• 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!

DfT West Coast Vision

Status
Not open for further replies.

JaJaWa

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2013
Messages
1,731
Location
Looks like they may be asked to introduce an ICWC brand rather than an operators brand too.

Branding and product
The future operator will develop a brand which is reflective of the towns and cities served and respectful of the history of the route. The brand will be capable of outlasting the term of the business creating a real legacy for train services on the route. Trains and the on-board environment will be presented as a modern, clean and smart product for passengers.

Certainly sounds likes they want a brand like GWR. Not sure what the West Coast equivalent would be though, surely you can't have something containing "London Midland"! It could just be the DfT's hate of Virgin showing through though! ;)
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

8J

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2009
Messages
679
WestCoast or IC would be ideal but I don't think Souter/Branson would be best pleased with this proposal and would probably throw their toys out of the pram again...
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,904
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Certainly sounds likes they want a brand like GWR. Not sure what the West Coast equvilant would be though, surely you can't have something containing "London Midland"! It could just be the DfT's hate of Virgin showing through though! ;)

London & North Western is the appropriate name, possibly linked to Caledonian north of Carlisle.
Unfortunately the LNWR name has been purloined elsewhere (in DB/Arriva ownership now).
The West Coast moniker goes back to the joint LNWR/Caledonian use of the term "West Coast Joint Stock" for its cross-border operations.
Network Rail has its LNW Route, although that covers a wider area than that used by Virgin.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,329
Probably a good thing, post HS2 phase 1 will be totally different franchise and if any more long distance stock was ordered it would be superfluous when the route shifts more towards increased commuter/smaller stations focus.

I beg to differ (I mean I hope it's not like that.)
To me the benefit of HS2 is that it will take the "get to London as quickly as possible and sod the rest of the users" trains off the real network and give us back the capacity for for a Taktfahrplan Schweiz-type service. The airlines on wheels that seem to be the only services that the accountants can justify are a catastrophe for most of the country, the only bright patch is the work being done by PTE-type providers who have a public transport remit rather than an entreprenurial profit one.

The WCML desperately needs a comprehensive semi-fast service calling at principal stations/junctions. I mean one where people can travel from say Stoke to Warrington (via Crewe) or Crewe to Leicester (via Nuneaton) without being forced onto a single part of the service (eg the Birmingham/Scotland trains in the first instance or taking 1 1/2 hrs just to get to NUN or going via Brum in the second.)

I seem to remember that when the 308s(?) were cascaded up here and no longer needed for the Manchester suburban services there was a proposal for such a service, but the cost of fitting central door locking defeated the business case. Maybe network capacity had something to do with it too.
A
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,626
Location
Nottingham
London & North Western is the appropriate name, possibly linked to Caledonian north of Carlisle.
Unfortunately the LNWR name has been purloined elsewhere (in DB/Arriva ownership now).
The West Coast moniker goes back to the joint LNWR/Caledonian use of the term "West Coast Joint Stock" for its cross-border operations.
Network Rail has its LNW Route, although that covers a wider area than that used by Virgin.

West Coast is a fairly stupid name given that the WCML is only the closest route to the coast for a few miles round Lancaster and Carlisle. It's basically a piece of railway jargon that has got established in the industry but is unlikely to mean much to the general public.

Once the LM franchise has ended I imagine it would be possible to use "London Midland and Scottish" which as well as having a historic connotation like GWR does actually approximately describe where it serves!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If they're that bothered about split ticketing, why don't they just change the NRCoC to bar it in the manner the Irish conditions of carriage do? Though compostage would be an effective, practical way of both preventing ticket re-use and stopping split ticketing, would just require investment in some stamping machines.

If they want to stop split ticketing being used to get cheaper fares, it might be enough just to remove the requirement that operators provide onward travel at no extra cost if a connection is missed at the splitting point. Once people are stung for a few anytime fares on the second leg they will think twice about trying it.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,121
If they want to stop split ticketing being used to get cheaper fares, it might be enough just to remove the requirement that operators provide onward travel at no extra cost if a connection is missed at the splitting point. Once people are stung for a few anytime fares on the second leg they will think twice about trying it.

What about journeys where there is no through ticket and you have to split? This is going to become more common with the roll out of smartcards and mobile ticketing which are generally operator specific.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
If they want to stop split ticketing being used to get cheaper fares, it might be enough just to remove the requirement that operators provide onward travel at no extra cost if a connection is missed at the splitting point. Once people are stung for a few anytime fares on the second leg they will think twice about trying it.

It wouldn't bother me, most of my split tickets are "off peak" or "anytime" anyway, meaning that I have very few restrictions and would almost never need to buy a different ticket.

As I've said a lot of journeys from one side of London through and out the other side are cheaper to split, especially if the second leg can be done with an off peak ticket. The above rule would make no difference to that as I can use any train if I need to as the morning peak is over.
 

JaJaWa

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2013
Messages
1,731
Location
What about journeys where there is no through ticket and you have to split? This is going to become more common with the roll out of smartcards and mobile ticketing which are generally operator specific.

Mobile ticketing in the North West and North East is now valid on any operator, and I only see that expanding. Likewise for ITSO cards which will now be rolled out by regional bodies.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,609
Location
Scotland
Mobile ticketing in the North West and North East is now valid on any operator, and I only see that expanding. Likewise for ITSO cards which will now be rolled out by regional bodies.
But that doesn't do anything for journeys that don't have a through ticket.
 

mrmartin

Established Member
Joined
17 Dec 2012
Messages
1,285
Very interesting document which makes me think the DfT have it all wrong.

EG:

66% of travel being for leisure - which makes the peak fares look ridiculous - who's going to spend >£300 rtn to see friends an hour earlier?

~60% of long distance (>100mi) journeys on advance tickets. Surely the point of advance tickets is to fill up spare capacity - not to be the mainstay of most of the passengers?

Looks like 2-3% of >200mi journeys are on anytime tickets, proving how empty these trains must be?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,181
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What about journeys where there is no through ticket and you have to split? This is going to become more common with the roll out of smartcards and mobile ticketing which are generally operator specific.

And the continuing tightening of the Routeing Guide. With any such rule I would want to see the ability to issue a through ticket from anywhere to anywhere via anywhere at a calculated fare.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,215
Location
Bolton
~60% of long distance (>100mi) journeys on advance tickets. Surely the point of advance tickets is to fill up spare capacity - not to be the mainstay of most of the passengers?

Looks like 2-3% of >200mi journeys are on anytime tickets, proving how empty these trains must be?

My very long standing point about Advance tickets is that it's fairly clear that train companies do use them to sell a specific number of seats and vary how many they plan to leave for walk-up custom, factoring an estimation of the revenue from walk-ups that makes it into that company from RSP. This is a rather removed process from what some people think about the way in which advances are used is, which is to imagine none are sold and apply cheaper tickets to those seats. If using a walk-up ticket for which the operator has to share a lot of the revenue (even if its a very expensive walk-up) you're more likely to find yourself seatless without a reservation for your extra cash. That's apparently the price of flexibility these days.

Look at the way media, advertising and attitudes towards train travel are speak of booking. It's almost an expectation that you use an Advance ticket for a long-distance journey, and if you want to make any number of them the chances that you can afford walk-up tickets are very slim indeed.

Take my recent journey from Watford to Manchester - I boarded a Birmingham train on a Saturday night that was only a 9-car and wedged, so I had to sit on the floor (admittedly I could have sat in First for £10 - there were available seats but only a few of them and there was no catering). Connections going north from Watford to Manchester are so terrible that you have to go via Birmingham at that time - I was relieved to alight at the first stop of Coventry. If I'd had an Advance from Euston to Manchester at probably half of the price I'd paid I would have had a seat. I knew I'd be making the journey but I grudgingly chose the Off-Peak ticket I did for the flexibility.
 

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
My very long standing point about Advance tickets is that it's fairly clear that train companies do use them to sell a specific number of seats and vary how many they plan to leave for walk-up custom, factoring an estimation of the revenue from walk-ups that makes it into that company from RSP. This is a rather removed process from what some people think about the way in which advances are used is, which is to imagine none are sold and apply cheaper tickets to those seats.
It's very clear from recent franchise agreements and ITTs that DfT expects Advance tickets to be used to smooth demand across train services. With DfT putting a clause in franchise agreements that capacity planning provides passengers with a reasonable expectation of a seat on off-peak services and within 20 minutes of boarding a peak service, TOCs are going to be using Advances over walk on tickets more.

Tale the TPE ITT as an example (emphasis mine):
"Forecast loadings or Peak standing in excess of these requirements of
up to a maximum of 10 passengers per carriage will nevertheless be
regarded as meeting the requirement if, and only if, the Bidder
demonstrates to the Department’s satisfaction that it will, in practice, be
possible to avoid those excess loadings or Peak standing by appropriate
yield management techniques
whose effects have not been modelled in
the Bidder’s loading forecasts (i.e. reducing availability of advance
purchase fares on the overcrowded train and increasing availability on
other services which have spare capacity and which operate between the
same two points within an hour of the overcrowded service in question)."
 

Class 170101

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,661
Another reason to use advance tickets is that the operator gets all the money rather than having to share. Take Peterborough to Kings Cross GTR routed tickets, GTR get all the money rather than losing most to VTEC as the faster operator of services between those two points.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,215
Location
Bolton
The point about revenue sharing forms the basis of my argument above. However the GTR Only tickets from Peterborough to London actually aren't advance tickets.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
7,612
Location
Merseyside
I cannot believe anyone could seriously advocate taking rights away from passengers. Split ticketing is a GOOD thing for the consumer. It certinly should not be banned. Entitling passengers to rights when they miss their connections through no fault of their own, in the event of using split tickts, again is a good thing. Seriously before anyone avoctes taking these rights away from customers on an alreay overpriced railway, whose side do you bat for? The member of the public (like yourself) or the shareholders the TOCs want to keep happy?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,211
Location
SE London
I cannot believe anyone could seriously advocate taking rights away from passengers. Split ticketing is a GOOD thing for the consumer. It certinly should not be banned. Entitling passengers to rights when they miss their connections through no fault of their own, in the event of using split tickts, again is a good thing. Seriously before anyone avoctes taking these rights away from customers on an alreay overpriced railway, whose side do you bat for? The member of the public (like yourself) or the shareholders the TOCs want to keep happy?

I would say it's mixed. The fact that you can do it if you so wish is a good thing, and I agree that it should not at all be diluted. But the fact that in many cases you need to do it to get a reasonable fare is a very bad thing - it makes rail travel more complicated and confusing, and has the potential for people who didn't know about split ticketing and subsequently find out to feel rightly very frustrated. And it makes a mockery of the idea that people should always be offered the cheapest available fare for their journey (unless all ticket machines get programmed to routinely offer split tickets - which would get even more confusing for passengers!)
 
Last edited:

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
I don't think making decent value tickets available without splitting is going to be their priority.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
I don't think making decent value tickets available without splitting is going to be their priority.

True, however it could be possible to use the flex in the annual ticket price rises to lessen the difference.

However the saving can come from having part of the journey as an "any time" ticket until the service starts being valid for "off peak" tickets. Which is more difficult to resolve.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,181
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't think making decent value tickets available without splitting is going to be their priority.

My main concern, if splitting were to be banned or discouraged (e.g. by compostage), is not so much the market approach to fares but the fact that I can't buy a single ticket via whatever route I wish. This should be a prerequisite of any splitting ban, as should the ability to overdistance excess more flexibly.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
I think that you are taking the "removal of split ticketing" too literally. Of course you will always be able to buy a single ticket from anywhere to anywhere, including therefore being able to use multiple tickets for a journey. The system would fall apart otherwise (including where people have travelcards and then buy a ticket for onward journeys).

We also expect the future operator to make use of unregulated fares to tackle anomalies such as removing split ticketing.

The bit in bold is key. It's obviously about adjusting the prices of journeys so that split ticketing isn't any cheaper than a through ticket.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,181
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think that some are taking the "removal of split ticketing" too literally. Of course you will always be able to buy a single ticket from anywhere to anywhere, including therefore being able to use multiple tickets for a journey. The system would fall apart otherwise (including where people have travelcards and then buy a ticket for onward journeys).

As I said it would be easy to prevent split ticketing by introducing compostage. Travelcards are a special case as they (BZ tickets) are not additional tickets, they are essentially excesses.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
However the saving can come from having part of the journey as an "any time" ticket until the service starts being valid for "off peak" tickets. Which is more difficult to resolve.
It is, although the key routes are already addressed such as "arrivals into London before x" type restrictions which therefore negate that kind of thing.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,181
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is, although the key routes are already addressed such as "arrivals into London before x" type restrictions which therefore negate that kind of thing.

"Trains arriving into obvious big city / departing from obvious big city before/after X regardless of where you board/alight" are fairly easy ways to make it reasonably consistent. Not absolutely every journey involves said big city, but most generally do, and those tend to be the busiest trains as well as the ones justifying a higher price.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think making decent value tickets available without splitting is going to be their priority.

The difficulty is CDRs - yield management on short distance routes tends to be by CDRs (which give very good value walk-up splits) whereas on long-distance routes it's Advances. Short of having a segregated local/IC fare structure or abolishing CDRs I don't see a solution there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top