Great British Railways suggestions

[Simon75]

Some suggestions for Great British Rails

What about scrapping different ticket agents (ie Trainline), scrapping dynamic pricing, so say a London to Manchester, same price any time ?

One livery for inter city, and one for regional (local)

 

[yorkie]

Some suggestions for Great British Rails

What about scrapping different ticket agents (ie Trainline),

OK, so you are scrapping our ticketing site; this means everyone has to pay a higher price, right?

scrapping dynamic pricing, so say a London to Manchester, same price any time ?

What price would that be?

Let's ignore first class for the time being and just look at flexible return fares, and assume travel via the WCML (including via Birmingham or Trent Valley, and valid into Euston or Paddington).

At present, return fares are:
Anytime is £369.40
Off Peak £109.00

However, those on a tight budget can pay from just over £40, to use West Midlands Trains and either TfW or Northern only at super off peak times, with around an extra £12 to travel at off peak times, with the Anytime fare being around a third of the price Avanti charge.

If there is to be one fare, what would it be?

Is this about effectively handing money from those who are on a tight budget to those who would have been prepared to pay more? i.e. rob poor Peter to pay more wealthy Paul?

 

[Blindtraveler]

You're certainly not going to see support from me for either of the above suggestions. Whilst some of them are perhaps best described as dubious each one of these booking sites has their faults and equally there good points. Whilst it will suddenly be nice to not have a different app for every every train operating company with inconsistencies between them. In terms of which booking engine they used to power it and what features are available and other inconsistencies such as accessibility or usefulness of information or notifications etc. We should still be offering a choice of ticket retailing options, and one thing that I don't think we're finished with yet, is that part of that choice should involve a staffed booking office at pretty much most stations that retain one now, and maybe a few where passenger numbers have risen or will rise in future and might conceivably justify one.

 

[JLH4AC]

Some suggestions for Great British Rails

If GBR continues to offer the same zero booking fees offer as the TOCs for tickets booked through their websites, with it being clear to the public that tickets sold through the GBR website can get you anywhere in the nation and the GBR reform meant to simplify ticketing ticket agents like Trainline will very likely lose a lot of business and will likely only survive through the sale of open access tickets.

What about scrapping different ticket agents (ie Trainline), scrapping dynamic pricing, so say a London to Manchester, same price any time ?

It seems that all Labour's plan regarding the deeply unpopular practice of dynamic pricing is to "improve price transparency" aka doing nothing worth talking about.

One livery for inter city, and one for regional (local)

There is likely going to be more than one regional/local livery especially if the rail devolution deals that are already agreed are upheld and other Combined Authorities are able to get similar deals.

 

[yorkie]

If GBR continues to offer the same zero booking fees offer as the TOCs for tickets booked through their websites, with it being clear to the public that tickets sold through the GBR website can get you anywhere in the nation and the GBR reform meant to simplify ticketing ticket agents like Trainline will very likely lose a lot of business and will likely only survive through the sale of open access tickets.

Not going to happen; Rail Delivery Group are not capable of procuring a system that is perceived, by the people who are attracted to Trainline, as being slick enough.

As for getting rid of dynamic pricing, LNER are absolutely determined that the vast majority of passengers will be on Advance tickets (either with, or without, paying a supplement for a bit of flexibility in a +/- 70min time window), with only those with very large wallets able to afford anything that offers any greater flexibility than that.

So it would take a massive U-turn for the opposite of this to happen.

In reality, a happy medium is possible; indeed, there are loads of things you could do, within the current system and without fundamentally changing the fares structure, to make things a lot fairer (but with an acceptance that the principles of loopholes and anomalies must remain) and, most crucially, avoid penalising people for making mistakes.

The fundamental problem with any completely new structure is that the Government can't afford a truly fair system where the higher priced fares are reduced to match the lower priced fares, and any attempt to make fares "revenue neutral" is going to be detrimental to the majority of people who buy fares that aren't terrible value, while benefitting those who are prepared to pay more. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Fares reform must be opposed unless, and until, the dreaded "revenue neutral" model (or, worse, any attempt to gain more revenue, unless done by increasing patronage) is abandoned.

 

[JLH4AC]

Not going to happen; Rail Delivery Group are not capable of procuring a system that is perceived, by the people who are attracted to Trainline, as being slick enough.

If Labour is serious about simplifying ticketing and defragmenting the railway GBR will have to procure a new system to replace TOCs' and National Rail's booking systems/journey planners so I don't see how it would be unable to include whatever features that people see as making Trianline slicker. I doubt the slickness of Trainline is why most people use it, I think it is more do with being able to easily buy split tickets (Split ticketing is likely to go away during the course of ticketing simplification), and the ability to book other operators' trains through another TOCs' website is not well advertised.

As for getting rid of dynamic pricing, LNER are absolutely determined that the vast majority of passengers will be on Advance tickets (either with, or without, paying a supplement for a bit of flexibility in a +/- 70min time window), with only those with very large wallets able to afford anything that offers any greater flexibility than that.

So it would take a massive U-turn for the opposite of this to happen.

That is why I focus on the government in my comment as I do believe that DfT/GBR will not move away from making use of dynamic pricing without it being banned or heavily regulated, or major reform of the Treasury. All evidence points to all those options being very unlikely to happen under the Starmer government.

In reality, a happy medium is possible; indeed, there are loads of things you could do, within the current system and without fundamentally changing the fares structure, to make things a lot fairer and avoid penalising people for making mistakes.

The fundamental problem with any completely new structure is that the Government can't afford a fair system, and any attempt to make fares "revenue neutral" is going to be detrimental to the majority of people who buy fares that aren't terrible value, while benefitting those who are prepared to pay more. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Fares reform must be opposed unless, and until, the dreaded "revenue neutral" model (or, worse, any attempt to gain more revenue, unless done by increasing patronage) is abandoned.

Fare reform is needed and is likely going to happen if we like it or not so efforts to oppose it may be better spent campaigning for better fare reform.

The need for revenue-neutral fare reform (GBR can't rely on the government to properly fund them and fare reform that will lead to a decrease in revenue may bring unwanted interference from DtL/Treasury.) maybe can be reduced through revenue diversification (Such as though the expansion of NR's property division, TfL style licensing deals, and setting up additional rail based services.).

 

[Mgameing123]

Some suggestions for Great British Rails

What about scrapping different ticket agents (ie Trainline), scrapping dynamic pricing, so say a London to Manchester, same price any time ?

One livery for inter city, and one for regional (local)

Dynamic pricing should be kept. Make the anytime fare not daylight robbery and use advance fares to spread the load of passengers so they don’t just bunch together in the peak.

 

[mike57]

scrapping dynamic pricing,

I dont have an issue with dynanamic pricing if it allows me to obtain tickets at a decent price. Equally if I want to travel at peak/most popular times then I am going to pay more.

A lot of lesiure jorneys have some degree of time and or route flexibility. So price sensitive travellers can save money at the expensive of convenience/flexibility

What I do think needs addressing is high 'Anytime' return fares on the main intercity routes, to me these seem unjustified given how few ticket are probably sold at these prices.

In an ideal world you would have advance, off peak and anytime tickets. They would all be singles, singles would be half the current return fare in the case of offpeak and anytime, and all the other fares would be swept away. Advances manage the peaks and troughs in demand and usage, and put people on the less popular/slower services for a discount. TOC specific tickets other than open access no longer exist, all the problems surrounding ticket acceptance during disruption are then swept away, if your train is cancelled, or you miss a conection you just carry on using the next available service.

To take an example, you might use and advance on your outward journey and an anytime on your return.

Equally the early and late services that run mostly empty might have some deep discounts offered close to time of travel.

I think the public understand the concept of advance, offpek and anytime, where the confusion comes in is when thing like ToC specific tickets are offered, and other fares, day returns, short distance returns, and the other offerings. Advances are the tool to manage demand and loading.

The current LNER moves seem to be to be adding yet more confusion and are a step backwards..

 

[Blindtraveler]

I dont have an issue with dynanamic pricing if it allows me to obtain tickets at a decent price. Equally if I want to travel at peak/most popular times then I am going to pay more.

A lot of lesiure jorneys have some degree of time and or route flexibility. So price sensitive travellers can save money at the expensive of convenience/flexibility

What I do think needs addressing is high 'Anytime' return fares on the main intercity routes, to me these seem unjustified given how few ticket are probably sold at these prices.

In an ideal world you would have advance, off peak and anytime tickets. They would all be singles, singles would be half the current return fare in the case of offpeak and anytime, and all the other fares would be swept away. Advances manage the peaks and troughs in demand and usage, and put people on the less popular/slower services for a discount. TOC specific tickets other than open access no longer exist, all the problems surrounding ticket acceptance during disruption are then swept away, if your train is cancelled, or you miss a conection you just carry on using the next available service.

To take an example, you might use and advance on your outward journey and an anytime on your return.

Equally the early and late services that run mostly empty might have some deep discounts offered close to time of travel.

I think the public understand the concept of advance, offpek and anytime, where the confusion comes in is when thing like ToC specific tickets are offered, and other fares, day returns, short distance returns, and the other offerings. Advances are the tool to manage demand and loading.

The current LNER moves seem to be to be adding yet more confusion and are a step backwards..

Completely agree with your proposed fares structure there, including the last minute deep discounts on early or late or otherwise empty trains that would generate revenue and at least fund the next pay rise for the crew

 

[JonathanH]

Completely agree with your proposed fares structure there, including the last minute deep discounts on early or late or otherwise empty trains that would generate revenue and at least fund the next pay rise for the crew

People don't like the risk of booking then finding their fare has reduced and they could have paid less. Deep discounts for last minute bookings are not a good idea for that reason.

Also, who makes a journey at short notice on a whim at the margin of the day just because there is a giveaway fare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, who makes a journey at short notice on a whim at the margin of the day just because there is a giveaway fare?

I suspect you're in the right place to find people who would - people for whom train travel is an end in itself.

Not the majority or anywhere near it, though.

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect you're in the right place to find people who would - people for whom train travel is an end in itself.

Not the majority or anywhere near it, though.

Even then, that is only going to be possible if there is somewhere to stay at the end.

My guess is that the 2330 from Kings Cross to Leeds, for example, has spare seats most nights. There is no point offering last minute fares at £20, when it seems to be worth LNER listing it at £47.80 for tonight. (Actually 2315 tonight)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even then, that is only going to be possible if there is somewhere to stay at the end.

Unless it's daytrippable. That example isn't, but trains would be equally low loaded away from London early on a Saturday or Sunday morning, for instance.

 

[mike57]

but trains would be equally low loaded away from London early on a Saturday or Sunday morning, for instance.

Surely anything which fills empty seats on services which still have to run because of a service obligation is a benefit. It may be a small section who can or would take advantage, but that doesn't mean its not worth doing if the train has to run anyway.

On the subject of dynamic pricing, people would soon get used to it, as we are already confronted with it in other areas, an example when buying currency for a holiday, I can buy now at a rate, or leave it until nearer departure time and hope that the rate is better, but it may not be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the subject of dynamic pricing, people would soon get used to it, as we are already confronted with it in other areas, an example when buying currency for a holiday, I can buy now at a rate, or leave it until nearer departure time and hope that the rate is better, but it may not be.

The key difference between the railway and other things that use it, though, is that the railway has a ready alternative on peoples' driveways - a car - which most adults own. That doesn't have dynamic pricing. If the railway adopts a too expensive/too unfriendly approach to fares, the car will be used instead.

It is fairly notable that the LNER trial is presently only on a route that's a bit long for most to consider driving, where the main competitor is air which already dynamically prices. I'm not sure it would meet with the same results if applied to London-Birmingham.

 

[Meerkat]

Surely anything which fills empty seats on services which still have to run because of a service obligation is a benefit

No.
You have a train with 150 empty seats and 50 booked by those who will pay the normal £50
If you have to give the empty ones away for £1 to fill them then you only need 4 of your 50 ”travelling anyway” passengers to hold off for the cheap tickets and you are getting less revenue.
(Example grossly simplified to demonstrate the problem.)

 

[Simon75]

Surely anything which fills empty seats on services which still have to run because of a service obligation is a benefit. It may be a small section who can or would take advantage, but that doesn't mean its not worth doing if the train has to run anyway.

On the subject of dynamic pricing, people would soon get used to it, as we are already confronted with it in other areas, an example when buying currency for a holiday, I can buy now at a rate, or leave it until nearer departure time and hope that the rate is better, but it may not be.

Or delaying a booking due to other reason eg confirming time off work, or if your visiting someone they are free

 

[Rhydgaled]

In an ideal world you would have advance, off peak and anytime tickets. They would all be singles, singles would be half the current return fare in the case of offpeak and anytime, and all the other fares would be swept away. Advances manage the peaks and troughs in demand and usage, and put people on the less popular/slower services for a discount. TOC specific tickets other than open access no longer exist, all the problems surrounding ticket acceptance during disruption are then swept away, if your train is cancelled, or you miss a conection you just carry on using the next available service.

To take an example, you might use and advance on your outward journey and an anytime on your return.

Equally the early and late services that run mostly empty might have some deep discounts offered close to time of travel.

I think the public understand the concept of advance, offpek and anytime, where the confusion comes in is when thing like ToC specific tickets are offered, and other fares, day returns, short distance returns, and the other offerings. Advances are the tool to manage demand and loading.

The current LNER moves seem to be to be adding yet more confusion and are a step backwards..

Is there actually a need for the semi-flexible 'off peak' and TOC-specific tickets? Would (m)any passengers use them if 'Advance' tickets were available as walk-up tickets? 'Anytime' is clear enough (provided you really can travel on any train), as are booked-train-only tickets (although I think they should be called something other than 'Advance' since you can book an Anytime ticket in advance and sometimes even book 'Advance' tickets on the day of travel so there is potential for confusion in the name). However, 'off peak' seems to me to be a recipe for anxiety and confusion. Exactly when does the peak begin and end, does it apply to both morning and evening peaks or just one of the two and would a London-Penzance service which happens to be departing London at the height of the peak still have a peak restriction applied as it is running through Cornwall 5 hours later? With off-peak and anytime fares, there is also the issue of whether break of journey is permitted (which could (re)introduce some split-ticketing type issues, particularly if you do away with period returns).

A suggestion I read elsewhere (think it was the 'FGW Coffee Shop' forum) was to rename 'Advance' tickets to 'Tethered'. I think that was a great suggestion and hope it will be implemented.

Would making at least the most-expense tier of 'Tethered'/'Advance' tickets always available from ticket offices (and machines, and on-board if you joined the train somewhere without working ticket facilities) for every service including on the day of travel be a good idea? This would be so that it could replace the off-peak fares if you know what train you will be on. This almost makes Anytime singles purchased on the day redundant as well, unless you need break of journey, but Anytime returns (for when you don't know what time you're coming back) would remain useful.

Another fare-related suggestion that may have come from the 'Coffee Shop' is Railcard reform. I would scrap the current range of national Railcards (expect perhaps 'Family & Friends') and replace them with the following three/four products (the names and non-discounted pricing are just spur of the moment examples, you could use Gold, Silver and Bronze instead or something, it's the details of what is offered that counts):

• Ultimate Railcard: 50% off all rail tickets, valid at anytime (optional product, and probably very expensive to purchase - say £350 for 1 year and £1000 for 3 year railcard)
• Freedom Railcard: 34% off all rail tickets, valid at anytime (core product) - £180 for 1 year / £500 for 3 year card but discounts available to senior citizens, veterans and disabled persons allowing purchase at £30/£70 per year / 3yrs (or even lower for disabled persons, as now)
• Relax Railcard: 34% off all rail tickets, subject to a minimum fare if travelling in the 'morning peak' (in this case defined as before 9am on weekdays, with easements where sensible) (core product) - £120 for 1 year / £300 for 3 year card but discounts available to anyone under 31 allowing purchase at £30/£70 per year / 3yrs
• Plus One Add-On (core product) the above would all be for a single person, possibly with a photo on the railcard if you suspect fraud is likely. This final product would allow one other person to travel with the railcard holder and receive the same benefits as the railcard holder. A railcard holder could purchase as many 'Plus Ones' as they like (so 6 freinds travelling together could each have one and all receive the railcard discount, but they would have to be travelling with the holder of the original card) - each 'Plus One' would be priced at 34% off the price of the holder's original card (possibly without the senior etc. discounts) and would expire on the same date - an exception would be disabled persons who would get their first 'Plus One' free (since the current Disabled Persons Railcard allows the holder to travel with somebody).

Essentially, what I'm trying to do above is keep all the current products (or something similar) available but extend their availability to all passengers regardless of age, disability etc. albeit at a much higher price point for those who are not eliglible for the current national cards (and with concessions for those who are eliglible so they don't see a price increase on their railcards).

One livery for inter city, and one for regional (local)

I would suggest working slowly* towards one colour scheme for everything eventually, albeit with the colours arranged differently for different types of stock (similar to how Stagecoach had blue, red and white on SWT and EMT, or how BR blue & grey was reversed on some stock, but GBR need not reuse those exact colours). The different arrangements should be:

• Express: almost anything with single-width doors in vestibles at the vehicle ends, possibly with INTERCITY logotype added on trains which also has first class and kitchen/buffet facilities (use the iconic BR Swallow logotype, and possibly the Swallow itself, for this if so)
• Inner-suburban / Metro: any unit with any of the following features probably falls into this category (they will probably mostly be devolved to the likes of TfL and Nexus anyway, so might not actually need a GBR livery):
  • longitudinal seating,
  • zero toilets,
  • a ratio of over 125 seats per toilet,
  • metro-sliding** doors,
  • more than two doors per side (possibly more than one door per side if the vehicle length is less than a mark 1 or mark 2 coach (20m))
• Outer-suburban: anything else with double-width doors-at-thirds

There's a few oddballs, such as 395s and GA's two FLIRT classes, which don't fit in any of the above categories - not sure what livery should be applied to those. The key thing is that any stock designed to do the same (or very similar) job should be branded the same so that it can be treated as a common pool and moved around where that is useful. My go-to example of this, which I will not stop pushing for until it happens, is allowing the 800s, 801s, 802s and 810s to be shared between what are currently seperate TOCs (including XC) - particularly once the MML is wired leaving very little need for diesel traction on current EMR services.

* I wouldn't rush it - only repaint when repaints are due anyway and minimise rebranding using vinyls before that
** this is what I call double-width sliding doors (generally at thirds) which do not close flush with the bodyside (eg. the doors on class 150s, 319s, 376s, 378s, 507s and 700s are all examples of what I call 'metro-sliding' doors)

 

[QSK19]

The key thing is that any stock designed to do the same (or very similar) job should be branded the same so that it can be treated as a common pool and moved around where that is useful. My go-to example of this, which I will not stop pushing for until it happens, is allowing the 800s, 801s, 802s and 810s to be shared between what are currently seperate TOCs (including XC) - particularly once the MML is wired leaving very little need for diesel traction on current EMR services.

Agree with the idea fundamentally; however I would say that the 810s need to stay primarily on the MML due to their bespoke nature. Maybe 9-car 80x could be substitutes (eg if special events necessitate extra trains to ferry people along the MML), but using 80x stock in general is an ineffective use of platform space at STP.

 

[Transilien]

A consistent approach to catering on trains rather than the mixture of standards that we have on trains right now. Perhaps GBR could take a page from SBB with their inclusion of a Starbucks on their Intercity trains. Instead though they could have an M&S food which is always popular at stations with a small café menu on shorter routes and more proper meals on longer routes.

 

[JonathanH]

A consistent approach to catering on trains rather than the mixture of standards that we have on trains right now.

Would catering losses on one route be subsidised by revenue from another?

 

[Transilien]

Would catering losses on one route be subsidised by revenue from another?

I was meaning more that every train would have catering based on its journey length and its status. So for example Intercity GWR trains would have a buffet reintroduced to be consistent with Avanti, Cross Country and LNER.

 

[JonathanH]

So for example Intercity GWR trains would have a buffet reintroduced to be consistent with Avanti, Cross Country and LNER.

That was the point I was making. Is a buffet going to be as financially viable on GWR as an Avanti and LNER?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was the point I was making. Is a buffet going to be as financially viable on GWR as an Avanti and LNER?

It's probably significantly more viable on the Penzance than the Euston-Birmingham (indeed, I think that could probably support a European style restaurant car rather than a Pullman style one). That again could be where the ICS brand BR used could come in.

The short distance ICs (Bristol, Birmingham and Norwich) probably don't justify any catering, nor would any potential Manchester-Birmingham shuttle. So maybe bring back ICS for those, a brand for high frequency short distance ICs with no catering?

Here's a controversial one, again aping BR in a form - InterCity Voyager for the very long distance stuff (Penzance, Inverness, Aberdeen and most of XC) with a massively upgraded catering offer, a low density layout, maybe three classes and general improvement aimed at those travelling for 5+ hours?

 

[Transilien]

That was the point I was making. Is a buffet going to be as financially viable on GWR as an Avanti and LNER?

It's probably not worth it on sub 2-hour services as Station catering has overtaken onboard catering. GWR though have plenty of services that run into the category of having a Buffet like: London to Cardiff and Penzance.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Agree with the idea fundamentally; however I would say that the 810s need to stay primarily on the MML due to their bespoke nature. Maybe 9-car 80x could be substitutes (eg if special events necessitate extra trains to ferry people along the MML), but using 80x stock in general is an ineffective use of platform space at STP.

While an 80x would make ineffective use of platform space at STP, the 810s (with their four diesel generators) would make ineffective use of both those engines and an electrified MML. Also, the DfT IEP seat plans show that 5-car 800/801 would have 315 seats and 627 for a 9-car (I'm not sure if the final LNER and GWR layouts are any different). Wikipedia (sorry, cannot find a better source) claims 301 seats for an 810, meaning a 10-car would be 602 seats so you get more capacity by using a 9-car 80x anyway, even though it wouldn't quite fill the platform at STP. Is it true that there is a platform somewhere on XC which can only just fit a 5-car 221? If so, perhaps the 810s would be more useful there than on an electrified MML? Just use 9-car 801s (preferably with the diesel generator replaced by batteries to provide a similar emergency capability) for electrified MML services instead.

That was the point I was making. Is a buffet going to be as financially viable on GWR as an Avanti and LNER?

The kitchen is there anyway on GWR, just without a buffet counter and only available to first class. The space it takes up is still taken up and you are presumably employing almost as many staff as if it was between first and standard with a counter to allow them to sell to the standard class pax.

 

[Transilien]

The kitchen is there anyway on GWR, just without a buffet counter and only available to first class. The space it takes up is still taken up and you are presumably employing almost as many staff as if it was between first and standard with a counter to allow them to sell to the standard class pax.

Yes, there is no point in a Kitchen taking up space that a buffet could use that could cater to all passengers.

 

[irish_rail]

It's probably not worth it on sub 2-hour services as Station catering has overtaken onboard catering. GWR though have plenty of services that run into the category of having a Buffet like: London to Cardiff and Penzance.

If anything Avanti have far more sub 2 hour journeys than GWR, who have lots of longer trips (Padd Penzance and Wales). There is zero justification for avanti to justify buffets on 2 hour trips to Liverpool Manchester and Birmingham, whilst GWR 3 to 5 hour trips to Plymouth, Cornwall and South Wales have to make do with a poorly stocked unreliable trolley. Hopefully nationalisation will lead tona standardisation of buffet provision.

 

[Mountain Man]

Some suggestions for Great British Rails

What about scrapping different ticket agents (ie Trainline), scrapping dynamic pricing, so say a London to Manchester, same price any time ?

One livery for inter city, and one for regional (local)

So you are proposing a massive fare rise for off peak travel?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you are proposing a massive fare rise for off peak travel?

A massive fare rise for off peak travel is almost certain, but it'll rather be by doing dynamic pricing and cranking up fares at times like Friday and Sunday afternoon/evening. You'll be able to go from London to Manchester for thirty quid, but only on a Wednesday lunchtime when nobody wants to do so even were it free.