Should off peak window to/from London Euston be widened?

[Philip]

Travelling from Crewe to London and back again yesterday, it seems silly how the first off peak direct Avanti service from there isn't until the 10:22; why has the 09:35 from Chester not been reinstated? Likewise how the 19:08 Glasgow is the only off peak northbound train before 19:30, after the evening peak.

On a more general point though, is it time Avanti reduced the peak time window in both the morning and afternoon and perhaps reinstated the Friday peak, particularly now that Friday is often a WFH day and not quite the mad rush it used to be? I'm thinking off peak for any service into Euston after 10:00 and then a peak time afternoon restriction only between 16:00 and 18:00.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Travelling from Crewe to London and back again yesterday, it seems silly how the first off peak direct Avanti service from there isn't until the 10:22; why has the 09:35 from Chester not been reinstated? Likewise how the 19:08 Glasgow is the only off peak northbound train before 19:30, after the evening peak.

On a more general point though, is it time Avanti reduced the peak time window in both the morning and afternoon and perhaps reinstated the Friday peak, particularly now that Friday is often a WFH day and not quite the mad rush it used to be? I'm thinking off peak for any service into Euston after 10:00 and then a peak time afternoon restriction only between 16:00 and 18:00.

On an even more general point, is this asking for permanent solutions when we don't yet know what the railways will look like post-covid? The specific answers to paragraph (1) are that Avanti haven't yet reinstated a permanent timetable, and paragraph (2) relies on things carrying on as they are now in what hopefully is late-covid or (even more optimistically) early post-covid.

 

[Philip]

On an even more general point, is this asking for permanent solutions when we don't yet know what the railways will look like post-covid? The specific answers to paragraph (1) are that Avanti haven't yet reinstated a permanent timetable, and paragraph (2) relies on things carrying on as they are now in what hopefully is late-covid or (even more optimistically) early post-covid.

I compare with other routes and operators; most evening peaks elsewhere run from 4-6:30, so Avanti's peak time looks excessive in comparison.

In terms of the morning peak time, most business meetings will have started by 10, meaning a greater share of passengers arriving afterwards will be leisure travellers, so why keep the peak time running until as late as 11:20 arrivals into London?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd not remove the Friday peak easement, it makes a lot of sense as almost no business travel occurs on Fridays so it better spreads leisure demand across the afternoon and evening.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I compare with other routes and operators; most evening peaks elsewhere run from 3-6:30, so Avanti's peak time looks excessive in comparison.

In terms of the morning peak time, most business meetings will have started by 10, meaning a greater share of passengers arriving afterwards will be leisure travellers, so why keep the peak time running until as late as 11:20 arrivals into London?

Isn't the idea of off-peak tickets to encourage travellers to use less busy trains?

If so, the question for trains in/out of Euston isn't what happens on other lines, but which Euston trains are busy, and which are less busy.

And the only way to definitively answer which Euston trains are busy or less so is to see what happens in ordinary times.

And I'm not convinced we're in ordinary times yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the idea of off-peak tickets to encourage travellers to use less busy trains?

If so, the question for trains in/out of Euston isn't what happens on other lines, but which Euston trains are busy, and which are less busy.

And the only way to definitively answer which Euston trains are busy or less so is to see what happens in ordinary times.

And I'm not convinced we're in ordinary times yet.

Not really these days, it's more about price differentiation. If it wasn't, then on the WCML Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons would be Anytime only.

 

[Mag_seven]

Isn't the idea of off-peak tickets to encourage travellers to use less busy trains?

No its more the idea of maximising revenue from those prepared to use and pay for "peak trains". A half full 17.00 Euston to Manchester with full open fare paying passengers will probably bring in more revenue than a crush loaded 19.00 Euston to Manchester service full of passengers travelling with cheaper tickets.

 

[30907]

Why only Euston, though? The cheapest medium distance flexible fares into Kings Cross, Paddington, St Pancras (in other words, the classic InterCity routes) all have similar restrictions, because that's the maximum allowed.

 

[Watershed]

To answer the titular question, yes - in any rational system that aims to maximise the utilisation of capacity, peak restrictions would be targeted to those times that are actually busiest.

So you would probably be unable to use an Off-Peak ticket during most of Friday, Saturday and Sunday. But you wouldn't have to wait until after 10am for the first Off-Peak train to London, which is purely serves to try and force people into paying for more expensive tickets, and actually significantly diminishes the value of the railways to the average taxpayer.

Maximising utilisation is what most continental European railways aim for, but of course over here railways (particular in an Intercity context) are a 'service offered in a competitive marketplace' rather than a subsidised public utility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly BR did used to follow that approach - InterCity SuperSaver tickets weren't valid Fridays or summer Saturdays, which were the busiest days of the week. (There was no need to restrict Sunday evening, as most people returning then had gone outward Friday and singles were "penalty priced").

One of the first things Virgin Trains did was to abolish SuperSavers and reduce the Saver to the average of the two, a decision that is the reason why Off Peak Returns on the WCML are a bit cheaper than other lines, as the lower price became the regulated fare.

 

[Philip]

Even if the WCML is cheaper than other intercity routes, it still isn't very affordable.

Taking Manchester to London as an example, the SVR is the best part of £100 and if bought for travel during Mon-Thurs it really limits the passenger as to the time they spend in London and what they can do. Anytime fares are out of the question for many people and the SVR is now so expensive that for many people a trip to London is a rare treat/day out, particularly in less well off northern areas. Advance tickets don't save much compared to SVR unless booked very early and only usually for travel around early afternoon time, which is no good for many people.

In the present day UK, travelling long distances across the country is often seen as normal and necessary even if done regularly, so Avanti more than anyone else should reflect this in their pricing and restrictions - then other intercity TOCs will follow suit.

 

[JonathanH]

for many people a trip to London is a rare treat/day out

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

[zwk500]

Advance tickets don't save much compared to SVR unless booked very early and only usually around early afternoon time which is no good for most people.

what is 'very early'? Although agree cheaper advances should be made available on earlier trains.

In the present day UK, travelling long distances across the country has become a regular and normal activity, so Avanti more than anyone else should reflect this in their pricing and restrictions

That depends on whether you conceive of the train service as something of social utility, or a business trying to maximise it's revenue. If it's the latter then it's worth recognising that 1 passenger paying £50 is better than 2 paying £24. If it's the former then the taxpayer will be paying for the cheaper tickets in one way or another.

then other intercity TOCs will follow suit.

Is there any evidence to suggest that fares between York or Bristol and London will be influenced, in any way, by Manchester to London fares?

 

[Philip]

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

It was something people did in the 50s, 60s and 70s; it's a different era now and many people like to travel and visit other areas of the country regularly.

 

[JonathanH]

It was something people did in the 50s, 60s and 70s; it's a different era now and many people like to travel and visit other areas of the country regularly.

Yes, I concede that it is worthwhile to travel and visit other areas of the country but how frequently does someone need to go specifically to London (or somewhere via London) as opposed to travelling more locally?

 

[Philip]

what is 'very early'? Although agree cheaper advances should be made available on earlier trains.

That depends on whether you conceive of the train service as something of social utility, or a business trying to maximise it's revenue. If it's the latter then it's worth recognising that 1 passenger paying £50 is better than 2 paying £24. If it's the former then the taxpayer will be paying for the cheaper tickets in one way or another.

Is there any evidence to suggest that fares between York or Bristol and London will be influenced, in any way, by Manchester to London fares?

Very early usually from 12 weeks to about a week in advance.

The train is a public service so it should fall into the social utility category.

The WCML is the mainstay rail route across the whole country, the busiest both in terms of the number of services which run on it and the number of passengers using it. It's also easy enough for people based near the northern MML and ECML to take a train to Birmingham and then catch the Avanti from there. So GNR and EMR would probably respond to Avanti price changes by doing similar in order to stay competitive.

 

[JonathanH]

It's also easy enough for people based near the northern MML and ECML to take a train to Birmingham and then catch the Avanti from there.

I can't imagine many people do that. Sheffield - Birmingham - London takes an hour longer than going direct via Leicester.

 

[Starmill]

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Does it really matter? People on average salaries, and on somewhat less than average ones, are used to doing long distance leisure trips nowadays when they like, for family visits, to see friends who've moved away, and for city breaks or short domestic holidays. It is just that in general they don't do them by train. Or are you proposing it'd be better if people didn't do long distance leisure trips, or if only people on well above average salaries did?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does it really matter? People on average salaries, and on somewhat less than average ones, are used to doing long distance leisure trips nowadays when they like, for family visits, to see friends who've moved away, and for city breaks or short domestic holidays. It is just that in general they don't do them by train. Or are you proposing it'd be better if people didn't do long distance leisure trips, or if only people on well above average salaries did?

It would be better if people travelled less as a whole, yes. But that isn't the effect of putting prices up, it's that they drive or fly instead, so you might as well encourage them to at least go by train.

 

[JonathanH]

Does it really matter? People on average salaries, and on somewhat less than average ones, are used to doing long distance leisure trips nowadays when they like, for family visits, to see friends who've moved away, and for city breaks or short domestic holidays. It is just that in general they don't do them by train. Or are you proposing it'd be better if people didn't do long distance leisure trips, or if only people on well above average salaries did?

No, not at all. I wasn't necessarily expressing an opinion, just challenging the OP's point about a trip to London for someone in Manchester becoming a rare treat.

 

[Hadders]

I'd love to see lower fares on the WCML but with the DfT and Treasury calling the shots it's simply not going to happen. They will want to see fares increased.

 

[zwk500]

Very early usually from 12 weeks to about a week in advance.

1 week in advance is not 'very early' for a full-day leisure trip.

The train is a public service so it should fall into the social utility category.

All trains, including the crack expresses to/from the capital? What's wrong with a local to Crewe and the LNR from there to provide the social utility?

The WCML is the mainstay rail route across the whole country, the busiest both in terms of the number of services which run on it and the number of passengers using it.

This is a reason ECML passengers will pay to avoid WCML trains.

It's also easy enough for people based near the northern MML and ECML to take a train to Birmingham and then catch the Avanti from there.

Not to London. It's only for journeys to places north of MK or MK itself that changing in Birmingham or Manchester makes sense. If you're aiming for London going the direct route will win hands down every time, at least until HS2 is open.

So GNR and EMR would probably respond to Avanti price changes by doing similar in order to stay competitive.

The GNR hasn't existed since 1948. LNER are not going to be reducing prices from York or even Leeds if Avanti drop prices in Manchester. EMR certainly aren't going to be reducing prices, as their trains run pretty full anyway. After all, you'd still have to pay the fare from Leeds or Sheffield to Manchester in order to take advantage of the Avanti offers. If you book 4 weeks in advance from York you can get tickets to King's Cross for <£40 each way, usually closer to £30.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

for many people a trip to London is a rare treat/day out,

It was something people did in the 50s, 60s and 70s;

Evidence please. You might want to start with how long trains from the north used to take to London and explain how the day trip market coped with that.