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!
Plenty of us do useful work, generating cash and taxes, without needing to travel at all.
So do I. I also note that this was a vehicle that was being used way below its potential, needed additional staff to serve it, and made a very questionable return. On a capacity constrained railway, it is something of a luxury
The assumption that LNER are a monopoly is false - they have competition on and off the rails. Fares have been held down by the existence of those competitors.
They will have a lot of data on both loadings and yields, and will have experts using that to optimise revenue - which is what government is (and has for a long time) been instructing them to do. Virgin East Coast collapsed because they couldn't pay the dividends that the government demanded - not because they couldn't cover their operating costs.
Very simply, if they sell a ticket for £50 today and sell 100 of them, they get £5000. If they reduce the price to £45, they need to sell an extra 12 tickets to earn the same income. If they put the fare up to £75, and lose only 10 customers, their revenue increases by £1750 - 35%.
The experiment they've been running in real time has been a demonstration of this at work. And, taking this sample of 1, what they've found is that as I won't buy a season (no need), I (or, in reality, my employer) will tolerate a significant price increase without telling them where to stick it.
We might hate it, we might think it really bad policy for any number of reasons, but the numbers tell us something really clear about why operators are making these choices.
As far as I am aware, Virgin bid in that premium. So it was an overbidding problem rather than them being held to a Government set revenue amount. It was only set because Virgin set it, and you can’t have companies overbidding premiums without consequences, as it would undermine the whole system and gives rise to legal issues in the procurement/opens the public body up to challenge. That was my understanding anyway.
I'm entirely familiar with operating in a mixed mode - including on long term projects will colleagues abroad whom I expect never to meet in person, and where significant problems are dealt with entirely remotely.
Problems are always possible to deal with, even 100% remotely. But there's no guarantee that's less expensive than spending the travel time.
Doesn't take away from my point that your pretty strong implication that the OP's journeys don't have any economic value as they can be replaced with remote work like you do is in fact wrong. I personally am of the opinion that 99% of professional working people can be trusted under a policy of remote wherever possible and then in person where it matters, and not waste unnecessary travel time. It's pretty obvious the OP knows when travelling to be in person is worth prioritising and when to accept it needs to be remote so I don't see how this undermines their point.
I'm entirely familiar with operating in a mixed mode - including on long term projects will colleagues abroad whom I expect never to meet in person, and where significant problems are dealt with entirely remotely.
Yes but the idea that we don’t need to travel at all is surely not right. I presume most people are doing what I do, which is balancing when to do which mode. We have consultants spread around the country on our projects and use a lot of online meetings to coordinate that, and it’s great and way better than trying to organise that through physical meetings. We also have lots of meetings that require in-person time.
If no in person time is required let’s get the motorways and railways shut down tomorrow and save some cash!
Exactly. The logical conclusion of such arguments is that nobody needs to be travelling for work ever. Hopefully it's obvious to everyone why that's not remotely the case...
As far as I am aware, Virgin bid in that premium. So it was an overbidding problem rather than them being held to a Government set revenue amount. It was only set because Virgin set it, and you can’t have companies overbidding premiums without consequences, as it would undermine the whole system and gives rise to legal issues in the procurement/opens the public body up to challenge. That was my understanding anyway.
Stagecoach bid on the basis of the invitation to tender. Yes, they may have overbid but the government failed to deliver capacity enhancements that the bid was based on. The Stagecoach/Virgin failure was a better story, and easier to understand, than a government cock-up especially where the railway was concerned.
I am also continually confused by the LNER trial. It was named by LNER as the simpler fares trial, so presumably it was not about raising revenue in any case.
I have also just checked in on the LNER site on the latest and it now clearly says that super off-peak singles are available. However, it looks like the 70 minute flex is also staying. So the result of the trial on simplifying tickets seems to have been to introduce a new ticket type so there are more ticket types to consider?
Even more confusingly, whilst it seems to be possible to find the advance, off-peak or anytime fairly easily, I am struggling to find any 70 minute flex tickets.
I am also continually confused by the LNER trial. It was named by LNER as the simpler fares trial, so presumably it was not about raising revenue in any case.
I have also just checked in on the LNER site on the latest and it now clearly says that super off-peak singles are available. However, it looks like the 70 minute flex is also staying. So the result of the trial on simplifying tickets seems to have been to introduce a new ticket type so there are more ticket types to consider?
Even more confusingly, whilst it seems to be possible to find the advance, off-peak or anytime fairly easily, I am struggling to find any 70 minute flex tickets.
Stagecoach bid on the basis of the invitation to tender. Yes, they may have overbid but the government failed to deliver capacity enhancements that the bid was based on. The Stagecoach/Virgin failure was a better story, and easier to understand, than a government cock-up especially where the railway was concerned.
Yes, the premiums were supposed to ramp up in the later years of the franchise and that was heavily dependent on the enhancements being delivered. Stagecoach offered to renegotiate but the government said no.
The 70 minute Flex isn't available for that journey.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, the premiums were supposed to ramp up in the later years of the franchise and that was heavily dependent on the enhancements being delivered. Stagecoach offered to renegotiate but the government said no.
To be honest I am beyond relaxed it is not available. What I am rather excited about is that the super off-peak seems to be back, as standard, with a promise it will be near as damn it half the return super off-peak fare.
I think I might have been asleep when this happened. Before I become too excited, am I dreaming? I had a quick look through the dedicated thread and couldn’t see reference to it.
What I am rather excited about is that the super off-peak seems to be back, as standard, with a promise it will be near as damn it half the return super off-peak fare.
Ah yes don’t worry Sonic1234, I have been using the workarounds for months.
I am just concerned for the poor hapless ‘normal’ customer who might go to LNER’s own website and read its own guide to ticketing which tells it on the majority of services you can buy an off-peak return or a flex, which is not correct.
This is not just a Simpler Fares guide, this is an LNER Simpler fares guide …
I would say into London is the dominant flow. However, there is plenty of demand to travel out of London in the morning peak. It is a city of 8 million people with lots doing plenty outside of London work wise and for other reasons. Thousands will take to the roads every morning to travel up the M1 and A1. LNER could likely fill all of those trains if they charged the right price.
Of course out of London is also the dominant flow in the afternoon peak.
Also, just to emphasise, this phenomenon of seriously empty trains feels new, and corresponds exactly with my perceived lack of ability to get advance fares on those services.
I am personally not buying that 44 people paying full price (that was the booked number on my London-York service the other week), makes up for potentially 250+ at a reasonable advance fare, even taking into account some of the 44 may have paid the lower fare.
The other severe risk with the approach is you get people used to dismissing the train option before they have even tried. On 3 of my projects we have just settled into a rhythm of online meetings now because the attempt to get all of us onto a reasonably priced train from various destinations (Newcastle, Birmingham, London to York), is just too stressful and time consuming.
It’s a shame as we would rather meet in person more often. Each empty seat in the peak is potentially wasted potential economic activity.
The number of total rejectors is very high and many people entered this state a long time ago when fares were much cheaper.
Even going back before the pandemic, projects with regular in person meetings would find a rhythm, a very inefficient one, because travel was at own expense and the schedule was made to fit around off peak train times.
I am also continually confused by the LNER trial. It was named by LNER as the simpler fares trial, so presumably it was not about raising revenue in any case.
When a big company says we are doing x because of y, you can safely rule out y as the actual reason.
When rail was privatised, long distance business / peak fares were inexplicably left to the free market, despite obvious monopoly issues, and rocketed in price.
The bottom tier of flexible fares, called Supersavers were also left to the piranhas, and soon disappeared completely. The regulated long distance fares today, were the Saver or middle tier of old.
Those 'regulated' fares are the ones that LNER have just removed (as a trial you understand) in the name of simplicity...
When a big company says we are doing x because of y, you can safely rule out y as the actual reason.
When rail was privatised, long distance business / peak fares were inexplicably left to the free market, despite obvious monopoly issues, and rocketed in price.
The bottom tier of flexible fares, called Supersavers were also left to the piranhas, and soon disappeared completely. The regulated long distance fares today, were the Saver or middle tier of old.
Those 'regulated' fares are the ones that LNER have just removed (as a trial you understand) in the name of simplicity...
Firstly without some freedom on fares it's doubtful that private businesses would have been interested in getting involved with trains. Secondly successive governments of both persuasions have been pretty clear about passengers needing to pay a higher proportion of costs. We get the rail policies we deserve by the parties we chose to vote for. Or maybe many voters simply don't care about rail policy.
Firstly without some freedom on fares it's doubtful that private businesses would have been interested in getting involved with trains. Secondly successive governments of both persuasions have been pretty clear about passengers needing to pay a higher proportion of costs. We get the rail policies we deserve by the parties we chose to vote for. Or maybe many voters simply don't care about rail policy.
I suspect the other side of that coin is that most people wouldn't have minded paying a higher proportion of the costs through ticket price... if costs had actually gone down as promised by privatisation. Maybe a different approach would have been more effective at doing that, maybe it wouldn't, it's hard to say with hindsight, although it seems pretty clear looking back it was an ideological decision first and not a financial one. Either way it seems privatisation brought real terms increases in costs and then renationalisation further real increases.
I suspect the other side of that coin is that most people wouldn't have minded paying a higher proportion of the costs through ticket price... if costs had actually gone down as promised by privatisation.
That's possible but it was never going to happen sufficiently. The industry was hamstrung with too many fixed and non-negotiable costs so all that could ever be cut was staffing through constant reorganisation, and things like driver training by recruiting from other TOCs.
Problems are always possible to deal with, even 100% remotely. But there's no guarantee that's less expensive than spending the travel time.
Doesn't take away from my point that your pretty strong implication that the OP's journeys don't have any economic value as they can be replaced with remote work like you do is in fact wrong. I personally am of the opinion that 99% of professional working people can be trusted under a policy of remote wherever possible and then in person where it matters, and not waste unnecessary travel time. It's pretty obvious the OP knows when travelling to be in person is worth prioritising and when to accept it needs to be remote so I don't see how this undermines their point.
Stagecoach bid on the basis of the invitation to tender. Yes, they may have overbid but the government failed to deliver capacity enhancements that the bid was based on. The Stagecoach/Virgin failure was a better story, and easier to understand, than a government cock-up especially where the railway was concerned.
Not to mention that the government set very clear expectations about premium levels to bidders - and wished to extract profits from operators rather then use taxpayer money.
There are times when this is absolutely right I am sure. But the context of the OP's post makes it pretty clear that it isn't an overstatement here. Lots of the big corporate employers are reluctant to have highly paid staff travel nowadays because it takes so much of their time up that, it's assumed, could be spent generating revenue. However they will still allow occasional travel in recognition of the benefit. Either way we still have a small but significant portion of rail journeys being made for business, around 10%.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's possible but it was never going to happen sufficiently. The industry was hamstrung with too many fixed and non-negotiable costs so all that could ever be cut was staffing through constant reorganisation, and things like driver training by recruiting from other TOCs.
My argument is not as you state. It is that “we must travel for the economy to work” is at best an overstatement.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Not to mention that the government set very clear expectations about premium levels to bidders - and wished to extract profits from operators rather then use taxpayer money.
We absolutely do need travel to happen for the economy to work. There are thousands if not millions of economic and public service interactions that need to happen every day for the economy to function at a basic level. Then there is the question of the additional, suppressed activities that hold back potential additional economic activity. An example could be high energy prices. Another example could be the cost and ease of travel.
The internet is a fantastic tool to help bring massive efficiency to some situations, in some sectors, some of the time.
As an example, we have approx 300 design engineers working on a national programme. They can do about 70% of work and meetings remotely, but about 30% absolutely has to be done on site and will involve lots of meetings in one physical location.
When the designs are implemented, even more of the action will be on site.
Huge numbers of construction workers travel around the country to work on site. They are effectively locked out of early morning travel and there is a real trend of people travelling in off peak and getting hotels. As a poster above said, it can seriously impact efficiency. People charging in 2 days to a project rather than 1 citing travel challenges.
That is just infrastructure design and construction, one important sector of the economy. There are many others.
So bums on seats at peak times really is important and will continue to be so until the robots have taken over. I take the point that a train company needs to sell x more tickets to meet the same revenue. That is simple maths. It is also a good thing. The capacity of the train is better utilised. It is pretty basic economics that you should seek to use infrastructure capacity with high fixed costs well.
Off peak trains on the same flows can be quite busy. Some of the people are avoiding the peaks. I would say 50% of my off peak travel is avoided peak travel and I then sometimes give somebody else some money, like a hotel. So getting them on to half empty peak trains also releases capacity on off peak trains and there seems to be evidence that this is sorely needed on some off peak flows.
We absolutely do need travel to happen for the economy to work. There are thousands if not millions of economic and public service interactions that need to happen every day for the economy to function at a basic level. Then there is the question of the additional, suppressed activities that hold back potential additional economic activity. An example could be high energy prices. Another example could be the cost and ease of travel.
The internet is a fantastic tool to help bring massive efficiency to some situations, in some sectors, some of the time.
As an example, we have approx 300 design engineers working on a national programme. They can do about 70% of work and meetings remotely, but about 30% absolutely has to be done on site and will involve lots of meetings in one physical location.
When the designs are implemented, even more of the action will be on site.
Huge numbers of construction workers travel around the country to work on site. They are effectively locked out of early morning travel and there is a real trend of people travelling in off peak and getting hotels. As a poster above said, it can seriously impact efficiency. People charging in 2 days to a project rather than 1 citing travel challenges.
That is just infrastructure design and construction, one important sector of the economy. There are many others.
So bums on seats at peak times really is important and will continue to be so until the robots have taken over. I take the point that a train company needs to sell x more tickets to meet the same revenue. That is simple maths. It is also a good thing. The capacity of the train is better utilised. It is pretty basic economics that you should seek to use infrastructure capacity with high fixed costs well.
Off peak trains on the same flows can be quite busy. Some of the people are avoiding the peaks. I would say 50% of my off peak travel is avoided peak travel and I then sometimes give somebody else some money, like a hotel. So getting them on to half empty peak trains also releases capacity on off peak trains and there seems to be evidence that this is sorely needed on some off peak flows.
I think you can reach a problem of conflicting objectives - is fare policy designed to promote economic growth, manage demand to equal capacity, or maximise revenue. I'd argue it should be to maximise overall revenue for government - if cheaper rail tickets enable enough economic growth or other consumption to offset additional subsidy, they should be made cheaper. This should also take into account the impacts modal shift- the impacts of one potentially driving instead of travelling by train due to high fares.
Capacity should follow from this, instead of the tail wagging the dog, even if capacity enhancements don't make economic sense when added to the marginal costs of train tickets, though the Treasury may disagree.
They are effectively locked out of early morning travel and there is a real trend of people travelling in off peak and getting hotels. As a poster above said, it can seriously impact efficiency. People charging in 2 days to a project rather than 1 citing travel challenges.
But that can equally be because people are just not prepared to spend 2, 3 or 4 hours travelling for a day's work and prefer the hotel option to be fresh for the day. Making travel cheaper isn't necessarily going to make a difference.
But that can equally be because people are just not prepared to spend 2, 3 or 4 hours travelling for a day's work and prefer the hotel option to be fresh for the day. Making travel cheaper isn't necessarily going to make a difference.
There is a time and a place for that, and when it is the right option it is not a bad one. However, I know from my own travel that there are plenty of times I have concocted a night away in a hotel, maybe catch a friend for a pint, where in reality my preferred solution would have been the 6am train. I don’t mind getting up early for a days work and I don’t think people in a country with shocking productivity, lacklustre growth and a lot of mouths to feed should.
Firstly without some freedom on fares it's doubtful that private businesses would have been interested in getting involved with trains. Secondly successive governments of both persuasions have been pretty clear about passengers needing to pay a higher proportion of costs. We get the rail policies we deserve by the parties we chose to vote for. Or maybe many voters simply don't care about rail policy.
They were given far too much freedom, given their monopoly power.
For the initial crop, privatisation was a get rich quick scheme. The initial franchises and ROSCOs were both incredibly lucrative and those that sold out to larger business made incredible profits.
Today the government pays far more subsidy than back then.
And which mode would the Government prefer you to take? They'll say publically the bus or the train (or even better, walk or cycle). But I've always been of the opinion they'd prefer you to drive - all those lovely motoring taxes!
There is a time and a place for that, and when it is the right option it is not a bad one. However, I know from my own travel that there are plenty of times I have concocted a night away in a hotel, maybe catch a friend for a pint, where in reality my preferred solution would have been the 6am train. I don’t mind getting up early for a days work and I don’t think people in a country with shocking productivity, lacklustre growth and a lot of mouths to feed should.
I have also traveled significantly for work, and have experienced a range of travel options. My experience is that using public policy to determine those choices is rarely effective.
There is a time and a place for that, and when it is the right option it is not a bad one. However, I know from my own travel that there are plenty of times I have concocted a night away in a hotel, maybe catch a friend for a pint, where in reality my preferred solution would have been the 6am train. I don’t mind getting up early for a days work and I don’t think people in a country with shocking productivity, lacklustre growth and a lot of mouths to feed should.
I think pretty much all professional workers are happy to set off very early as long as the trip has some clear business advantages in exchange. It needs to be fairly nailed down, such as an opportunity to connect with a client better for example, or an important annual event that everyone benefits from taking in person, but people will do it and won't get paid overtime (though my opinion is a breakfast should be offered for a pre-6am departure).
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.
