Abolishing peak and off peak fares?

[Magdalia]

It seems wrong to me that people who have to travel before 09.00 (even 09.30 or 10.00!) should have to pay more - after all these are usually people using the railway to get to work - an activity that should be encouraged.

No, it is right that people who travel at the busiest times should pay more.

its the peak travellers that are the expensive ones - needing extra assets and staff for services/units that arent needed all day.

Assets isn't just rolling stock, also add in extra infrastructure that is only used at peak times, such as track and platforms. All of those costs have to be paid for by someone.

The peak is mostly the consequence of decisions by employers on where they locate their businesses and what times they want their workers to attend. It is for those employers to pay their staff at rates that enable them to afford the peak time fares. If there were no peak time fares then those employers would effectively be getting a subsidy to choose locations with high transport costs without paying for the privilege.

 

[crablab]

If there were no peak time fares then those employers would effectively be getting a subsidy to choose locations with high transport costs without paying for the privilege.

This works the other way around. Off-peak passengers are being subsidised by all the distess-purchase peak passengers who have to pay for that infrastructure, rolling stock and service frequency which is ultimately discounted to off-peak travellers to fill seats.

Why shouldn't the off-peak passengers pay the full anytime fare? That'd reduce the Treasury's bill, right?

That's why I don't think it's helpful to play off different types of passenger against each other, as in any case the railway receives a massive amount of state subsidy in general. I think the quantum is the issue, not specifically which group benefits more than the other.

So the objective should be to find the most benefit to passengers (and future passengers) alike, since the real 'fight' is to be had with the holder of the purse strings, not each other

 

[JonathanH]

Why shouldn't the off-peak passengers pay the full anytime fare? That'd reduce the Treasury's bill, right?

It would be an interesting experiment to try that on some routes to and from London on 'busy' Saturdays and see how many passengers chose to travel.

 

[Andover]

No, it is right that people who travel at the busiest times should pay more.

Why is it right, as opposed to useful in the short term? It certainly doesn't decrease the simple cost of running those trains.

If there were no peak time fares then those employers would effectively be getting a subsidy to choose locations with high transport costs without paying for the privilege.

That's based on assuming the peak/off-peak distinction as a default. You could just as easily accuse the current situation of being an effective off-peak subsidy, except one is based on drawing a line that will always be at least a little arbitrary and one isn't.

 

[yorksrob]

I know I've said this before, but start with something more modest like making Fridays off peak. This is already the less peaky of the weekdays and most likely to be positive (or less negative) in terms of revenue.

They also need to get rid of the loony anytime fares (£400+ London-Manchester etc). These are anachronisms from the privatised era and have no place in a public service railway.

 

[Magdalia]

Why is it right, as opposed to useful in the short term? It certainly doesn't decrease the simple cost of running those trains.

That's based on assuming the peak/off-peak distinction as a default. You could just as easily accuse the current situation of being an effective off-peak subsidy, except one is based on drawing a line that will always be at least a little arbitrary and one isn't.

As has already been explained, on the supply side the cost of providing the same level of service all day, and the cost of providing a service that includes extra peak time capacity are not the same. Furthermore, that's not just actual cost, the marginal cost of the peak time capacity is higher because it is only being used over a short period of time. Somebody has to pay for all of the track, platforms, trains and staff that are only there to deliver the peak time service, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Peak time fares are the most effective way for the railway to recover at least some of those costs, which is why they have been around for a long time and won't be going away.

The peak only exists because of economic decisions on the demand side, affected by the price mechanism. For travel between home and work, that's decisions by employers on business location. They are impacted at one remove through the employment market, and have to pay wages high enough for their employees to be able to afford the peak fares.

Where exactly the line is drawn between peak and off peak is inevitably arbitrary. On longer distance services with advance fares that line is now blurred by dynamic pricing and yield maximising algorithms, but on short distance turn up and go services there is still nothing better than an arbitrary line. It is the default because it is what exists now, and has existed for a long time. It is for the proponents of change to demonstrate how they would recover the extra costs of providing peak time services, without using peak time fares. The proponents of change also have to demonstrate how they would cope with the increase in demand for peak time travel that would inevitably follow on from reducing the price, and how they would fund any further increases in peak time capacity.

Put simply, if peak time fares did not exist already, they would have to be invented.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know I've said this before, but start with something more modest like making Fridays off peak. This is already the less peaky of the weekdays and most likely to be positive (or less negative) in terms of revenue.

They also need to get rid of the loony anytime fares (£400+ London-Manchester etc). These are anachronisms from the privatised era and have no place in a public service railway.

Ironically it was part of Avanti's franchise agreement to reduce those, but it got forgotten when COVID got in the way. I'm not sure how much by, though.

 

[yorksrob]

Ironically it was part of Avanti's franchise agreement to reduce those, but it got forgotten when COVID got in the way. I'm not sure how much by, though.

Government was too busy bleating about how much it had spent running empty trains around in the pandemic.

 

[renegademaster]

I know I've said this before, but start with something more modest like making Fridays off peak. This is already the less peaky of the weekdays and most likely to be positive (or less negative) in terms of revenue.

They also need to get rid of the loony anytime fares (£400+ London-Manchester etc). These are anachronisms from the privatised era and have no place in a public service railway.

GTR trialed off peak Fridays a few years ago but abandoned them now. Don't know why, probably lost them too much money.

 

[Hadders]

I know I've said this before, but start with something more modest like making Fridays off peak. This is already the less peaky of the weekdays and most likely to be positive (or less negative) in terms of revenue.

They also need to get rid of the loony anytime fares (£400+ London-Manchester etc). These are anachronisms from the privatised era and have no place in a public service railway.

TfL did just that across London for several months last year. Passenger numbers didn't improve and revenue went down.

 

[Andover]

As has already been explained, on the supply side the cost of providing the same level of service all day, and the cost of providing a service that includes extra peak time capacity are not the same. Furthermore, that's not just actual cost, the marginal cost of the peak time capacity is higher because it is only being used over a short period of time.

Well, yes, obviously. How does that necessarily make it 'right' to charge peak-time users more? That sounds like an attempt to substitute morality for business sense.

The peak only exists because of economic decisions on the demand side, affected by the price mechanism. For travel between home and work, that's decisions by employers on business location. They are impacted at one remove through the employment market, and have to pay wages high enough for their employees to be able to afford the peak fares.

In other words, its absence would be as much of a subsidy as the actual existence of any one planning decision or other is. I suppose there's an argument for that, but it's stretching the word a little wide for me.

Where exactly the line is drawn between peak and off peak is inevitably arbitrary.

It is for the proponents of change to demonstrate how they would recover the extra costs of providing peak time services, without using peak time fares. The proponents of change also have to demonstrate how they would cope with the increase in demand for peak time travel that would inevitably follow on from reducing the price, and how they would fund any further increases in peak time capacity.

Agreed.

 

[Magdalia]

Well, yes, obviously. How does that necessarily make it 'right' to charge peak-time users more? That sounds like an attempt to substitute morality for business sense.

It is business sense to charge peak time users more, morality doesn't enter into it.

 

[Indigo Soup]

The Scotrail trial was doomed to failure; it took place at a time when services were unreliable and prone to cancellation. There is no way you are going to attract more passengers when they are never certain if/when their train might turn up.

And also didn't really run long enough for people to meaningfully shift their habits.

Worth noting though that it was never intended to be revenue-neutral, either. It was hoped that the loss to the farebox would be less than some amount that the Treasury had deemed acceptable, but (IIRC) only 60% of the necessary increase in passengers to realise this took place.

Which is actually pretty decent, considering the handicap that Scotrail was operating under at the time. But I suppose it meant that they didn't have to dream up some other reason to bring back peak fares.

It is business sense to charge peak time users more, morality doesn't enter into it.

Wearing the modal-shift hat, it's worth noting that it costs the same to drive in the middle of the rush hour as at 0300. I'm not aware of any buses that have peak fares, but I suppose someone might.

The trouble with having flexible and demand-managed fares on the same railway is that the demand-managed have to be priced below the flexible ones. Which means the flexible ones must be expensive, to give room for demand management. I'm starting to wonder whether - on routes where most travellers are using Advances - the flexible fares ought not to be reduced and most if not all Advances removed from sale.

This should be more or less revenue neutral, if done right, and give the railway some good PR by (a) reducing the headline fares and (b) being able to say that most passengers will pay about the same, but gain the flexibility to use any train.

 

[yorksrob]

GTR trialed off peak Fridays a few years ago but abandoned them now. Don't know why, probably lost them too much money.

I wasn't aware of that. It would be interesting if some of the data were publicly available, to inform debate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2025 ==

TfL did just that across London for several months last year. Passenger numbers didn't improve and revenue went down.

I knew they'd done something along those lines, but wasn't aware they'd stopped it (I don't really look at fares on TfL beyond tapping my oyster card).

 

[Haywain]

I wasn't aware of that.

You're not alone in having missed it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

GTR trialed off peak Fridays a few years ago but abandoned them now. Don't know why, probably lost them too much money.

Avanti still have them, and LNER do to a point (I think it's just no evening restrictions on the remaining super off peaks).

 

[Andover]

It is business sense to charge peak time users more, morality doesn't enter into it.

You said it was right to do so though.

To be clear, I'm not trying to mount some stand here, and I agree that peak fares will likely be a part of our life for the foreseeable future. I just don't see how discouraging railway custom through pricing is really the best way of distributing demand while maximising usage, and I'd say it's for the proponents of the status quo to prove that it is. I realise this may be different if the criterion is simply balancing the books.

 

[JonathanH]

Wearing the modal-shift hat, it's worth noting that it costs the same to drive in the middle of the rush hour as at 0300.

That isn't true. Sitting in congestion uses a whole lot more fuel than a unimpeded journey in the middle of the night.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I just don't see how discouraging railway custom through pricing is really the best way of distributing demand while maximising usage, and I'd say it's for the proponents of the status quo to prove that it is. I realise this may be different if the criterion is simply balancing the books.

I'm curious what alternative you see to limit demand for travel at peak times. The only one I can see is compulsory reservations on peak trains, which is probably a worse system than peak fares.

Sitting in congestion uses a whole lot more fuel than a unimpeded journey in the middle of the night.

Not on the order of increasing the cost of a journey by 50%, which is the typical uplift for peak rail fares. The reason why people avoid driving in the rush hour isn't so much the additional fuel burn as the wasted time.

That does suggest an alternative approach - slow peak time trains down to make them less appealing and cram more onto the network. Just need to resignal every urban area, shouldn't cost more than pocket change.

 

[Magdalia]

You said it was right to do so though.

Only because the OP said it was wrong! I was reflecting their choice of words.

I'd say it's for the proponents of the status quo to prove that it is.

Doing nothing is a choice, but rule 1 of change management is that we can only start from where we are now. Proponents of the status quo don't have to prove anything. It is for the proponents of change to demonstrate that the benefits of change outweigh the costs and risks.

The reason why people avoid driving in the rush hour isn't so much the additional fuel burn as the wasted time.

And time is money. Ask a taxi driver.

 

[crablab]

I just don't see how discouraging railway custom through pricing is really the best way of distributing demand while maximising usage, and I'd say it's for the proponents of the status quo to prove that it is. I realise this may be different if the criterion is simply balancing the books.

I'd agree.

The proponents of change also have to demonstrate how they would cope with the increase in demand for peak time travel that would inevitably follow on from reducing the price, and how they would fund any further increases in peak time capacity.

The good news is that this is the speculative area of the forum, so no one really needs to demonstrate anything.

Alas, I don't have access to the revenue models the DfT use and so it's difficult to provide a full business case. That said, I have indicated how I, as a laymn, would do this (revenue neutral) further up the thread and I'd draw your attention to that previous discussion.

As to adding capacity, why would that be necessary? Again, as I've said above, it's my view that people who don't want to travel on very busy trains will choose to shift their travel to other times, routes etc. Simply provide the existing capacity and passengers with a better indication of how historically busy a service is and let them figure it out.

Again, as suggested above, on the rare occasions where this is really an issue (eg. on some very popular Intercity services) mandatory reservations could be used; in extremis.

Proponents of the status quo don't have to prove anything. It is for the proponents of change to demonstrate that the benefits of change outweigh the costs and risks.

I disagree. Proponents of the status quo have to prove why doing nothing, which as you observe is a choice with consequences, is worse than the proposed solution.

 

[The exile]

Is this actually a problem? I don't really understand why busy trains are seen as such a significant problem. Other European countries don't seem to either?

I see it as self-regulating: people who don't like busy trains get ones that are earlier or later,

There’s busy as in “I can’t get a seat” and busy as in “I physically cannot get on/off”. The latter is a problem anywhere - loading gauge means hat the difference between the two is much lower here than in “other European countries”.

 

[Haywain]

That said, I have indicated how I, as a laymn, would do this (revenue neutral) further up the thread and I'd draw your attention to that previous discussion.

Your proposal seems to be to average out the fares. How will that work when it causes a drop in off peak travel, which will be almost inevitable with significantly increased fares?

 

[Magdalia]

There’s busy as in “I can’t get a seat” and busy as in “I physically cannot get on/off”. The latter is a problem anywhere - loading gauge means hat the difference between the two is much lower here than in “other European countries”.

As to adding capacity, why would that be necessary?

I speak from experience of 25 years of peak time commuting. If the existing capacity is already completely utilised, there is literally nowhere for the additional passengers encouraged by cheaper peak time fares.

In London I can remember tube journeys where it took until the third train to get on, and the many occasions when Victoria would be closed because of overcrowding.

I put up with the 2005-09 period when Kings Cross-Cambridge had 6 of the top 10 most overcrowded trains in the country.

There are only three ways to ration scarce resources: price, queue or lottery. Where capacity is already full lowering the prices just creates queues.

Proponents of the status quo have to prove why doing nothing, which as you observe is a choice with consequences, is worse than the proposed solution.

No, the status quo is where we are now. It is for the proponents of change to demonstrate that their solution is significantly better. If there isn't much difference then the status quo wins because change itself has a cost.

 

[Andover]

I'm curious what alternative you see to limit demand for travel at peak times. The only one I can see is compulsory reservations on peak trains, which is probably a worse system than peak fares.

Run more trains (yes, and make the investments necessary to be able to achieve that). Encourage staggered working hours. Mandate transport integration, to remove absurd situations where, particularly in the peak, people clog up buses or trains when common sense would demand they be on the opposite. Speaking of compulsory reservations, ban anyone below a certain level of social credit from taking peak trains.

Because while I wouldn't advocate that last one, it's a fact of life that many other countries - the vast majority, if you consider genuine intercity networks rather than metropolitan ones - manage, in various ways, without peak fares (plenty still have Advance-equivalents, of course), and there's far too much variety in there to argue that Britain is just different.

You don't have to think they're doing things right, but there seem to be plenty of policies out there that could alleviate or remove the need to charge extra in the peak - and no one has actually argued that's a good thing in and of itself, just that it's necessary, which I don't think is strictly speaking true.

Proponents of the status quo don't have to prove anything. It is for the proponents of change to demonstrate that the benefits of change outweigh the costs and risks.

If that were the case, we'd have a referendum on whether to throw out the government every five years, not a general election.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because while I wouldn't advocate that last one, it's a fact of life that many other countries - the vast majority, if you consider genuine intercity networks rather than metropolitan ones - manage, in various ways, without peak fares (plenty still have Advance-equivalents, of course), and there's far too much variety in there to argue that Britain is just different.

It's probably true that regional networks mostly have flat all-day fares, yes, though there are odd exceptions e.g. I think Nederlandse Spoorwegen do or did have cheaper weekend return fares than midweek.

Intercity trains worldwide tend to be priced more airline-style - walk-up off peak fares are very much a UK thing. On Germanic-style operations there's normally an "anytime single" type fare, while it's not typically as swingeing as some UK ones it is generally fairly expensive, priced between our Off Peaks and Anytimes, so these days airline style Advances are more the norm. (The LNER scheme would be less unpalatable if the Anytime fares were to be reduced a bit to more German like levels, say Edinburgh-London down to about £150 single or Manchester-London down to about £80 single or thereabouts).

Notably Germany does I think have some level of differential flexible fare pricing, I think different days of the week can vary in price, but the price doesn't vary by time of day - the main thing people find confusing about our fare system.

 

[Andover]

There are only three ways to ration scarce resources: price, queue or lottery.

As mentionted above, there's also qualification, or outright discrimination for that matter. More to the point, the first thing the state will do under rationing is try to get more food. Whether it's the same kind or a different one probably won't matter very much either.

Intercity trains worldwide tend to be priced more airline-style - walk-up off peak fares are very much a UK thing. On Germanic-style operations there's normally an "anytime single" type fare, while it's not typically as swingeing as some UK ones it is generally fairly expensive, priced between our Off Peaks and Anytimes, so these days airline style Advances are more the norm. (The LNER scheme would be less unpalatable if the Anytime fares were to be reduced a bit to more German like levels, say Edinburgh-London down to about £150 single or Manchester-London down to about £80 single or thereabouts).

Yeah, these days there's generally some kind of yield-managed (or a more primitive version thereof) Advance plus a standard fare.

As you say though, that's a different issue from distinguishing peak/off-peak. And in much-admired Japan everything is walk-up anytimes.

 

[RT4038]

Run more trains (yes, and make the investments necessary to be able to achieve that).

This is unlikely to happen. It is unaffordable. We are where we are, so the passenger numbers travelling at a particular time have to be rationed in some way.

Encourage staggered working hours.

Surely that is what peak/off peak fares do?

Mandate transport integration, to remove absurd situations where, particularly in the peak, people clog up buses or trains when common sense would demand they be on the opposite.

Is there really anywhere where people are clogging up trains who would actually ride buses rather but don't because of non integrated fare system? Must be quite rare. Any the other way round will probably just exacerbate railway overcrowding, so is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

And in much-admired Japan everything is walk-up anytimes.

Who is doing the admiring?

 

[Magdalia]

If that were the case, we'd have a referendum on whether to throw out the government every five years, not a general election.

I am old enough to have voted in 12 general elections. All of them have effectively been a referendum on whether to throw out the government. In those 12 elections, the government has been thrown out 4 times: 1979, 1997, 2010 and 2024. The most recent is a splendid example, in a multi party election 250 different constituencies found many different ways to throw out the government.

 

[Andover]

This is unlikely to happen.

Perhaps. If it were affordable, would you be in favour?

We are where we are

We don't have to be, though. The central point of this discussion seems to me to be an insistence by certain people on 'things can never get better' outside of utopia.

Surely that is what peak/off peak fares do?

If there's evidence that they do, I'd be genuinely interested. But a necessary part of seriously implementing that would be that some people are going in at 0530 (which personally I'd sign up for on the spot) and some at 1000 - how are you going to explain that the former have to pay higher fares?

Is there really anywhere where people are clogging up trains who would actually ride buses rather but don't because of non integrated fare system? Must be quite rare. Any the other way round will probably just exacerbate railway overcrowding, so is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

Dual systems without integration are naturally going to create inefficiency, so it's very relevant.

Who is doing the admiring?

I think this is very easily googleable, Japan's public transport being among the most commonly praised by the interested and casual visitors alike, and no doubt having won some award or other. Not knowing it in detail, I didn't want to pass comment, I just found it interesting.

I am old enough to have voted in 12 general elections. All of them have effectively been a referendum on whether to throw out the government. In those 12 elections, the government has been thrown out 4 times: 1979, 1997, 2010 and 2024. The most recent is a splendid example, in a multi party election 250 different constituencies found many different ways to throw out the government.

On the ballot paper, were you only asked whether you wished the government to be returned? If so, I'm sorry some of those twelve elections were in a fascist state, if not, you didn't actually vote in a referendum, effective or not.

The point being both that there are always multiple alternatives to the status quo in offer and that the latter isn't excused from arguing on its own behalf - in 1979, you may remember Jim Callaghan said he was taking his case to the country.