Virgin rail 'bullies'

[jon0844]

But, the varying pricing for advanced tickets is the same the system we presumably love on the airlines.

Except, as I said before, you can't actually board the wrong flight (unless the airline staff really mess up, and then they'll keep quiet given it has more serious implications) so you don't get anyone charged the extra. If they do pay the extra, they'll have done so in advance.

So, someone with their 50p Ryanair ticket can't take any other flight than that booked. If the train operators had every door guarded and all tickets checked before stepping on, they'd not have the problem either and this story wouldn't have made the papers at all.

But planes have just one door and loads of security; trains don't.

I will say that if it can be proven that someone from Virgin somehow said that using an advance ticket on the wrong train would be okay, they might have a case. However, it's unlikely that happened.

If the train was late and they accidentally boarded the wrong train, they'd also have a good case too. It seems that this didn't happen either.

So, I have to disagree with Yorkie (which is very rare) and others who think they should they should fight for 'justice' and to shake up the whole industry. The only solution then would be axe advance tickets, which surely nobody wants, or have a system whereby all tickets are checked before you get on. AFAIK only Eurostar does this, but you must have a reserved seat on there anyway.

 

[Railjet]

It's not a monopoly on travel though, there are other ways to travel including car, air or coach.

It's effectively a monopoly in many ways, even if not a "pure" monopoly as defined by economic theory. For many journeys for many people, rail may be the only serious option.

 

[colpepper]

It's not a monopoly on travel though, there are other ways to travel including car, air or coach.

But there is no competition on the railways, they are a private monopoly. They can charge exactly what they like and impose any penalties they see fit.

 

[Zoe]

But there is no competition on the railways, they are a private monopoly. They can charge exactly what they like and impose any penalties they see fit.

How can you have competition on the railways though? The only way I can think of is if there were no franchises and companies bid for paths each year. That way you could have 2 companies serving a specific route.

 

[jon0844]

You would need every line being open to multiple operators, which is fine if there are loads of paths... and realistically, you'd get an all our pricewar on some profitable routes which would probably be to the detriment of the passenger, and others where nobody can be bothered.

Competition is a good thing, but rarely works as designed - especially when you get the corruption (cartels) and other problems that are never far behind.

However, even with that in mind, I am still unsure how restoring British Rail would solve this problem. If we kept advanced tickets, they would still only be valid on that booked service whoever the operator was.

 

[Zoe]

However, even with that in mind, I am still unsure how restoring British Rail would solve this problem. If we kept advanced tickets, they would still only be valid on that booked service whoever the operator was.

I would hope that affordable turn up and go fares would be availabe as in theory making as much money as possible shouldn't be the priority of British Rail if it was run as a public service.

 

[Railjet]

But, the varying pricing for advanced tickets is the same the system we presumably love on the airlines.

Comparing airlines and railways in this way is always a bit dodgy. Airlines know exactly how many seats are on their planes, and everyone needs a reservation to get on. They don't have people who just show up wanting to get on their planes with a ticket allowing the passenger to travel at any time on any flight. (Even passengers with fully flexible tickets need to make a reservation. If there's no space they don't get on). They don't have intermediate stops where people get on and off (with minimal exceptions). Much easier for airlines to control the capacity/pricing relationship than for railways.

Applying the system of advance tickets to trains was never going to be easy. For example, as someone mentioned, the whole system of booking in advance for specific trains and having a VHF timetable is paradoxical.

 

[LexyBoy]

How can you have competition on the railways though? The only way I can think of is if there were no franchises and companies bid for paths each year. That way you could have 2 companies serving a specific route.

Why not do it like the buses, that's been a roaring success. Everywhere where there is competition, the service is much better and the fares are driven down, and everyone appreciates the convenience of having a choice of bus colours.

Back in the real world for a moment, you are right Zoe - "competition" on the railways isn't real competition. The railways are a natural monopoly and should be regulated as such, rather than pretending that market forces will sort everything out. (I'm working on the basis that the railway should be a service, rather than an inconvenient step in the process of transferring taxes to private companies).

 

[Railjet]

How can you have competition on the railways though? The only way I can think of is if there were no franchises and companies bid for paths each year. That way you could have 2 companies serving a specific route.

Well, you're never going to get perfect competition, of course.

But clearly there are things which could be done - making it easier for open-access operators to enter the market, for example.

 

[Zoe]

But clearly there are things which could be done - making it easier for open-access operators to enter the market, for example.

But if all the paths from London to Manchester are taken by the franchised operator then there isn't a place for Open Access.

 

[Railjet]

But if all the paths from London to Manchester are taken by the franchised operator then there isn't a place for Open Access.

Then maybe the franchised operator shouldn't be allowed to have all the paths in the first place? That's what competition is all about, after all.

 

[colpepper]

The drive to privatise railways was, presumably, to make them more efficient for the rail user and save subsidies from the public purse. They've failed miserably on both counts.

 

[Zoe]

Then maybe the franchised operator shouldn't be allowed to have all the paths in the first place? That's what competition is all about, after all.

Why have franchised operators at all then for profitable routes? Companies could bid for paths like airlines do. Non-profitable services could still be franchised.

 

[Railjet]

Why have franchised operators at all then for profitable routes? Companies could bid for paths like airlines do. Non-profitable services could still be franchised.

I agree entirely.

 

[Failed Unit]

Why have franchised operators at all then for profitable routes? Companies could bid for paths like airlines do. Non-profitable services could still be franchised.

As long as the open tickets are valid on all operators that would interesting, but could probably work.

Welcome aboard the 1200 Virgin East Coast service to Inverness followed by the 1300 First East Coast service to Edinburgh.

You would need a pretty good booking engine, the only problem I can see with that even on profitable routes is sorting out the sets.

 

[Zoe]

As long as the open tickets are valid on all operators that would interesting, but could probably work.

Would they be needed though? I can't fly to Toronto on Air Canada and use the same ticket to return with British Airways.

 

[Failed Unit]

Would they be needed though? I can't fly to Toronto on Air Canada and use the same ticket to return with British Airways.

Yes or we will have a much worse service then now, people often have no idea when they will return and you have issues with connections etc. When I was younger you could use a British midland ticket on BA, BA would just claim the money back. Applied on full fare tickets, don't think any airlines offer this now.

 

[jon0844]

Trains can only to a certain degree run like the airlines, as the airlines have security and all-reserved seats. I think we're all agreed that we don't want to be that thoroughly checked before boarding a train, or not be allowed on if there's no seat.

But people like the cheap seats, offered purely because they have to be restricted. Take Megatrain with £1 deals that are clearly loss leaders - which has even tighter restrictions.

We're not a nation of idiots so I don't know why people are happy to buy the cheap tickets but not accept there are conditions attached.

 

[cuccir]

Would they be needed though? I can't fly to Toronto on Air Canada and use the same ticket to return with British Airways.

But people simply don't {yet} perceive trains in that way. Getting a flight is a big deal done, if at all, two or three times a year for the majority of the population.

Trains, meanwhile, for the majority of people are an undertaking done on a daily basis, often for highly important issues: visits to the hospital, travel to work, travel to school, visiting close family. Yes there's a portion of people who use flights for these, but this is not the case for the majority.

So trains provide a social service to the population of a country, whereas flights are still a luxury or business product. Now this doesn't mean, necessarily, that trains can't be run on a profit, but it does mean that if you directly model train companies on airlines, you'll run into trouble (as Railjet pointed out)

cuccir - I am in total agreement that a cost of £270 is unreasonable.

Although with your last line, while I agree I don't 'expect' to see a change, I am hopeful that they do succeed in getting the system changed and that a court agrees £270 is unreasonable. (Did you mean to write "don't"?)
!

I don't expect a change as I can't see how they'd win, and I don't think I want a change to come about in this manner (that is, with a rather odious family suing a TOC). I echo hairyhandedfool's concern that if change came about through a court case undertaken by people who have clearly broken a fairly obvious and straight forward T&C, that it would mean loosing cheap advances, with no reduction in walk-on fares.

So yes, whilst in principle I'd sign up to:
* reduced cost walk-on fares
* advances set at 75% of walk-on in peak and 50% off-peak, with scope for occasional special offers
* clear/standardised peak/off-peak times
* a more flexible system that allows for cancellation or misuse of advance/toc specific/railcard tickets with some extra payment, which would be set at a level which protects the yield management benefits of advance fares but which doesn't result in excessive extra fares being paid

I don't actually think this will happen!

 

[Deerfold]

Why have franchised operators at all then for profitable routes? Companies could bid for paths like airlines do. Non-profitable services could still be franchised.

And presumably stopping at smaller towns may eat up paths when these slow trains can't be overtaken and be far more expensive to serve.

 

[Zoe]

And presumably stopping at smaller towns may eat up paths when these slow trains can't be overtaken and be far more expensive to serve.

Are we not already seeing that with Virgin? They are a franchised operator.

 

[yorkie]

But - in this case - is the penalty appropriate? From the OFT's Unfair contract terms guidance:

It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty.

For Coventry-London, the cost of Off Peak Returns for such a group would be around £120. If they got really cheap Advance tickets, for say £30 each way (£60 total) for the group, the "loss" would £60, OK put 5 x £10 admin fees on top maybe but then you still only reach £110. Way less than the cost of brand new un-discounted Anytime Singles. So yes, I believe that the penalties are unfair and totally disproportionate. So a legal challenge may have some chance of success (IANAL).

 

[LexyBoy]

For Coventry-London, the cost of Off Peak Returns for such a group would be around £120. If they got really cheap Advance tickets, for say £30 each way (£60 total) for the group, the "loss" would £60, OK put 5 x £10 admin fees on top maybe but then you still only reach £110. Way less than the cost of brand new un-discounted Anytime Singles. So yes, I believe that the penalties are unfair and totally disproportionate. So a legal challenge may have some chance of success (IANAL).

The only problem being that the 0931 is a peak service. As is the 0951. And 1011 :roll:

 

[Zoe]

Virgin seem to have an interesting definition of peak.

 

[EM2]

The only problem being that the 0931 is a peak service. As is the 0951. And 1011 :roll:

Except it was a Saturday...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

To be fair though Yorkie, that is what they would have paid at the ticket office before boarding the train, had they bothered to go there.

 

[yorksrob]

Why have franchised operators at all then for profitable routes? Companies could bid for paths like airlines do. Non-profitable services could still be franchised.

Wouldn't that leave the taxpayer propping up even more unprofitable franchises whilst the private sector creamed off all the profitable paths?

Don't get me wrong - I think a little bit of open access can be good to open up new markets, but I doubt it would be a sustainable way of running the whole railway.

You only have to look at some of the unfavourable comments concerning Northern's subsidy (which is effectively a large franchised social railway that has had most of the surrounding profitable routes hived off) to see that this could be a political danger to the railway..

 

[Zoe]

Wouldn't that leave the taxpayer propping up even more unprofitable franchises whilst the private sector creamed off all the profitable paths?

I'd much prefer to have the entire railway run as a public service but thanks to the John Major's Tory government we are never likely to get that again. What we have no though seems to be the worst of all words. One idea would be to contract the unprofitable but socially needed paths first and then allow companies to bid for the remaining paths.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd much prefer to have the entire railway run as a public service but thanks to the John Major's Tory government we are never likely to get that again. What we have no though seems to be the worst of all words. One idea would be to contract the unprofitable but socially needed paths first and then allow companies to bid for the remaining paths.

I largely agree with the initial sentiment in that I think splitting up the network at all was a bad idea. Perhaps if they bundled some of the unprofitable paths in with the profitable ones it may achieve better competition. I'd still be more inclined to support a move towards greater vertical integration though.

 

[Failed Unit]

I'd much prefer to have the entire railway run as a public service but thanks to the John Major's Tory government we are never likely to get that again. What we have no though seems to be the worst of all words. One idea would be to contract the unprofitable but socially needed paths first and then allow companies to bid for the remaining paths.

But the government in power for the next 13 years hardly made it better did they. Northern and TPE could be one large franchise! Splitting up CT wasn't helpful, they could have just merged XC into it. They only tinkered where if they had wanted to the could have reformed. All Franchises expired or got into enough trouble to be terminated (virgin) so they could have recreated NSE, regional railways and Inter-City, the chose not to. Majors government made a big mistake, but it could have got improved. Let's see if the next batch make it better or worse.