GWR yield management?

[mrmartin]

Through a monstorous collection of split tickets I did Cardiff to London in the 'high peaks'.

Both ways the loadings were poor, most notably on the return where I pretty had the entire carriage to myself (on a Thursday as well).

I'm a bit lost why "the railway" thinks this can possibly be any type of yield optimisation?

Ryanair/easyjet who are probably the kings of yield management run to 100% load factors. Given I often get the first super off peak back which is full and standing til at least BPW it seems bananas to me to run at such low load factors when to try and get £250-300 return off people when there is clearly so much demand at the £100ish return mark.

I did check on the return if there was any advances but I couldn't find any that were any more than the usual '50p' off the anytime single price.

Make it make sense for me ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yield management is about maximising income, not bums on seats. The railway prefers to charge one person £300 than five people £50 each.

Low cost airlines are a bit different because ancillary stuff e.g. bag fees, priority boarding and food represent a large proportion of income, so bums on seats do maximise yield. Not so the railway.

Unlike airlines, the railway can also fill those seats with e.g. Reading or Milton Keynes commuters, for a nice extra bonus.

 

[mrmartin]

Yield management is about maximising income, not bums on seats. The railway prefers to charge one person £300 than five people £50 each.

Low cost airlines are a bit different because ancillary stuff e.g. bag fees, priority boarding and food represent a large proportion of income, so bums on seats do maximise yield. Not so the railway.

Unlike airlines, the railway can also fill those seats with e.g. Reading or Milton Keynes commuters, for a nice extra bonus.

Yes but it doesn't make any sense even at that level given the loadings in the carriages I saw were around 10%. Theres no way this is revenue maximising (my whole point).

 

[Parallel]

For GWR, most of the commuting demand on the long distance trains comes from Swindon/Didcot Parkway/Reading into London. I use the trains fairly regularly and they are usually busy midweek between Swindon and London. If you fill up long distance trains at peak times, it’s likely there wouldn’t be enough capacity for commuters who are probably paying premium prices.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes but it doesn't make any sense even at that level given the loadings in the carriages I saw were around 10%. Theres no way this is revenue maximising (my whole point).

I think the point though is that they don't feel more passengers will travel at that time regardless of the price.

Early Saturday morning going westbound can be very empty as well but if the trains a little later aren't full either, there is no need to reduce the fare on the earlier services.

 

[mrmartin]

I think the point though is that they don't feel more passengers will travel at that time regardless of the price.

Early Saturday morning going westbound can be very empty as well but if the trains a little later aren't full either, there is no need to reduce the fare on the earlier services.

But I just can't see that being true. The first (super) off peaks on the same route are completely crush loaded, at least until Bristol Parkway and often further along - the 1918 doesn't stop until Bristol Parkway so it can't be shorter distances commuters? Even the 21:48 (and often the 22:48) are dramatically busier than the 17:18.

To be clear, I'm completely aware that the common idea is that they'd rather sell a small number of very expensive tickets than a "large" amount of cheaper tickets.

But seeing those loadings I cannot see how that can be remotely correct. Perhaps it was pre COVID, when you might have had more significant loadings on anytime tickets.

Just doesn't make sense to me that they are only offering 50p on a "last minute" advance fares when there were 100s of empty seats. AFAIK they didn't have the ability to do last minute advance tickets pre COVID either. I'm not convinced that offering steeper discounts to fill those trains on advances would cannabalise the anytime tickets either as they don't have flexibility, so they could fill the trains more AND keep most of the anytime revenue.

I'm not saying it should be £30 or something daft, but I think your yield management is broken when you are leaving a perishable good (seats) going to waste at such scale.

 

[Belperpete]

Of course, it is not unknown for the low cost airlines to pull flights if the demand isn't there.

The airlines have a much more sophisticated yield management system, that will automatically lower prices if demand isn't maintained. I understand that they have an expected yield curve, if at any given time bookings are above that then it puts the prices up, if below it will put them down.

The railway has a much more clunky system that only puts the prices up, as each tier of advances in used up. At the time that the booking window opens, someone has to make a best guess as to how many seats to allocate to each tier. AAAIA, it needs someone to go in and manually allocate more seats to lower tiers to effectively drop the price.

And of course the airlines don't have to allow for people with season tickets and flexible returns, who are entitled to travel without a booking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A key difference with air travel is that almost nobody purchases on the day so you can drop the price without causing premium business travellers to pay less. With rail, your premium passengers are buying a walk up just before travel.

Avanti Superfare and the Eurostar equivalent, where you pay very little but only choose a time window rather than a specific train, are an attempt to do this without losing the high value fares.

 

[blimmo]

A key difference with air travel is that almost nobody purchases on the day so you can drop the price without causing premium business travellers to pay less. With rail, your premium passengers are buying a walk up just before travel.

Avanti Superfare and the Eurostar equivalent, where you pay very little but only choose a time window rather than a specific train, are an attempt to do this without losing the high value fares.

Could they not just drop the price (i.e. release more cheap advances) a week or so before if they're below expected demand but then remove those advances again the day before or on the day to still capture those seeking maximum flexibility?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could they not just drop the price (i.e. release more cheap advances) a week or so before if they're below expected demand but then remove those advances again the day before or on the day to still capture those seeking maximum flexibility?

They could, but I suspect they would think that wouldn't bring in as much money.

Remember, it's about YIELD, not bums on seats. One really expensive ticket brings more yield than four cheap ones. I explained above why that is the same thing for a low cost airline but not for the railway (nor a full service airline).

 

[blimmo]

Remember, it's about YIELD, not bums on seats.

Sure, I understand that (regardless of how much I hate it) but I was replying specifically to your point about the railway finding it more difficult to drop the price without reducing income from business travellers.

I suppose what I suggested is *more* difficult than what the airlines can do but it really doesn't seem very hard. Then again this is the railway...

 

[yorkie]

Could they not just drop the price (i.e. release more cheap advances) a week or so before if they're below expected demand but then remove those advances again the day before or on the day to still capture those seeking maximum flexibility?

Companies such as GWR are keen not to 'devalue' the high cost of 'peak' time travel; unlike budget airlines, they run plenty of trains with loads of capacity just before/after the 'peaks', so they expect anyone who doesn't have to travel at 'peak' time to travel earlier or later.

GWR would rather their prime 'peak' trains mostly carried fresh air, even if the trains just before/after were packed including standees (again that's another advantage they have over airlines), as that is more profitable and the railways are absolutely run for the benefit of maximising the fares people pay, rather than providing a genuine service to customers.

Maybe this will change, but - as with so many other things wrong with our railways - I don't anticipate that it will; the culture is very ingrained.

Indeed, train companies are keen to dismantle fares regulation entirely, as they consider the 'off peak' fares to be far too cheap and fare too flexible, even though the public see otherwise. There is a huge disconnect between the culture of such companies and what many passengers actually want. But there is no regulator, ombudsman, or passenger watchdog who has it within their remit to do anything to change the status quo.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2026 ==

Then again this is the railway...

Indeed. The railway is like nothing else, and they certainly aren't going to change their ways willingly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2026 ==

.... The first (super) off peaks on the same route are completely crush loaded, at least until Bristol Parkway and often further along ...

I think companies like GWR, LNER etc absolutely aren't bothered about some trains being crush loaded, and indeed they would not see this as an argument to lower 'peak' fares; instead they use it as an argument (disingenuously) to abolish Super Off Peak fares.

The DfT will be very keen for GWR to abolish the Super Off Peak fares at the earliest opportunity and ensure that the GWR route becomes more like an airline in terms of people needing to book ahead, or face the full Anytime rate, so the current imbalance in loadings suits their argument, as there seems to be no-one who can actually the reality of the situation who has the desire, power and ability to do anything to stop the DfT's plans.

 

[Sonic1234]

as they consider the 'off peak' fares to be far too cheap and fare too flexible, even though the public see otherwise.

You can see this in the language the railway uses. Off peak tickets are sometimes referred to as "discounted", where the public see a (railcard discounted) off peak fare as barely tolerable.

 

[yorkie]

You can see this in the language the railway uses. Off peak tickets are sometimes referred to as "discounted", where the public see a (railcard discounted) off peak fare as barely tolerable.

Absolutely.

In railway ticketing terms, it's completely wrong for Advance, Off Peak etc to be called "discounted"; the term is erroneously used in that context by some marketing people (who don't really understand railway ticketing) or some ticket inspectors as justification for charging an excess or new ticket.

A discount exclusively means that the original price has been discounted e.g. by a Railcard, or promotion etc and anyone using the term for anything else is just making it up.

 

[aar0]

I'm not saying it should be £30 or something daft, but I think your yield management is broken when you are leaving a perishable good (seats) going to waste at such scale.

Avanti Superfare and the Eurostar equivalent, where you pay very little but only choose a time window rather than a specific train, are an attempt to do this without losing the high value fares

Seat frog allows you to book a time period (morning/afternoon/evening) on GWR. Swansea - London is £25 or so. Having done it a few times you typically get put on the first off peak train for the morning period.

 

[Harpo]

Ryanair/easyjet who are probably the kings of yield management run to 100% load factors.

Fine if you want to leave home at 02.00 or land at 23.45 on one of the two flights that operate on a Tuesday but not a Wednesday etc and don’t turn up with a carry-on bag bigger than a child’s back-pack.

 

[Snow1964]

For GWR, most of the commuting demand on the long distance trains comes from Swindon/Didcot Parkway/Reading into London. I use the trains fairly regularly and they are usually busy midweek between Swindon and London. If you fill up long distance trains at peak times, it’s likely there wouldn’t be enough capacity for commuters who are probably paying premium prices.

Although that is done by choice with current timetable pattern, if run a fast train for commuters ahead of the long distance service, and don't stop the long distance train at key commuter stations then don't get commuters using the long distance services

South Western does is differently, running in groups, fast to Surbiton then stations, fast to Woking then stations served, fast to Basingstoke then stopping etc. In peak hours have been variations to balance loads eg first stop Farnborough. But GWR doesn't do things like peak train fast to Tilehurst

The Op has a point, if only couple of seats in use on Swindon-Cardiff section, then either the train doesn't really need to run that section, could be better deployed elsewhere, or the pricing makes no sense because not trying to fill seats and maximise yield on the low volume part

 

[Belperpete]

South Western does is differently, running in groups, fast to Surbiton then stations, fast to Woking then stations served, fast to Basingstoke then stopping etc. In peak hours have been variations to balance loads eg first stop Farnborough. But GWR doesn't do things like peak train fast to Tilehurst

I suspect because GWR aren't carrying nearly the same number of commuters as SW to justify the extra trains that would be needed for such a service pattern.

The Op has a point, if only couple of seats in use on Swindon-Cardiff section, then either the train doesn't really need to run that section, could be better deployed elsewhere, or the pricing makes no sense because not trying to fill seats and maximise yield on the low volume part

Which highlights another major difference between the railways and the low cost airlines - the latter are almost exclusively A to B. They aren't trying to fill a flight for part of its journey.

Looked at from a yield management point of view, it would probably make more sense for GWR to terminate all their trains at Cardiff, and leave it to TfW to do anything beyond. Whether that would be a popular move and they would be allowed to do it is another matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2026 ==

Indeed, train companies are keen to dismantle fares regulation entirely, as they consider the 'off peak' fares to be far too cheap and fare too flexible, even though the public see otherwise. There is a huge disconnect between the culture of such companies and what many passengers actually want. But there is no regulator, ombudsman, or passenger watchdog who has it within their remit to do anything to change the status quo.

And unlikely to be, because the DfT also seem to be keen on the idea.

One of the big advantages of rail travel has always been the flexibility at reasonable cost. That seems to be going out the window, with passengers increasingly being pressured to book in advance for specific trains.

We have seen it with the LNER fare "trial". With various companies trying to make their services reservation compulsory. And with XC, who have so few unreservable seats on their services that you effectively have to book in advance if you want to stand any chance of getting a seat.

I fear that the days of spontaneous travel, "oh, it's a nice day today, let's pop up to York for the day", are drawing to a close for all but the very wealthy.

I think companies like GWR, LNER etc absolutely aren't bothered about some trains being crush loaded

It is seen as an incentive for people to pay the higher fare to travel on the peak train.