Yield Management - evidence it works

[modernrail]

The railway is becoming increasingly obsessed with playing with yield management toys.

I have personally always suspected the net impact in terms of revenue of all the playing around and creating the complex ticketing system we now have is probably fairly neutral and not worth all the fancy games.

Keeping an open mind though - what is the evidence that it has worked to increase revenue per train mile through better utilisation etc. Have studies been performed that prove the point, or are we just relying on yield managers voting for the extensive use of yield management tools?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Given so many aspects of our lives are yield managed in one flavour or another, presumably the underlying principles are working well, otherwise it wouldn't keep finding new uses.

Just a few examples:

Airlines
Car Hire
Hotels
Energy (Smart Meters with variable pricing depending on time, weather etc)
Uber (Surge Pricing)
Cinemas (Off Peak/Peak)
Theatres


As for rail, I think it's worked amazingly well for Northern, a local/very regional TOC you'd not have thought yield management would really apply. Their super cheap Advance fares on pretty much all routes and trains have been hugely successful at attracting genuinely new custom or converting bad passengers (fare evaders) to good ones.

You're also focusing on just one element - revenue generation. Yield management is also about managing capacity constraints, shifting demand around, changing consumer behaviours and prevention of fraud/shrinkage. It's also got a large impact on marketing and advertising.

 

[Haywain]

Keeping an open mind though

That’s hardly the basis of your comments, is it?

 

[signed]

Cinemas (Off Peak/Peak)

Is that really a thing?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Is that really a thing?

Odeon, probably the biggest UK cinema chain has off-peak as Monday to Thursday before 5pm.

Cineworld also has something similar.

 

[AlterEgo]

Keeping an open mind though - what is the evidence that it has worked to increase revenue per train mile through better utilisation etc. Have studies been performed that prove the point, or are we just relying on yield managers voting for the extensive use of yield management tools?

Is it your hypothesis that businesses are, en masse, losing revenue by yield managing their goods or services, and are in thrall to their revenue teams? And why is "revenue per train mile" the metric here? Why have you chosen that as the definition of "good"?

 

[signed]

If something is done by companies, it's usually because it's making them money

 

[Bletchleyite]

Odeon, probably the biggest UK cinema chain has off-peak as Monday to Thursday before 5pm.

Cineworld also has something similar.

That's less yield management and more price discrimination to broaden the market. Retired and unemployed people are generally more price sensitive but are also in the position to go to the cinema during the day, so tickets are cheaper then (which also frees up seats at the busier times to sell to others at a higher price). It's more like peak/off peak tickets or cheaper tickets for slower trains.

Only one operator has ever tried to yield manage cinema tickets - easyCinema - but it failed because the film distributors were not on side with it, because to make it work you need low headline prices as well as higher ones at times of high demand, and they wouldn't play along with taking a cut to their per-ticket price.

 

[redreni]

If something is done by companies, it's usually because it's making them money

It's always because they think it's making them money. They're not infallible, though I readily concede they know a great deal more about it than I do.

I'm very clear that I [EDIT: don't] think the move away from predictable, regulated, flexible fares, affordable to many people, to a railway based on delivering too little capacity and then auctioning off the seats to the highest bidder (literally in the case of Seatfrog), is bad for society.

I don't care, particularly, if it's effective in maximising revenue - that wouldn't convince me it was a good thing, or even a significantly less bad thing than I currently think it is. I would be interested in evidence (if there is any) that it is not very effective, though, because that would obviously be another strong argument against it. I do wonder if the analysis the industry relies on takes into account the long term impact of driving customers away? Or does it just look at very short-term effects?

 

[Royston Vasey]

The British GP has been a complete sell out for years now, but always seems to struggle to make money once they pay the fees to F1 for hosting it. For this year they introduced demand based pricing, i.e. yield management, and I saw a lot of complaints that tickets that last year were maybe £200 were this year being offered at various times at £300 or £350, and could go down as well as up. So they got a lot of criticism for profiteering.

In June, the news was that for the first time in years, the GP weekend was struggling to sell out.

In July, the race was held in front of a sell out crowd.

This suggests that they pitched it absolutely perfectly and yielded about as much as they possibly could from the event. Some of the people who attended may be different people to those who would have attended with a conventional flat ticket price. Some people will have decided not to buy this year, and some people who did buy this year will decide, never again. But loyalty and customer relationship management is not a concern for yield management algorithms!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2024 ==

I'm very clear that I don't think the move away from predictable, regulated, flexible fares [...] is bad for society.

Think this is a typo

I do wonder if the analysis the industry relies on takes into account the long term impact of driving customers away? Or does it just look at very short-term effects?

Exactly. I'm sure it is the latter. On a train to train basis, they don't really care who is on the train, as long as the seat is warm for as far as possible on its journey for the best combined revenue.

They can certainly plot long term revenue and long term occupancy and yield. However it's harder to plot opportunity cost of people put off long term.

This is what is egregious about LNER saying how successful their appalling new fare structure is and how many people are buying the fares ("thousands"), because they're looking only at a short timespan of people who may or may not have noticed they are paying more per journey consistently. I know a lot of discontent about LNER on some North East forums and elsewhere and general "train prices are extortionate" without yet joining the dots that it was the fare trial that made it much worse, and the Advances there are, are much higher than before. But why not. They still fill their trains with tickets from which they get all the revenue.

Similarly, CrossCountry will feel they're doing a brilliant job running four car trains the length of the country extracting many hundreds of pounds per seat and even more from the chumps crushed into the vestibules. Running longer trains is more expensive and they may not feel they'd fill the extra seats, or make as much per seat. Comfort and long term individual loyalty aren't really their concerns. They'll still fill their little trains as far as they can predict at these prices. Until they can't... (or until they're ordered to add capacity and given all the 221s by DfT - which I what I think should happen!)

Now they're on a management contract, they're even less likely to make things better for the passengers they have and the passengers they don't have.

I've worked in very large global businesses for twenty years, and I get it, executives will see what they want to see in short term trends and extrapolate them to long term expectations, they will tell the story that justifies the decisions they made with selective evidence, attribute apparent successes to their own actions, and generally try to present themselves better to their masters and hope to Get On.

 

[yorksrob]

Odeon, probably the biggest UK cinema chain has off-peak as Monday to Thursday before 5pm.

Cineworld also has something similar.

Whilst that is a form of yield management, it's probably not what most on here think of when speaking of it.

Constantly changing/unpredictable prices are what most people are concerned about.

 

[Wallsendmag]

The various East Coast TOCs have used yield management for the last 25 years at least

 

[43066]

I have personally always suspected the net impact in terms of revenue of all the playing around and creating the complex ticketing system we now have is probably fairly neutral and not worth all the fancy games.

It is far too complex, and the LNER approach appears to have been to substantially simplify it, while also raising revenue and (potentially) reducing overcrowding, or at least preventing it from getting substantially worse.

This is what is egregious about LNER saying how successful their appalling new fare structure is and how many people are buying the fares ("thousands"), because they're looking only at a short timespan of people who may or may not have noticed they are paying more per journey consistently. I know a lot of discontent about LNER on some North East forums and elsewhere and general "train prices are extortionate" without yet joining the dots that it was the fare trial that made it much worse, and the Advances there are, are much higher than before. But why not. They still fill their trains with tickets from which they get all the revenue.

I know the LNER reforms are unpopular on here, but is there any evidence they’ve reduced ridership? If not, they’re likely to be seen as a success.

It comes down to what role we want the ECML to perform. If it’s to carry well heeled business travellers and tourists who have the ability to pay, with all the benefits that brings to the wider economy, does it really matter if prices rise? People looking for a bargain can still purchase advance tickets, or use other options.

@Tazi Hupefi makes a good point above: Northern attracts a different market to LNER, and they have also used yield management to attract custom in a different way. However, it might well be that the approach taken by LNER is right for their particular market. Horses for courses!

Most other operators will be somewhere in between; my own included. We have a regional network which covers local journeys and feeds into the IC network. Again, those are distinct markets for which different methods of yield management might be appropriate.

I do wonder if the analysis the industry relies on takes into account the long term impact of driving customers away? Or does it just look at very short-term effects?

There’s no evidence that wholesale fares rises actually drive people away from using the railway, though. Let alone targeted “yield management” of the type being discussed here which most businesses use.

 

[jamiearmley]

As for rail, I think it's worked amazingly well for Northern, a local/very regional TOC you'd not have thought yield management would really apply. Their super cheap Advance fares on pretty much all routes and trains have been hugely successful at attracting genuinely new custom or converting bad passengers (fare evaders) to good ones.

I would have to disagree, and strongly so.

What the short distance Advance has done is both cheapen, and increase the complexity of, the product.

It causes no end of conflict for those who have to check the validity of tickets, be that on a train or at a station.

It has criminalised literally tens of thousands of unsuspecting passengers who do not understand the stringent restrictions of the product they chose to purchase.

It has driven passengers away from the railway - one experience with an Advance ticket invalidated by being on the wrong train can be enough to do this.

They are hated by train crew.

They are hated by ticket office staff.

They are hated by those whose business is revenue protection.

They are hated universally by those who manage customer facing staff.

They are hated by quite a lot of people higher up within the organisation.

They are so hated that constant justification has to be made for their existence, by way of fancy presentations etc at conferences which leave the audience cold.

From the point of view of someone who deals with it day in and day out, my personal opinion is that the system of short distance advances only benefits those who provide and manage the system which deploys these tickets, and that the money spent employing the system and employing those who look after the system would be better spent elsewhere.

Save the advance tickets for the high value, long distance journeys.

For the local journey, which Northern operates- essentially a local bus service on rails- it should be one ticket price for each flow, that everyone pays, so that there is clarity and fairness across the board.

I know many will disagree - and that's fine.

However, the railway has become quite a hostile environment to passengers, especially with regard to ticketing - and until people are willing to truly see what is happening, this will continue. Short distance Advance tickets are a massive part of this problem.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I know the LNER reforms are unpopular on here, but is there any evidence they’ve reduced ridership? If not, they’re likely to be seen as a success.

That's what I am saying is the problem, it may well be a commercial success to the LNER execs in the short term, and may not yet have significantly reduced passenger numbers, but it's not good for the passenger in terms of lower flexibility, transparency and higher costs, and it is worse that this it is a nationalised operator doing this!

It's unpopular on here because we understand it and have a broader view of it, most people going to buy a ticket will be thoroughly confused, but need to travel and will buy the cheapest advance, which is not as cheap as before. They may even do the same for their next trip in a month, or their next later this year. But they will pay more for the privilege, and may be lost to road or air soon enough. The numbers may not drop at all, but those who continue to travel will pay a lot more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2024 ==

It comes down to what role we want the ECML to perform. If it’s to carry well heeled business travellers and tourists who have the ability to pay, with all the benefits that brings to the wider economy, does it really matter if prices rise? People looking for a bargain can still purchase advance tickets, or use other options.

I'm probably in the basket of well-heeled business traveller for much of my travel, but I am horrified at this sentiment.

 

[yorksrob]

It is far too complex, and the LNER approach appears to have been to substantially simplify it, while also raising revenue and (potentially) reducing overcrowding, or at least preventing it from getting substantially worse.



I know the LNER reforms are unpopular on here, but is there any evidence they’ve reduced ridership? If not, they’re likely to be seen as a success.

It comes down to what role we want the ECML to perform. If it’s to carry well heeled business travellers and tourists who have the ability to pay, with all the benefits that brings to the wider economy, does it really matter if prices rise? People looking for a bargain can still purchase advance tickets, or use other options.

@Tazi Hupefi makes a good point above: Northern attracts a different market to LNER, and they have also used yield management to attract custom in a different way. However, it might well be that the approach taken by LNER is right for their particular market. Horses for courses!

Most other operators will be somewhere in between; my own included. We have a regional network which covers local journeys and feeds into the IC network. Again, those are distinct markets for which different methods of yield management might be appropriate.



There’s no evidence that wholesale fares rises actually drive people away from using the railway, though. Let alone targeted “yield management” of the type being discussed here which most businesses use.

But LNER performs the role of a public service to residents. This is why its "reforms" should be disallowed.

 

[anothertyke]

To what extent are Northern's short distance advances an artefact of ORCATS and driven by ORCATS raiding? On flows like York-Leeds are they primarily abstracting traffic from TPE rather than net generative? I suspect they might be.

If there is anything in that, then will the creation of GBR change the balance of arguments from the impact on individual cost centres (abstraction =good) to more of a whole railway perspective? If the desire for fares simplification is real then I think short distance advances should be one of the first things to go.

I do realise there are flows where the £2 bus fare is an issue for rail--- York to Leeds might be one of them.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I would have to disagree, and strongly so.

What the short distance Advance has done is both cheapen, and increase the complexity of, the product.

It causes no end of conflict for those who have to check the validity of tickets, be that on a train or at a station.

It has criminalised literally tens of thousands of unsuspecting passengers who do not understand the stringent restrictions of the product they chose to purchase.

It has driven passengers away from the railway - one experience with an Advance ticket invalidated by being on the wrong train can be enough to do this.

They are hated by train crew.

They are hated by ticket office staff.

They are hated by those whose business is revenue protection.

They are hated universally by those who manage customer facing staff.

They are hated by quite a lot of people higher up within the organisation.

They are so hated that constant justification has to be made for their existence, by way of fancy presentations etc at conferences which leave the audience cold.

From the point of view of someone who deals with it day in and day out, my personal opinion is that the system of short distance advances only benefits those who provide and manage the system which deploys these tickets, and that the money spent employing the system and employing those who look after the system would be better spent elsewhere.

Save the advance tickets for the high value, long distance journeys.

For the local journey, which Northern operates- essentially a local bus service on rails- it should be one ticket price for each flow, that everyone pays, so that there is clarity and fairness across the board.

I know many will disagree - and that's fine.

However, the railway has become quite a hostile environment to passengers, especially with regard to ticketing - and until people are willing to truly see what is happening, this will continue. Short distance Advance tickets are a massive part of this problem.

You list a whole host of reasons why staff might hate Advance tickets - and think they're a problem, without recognising that they are extremely popular and great value for customers, and have played a significant part in the post -Covid recovery of rail in the North (and pretty much the collapse of the commuter/business market).

Whether staff like them or not shouldn't be a factor in any of this, especially the levels of hostility you appear to suggest exist.

Leisure passengers are now the predominant demographic who are considerably more price sensitive than any other market - and, critically, are also more likely to compare rail with other competing modes of transportation, even if slower. This demographic also likes to feel as though they've got a bargain or deal.

What you seem to be suggesting is essentially fare increases to keep frontline staff at Northern happy in the furtherance of simplification. Ticket office staff are just miffed that Advance Fares on the Day aren't available from them, further reducing what little demand for ticket offices existed, as they can't sell the cheapest fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You list a whole host of reasons why staff might hate Advance tickets - and think they're a problem, without recognising that they are extremely popular and great value for customers, and have played a significant part in the post -Covid recovery of rail in the North (and pretty much the collapse of the commuter/business market).

Have they? Would reducing the walk up single fares to those levels not have done the same?

Northern's Advances have one purpose and one purpose alone - to take revenue away from TPE. They aren't even particularly yield managed - they are available in near unlimited numbers right up to departure and the price barely ever varies on a given train aside from being higher or missing in the classic peaks.

Pretty much no country uses Advance style tickets on regional services. That tells you everything - and that includes countries like Italy and France where the IC offering is all compulsory reservation and yield managed.

It would be interesting to see if, if the ban on the flow-setting TOC setting TOC specific Advances wasn't there, Northern would have set dedicated walk up fares instead.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Maximising revenue and maximising occupancy are two very different things. Sometimes the two align, but very often they do not.

Yield management is nothing more than a tool. It is neutral. The question is how the tool should be used.

In very simple terms, if you want to maximise revenue for a specific train you will sell a ticket for £300, if you want to maximise occupancy you will sell a ticket for £99. Clearly it's a bit more complicated than that, but it really does come down to business strategy. Do you want the three people paying £99 or do you want the one person paying £300? Different businesses take different views.

100% occupied trains may well scare off the person prepared to pay £300. £300 tickets will scare off the people who are only prepared to pay £100. Any business has to pick its market.

Northern's Advances have one purpose and one purpose alone - to take revenue away from TPE.

If Northern get more money from a £4 Advance than a £12 walk-up single then of course they're going to push the £4 Advance.

I don't think that's necessarily true though. Advances are plentiful on the Calder Valley even though the main walk-up tickets are routed VIA HEBDEN BRIDGE and so Northern get 100% of the pot from them. Clearly Northern believe the cheap advances attract customers that they wouldn't otherwise attract and, crucially, without reducing the revenue they obtain from the customers they already have.

As you note, you won't see the cheap Advances on the typical commuter trains. Filling up off-peak trains with leisure passengers will require the company to be aggressive on price. I'd say Advances are the easiest way of doing this without undermining the revenue from walk-up tickets; the other option would be being more aggressive on the time restrictions for the cheapest walk-up tickets. A mega super off peak anyone?

 

[43066]

That's what I am saying is the problem, it may well be a commercial success to the LNER execs in the short term, and may not yet have significantly reduced passenger numbers, but it's not good for the passenger in terms of lower flexibility, transparency and higher costs, and it is worse that this it is a nationalised operator doing this!

Presumably market research was done ahead of time to ascertain what the market would bear. The fares offered perhaps better reflect what the average LNER user would expect in other areas such as airlines, for example. There is less flexibility, but how many really want or need it? How many customers flying from London to Edinburgh expect to break their journey, for example?!

It's unpopular on here because we understand it and have a broader view of it, most people going to buy a ticket will be thoroughly confused, but need to travel and will buy the cheapest advance, which is not as cheap as before. They may even do the same for their next trip in a month, or their next later this year. But they will pay more for the privilege, and may be lost to road or air soon enough.

I suspect the use case of people on here who are predominantly enthusiasts differs from the “average” user - the importance placed on flexibility being a key point.

Rail already accounts for over half of the London - Scotland market AIUI, but I suppose if it transpires that these changes reduce rail use significantly they could always be reversed. I bet they won’t, though.

I'm probably in the basket of well-heeled business traveller for much of my travel, but I am horrified at this sentiment.

That is the market the long distance rail market has always catered for, though. It’s never been a cheap option. To change that would require a change of the longstanding government policy to transfer cost onto farepayers and away from tax payers. Then the real elephant in the room is capacity; we simply don’t have the space for large numbers of travellers travelling at low prices.

These issues, and the Northern example above, demonstrate why yield management is both necessary and essential to the modern railway, hence I disagree with the premise of the thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the use case of people on here who are predominantly enthusiasts differs from the “average” user - the importance placed on flexibility being a key point.

I've said this on the LNER thread. The main problem with LNER's scheme for most passengers is that the fares at typical weekend tripper times have seen a 150% increase rather than the flexibility thing (and some will actually prefer "you can use any train an hour before or after" than the complexity of Off Peak restrictions - though personally I think LumoFlex is a better semi-flexible product, as it allows refunds and fee-free changes).

 

[yorksrob]

Presumably market research was done ahead of time to ascertain what the market would bear. The fares offered perhaps better reflect what the average LNER user would expect in other areas such as airlines, for example. There is less flexibility, but how many really want or need it? How many customers flying from London to Edinburgh expect to break their journey, for example?!



I suspect the use case of people on here who are predominantly enthusiasts differs from the “average” user - the importance placed on flexibility being a key point.

Rail already accounts for over half of the London - Scotland market AIUI, but I suppose if it transpires that these changes reduce rail use significantly they could always be reversed. I bet they won’t, though.



That is the market the long distance rail market has always catered for, though. It’s never been a cheap option. To change that would require a change of the longstanding government policy to transfer cost onto farepayers and away from tax payers. Then the real elephant in the room is capacity; we simply don’t have the space for large numbers of travellers travelling at low prices.

These issues, and the Northern example above, demonstrate why yield management is both necessary and essential to the modern railway, I disagree with the premise of the thread.

I've said this on the LNER thread. The main problem with LNER's scheme for most passengers is that the fares at typical weekend tripper times have seen a 150% increase rather than the flexibility thing (and some will actually prefer "you can use any train an hour before or after" than the complexity of Off Peak restrictions - though personally I think LumoFlex is a better semi-flexible product, as it allows refunds and fee-free changes).

But there clearly is enough of a market for flexible fares for them to offer extortionate anytime fares. They just want to keep them as a "rich man's toy".

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there clearly is enough of a market for flexible fares for them to offer extortionate anytime fares. They just want to keep them as a "rich man's toy".

Not many people buy them. I bought my first ever long distance Anytime Single a couple of weeks ago! (and it could have been avoided by splitting if I'd been paying, but if my employer insists on me using the awful Agiito booking engine I'm not spending hours doing that - if nothing else the saving would cost more than the time spent obtaining it in work time).

They are mostly just a cap. I don't doubt LNER would quite like to get rid of those too! Though classically caps have existed where not sold as specific fares - Ryanair for instance for many years capped out at £299 one way, and there are IATA full fare singles sold (very rarely) by legacy airlines, and most hotels have a "rack rate" maximum even if they don't ever specifically sell it.

Having said that Lumo does have an Anytime rate which surprises me. I wonder is it a requirement under the TSA?

 

[yorksrob]

They are mostly just a cap. I don't doubt LNER would quite like to get rid of those too!

Quite probably.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Have they? Would reducing the walk up single fares to those levels not have done the same?

Northern's Advances have one purpose and one purpose alone - to take revenue away from TPE. They aren't even particularly yield managed - they are available in near unlimited numbers right up to departure and the price barely ever varies on a given train aside from being higher or missing in the classic peaks.

Pretty much no country uses Advance style tickets on regional services. That tells you everything - and that includes countries like Italy and France where the IC offering is all compulsory reservation and yield managed.

It would be interesting to see if, if the ban on the flow-setting TOC setting TOC specific Advances wasn't there, Northern would have set dedicated walk up fares instead.

It's nothing to do with TPE.
Advance fares are available on plenty of routes well away from TPE, e.g. Liverpool to Blackpool, Crewe to Manchester Airport etc.

Northern's Advance fares do, however, give a useful indication of how much ORCATS revenue an operator likely gets from a particular flow.

One of the main reasons that Northern introduced AP fares (and made their trains "reserveable" was because of overcrowding caused by +Connections Advance Fares from other operators, e.g. Avanti + Connections etc. Before the current implementation, there was effectively uncapped and unlimited availability on the Northern leg and only the Avanti leg had any quota controls. On certain routes, this caused already packed Northern services to be flooded with even more. Now the quota can be controlled in far more granular detail to prevent this.

The other issue was revenue protection - Northern was historically very lax and losing money all over the place - when Penalty Fares and stronger enforcement came in, it needed to be balanced by making fares available that people would reconsider the risk/reward level from dodging them in the first place, but without detracting from the revenue that other, more honest passengers were prepared to stump up.

 

[jamiearmley]

You list a whole host of reasons why staff might hate Advance tickets - and think they're a problem, without recognising that they are extremely popular and great value for customers, and have played a significant part in the post -Covid recovery of rail in the North (and pretty much the collapse of the commuter/business market).

Whether staff like them or not shouldn't be a factor in any of this, especially the levels of hostility you appear to suggest exist.

Leisure passengers are now the predominant demographic who are considerably more price sensitive than any other market - and, critically, are also more likely to compare rail with other competing modes of transportation, even if slower. This demographic also likes to feel as though they've got a bargain or deal.

What you seem to be suggesting is essentially fare increases to keep frontline staff at Northern happy in the furtherance of simplification. Ticket office staff are just miffed that Advance Fares on the Day aren't available from them, further reducing what little demand for ticket offices existed, as they can't sell the cheapest fares.

Sadly, I think you've missed quite a lot of the point that I was making - but to be fair there were a lot of points in there.

You might like to consider that the opinions of staff are, in fact, very important and most if not all of us on the ground dislike seeing passengers penalised for trivial mistakes, which is what happens with the advanced tickets

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2024 ==

One of the main reasons that Northern introduced AP fares (and made their trains "reserveable" was because of overcrowding caused by +Connections Advance Fares from other operators, e.g. Avanti + Connections etc. Before the current implementation, there was effectively uncapped and unlimited availability on the Northern leg and only the Avanti leg had any quota controls. On certain routes, this caused already packed Northern services to be flooded with even more. Now the quota can be controlled in far more granular detail to prevent this.

The other issue was revenue protection - Northern was historically very lax and losing money all over the place - when Penalty Fares and stronger enforcement came in, it needed to be balanced by making fares available that people would reconsider the risk/reward level from dodging them in the first place, but without detracting from the revenue that other, more honest passengers were prepared to stump up.

The idea that they were introduced to combat overcrowding caused by "and connections" tickets is an interesting one.

My experience on the ground tells me that once the quota for a train has sold out, "and connections" tickets are still sold with a non-reservable connecting leg. This greater flexibility is arguably better for the customer.

In any event, if that was the aim it hasn't worked.

Regarding detracting revenue - there are countless passengers who used to buy season passes who now travel on advanced singles each way because it is cheaper. So that's not a win either.

 

[jfollows]

I use Northern advances in place of more expensive open tickets now - £3.50 return Wilmslow to Crewe in September, for example. I’m reasonably sure of my times and, hey, if I need to return late I’ll buy a new ticket. The trains I’ll be on will be mainly empty.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Regarding detracting revenue - there are countless passengers who used to buy season passes who now travel on advanced singles each way because it is cheaper. So that's not a win either.

Depends on the route, and depends on the ORCATS allocation. If (as an example) Northern get 100% of the revenue from the advance ticket but only 50% of the revenue from the season ticket, then it's in Northern's interests to encourage people on to the advances. They can make the Advance 49% cheaper than the season ticket and still make more money from it.

 

[redreni]

It comes down to what role we want the ECML to perform. If it’s to carry well heeled business travellers and tourists who have the ability to pay, with all the benefits that brings to the wider economy, does it really matter if prices rise?

Yes.

People looking for a bargain can still purchase advance tickets, or use other options.

Or suck an egg, presumably?

You list a whole host of reasons why staff might hate Advance tickets - and think they're a problem, without recognising that they are extremely popular and great value for customers, and have played a significant part in the post -Covid recovery of rail in the North (and pretty much the collapse of the commuter/business market).

Whether staff like them or not shouldn't be a factor in any of this, especially the levels of hostility you appear to suggest exist.

Leisure passengers are now the predominant demographic who are considerably more price sensitive than any other market - and, critically, are also more likely to compare rail with other competing modes of transportation, even if slower. This demographic also likes to feel as though they've got a bargain or deal.

What you seem to be suggesting is essentially fare increases to keep frontline staff at Northern happy in the furtherance of simplification. Ticket office staff are just miffed that Advance Fares on the Day aren't available from them, further reducing what little demand for ticket offices existed, as they can't sell the cheapest fares.

Apart from the fact treating people badly and charging extortionate fares impacts negatively on general way the railways is perceived by the public, this post encapsulates the other main reason why I entertain the possibility that some TOCs may be doing something that isn't even in their own interests (however narrowly construed).

The structure of these companies (like nearly all companies) is tyrannical, and once a strategic direction is set and the beliefs underpinning it (e.g. Horizon is robust) become accepted doctrine, these things will then be believed quite independently of whether the evidence bears them out. Many of these beliefs will be right, of course, but they're no longer believed because the best available evidence compels rational people to adopt those beliefs. They're believed because only evidence that supports them is considered - everything else gets filtered out (including, but not limited to, the views of frontline staff).

The belief in dynamic pricing and yield management may originally have been arrived at for sound reasons and it may, for all I know, be entirely justified, but I get the feeling we have now reached the stage where the Treasury, DfT and TOCs would want to push on with it irrespective of what the evidence was telling them.