Seat Reservations on FGW

[whole diary]

[moonrakerz]

 made the cost higher for people that do not want to be dictated

Sorry Zoe, methinks you have lost the plot somewhere along the line.

Advance tickets have NOT "made the cost higher for people that do not want to be dictated to". In fact, advance fares actually help to keep anytime prices down !
If you object to being "told where to sit" or to be exact, where not to sit, travel at peak times and pay the highest fare - if you can actually find a seat !

The standard anytime fare is the fare. Off peak, advance, etc, etc are just that - cheaper ticket to get people to use rolling stock that otherwise would be empty. The TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) calculate how many "cheap" passengers they can carry and the numbers are controlled by mandatory seat reservations. I really don't see what is so outlandish about that.
If you would like everyone to have a "free and unreserved" seat then the trains would have to be three times longer that they are now. Then the TOCs would have bigger empty trains to try and fill during the day - of course, to do this, they would be offering even more and cheaper advance tickets !

PS: who do you think would pay for all these extra trains anyway ?

[Zoe]

Advance tickets have NOT "made the cost higher for people that do not want to be dictated to". In fact, advance fares actually help to keep anytime prices down !

Yes they have, one reason given for scrapping the Super Saver was to make way for these cheaper advance fares.  Advance fares are a way of controlling the numbers of people that travel and justifying ridiculous Anytime fares for people that have no choice but to use them on the grounds that people could have had a cheaper journey had they booked in advance.

It should also be noted that off peak fares have risen considerably in the last few years again forcing people that do not want to be dictated to a train and seat to pay more.

[moonrakerz]

Yes they have, one reason given for scrapping the Super Saver was to make way for these cheaper advance fares.  Advance fares are a way of controlling the numbers of people that travel and justifying ridiculous Anytime fares for people that have no choice but to use them on the grounds that people could have had a cheaper journey had they booked in advance.

It should also be noted that off peak fares have risen considerably in the last few years again forcing people that do not want to be dictated to a train and seat to pay more.

"Advance fares (and their reservations) are a way of controlling the numbers of people that travel" who would probably not travel if advance fares were not available ........... on trains that would normally carry very few passengers during the off peak periods. If these seats were not used to generate extra revenue the the cost of anytime fares would have to rise to pay for the trains not generating revenue during the rest of the day - simple economics !

I am about to book advance tickets to do Warminster-Birmingham-Warminster. Anytime ret fare is ^54.10 (on a railcard), using advance tickets and splitting the journey the fare will be ^14.40 ret (Actually ^11.55 with my ^5 off voucher -why ? work that one out - no prizes for correct answer !). If these advance fares were not available - we would NOT use the train, we would drive. We therefore are going to give FGW^▸ (First Great Western) ^28.80 instead of nothing - your strange logic says that this ^28.80 will cause the ^54.10 fare to increase !! The train will still run whether I am on it or not: somebody paid a lot of money to buy that train, the diesel will have to be paid for, the crew paid for, the track paid for, etc, etc.................

"It should also be noted that off peak fares have risen considerably in the last few years again forcing people that do not want to be dictated to a train and seat to pay more"

So ? So has everything. You have a choice. If you want not to be dictated to - pay full fare and take your chances then ! I had a choice when I bought my car, an Aston Martin or a Ford - I bought the Ford - should I be calling for Aston Martins to be banned because they increase the price of Fords, Hondas, Fiats ?

I really don't understand your use of the word "dictated" - I am dictated to when I am told to drive my car on the left. Plus, it does seem to make pretty good sense, I do hope the driver of that 44 ton Scania coming towards me thinks the same ! The use of reservations on advance tickets make equally good sense.

[Zoe]

on trains that would normally carry very few passengers during the off peak periods. If these seats were not used to generate extra revenue the the cost of anytime fares would have to rise to pay for the trains not generating revenue during the rest of the day - simple economics !

Is generating extra revenue that important?  If the trains were actually run as a public service and not the for benefit of shareholders I doubt it would be so important.  The cost of off peak tickets could easily be reduced if it was not about making as much money out of customers as possible.  More people would then use the train without the need to book in advance.

If these advance fares were not available - we would NOT use the train, we would drive.

The current policy of forcing people to book in advance to be able to travel at an affordable price is encouraging car use.  You don't have to book a car journey in advance and you can travel when you want, if you want more people to use the train then there needs to be an affordable walk-on option.

[moonrakerz]

Is generating extra revenue that important?  If the trains were actually run as a public service and not the for benefit of shareholders I doubt it would be so important. 

I am so glad that I led you in that direction and you responded accordingly. Just who do you think pays for the railways ? "them", "the government", "Father Christmas" or who ? WE, the people pay for them, directly through tickets and indirectly through taxes.

You state that the railways should be run as a "public service". I am afraid I am old enough to remember a nationalised "public service" railway - it was pretty dreadful, "public service" died with Dr Beeching, just leaving a totally clapped out rail network which we are still suffering from. I really don't fancy that again.
The present system is far from perfect, but it is a small step in the right direction.

I really don't know which world you live in but it certainly isn't the real one !

[Zoe]

I am so glad that I led you in that direction and you responded accordingly. Just who do you think pays for the railways ? "them", "the government", "Father Christmas" or who ? WE, the people pay for them, directly through tickets and indirectly through taxes.

If the railways were still in the public sector though at least what you pay would not be going into the pockets of shareholders and so there would not need to for a policy of making as much money out of the customers as possible.

[Tim]

Tax-payer subsidy is not a limitless pit of money to be squandered on supporting trains but the aim should  be to ensure value for money for the taxpayer not lowest total cost.

senario 1.
Railway A carries 100 people and cost ^100 to run.  Fares raise ^50 and subsidy raises ^50. Total cost to tax-payer ^50.  Subsidy per passenegr 50p

senario 2.
The government decides to go down the public service route and cuts all fares by 25% and runs extra services.  Twice as many people travel as a result and the cost of running the railway increases by 50% (note that it does not double because some costs are fixed regardless of how many passengers are carried).  The railway now costs ^150 to run.  Fares raise ^75 and the total subsidy is ^75. Total cost to taxpayer ^75.  Subsidy per passenger 37.5p.     

senario 3.the government privatises railway A.  The new management raises fares by 50%.  35% fewer people travel as a result.  Total cost of running the railway falls only slightly because many cost are fixed and BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) wasn't as inefficient as the private company hoped..  Total cost ^95, farebox= ^56.25, subsidy = ^38.75.  subsidy per passenger = 51.6p

senario 3 gives a lower cost to the taxpayer but poorer value to the taxpayer. 

[moonrakerz]

If the railways were still in the public sector though at least what you pay would not be going into the pockets of shareholders and so there would not need to for a policy of making as much money out of the customers as possible.

This conversation has moved from a sensible discussion regarding advance tickets and their associated reservations into one centered around your personal political dogma and it is therefore pointless pursuing it any further.

[moonrakerz]

senario 2.
The government decides to go down the public service route and cuts all fares by 25% and runs extra services.  Twice as many people travel as a result and the cost of running the railway increases by 50% (note that it does not double because some costs are fixed regardless of how many passengers are carried).  The railway now costs ^150 to run.  Fares raise ^75 and the total subsidy is ^75. Total cost to taxpayer ^75.  Subsidy per passenger 37.5p.     

I would query the greater costs of your scenario 2, Tim.

If this were to applied to "British Rail" as of now, could the extra services be run ? Would twice as many people travel as a result ?
The current fixed infrastructure and rolling stock could not cope, so either the passenger targets would not be met or huge sums of (taxpayers !) money would have to be spent to upgrade the entire system  = subsidy ^1, ^2, ^3 ^? .... per passenger ??

[Btline]

I think Zoe's is saying that he would prefer to have less advance fares and cheaper Off-Peak fares.

This would encourage "walk-up" travel and fill Off-Peak trains. TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) would make more cash, but passengers would be happier that they are not being ripped off.

[vacman]

I think Zoe's is saying that he would prefer to have less advance fares and cheaper Off-Peak fares.

This would encourage "walk-up" travel and fill Off-Peak trains. TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) would make more cash, but passengers would be happier that they are not being ripped off.

And if that happened then everyone would just travel on the first Off-peak train of the day! as for saying that you don't want your money to go into shareholders pockets then what do you think happens when you buy something from Tesco or B&Q or McDonalds etc.... it may as well go into shareholders pockets than the treasury! Advance has also opened up first class to more people.

[Mookiemoo]

[ Advance has also opened up first class to more people.

-tongue in cheek mode on -

hmmmm - and that is a good thing?  For us who always paid season or walk on?  Less space?

- tongue in cheek mode off -

[Zoe]

And if that happened then everyone would just travel on the first Off-peak train of the day!

Then keep the off peak fare the same and introduce a super off peak fare for the less busy trains, anyone remember the Super Saver?  It was not valid at the most busy times but you still had the choice of many less busy trains and were not forced to sit in a specific seat.

as for saying that you don't want your money to go into shareholders pockets then what do you think happens when you buy something from Tesco or B&Q or McDonalds etc.... it may as well go into shareholders pockets than the treasury!

I avoid using 2 of the 3 companies above but the point is that there are alternatives so you don't have to use them.  If you want to go from Devon to London by train in 3 hours then you have no choice but to use First Great Western and they are in a position where they can set high prices to make as much money out of the customers as possible.

[vacman]

And if that happened then everyone would just travel on the first Off-peak train of the day!

Then keep the off peak fare the same and introduce a super off peak fare for the less busy trains, anyone remember the Super Saver?  It was not valid at the most busy times but you still had the choice of many less busy trains and were not forced to sit in a specific seat.

as for saying that you don't want your money to go into shareholders pockets then what do you think happens when you buy something from Tesco or B&Q or McDonalds etc.... it may as well go into shareholders pockets than the treasury!

I avoid using 2 of the 3 companies above but the point is that there are alternatives so you don't have to use them.  If you want to go from Devon to London by train in 3 hours then you have no choice but to use First Great Western and they are in a position where they can set high prices to make as much money out of the customers as possible.

Fly? I think your arguement is pretty flawed really and your just scraping the barrel!

[vacman]

[ Advance has also opened up first class to more people.

-tongue in cheek mode on -

hmmmm - and that is a good thing?  For us who always paid season or walk on?  Less space?

- tongue in cheek mode off -

agreed to a point, but advance first has but bums on empty seats and probably attracted people that wouldn't otherwise travel.