time soon, and that sort of approach would make allocation properly accurate as well as encouraging scans and thus discouraging misuse?

In principle this would make sense, but in practice there's a significant risk that the heaviest loaded services will have perpetually under-allocated revenue due to the inability of staff to pass through the train to do the scans (if they're full and standing). The reference to gate data in the article is interesting in this context as it may be possible to create some form of allocation model for journeys through gated stations based on entry/exit time, but ORCATS-style settlement is just as likely to be an accurate representation of usage as imperfect scan data (probably more so) and is more predictable (important for modelling when developing a service proposal) and less influenced by external factors (e.g. IR issues and gateline developments).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Heavens no.

You end up with the Dutch situation of having to touch out at a yellow pole and in at a blue pole when changing between operators.

No you don't. I'm talking about the OAO having to scan on board to get their allocation, otherwise it goes to GBR.

 

[NCT]

That’s just statist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s just statist.

The other option is that you boot OAOs out of the national fares system entirely as is the case in other countries. Better to keep them in, but not at all unfair to ask them to keep records of tickets accepted just as bus companies do with passes to be reimbursed.

 

[NCT]

Or you keep a non-discriminatory rule-based system.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

. Better to keep them in, but not at all unfair to ask them to keep records of tickets accepted just as bus companies do with passes to be reimbursed.

I think the open access operators are most "on it" of any of the TOCs when it comes to checking tickets so I don't think it'd even be too much of an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or you keep a non-discriminatory rule-based system.

At far higher cost, and potentially giving the OAOs an unfair revenue distribution. Very few people will use a £200 Edinburgh-London Anytime on Lumo, they will purchase the Lumo ticket at a fraction of the price or will choose LNER's higher quality ambiance and service (and less ridiculous luggage policy). Yet because Lumo operate the fastest Edinburgh-London trains I don't doubt they get a decent cut.

 

[NCT]

Very few people will use a £200 Edinburgh-London Anytime on Lumo, they will purchase the Lumo ticket at a fraction of the price or will choose LNER's higher quality ambiance and service (and less ridiculous luggage policy).

That's your conjecture (albeit not one without legs), not a proven fact. I know people who prefer LUMO's seats (I do too).

If LNER considers itself short-changed, it can launch an ORCATS challenge. If there is robust evidence of actual passenger behaviour being different from those modelled, the system accommodates manual overrides.

Having just experienced some full-and-standing intercity trains in Poland, I couldn't help but reflect on my (purely anecdotal) experience that in the UK we tend not to do revenue checks on full-and-standing or late trains. This would potentially put LNER at a disadvantage. Other posters have given reasons why stats derived directly from ticket scans are likely to be volatile and unrealistic. A system needs transparent and stable parameters - that's not to say ticket scans can't be part of the calibration process.

When a state participates in a multi-player market, it should not set rules that make things less onerous for itself vis-à-vis other participants. Such would be despotic behaviour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's your conjecture (albeit not one without legs), not a proven fact. I know people who prefer LUMO's seats (I do too).

Yes, but why would you use a £200 Anytime ticket on Lumo when Lumo's fare is much lower? OK, more than would now you can't refund on the day (when you could there was really no reason to ever do that, you would just refund it and purchase the Lumo ticket) but it's only going to be a tiny number of people - basically largely business travellers whose company is willing to just buy them a couple of swingeingly priced Anytimes rather than insisting on Advances as most businesses now do plus the odd very well-off leisure traveller who is willing to pay a significant sum for total flexibility.

I do agree that Lumo's seats are better, by the way, but the legroom is worse, the luggage policy incredibly tight (very rarely will I be making a long distance journey without more luggage than Lumo permits) and the whole ambiance a bit tacky and "down with the kids", whereas LNER feels more professional and has better policies. But I do get that different people prefer different things - I'm just not convinced that GBR should need to make concessions to OAOs in ticketing terms in the future model, because in other countries the state operator doesn't.

Having just experienced some full-and-standing intercity trains in Poland, I couldn't help but reflect on my (purely anecdotal) experience that in the UK we tend not to do revenue checks on full-and-standing or late trains. This would potentially put LNER at a disadvantage. Other posters have given reasons why stats derived directly from ticket scans are likely to be volatile and unrealistic. A system needs transparent and stable parameters - that's not to say ticket scans can't be part of the calibration process.

When a state participates in a multi-player market, it should not set rules that make things less onerous for itself vis-à-vis other participants. Such would be despotic behaviour.

Well, there's always the option that Lumo has to do everything itself with no acceptance of GBR tickets nor sale from GBR's site. That's how it is on the European mainland. Giving them a concession of being able to accept and be paid for GBR tickets on the condition of scanning them to prove they did seems entirely fair and far more than GBR has to do.

 

[NCT]

Yes, but why would you use a £200 Anytime ticket on Lumo when Lumo's fare is much lower? OK, more than would now you can't refund on the day (when you could there was really no reason to ever do that, you would just refund it and purchase the Lumo ticket) but it's only going to be a tiny number of people.

As plausible as your theory is, you don’t know it to be true. The state changing rules to its favour without evidence proving its assumption is a dangerous game.

Well, there's always the option that Lumo has to do everything itself with no acceptance of GBR tickets nor sale from GBR's site. That's how it is on the European mainland.

That would be an unfair rule of the game. Such asymmetry would only be possible by the state abusing its power. This is not something a Western democracy should ever entertain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would be an unfair rule of the game. Such asymmetry would only be possible by the state abusing its power. This is not something a Western democracy should ever entertain.

Well, it's exactly what every Western democracy over the other side of the water does. Why should GBR assist its competitors?

 

[NCT]

Well, it's exactly what every Western democracy over the other side of the water does. Why should GBR assist its competitors?

GB has a more passenger friendly railway than other European countries that don’t have ORCATS equivalents.

GBR will be both infrastructure and service operator. On HS1, and in Scotland and Wales GBR the service operator will access other infrastructure operators’ infrastructure in the traditional way.

At boundary points. carpenters Park - Bletchley, Newcastle - Dumfries revenue allocation will need ORCATS.

GBR will require accurate allocation of revenue between its sub profit centres - you can bet the Treasury will insist on it.

What’s needed is a universal set of rules that are transparent, stable and non-discriminatory, and have TOC boundaries invisible to the casual passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What’s needed is a universal set of rules that are transparent, stable and non-discriminatory, and have TOC boundaries invisible to the casual passenger.

I'm not sure that's possible with OAOs, though. Lumo has its own ticket types and its own rather strict luggage policy. That can never be invisible to the casual passenger.

Perhaps Grand Central is a bit different because it has the same types of ticket as LNER (aside from not having gone for single fare pricing) and the same luggage policy (I think), but Lumo is a very different proposition to the "big" railway, a bit more BA vs. Ryanair. Even if the seats are nicer (and that is the one thing going for it) - though LNER is soon to replace the seat cushions on its units so that may not be the case for long.

 

[NCT]

I'm not sure that's possible with OAOs, though. Lumo has its own ticket types and its own rather strict luggage policy. That can never be invisible to the casual passenger.

Having more restricted products is not at odds with having the default ’a train is a train is a train’ layer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having more restricted products is not at odds with having the default ’a train is a train is a train’ layer.

Well, it kind of is, because the holder of that Lumo Anytime ticket can't take the luggage allowance they could if they used LNER. The product is thus fundamentally different depending which train you board.

Once you move away from Lumo and GC, that does leave "a train is a train is a train" as they will all be operated by GBR, TfW and ScotRail, but most journeys won't have more than one of those applicable to them.

 

[NCT]

Well, it kind of is, because the holder of that Lumo Anytime ticket can't take the luggage allowance they could if they used LNER. The product is thus fundamentally different depending which train you board.

Once you move away from Lumo and GC, that does leave "a train is a train is a train" as they will all be operated by GBR, TfW and ScotRail, but most journeys won't have more than one of those applicable to them.

I’d address the luggage allowance anomaly rather than go for a even more anomalous system.

It doesn’t matter that an even is a minority occurrence. In system design it’s always better to have universality than to have to have case-by-case exceptions.

 

[Merle Haggard]

GBR will still need to allocate ticket revenue to service groups for financial performance purposes.
BR did even back in 1970, using a more empirical system, National Passenger Accounting and Audit System, the predecessor of ORCATS.

 

[NCT]

A parameter based universal system that runs itself will be cheaper and more transparent than lots of bilateral interfaces that need manual agreements and updates.

I also wager Scotland and Wales will prefer the protection of a parameter based system than risk being on the round side of a power imbalance.