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!
Why restrict people the choice? If it really was about giving people seats rather than being able to artificially limit supply (and increase prices!) they would introduce new rights like even when on an advance ticket, if there are no seats you are afforded the right to board the next train with a new reservation. All this does is rob people of the choice. I don't agree with that given the level of subsidy.
no one "choses" to stand and certainly not for a full price ticket! We might accept or tolerate it but we don't chose it. I might agree with your choice argument if you were offering me a choice of ticket prices and accommodation with standing being the cheapest by a long way.
I am all for reservations as I am sick to death of standing. I want a seat!
Also: the level of subsidy Is exactly the reason the government should be trying to get as much money back as possible from users. We need that money to spend on other things. Things that many in society might find a better use of taxpayers money than a fancy train!
no one "choses" to stand and certainly not for a full price ticket! We might accept or tolerate it but we don't chose it. I might agree with your choice argument if you were offering me a choice of ticket prices and accommodation with standing being the cheapest by a long way.
No we should not. Some things in life are a public good. You don't try to get the most possible back from council services, or from the NHS. Why should a highly subsidised railway be for the sole use of the rich who can afford to pay for the exorbitant walk-up prices?
It is very strange that you don't understand it isn't a choice between standing and sitting, it is a choice between travelling and not travelling.
SNCF loves yield management and loves profit, which is alright if they actually had the capacity to carry everyone (spoiler, they don't), a train with mandatory reservation every 2 hours on most lines (mostly because there isn't enough sets available and Paris terminis are rammed already) makes sense. A 30-min headway service does not need mandatory reservation.
I wonder how much of forcing mandatory reservations is trying to manage passenger capacity at stations; there's less need to turn up half an hour early if everybody knows they can get a seat.
Actually it works the opposite way (as has been 'discovered' at Euston). When it reopened 45 years ago, wasn't much queuing as just got next service, and many ran every 10, 15 or 20 minutes, not a problem if got delayed on tube etc and missed departure time.
But if you have compulsory reservations, and issue penalties for travelling on wrong train on advance tickets, then customers turn up earlier because missing the train, doesn't allow no hassle free transfer to next one. So increase number waiting as indirectly encouraging them not to arrive late (and journey time to the station might be outside of their control).
Rather ironic if train goes faster, but journey takes longer because of loss of ability to walk up and hop on with minutes to spare
I'd be surprised if there'd be absolutely no validity for Interrail, Eurail and Britrail pass holders (most of whom, of course, would not be UK voters and therefore easier to dismiss if it became an issue), even if a supplement was necessary, but wouldn't season tickets at the very least count as flexible tickets?
How likely is is that the last train of the day on some routes would be a HS2 one due to the shorter journey times, and that the option sometimes becomes "let passengers delayed by early disruption travel on the last trains without reservations" or "pay for taxis to get them home"?
It won't be full, it will be half empty, people will book multiple tickets far in advance at a cheap price and simply discard the ones they don't use. Train will be half empty while leaving people behind (or rather people will be choosing the local stoppers or simply driving)
ok. That is a fair point. Personally, I am sick to death of standing up and want an actual seat that I have paid for. I don't get a discount on XC for standing next to the toilet!
Greater Anglia and being able to sit wherever you want the moment you get on is so much nicer than the musical chairs you get on Avanti and LNER as everyone argues about their reserved seats and squeezes around each other to get to their booked window seats. Let's also not hope you got on a 10 car formed of 2 units , had to rush on before departure, your booked seat is in the other unit and the next stop is Grantham.
I understood TGV and the like was reservation only due to safety and not allowing standing at very high speeds, as such I would expect HS2 services to be the same. ORR will never let you run full and wedged services at 200mph, not going to happen, they can't stop it currently has it's always been the case but HS2 will never get a safety case for unlimited standing at those speeds.
Some 15 years ago I was in Paris and a colleague changed their TGV booking to an earlier departure at a ticket machine in less than a minute, so if was that easy then why can't it work now?
I've heard the argument that a crush loaded train is safer and you will gently bounce off the person next to you rather than being chucked against the train wall.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But if you have compulsory reservations, and issue penalties for travelling on wrong train on advance tickets, then customers turn up earlier because missing the train, doesn't allow no hassle free transfer to next one. So increase number waiting as indirectly encouraging them not to arrive late (and journey time to the station might be outside of their control).
This is a good point. Yes you have rights in disruption, even with split tickets, but this doesn't extend to stuff like buses and the underground. I've spent plenty of time lingering in stations for an hour to await with my Advance booking, having left early in case something went wrong but nothing actually did. You'd have less people lingering if you could just get the first train that arrives where you want to go.
If it was between standing on a train for 30 minutes, or waiting 30 minutes for one with a reserved seat, I'd probably choose to stand to get there earlier (especially since there's a decent chance that I'd have to stand around at the station).
If it was between standing on a train for 30 minutes, or waiting 30 minutes for one with a reserved seat, I'd probably choose to stand to get there earlier.
I've heard the argument that a crush loaded train is safer and you will gently bounce off the person next to you rather than being chucked against the train wall.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is a good point. Yes you have rights in disruption, even with split tickets, but this doesn't extend to stuff like buses and the underground. I've spent plenty of time lingering in stations for an hour to await with my Advance booking, having left early in case something went wrong but nothing actually did. You'd have less people lingering if you could just get the first train that arrives where you want to go.
My skull hitting someone in the face will just bounce off will it, no it would be two fractured skulls if your lucky. If you have standing passengers you will also have loose luggage so presumably one of those hard suitcases will also just bounce of other passengers without doing any harm too?
So not during normal operation, hasn't TGV been compulsory reservation since the start so it's worked OK for many years, why not on HS2? I thought this was already the expectation.
Would having reservations on part of the route work, so e.g. a seat reservation would be included with all advance tickets, as is currently the case, but if flexible tickets for HS2 exist (which I think is likely), you'd need a reservation for Liverpool to London but not from Preston to Warrington? I think that's the way it works for e.g. TGVs from Saarbrücken to Mannheim.
If it was between standing on a train for 30 minutes, or waiting 30 minutes for one with a reserved seat, I'd probably choose to stand to get there earlier (especially since there's a decent chance that I'd have to stand around at the station).
If there are no (or limited quantity) of seats at departure station and have to stand at the station, then might as well be standing on the train and actually getting on with your journey.
This is often a decent way to get a bargain. Wizz are very very proficient at it (no use to me as I'd prefer to never have to go near Wizz, but I've seen their prices come up and clicked through the verify they're actually available). Eurostar Snap also works on this basis so it's abundantly clear some trains have capacity, same as some flights. But unlike the airlines Eurostar don't really want it sold at an actually market price.
You also forgot in your risk assessment that the person you will have denied entry onto the train will instead undertake the much more risky activity of driving instead.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is often a decent way to get a bargain. Wizz are very very proficient at it (no use to me as I'd prefer to never have to go near Wizz, but I've seen their prices come up and clicked through the verify they're actually available). Eurostar Snap also works on this basis so it's abundantly clear some trains have capacity, same as some flights. But unlike the airlines Eurostar don't really want it sold at an actually market price.
The thing with the advance system at the moment is that seat prices can only go up as quotas get sold out, they can't ever go down to induce people onto train that got less bookings than they expected, like what airlines do
I guess the response from the government on that one is you should avoid being both of average or below average means, and also not a holder of a staff travel facility if you dislike it!
Walk up off peak fares provide a price cap at a slightly-expensive-but-affordable price, so yes, it would.
For a journey from London to Birmingham booking weeks in advance is irrelevant. I never make journeys like that planned in advance. If the train gets too costly I'll simply switch to the car.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The north WCML is exactly where there could be a problem like that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'll not be using Grand Central, thanks. Their policies on passenger abandonment in disruption are not acceptable to me and I don't think they should be in business, let alone me giving them any of my money.
Hull maybe, but they're not exactly frequent or capacious.
The thing with the advance system at the moment is that seat prices can only go up as quotas get sold out, they can't ever go down to induce people onto train that got less bookings than they expected, like what airlines do
This does happen when quota gets held back during the extended window, for example some quota has to be available for Newark to London on trains from Edinburgh to London when the latter journey opens six months in advance and the former one only three months. It also happens when tickets get refunded. But in general yes, and the inability of overbooking by a reasonable amount is also very inefficient.
It's still very inefficient because seats are usually free and can easily be booked and not used without being cancelled. Choice of seats is also not done in an efficient way, so sometimes a seat is available all the way, but because it's not the same one you get no availability.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
SNCF loves yield management and loves profit, which is alright if they actually had the capacity to carry everyone (spoiler, they don't), a train with mandatory reservation every 2 hours on most lines (mostly because there isn't enough sets available and Paris terminis are rammed already) makes sense. A 30-min headway service does not need mandatory reservation.
SNCF make a better effort to ameliorate the fullness of trains by using the waiting list function in the app. Max Actif subscription holders may also be permitted to reserve a "counted place". Finally passengers may be able to make representations to the chef de bord to pay at the on-board fare scale if they could not get a seat but are in urgent need to travel. It's bad but but at least it's not nothing at all. They also make minimal effort to respond to exceptionally high demand or show you alternatives in the app that do have availability. Some Intercités non-Paris you can even join even if you don't have a reservation.
If you were in Limoges you would be very fed up with seeing the Paris IC trains "complet" and no realistic alternative available. At least if you had a car you could go to Poitiers for a TGV.
Assuming HS2 will have a similar delay repay system to existing ones, don't mandatory reservations increase delay repay payments due to missed connections and not necessarily being able to reserve a seat for the first train (e.g. if you get from Rugby to Birmingham International fifteen minutes before a train to Glasgow leaves Birmingham Interchange, you might not want to try to make a reservation until you're on the platform, getting to the platform in time but without a reservation)?
Not necessarily, but your seat reservation isn't exactly going to stop your skull smashing against the metal seat back Infront of you either.
Being seated isn't going to prevent that either.
You also forgot in your risk assessment that the person you will have denied entry onto the train will instead undertake the much more risky activity of driving instead.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The thing with the advance system at the moment is that seat prices can only go up as quotas get sold out, they can't ever go down to induce people onto train that got less bookings than they expected, like what airlines do
Seat belts could stop the impact of seated passengers, luggage can be in contained areas, similar to airlines. Passengers using the road instead are of no concern to the ORR or HS2 risk assesment's, you could say the same of Eurostar passengers either flying or driving via Eurotunnel but it has had no effect on Eurostar having compulsory reservations from startup. Eurostar could have standing passengers since everyone would still go through security before boarding and a few standees per coach wouldn't make evacuation in the tunnel that much more difficult but they still don't allow it.
Seat belts could stop the impact of seated passengers, luggage can be in contained areas, similar to airlines. Passengers using the road instead are of no concern to the ORR or HS2 risk assesment's,
ok. That is a fair point. Personally, I am sick to death of standing up and want an actual seat that I have paid for. I don't get a discount on XC for standing next to the toilet!
Then you can get a reservation. Just because they aren't compulsory doesn't mean you can't get one.
If anything you should want them opt in as it gives you far more options of seats to reserve and available seats mean others are less likely to sit in your reservation.
In regards to ORRs actual risk assessment, they don't see any evidence of increased risk with crowding. While this doesn't mention anything specific about higher speed services , they didn't demand restrictions on 140 mph HS1 services, the Southeastern services being turn up and go with standing permitted.
Eurostar could have standing passengers since everyone would still go through security before boarding and a few standees per coach wouldn't make evacuation in the tunnel that much more difficult but they still don't allow it.
Eurostar is capped by border force capacity at St Pancras , and is trying to present itself as a luxury product that allowing standing would hurt it's presentation of being so. However HS2 should be a product for everyone, not a taxpayer funded rich man's toy.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I choose to stand if the type of seat I want (table, window, direction, side of train, other nearby passengers) is not available even if there are plenty of empty seats.
The reservation policy of France means that in the past 10 years I have avoided taking trains there and spent much more time in countries such as Germany and Switzerland without this policy. But SNCF isn't going to know about me, they will only know about the people who like this policy who do travel with them.
Then you can get a reservation. Just because they aren't compulsory doesn't mean you can't get one.
If anything you should want them opt in as it gives you far more options of seats to reserve and available seats mean others are less likely to sit in your reservation.
Why here? Just because SNCF do it doesn't make it good.
How do compulsory reservations better make use of capacity and does it actually work in the real world?
Current experience on Avanti - no. Anecdotally distribution of passengers seems no different to LNWR and many reservations are unused.
Those Avanti "compulsory" reservations seem to be only "theoretical". There is nothing to stop you boarding without a reservation and occupy a vacant seat. And how do you deal with something likeWarrington to Crewe, or Warrington to Wigan, where they are the sole provider ? People with onward connections at, say, Crewe, are just going to pile onto the next available train - reservation or not.
Compulsory reservations are just something to make life easier for the operator, not the passenger. Yes, most of us would prefer not to stand - but even more we would prefer to stand rather than wait for hours (or until the next day) for a train with available reservations.
For a journey where the train runs less than every hour, I normally know exactly when I want to travel. Frequency is a bigger determinant to that than journey time.
One of the biggest benefits of a frequent service is having the flexibility to not have to worry about exactly when you want to travel.
Whether you're travelling for business or leisure, being able to turn up at the station and get on the next train, knowing you won't have to wait more than half an hour, is a big incentive to travel by train.
That's especially true if your journey doesn't start close to the station.
For example, when I get the train from my home in Selby to my visit family in south London, it is usually a good half an hour getting there than getting home. Why? Because I know how long it takes me to walk from my house to the station, so I allow that amount of time. But coming back, there's a ~15 minute drive from their house to the station and then a local train into London before I get on the intercity train home. And because it only runs every couple of hours, I build in lots of allowance for traffic and delays, even if I've got a flexible ticket, because I don't want to miss my train. But that invariably means I end up hanging around Kings Cross for more than half an hour. If the trains ran every 30 minutes instead of every 2 hours, more often than not my journey home suddenly becomes a whole lot quicker because I don't need to factor in unnecessary waiting time, I can just get on the next train and go.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I wonder how much of forcing mandatory reservations is trying to manage passenger capacity at stations; there's less need to turn up half an hour early if everybody knows they can get a seat.
On the other hand, if you have compulsory reservations then you have to make sure you turn up early to avoid being delayed en route and missing your train – especially if you are arriving by road and so subject to the vagaries of traffic and/or unreliable buses. Whereas if you know you can just get on the next train, you might not be so bothered about cutting it fine and arriving with a few minutes to spare.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There's no inherent reason why reservations have to cut off 5 minutes before scheduled departure, either. Only a couple of weeks ago I wrote here how at Paddington I boarded a service to Cardiff 20 minutes after departure time, as it was still sat there waiting for a driver.
It's bad practice to allow people to make reservations on a train after it has started boarding at its initial station – some passengers may have got on and sat in an unreserved seat, only to find that they get kicked out because someone has reserved it afterwards. That's a sure fire way to piss people off and discourage them from travelling by train, especially if it means they then have to stand but if they had randomly picked a different unreserved seat they would have been fine.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
ok. That is a fair point. Personally, I am sick to death of standing up and want an actual seat that I have paid for. I don't get a discount on XC for standing next to the toilet!
If you want to have a guaranteed seat then you can reserve one, that's fine – no-one is saying that you shouldn't, or trying to stop you!
Seat reservations will always be available on long-distance trains, and no-one is arguing against them.
The key word is "compulsory". If some people are happy to take a chance on not getting a seat and are willing to stand, that doesn't impinge on your ability to book your seat.
no one "choses" to stand and certainly not for a full price ticket! We might accept or tolerate it but we don't chose it. I might agree with your choice argument if you were offering me a choice of ticket prices and accommodation with standing being the cheapest by a long way.
I am all for reservations as I am sick to death of standing. I want a seat!
Also: the level of subsidy Is exactly the reason the government should be trying to get as much money back as possible from users. We need that money to spend on other things. Things that many in society might find a better use of taxpayers money than a fancy train!
I'd just like to echo what others have been saying here. While I'm sure LNER hated it, during engineering works on the ECML I bought a Super Off-Peak ticket and travelled on a sold out train, knowing that the other option would be not travelling. Based on the number standing, I was far from the only one!
Without that choice I just wouldn't have been able to travel as someone who doesn't own a car, and I have words that I won't write here for anybody who tells me I shouldn't have that option.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
