Online fares unfair, new carriages stalled

[Alistair Gunn]

disgoftunwells twisted the electrons to say:
> I think they lost the plot when they state
> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...

If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
intending to travel anyway? In the case of someone who wants to travel
on particular days but isn't too picky about the time, then National
Express East Coast's website had a "find me the cheapest" tickets button
to click on.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[disgoftunwells]

On 19 May, 09:36, "Mortimer" <m...@************> wrote:
> "Alistair Gunn" <palmerspe...**********m> wrote in message
>
> news:gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org...
>
> > disgoftunwells twisted the electrons to say:
> >> I think they lost the plot when they state
> >> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
> >> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...
>
> > If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
> > intending to travel anyway? *In the case of someone who wants to travel
> > on particular days but isn't too picky about the time, then National
> > Express East Coast's website had a "find me the cheapest" tickets button
> > to click on.
>
> No, no, no. "Not too picky about time" isn't good enough. The whole concept
> of committing your travel plans in advance is fundamentally wrong and the
> absence of it is what makes trains and buses (and cars!) much better than
> planes.

If the flexibility makes trains better than planes, then you won't
object to paying more than a "plane" fare to get from London, to say
Manchester, at any time of the day?

You can't have it cheaper, and more flexible, and more comfortable,
and more convenient. Can you?

[Roland Perry]

In message <gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org>, at 08:26:42 on Tue, 19 May 2009,
Alistair Gunn <palmersperry**********m> remarked:
>> I think they lost the plot when they state
>> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
>> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...
>
>If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
>intending to travel anyway?

People build travelling time into their schedule. They don't expect to
spend an hour (on top of that) buying the ticket.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <qaCdnUfpscj58o_XnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:36:16 on Tue, 19 May 2009, Mortimer <me@************> remarked:
>The whole concept of committing your travel plans in advance is
>fundamentally wrong and the absence of it is what makes trains and
>buses (and cars!) much better than planes.

I can predict a lot of may travel in advance. For example I've just
booked some airline tickets to a conference in Africa in November.
Nothing short of world war will stop the conference going ahead (last
year most of us turned up in India OK, a week after the Mumbai
bombings), and I might as well buy the tickets now as they are only
going up in price. As far as I can see there are just two direct flights
at all (from the UK) the day I want to arrive, and they'll fill up, too!

On the other hand, I know I want to go to London in a couple of weeks
(see the thread "Rail ticket price - case study") but my homebound leg
is unpredictable. The cost of walk-up tickets means I'm almost certainly
gong to drive most of the way.

But what's the answer to the latter - the trains I would be travelling
on are full, and wouldn't cheaper walk-up fares mean that capacity was
even less able to cope with demand?
--
Roland Perry

[Capt. Deltic]

On 19 May, 09:46, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...**********.uk> wrote:
> On 19 May, 09:36, "Mortimer" <m...@************> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Alistair Gunn" <palmerspe...**********m> wrote in message
>
> >news:gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org...
>
> > > disgoftunwells twisted the electrons to say:
> > >> I think they lost the plot when they state
> > >> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
> > >> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...
>
> > > If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
> > > intending to travel anyway? *In the case of someone who wants to travel
> > > on particular days but isn't too picky about the time, then National
> > > Express East Coast's website had a "find me the cheapest" tickets button
> > > to click on.
>
> > No, no, no. "Not too picky about time" isn't good enough. The whole concept
> > of committing your travel plans in advance is fundamentally wrong and the
> > absence of it is what makes trains and buses (and cars!) much better than
> > planes.
>
> If the flexibility makes trains better than planes, then you won't
> object to paying more than a "plane" fare to get from London, to say
> Manchester, at any time of the day?
>
> You can't have it cheaper, and more flexible, and more comfortable,
> and more convenient. Can you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Meanwhile what about the Tony Miles question? What is the point of
three trains an hour if you have to specify your train days in
advance?
I

[Roland Perry]

In message
<dbbb69b0-54c5-4070-9276-88aa5cb4b00f@r13g2000vbr.************.com>, at
02:08:47 on Tue, 19 May 2009, Capt. Deltic <eraf@dial.pipex.com>
remarked:
>Meanwhile what about the Tony Miles question? What is the point of
>three trains an hour if you have to specify your train days in
>advance?

The point is: if you can predict when you want to travel, and get a
ticket for a quarter the price, why not?

My recent one-off long train journeys have all been ferrying children to
"summer" camps (actually take place all year round). The organisers are
quite strict about when you can drop off and pick up [1].

Admittedly you don't *need* three trains an hour for that sort of trip -
one is sufficient. Very few long distance trips actually have more than
one, though. Having three trains will spread the load - and make walk-up
journeys possible for people for whom time is money.

[1] The next one, unusually they'll pick up from the station, and the
organisers have issued a timetable for the trains they'll meet, just one
each from three different directions.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message
<d2da2f40-8bb5-4129-8919-f0cade547c0d@z5g2000vba.************.com>, at
03:54:24 on Tue, 19 May 2009, Neil Williams <pacer142@**********>
remarked:
>> You can't have it cheaper, and more flexible, and more comfortable,
>> and more convenient. Can you?
>
>You can in a decent car.

You can have it more flexible, but not always more convenient (eg if
your destination is a city centre). Cheaper depends on the fare you can
get. My last AP was East Midlands Parkway to London for a fiver - not
even the most fanatic driver could claim that's more than the cost of
petrol. And most of the "my old banger has no further to depreciate"
club probably aren't a lot more comfortable.

But put two people in a car and you can normally beat the walk-up fares.
--
Roland Perry

[trackmiles]

On 19 May, 10:08, "Capt. Deltic" <e...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> On 19 May, 09:46, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...**********.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 May, 09:36, "Mortimer" <m...@************> wrote:
>
> > > "Alistair Gunn" <palmerspe...**********m> wrote in message
>
> > >news:gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org...
>
> > > > disgoftunwells twisted the electrons to say:
> > > >> I think they lost the plot when they state
> > > >> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
> > > >> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...
>
> > > > If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
> > > > intending to travel anyway? *In the case of someone who wants to travel
> > > > on particular days but isn't too picky about the time, then National
> > > > Express East Coast's website had a "find me the cheapest" tickets button
> > > > to click on.
>
> > > No, no, no. "Not too picky about time" isn't good enough. The whole concept
> > > of committing your travel plans in advance is fundamentally wrong and the
> > > absence of it is what makes trains and buses (and cars!) much better than
> > > planes.
>
> > If the flexibility makes trains better than planes, then you won't
> > object to paying more than a "plane" fare to get from London, to say
> > Manchester, at any time of the day?
>
> > You can't have it cheaper, and more flexible, and more comfortable,
> > and more convenient. Can you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Meanwhile what about the Tony Miles question? *What is the point of
> three trains an hour if you have to specify your train days in
> advance?

Did I ask that?

The answer given is - "plenty of people are buying tickets that allow
them to make a choice - including whetever Savers are called now - and
that the market seems to have accepted that you pay for choice or pay
less for no choice."

I refer you to answers to that question by senior directors of Virgin
in the current (just) Modern Railways - where I effectively asked the
question Roger quotes (and which many on this group wanted asking!.
The answers are verbatim - in the pieces I was asked to write. If you
don't agree then either write to the Editor explaining how you would
sell tickets differently that bring in no less revenue and which allow
more flexibility but which don't see services at certain times jammed
to standing and passengers on the highest fares turned away. A
reasoned piece, thoroughly backed up with properly researched
statistics, at the level of expertise shown by Ian Walmsley when it
comes to "better ways to run and replace rolling stock" would
certainly be welcomed.

I think we are critical of the current system because we obviously
could do better - but have never actually looked at the revenue that
has to be raised, the need to encourage some people to travel off peak
and the need to fill the less popular trains by selling bargain
tickets so they don't run empty... A long time retired railwayman from
BR days assures me that lowering peak fares, when tested, increased
ridership BUT also lowered the total revenue earned.. raising ticket
prices lost passengers but did increase the revenue overall. So,
unless franchises are let on a very different basis the ticket
structure that exists at the moment will stay. As one current TOC MD
reminded me recently (not from VT) "selling one open ticket to a
business traveller for £200 is better for us than selling nine £20
return tickets to leisure travellers...."

Tony

[Roland Perry]

In message <guu41k$26rs$1@energise.enta.net>, at 12:09:41 on Tue, 19 May
2009, John Geddes <john@starmarkassociates.co.uk> remarked:
>How would a Travel Agent feel about daily visits from a customer
>enquiring whether a specific day's tickets are yet released?

If they were serious about selling railway tickets they should subscribe
to some sort of internal (to the industry) system that notified them of
the latest *actual* (not theoretical) booking horizons. They are
supposed to be travel experts, the least they can do is invest in the
information required to demonstrate that expertise.
--
Roland Perry

[Capt. Deltic]

On 19 May, 12:11, trackmi...@*************** wrote:
> On 19 May, 10:08, "Capt. Deltic" <e...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 May, 09:46, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...**********.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 May, 09:36, "Mortimer" <m...@************> wrote:
>
> > > > "Alistair Gunn" <palmerspe...**********m> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:gutqg2$33f$1@aioe.org...
>
> > > > > disgoftunwells twisted the electrons to say:
> > > > >> I think they lost the plot when they state
> > > > >> "Those without such access, without time to search or who travel at
> > > > >> short notice are stuck with paying through the nose"...
>
> > > > > If they don't have time to look for a railway ticket, how are they
> > > > > intending to travel anyway? *In the case of someone who wants to travel
> > > > > on particular days but isn't too picky about the time, then National
> > > > > Express East Coast's website had a "find me the cheapest" tickets button
> > > > > to click on.
>
> > > > No, no, no. "Not too picky about time" isn't good enough. The whole concept
> > > > of committing your travel plans in advance is fundamentally wrong and the
> > > > absence of it is what makes trains and buses (and cars!) much better than
> > > > planes.
>
> > > If the flexibility makes trains better than planes, then you won't
> > > object to paying more than a "plane" fare to get from London, to say
> > > Manchester, at any time of the day?
>
> > > You can't have it cheaper, and more flexible, and more comfortable,
> > > and more convenient. Can you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Meanwhile what about the Tony Miles question? *What is the point of
> > three trains an hour if you have to specify your train days in
> > advance?
>
> Did I ask that?
>
> The answer given is - "plenty of people are buying tickets that allow
> them to make a choice - including whetever Savers are called now - and
> that the market seems to have accepted that you pay for choice or pay
> less for no choice."
>
> I refer you to answers to that question by senior directors of Virgin
> in the current (just) Modern Railways - where I effectively asked the
> question Roger quotes (and which many on this group wanted asking!.
> The answers are verbatim - in the pieces I was asked to write. If you
> don't agree then either write to the Editor explaining how you would
> sell tickets differently that bring in no less revenue and which allow
> more flexibility but which don't see services at certain times jammed
> to standing and passengers on the highest fares turned away. A
> reasoned piece, thoroughly backed up with properly researched
> statistics, at the level of expertise shown by Ian Walmsley when it
> comes to "better ways to run and replace rolling stock" would
> certainly be welcomed.
>
> I think we are critical of the current system because we obviously
> could do better - but have never actually looked at the revenue that
> has to be raised, the need to encourage some people to travel off peak
> and the need to fill the less popular trains by selling bargain
> tickets so they don't run empty... A long time retired railwayman from
> BR days assures me that lowering peak fares, when tested, increased
> ridership BUT also lowered the total revenue earned.. raising ticket
> prices lost passengers but did increase the revenue overall. So,
> unless franchises are let on a very different basis the ticket
> structure that exists at the moment will stay. As one current TOC MD
> reminded me recently (not from VT) "selling one open ticket to a
> business traveller for £200 is better for us than selling nine £20
> return tickets to leisure travellers...."
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quite.

But are we reaching a point where travellers are learning how to
'game' the AP system so that it has started to reduce, , rather than
increase, revenue, compounding the effects of the recession?

Just a thought.