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!
Should mandatory seat reservations be removed for Advance tickets? I believe so. I've travelled on a 5 coach and an 8 coach train today and yet again, most seats were reserved but not occupied, with no indicator of being used and they can't all have been in the toilet at the same time. It causes problems for customers and operational staff as it means the aisles get blocked with those wanting to avoid the £50 penalty for occupying a reserved seat. As someone who prefers flexible tickets, I tend to pay more only to find I can't sit down because someone's paid less and chosen to sit elsewhere, leaving the seat they booked unusable.
Places could still be limited by limited Advance tickets per train but reservations could be optional to allow more seats for flexible travellers.
I my opinion, this would improve customer experiences, staff function and stop aisles being blocked (negating delays) and also improve Revenue Protection by allowing TMs and RPOs to make it down the train to check tickets more easily. I think everyone would win.
What do you think? Do you support compulsory seat reservations for Advance tickets? Feel free to vote and say why.
I don't support compulsory reservations at all, except where they are actually compulsory, which is more likely the problem.
Since lockdown several TOCs (mostly high speed Intercity ones) have been falsely flagging all of their trains as Compulsory Reservations, when they are not.
One example of this is Avanti, who will clearly advertise coaches C, U and G as unreserved meanwhile having their trains set as Compulsory Reservations, so tickets can sell out.
In addition sometimes due to issues with how tickets are set up this can make it look like the only way to travel is to buy a more expensive ticket than is required.
This also leads to people wanting flexible tickets being forced into a reservation on a service they may not want to use, but was the only one they could get it not to say "sold out" on.
Afternoon all, Travelling on LNER today I noticed something I hadn't seen before (nor really paid attention to)... a note on the reservation slip of a £50 penalty of unauthorised occupation of the seat. Has anyone ever heard of this charge being levied? Seems a bit extreme!
www.railforums.co.uk
Advance tickets aren't the problem. The system is.
Fake compulsory reservations on walk up fares are silly and are just being used to manage on/off sale status of individual trains in the absence of a proper way to do this. Advances however require use of a specific train so it seems silly not to include a reserved seat.
Fake compulsory reservations on walk up fares are silly. Advances however require use of a specific train so it seems silly not to include a reserved seat.
I wouldn't disapprove of an option for a counted place reservation on advance tickets.
Or maybe just only issue counted places for certain short distance flows to avoid taking up long distance seats (e.g. should people be reserving Warrington-Wigan (10 minutes) when that booking might block that seat for a London-Glasgow passenger (4.5 hours)).
Or maybe just only issue counted places for certain short distance flows to avoid taking up long distance seats (e.g. should people be reserving Warrington-Wigan (10 minutes) when that booking might block that seat for a London-Glasgow passenger (4.5 hours)).
It is actually possible to do this. I *think* Avanti might be doing it for local journeys around Birmingham but I can't remember for sure. However if someone buys say Euston to Preston on an Advance they are almost certainly going to want a reserved seat, even more so if there is a picker.
No thanks. Split ticketing customers quite like getting a consistent seat, even if their overall combination of tickets happens to include a short distance flow or two.
No thanks. Split ticketing customers quite like getting a consistent seat, even if their overall combination of tickets happens to include a short distance flow or two.
Only in terms of how splitting is implemented now, of course. If splitting sites were able to issue a split ticket against a single actual seat reservation and still be accredited that would be a better situation overall.
I'll go one further. Scrap seat reservations full stop.
Leave priority seats and maybe a few others on certain trains as reservable by Passenger Assist and staff only, otherwise first come first served. They cause so many needless arguments and issues both amongst passengers and between passengers and staff. Get on the train and sit on your a**e. It's notable that the trains that carry the most passengers, the London commuter TOCs, do not have reservations at all, aside from Intercity trains which also shift commuters.
EMR got rid of them on Liverpool-Norwich and GA got rid of them on London-Norwich during Covid and neither brought them back. Quite rightly so. How is it right that someone can pay an expensive anytime fare and then find themselves booted out of the seat they're in for someone who's paid next to nothing on an advance single?
Scrap them. There's no arguments over short formations, different units being used, reservations not being displayed, people refusing to move out of booked seats, people causing delays by insisting on boarding the carriage their seat is in despite there being 12 other doors available on the train, people kicking off because they can't get to "my seat which I've paid for", and so on.
Of course not.
Advance ticket means specific train + specific seat. If seat reservations were removed, many people wouldn’t buy them. Counted place reservations on “local” trains perhaps OK.
The general public would be terrified of buying an advance ticket without a “guarantee” of a seat.
Of course not.
Advance ticket means specific train + specific seat. If seat reservations were removed, many people wouldn’t buy them. Counted place reservations on “local” trains perhaps OK.
The general public would be terrified of buying an advance ticket without a “guarantee” of a seat.
The problem I have encountered is people reserving a specific seat and then not using them. I acknowledge your point but I don't think the compulsory reservation is the reason people book in advance. Train companies market Advances on the lower price point. If it were optional to reserve a seat then, I feel those who booked an Advance and wanted that guarantee could have it, and those who weren't bothered or who wanted to choose when on board could do so.
My issue is with mandatory reservations, not reservations as a whole.
As a flexi traveller, I don't want to be confined to a specific time but I still expect a seat. I pay extra for that flexibility.
Seat selectors also aren't a guarantee. Some companies don't offer a preference of direction of travel, as their trains reverse so often on route and it all depends on availability. As I understand it but am not certain, a reservation only guarantees not having to stand, not a specific seat and no compensation (on franchised operators) is due if the preference is not honoured.
I don’t totally disagree.
In the past, with a specific seat reservation, I might choose to sit in a different “unreserved” seat, but then I’d also remove the paper seat reservation for my booked seat. I don’t know how to do this now.
Currently, 52.6% of voters say "No" to the removal of mandatory reservations.
This makes me wonder, how would people feel about enforcement of stricter adherence to reservations? For example, the Train Manager or RPO checking the accompanying reservation with Advance tickets and ensuring that Advance ticket users only occupy the specified seat? I suspect this would free up the unreserved seats (which can be limited on many TOCs) to those with flexible tickets. What do you all think?
Of course not.
Advance ticket means specific train + specific seat. If seat reservations were removed, many people wouldn’t buy them. Counted place reservations on “local” trains perhaps OK.
The general public would be terrified of buying an advance ticket without a “guarantee” of a seat.
Note that the OP's question is 'should mandatory seat reservations be removed for advance tickets', not whether they should be removed altogether.
I think that it'd be totally fair to move the reservations to an optional yes/no box. I can think of two downsides:
- People not noticing them, which can be fixed by not allowing you to move forward with the ticket purchase until you've selected yes or no
- With reservations becoming a free add-on, it makes it easier for operators to choose to not make it free, e.g. £1-2. That's a real risk but post-nationalisation you'll only have GBR and OAOs anyway, so if GBR wants to do it anyway then they'll find a way, with Lumo being the only private operator who I think may implement such a thing, though I doubt it'd be too popular.
There aren't that many people on walk-up fares doing journeys long enough to justify a reservation, primarily because walk-up fares are just too high for long-distance journeys, so I think the only way of making it easier to guarantee a seat on a flexible ticket (without sacrificing on flexibility) would be the ability to reserve a seat on an app or at a ticket machine just before the train arrives.
This makes me wonder, how would people feel about enforcement of stricter adherence to reservations? For example, the Train Manager or RPO checking the accompanying reservation with Advance tickets and ensuring that Advance ticket users only occupy the specified seat?
What do you propose as a penalty for Advance ticket holders not sat in their allocated seat? A telling off? Being sold a walk up ticket?
Just scrap seat reservations all together. It's extra admin and potential for friction between customers. The former NSE area works fine without them, and there are some surprisingly long journeys in that area. For those who travel mostly in that area, it comes as a culture shock when using an operator that has reserved seats.
Should mandatory seat reservations be removed for Advance tickets? I believe so. I've travelled on a 5 coach and an 8 coach train today and yet again, most seats were reserved but not occupied, with no indicator of being used and they can't all have been in the toilet at the same time. It causes problems for customers and operational staff as it means the aisles get blocked with those wanting to avoid the £50 penalty for occupying a reserved seat.
I've never heard of people not sitting down for this reason; it's also not correct, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with sitting in an unclaimed reserved seat until/unless someone claims it.
As someone who prefers flexible tickets, I tend to pay more only to find I can't sit down because someone's paid less and chosen to sit elsewhere, leaving the seat they booked unusable.
The amount paid for their ticket won't be known to you and they may not have paid less; there is no link between amount paid and the entitlement to a seat on planes, trains, buses or any other form of transport available to the public that I know of.
I don't see any evidence that Advance ticket holders are more likely to choose to sit elsewhere than Anytime/Off Peak ticket holders, and if anyone has any such evidence I would be interested to hear how that was collected.
People can choose their seat from a seat map for any operator who offers reservations from sites such as Trainsplit, which powers the forum's ticketing site, so anyone who is picky about the seat can get exactly what they want, subject to availability.
The seat is not "unusable", though there is a good argument to say that we should adopt the system already adopted in some countries that a seat should be claimed within X minutes or the reservation is null & void.
Not going to happen; on the contrary, the DfT want the elimination of Off Peak fares, and for Anytime fares to be prohibitively expensive that all but business travellers are committing to specific trains, on long distance services. The DfT are currently trialling this on LNER. It isn't going well, but the data is being cherry picked to claim that it is. There are existing threads on the subject on this forum.
I my opinion, this would improve customer experiences, staff function and stop aisles being blocked (negating delays) and also improve Revenue Protection by allowing TMs and RPOs to make it down the train to check tickets more easily. I think everyone would win.
What do you propose as a penalty for Advance ticket holders not sat in their allocated seat? A telling off? Being sold a walk up ticket?
Just scrap seat reservations all together. It's extra admin and potential for friction between customers. The former NSE area works fine without them, and there are some surprisingly long journeys in that area. For those who travel mostly in that area, it comes as a culture shock when using an operator that has reserved seats.
What do you propose as a penalty for Advance ticket holders not sat in their allocated seat? A telling off? Being sold a walk up ticket?
Just scrap seat reservations all together. It's extra admin and potential for friction between customers. The former NSE area works fine without them, and there are some surprisingly long journeys in that area. For those who travel mostly in that area, it comes as a culture shock when using an operator that has reserved seats.
I am inclined to agree with your view. I do think that they are more trouble than worth but if we must have them, then perhaps those who make them and don't adhere to them should face the same £50 penalty that we could face for occupying said reserved seat?
I am inclined to agree with your view. I do think that they are more trouble than worth but if we must have them, then perhaps those who make them and don't adhere to them should face the same £50 penalty that we could face for occupying said reserved seat?
How would you know if someone is not "adhering" to them?
Are you asking for revenue inspectors to go checking the seats allocated to all advance ticket holders, and comparing them to the seat the passenger is actually occupying and then questioning any passengers who have a mismatch, on why they are not sat in the seat?
I am inclined to agree with your view. I do think that they are more trouble than worth but if we must have them, then perhaps those who make them and don't adhere to them should face the same £50 penalty that we could face for occupying said reserved seat?
I don't see any evidence that Advance ticket holders are more likely to choose to sit elsewhere than Anytime/Off Peak ticket holders, and if anyone has any such evidence I would be interested to hear how that was collected.
I'm led to believe that Advance tickets on services with reservations must have a seat reservation, meaning customer are required to specify a seat, even if they don't intend on using it.
Paper labels that I've read say that a £50 penalty applies for the unauthorised occupation of the reserved seat. It's in the small print on the back but it's there. I've also heard TMs make announcements about not sitting in seats marked reserved (with no mention of whether or not they are occupied).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How would you know if someone is not "adhering" to them?
Are you asking for revenue inspectors to go checking the seats allocated to all advance ticket holders, and comparing them to the seat the passenger is actually occupying and then questioning any passengers who have a mismatch, on why they are not sat in the seat?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking. Ideally, I'd like compulsory* reservations for Advance tickets to be scrapped and made optional but last time I checked the poll, the majority were in favour of retaining the compulsion.
Should mandatory seat reservations be removed for Advance tickets? I believe so. I've travelled on a 5 coach and an 8 coach train today and yet again, most seats were reserved but not occupied, with no indicator of being used and they can't all have been in the toilet at the same time. It causes problems for customers and operational staff as it means the aisles get blocked with those wanting to avoid the £50 penalty for occupying a reserved seat. As someone who prefers flexible tickets, I tend to pay more only to find I can't sit down because someone's paid less and chosen to sit elsewhere, leaving the seat they booked unusable.
Places could still be limited by limited Advance tickets per train but reservations could be optional to allow more seats for flexible travellers.
I my opinion, this would improve customer experiences, staff function and stop aisles being blocked (negating delays) and also improve Revenue Protection by allowing TMs and RPOs to make it down the train to check tickets more easily. I think everyone would win.
What do you think? Do you support compulsory seat reservations for Advance tickets? Feel free to vote and say why.
I agree that seat reservations doesn't need to be a requirement though not for the same reasons you give. It's how it works in my country with our advance tickets and it works perfectly fine (Most people buy a seat reservation anyways). But honestly don't see why someone would want to advocate having to pay extra for a seat reservation. I would not complain if I got a free seat reservation.
Paper labels that I've read say that a £50 penalty applies for the unauthorised occupation of the reserved seat. It's in the small print on the back but it's there.
They can either choose a seat from a seat selector, or get assigned a seat, which would be based on preferences if the customer chooses to provide those preferences
Paper labels that I've read say that a £50 penalty applies for the unauthorised occupation of the reserved seat. It's in the small print on the back but it's there.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking. Ideally, I'd like compulsory* reservations for Advance tickets to be scrapped and made optional but last time I checked the poll, the majority were in favour of retaining the compulsion.
It's a breach of Byelaw 19 but to fine someone they'd have to be taken to Court. I'm not convinced it's actually ever happened, or certainly not recently.
The Advance T&Cs would technically render the ticket invalid in another seat but no TOC since GNER has been that bothered about it that I recall.
I didn't say that people should have to pay extra. I said that specifying a seat with an Advance ticket shouldn't be compulsory, for the reasons I have spoken about.
It seems that the persons who choose not to sit in the assigned sit would choose not to and rather decide when on board where they sit. Hence the empty reserved seats.
The wording I've read is along the lines of "A £50 penalty applies for the unauthorised removal of this label or unauthorised occupation of this seat". It didn't say anything about failure to move if the seat is claimed, although different train companies might word things differently. I've seen this on trains out of Liverpool Lime Street where paper reservations are used.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Note that the OP's question is 'should mandatory seat reservations be removed for advance tickets', not whether they should be removed altogether.
I think that it'd be totally fair to move the reservations to an optional yes/no box. I can think of two downsides:
- People not noticing them, which can be fixed by not allowing you to move forward with the ticket purchase until you've selected yes or no
It seems that the persons who choose not to sit in the assigned sit would choose not to and rather decide when on board where they sit. Hence the empty reserved seats.
How do you know they chose to sit elsewhere? How do you know they were even on the train?
Most people aren't fussed what seat they get allocated; those who are fussed are more likely to state their preferences - and, if available, they generally would get their preference, or use a seat selector; I see no evidence there are loads of people who choose to sit elsewhere.
Around 60% of seats were occupied and 40% were not? There is no way that a TM who wants to walk through a train is unable to get through a train with 40% of seats unnocupied. Was anyone stood in the aisles, or just the vestibule areas? TMs do not always attempt to make it through by any means, and so no conclusion can be reached that they couldn't.
The wording I've read is along the lines of "A £50 penalty applies for the unauthorised removal of this label or unauthorised occupation of this seat". It didn't say anything about failure to move if the seat is claimed, although different train companies might word things differently. I've seen this on trains out of Liverpool Lime Street where paper reservations are used.
As a user of the WCML frequently for the last 20 odd years, I found that when online sales first started and you were always given a reservation there were lots of unused ones as people had bought walk up tickets and used other trains. From the mid 2000s ish retailers then made reservations optional and opt-in, and the problem largely went away - those who wanted to reserve selected it and generally sat in their booked seat, as what would be the point in reserving then ignoring it? Then with COVID came "fake compulsory reservations", and the problem restarted.
The fix is of course to get rid of the fake compulsory reservation nonsense for walk up fares. GWR don't have it (other than on the Riviera) and the problem doesn't really exist there, nor does it on EMR. It's just Avanti and (where discounted walk ups exist) LNER.
Advances are a bit different as if you have to be on that train you might as well reserve - seat selectors allow you to ensure it's a seat you would want.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
