Compulsory Reservations- Poll

[Bletchleyite]

I'm trying to see both sides and I understand that people like @Tazi Hupefi want to have a seat, but also want people around them to not stand. So that's your preference - as you've said, companies are looking to upgrade people to first class for a better experience. Why not do something like make first class reservations compulsory, and allow standard class passengers to do what they want?

Interestingly that's India's model - all classes are reservation compulsory except Second Class Unreserved, which costs pennies (cost me two quid from Agra to Delhi, which is like Euston to Manchester distance wise) but makes the pre-COVID rush hour Northern Line look like a one man, dog and bicycle branch line.

I'm near certain another country does it too.

 

[dosxuk]

I'm trying to see both sides and I understand that people like @Tazi Hupefi want to have a seat, but also want people around them to not stand. So that's your preference - as you've said, companies are looking to upgrade people to first class for a better experience. Why not do something like make first class reservations compulsory, and allow standard class passengers to do what they want?

I can totally get on board with this idea, to the point of not understanding why it's not already a thing. The experiments on the west coast with standard premium could also be interesting, making that reservation compulsory too and rolled out across the intercity network. That way the people who are offended by people standing can have their own private space and those who need to be able to get somewhere and don't care if that involves standing can also get on board.

How you'd fit first, standard premium and normal standard on a 4 car XC voyager though is a different challenge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How you'd fit first, standard premium and normal standard on a 4 car XC voyager though is a different challenge.

Fundamentally the issue with XC is that the trains are all about 3 coaches too short and have been since the early 2000s. Goodness only knows why it's taken so long to sort out this glaring issue. It's not like the railway has been starved of investment in the meantime, there's just for some bizarre reason no will to solve this specific problem, and all it requires is more stock.

With that sorted, a standard premium type service would definitely work on XC. BR had one on XC services years ago, interestingly it's the origin of the Voyager name - it was called Voyager. It was however a bit of a different concept in that it was a Standard coach (the BSO on HSTs but reversed to keep it separate from the rest of the train), reservations compulsory (in that coach) and free catering. Only available for longer journeys too.

 

[BJames]

Interestingly that's India's model - all classes are reservation compulsory except Second Class Unreserved, which costs pennies (cost me two quid from Agra to Delhi, which is like Euston to Manchester distance wise) but makes the pre-COVID rush hour Northern Line look like a one man, dog and bicycle branch line.

I'm near certain another country does it too.

Interesting, didn't know this.

I can totally get on board with this idea, to the point of not understanding why it's not already a thing. The experiments on the west coast with standard premium could also be interesting, making that reservation compulsory too and rolled out across the intercity network. That way the people who are offended by people standing can have their own private space and those who need to be able to get somewhere and don't care if that involves standing can also get on board.

How you'd fit first, standard premium and normal standard on a 4 car XC voyager though is a different challenge.

Yes I would agree I think, and standard premium would be an interesting one to investigate. I do think that this kind of thing comes up with a way that everyone's happy. And cost wise, standard premium would solve the issue of not wanting to pay a significant premium but an acceptance that if you want more comfort, you will have to pay a bit more than standard. I personally don't see anything wrong with this, it isn't pricing anyone out of anywhere and you should still be allowed to choose a reservation in standard if there are any available, but you would just accept that it might be busier than you might like.

Fundamentally the issue with XC is that the trains are all about 3 coaches too short and have been since the early 2000s. Goodness only knows why it's taken so long to sort out this glaring issue. It's not like the railway has been starved of investment in the meantime, there's just for some bizarre reason no will to solve this specific problem, and all it requires is more stock.

With that sorted, a standard premium type service would definitely work on XC. BR had one on XC services years ago, interestingly it's the origin of the Voyager name - it was called Voyager. It was however a bit of a different concept in that it was a Standard coach (the BSO on HSTs but reversed to keep it separate from the rest of the train), reservations compulsory (in that coach) and free catering. Only available for longer journeys too.

With XC's reservations back last year I found myself having to split my Nottingham to Birmingham journey at Derby and get a different XC service as the Nottingham-Cardiff service was "full" - no doubt because it only has 2 coaches most of the time (does it have 4 at the moment?).

 

[Bletchleyite]

With XC's reservations back last year I found myself having to split my Nottingham to Birmingham journey at Derby and get a different XC service as the Nottingham-Cardiff service was "full" - no doubt because it only has 2 coaches most of the time (does it have 4 at the moment?).

"XC lite" (i.e. the 170 services) are regional expresses which are a poor fit for the franchise and definitely don't make sense as having compulsory reservations. Does any country have compulsory reservations on regional expresses? Certainly no European ones do that I know of.

 

[Mainline421]

"XC lite" (i.e. the 170 services) are regional expresses which are a poor fit for the franchise and definitely don't make sense as having compulsory reservations. Does any country have compulsory reservations on regional expresses? Certainly no European ones do that I know of.

Spain does, it doesn't work well.

 

[route101]

Spain does, it doesn't work well.

Remember reservations between Malaga and Seville on a DMU. Not sure what happened, either we read the seat numbers wrong or set didn't exist. Train was full and if you sat somewhere you would get turfed out.

 

[algytaylor]

Just my 2p work, but sometimes one of the key reasons I book a train for a longer journey, rather than fly, is because I can get an open return.

Obvious example: pre-COVID, I travel up to Edinburgh (from Wales) a couple of times a year to visit friends. I'll usually have a train in mind for coming home on, but the extra flexibility means I can stay up later the night before I come home. If I get up earlier, I'll just run down and get an earlier-than-planned train, but if I end up needing to sleep in that's also fine because it's not massively important if I end up getting a train a couple of hours later than I'd planned.

 

[Brush 4]

Compulsory reservations takes away flexibility and impulse decisions. Leisure journeys which are the future for rail travel, post Covid, will be worst affected, as a trip may be decided based on the weather. The uncertainty of booking ahead then the hassle of getting a refund if the weather turns out bad, makes the whole thing unworkable. Just use the car, which doesn't need to be reserved in advance.

 

[ashkeba]

Compulsory reservations takes away flexibility and impulse decisions. Leisure journeys which are the future for rail travel, post Covid, will be worst affected, as a trip may be decided based on the weather. The uncertainty of booking ahead then the hassle of getting a refund if the weather turns out bad, makes the whole thing unworkable. Just use the car, which doesn't need to be reserved in advance.

Yes, this. For leisure journeys, even hiring a car gives more flexibolity and less covid exposure than a compulsory reservation ticket and many non-railfans will prefer to pay the extra and pollute more than jump obstacles to use trains. Compulsory reserves would be a big foot shot for a railway in recovery.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Compulsory reservations takes away flexibility and impulse decisions.

It does and it doesn't. You can still purchase a ticket shortly before boarding. It doesn't mean (unlike years ago) that you need to book days or even weeks beforehand. It only ends up like that at very busy times (e.g. Christmas Eve) and on TOCs that have a serious capacity problem that needs resolving anyway (yes, you, XC).

Indeed, it might provide some motivation to solve the XC capacity problem, as you can't take the money anyway and cram everyone in.

 

[Flying Snail]

It does and it doesn't. You can still purchase a ticket shortly before boarding. It doesn't mean (unlike years ago) that you need to book days or even weeks beforehand. It only ends up like that at very busy times (e.g. Christmas Eve) and on TOCs that have a serious capacity problem that needs resolving anyway (yes, you, XC).

Indeed, it might provide some motivation to solve the XC capacity problem, as you can't take the money anyway and cram everyone in.

Only if by some unknown miracle you strip all of the local/commuter/regional travel out of XC, the novelty of having to book specific train/seat reservations for those travelling short distances or commuting is going to quickly wear off.

Compulsory reservations would be just another nail in the coffin of rail travel for me. The continuous downgrading of comfort is bad enough, no longer being able to travel when/where I like without faffing about with reservations or the real possibility of being turned away due to a train being fully booked would be the final straw I feel. A car is already far more comfortable, flexible, private and quicker for most door-to-door journeys. What exact benefit will there be for rail journeys at all?

 

[181]

It does and it doesn't. You can still purchase a ticket shortly before boarding.

If the likelihood of all seats being taken is more than negligible, it's still a problem -- there's a big difference between 'I'll probably get a seat, but if I don't the worst-case scenario is having to stand' and 'I'll probably get a seat (with some extra faff to reserve it), but if I don't the worst-case scenario is getting stranded overnight'.

And when the likelihood of all seats being taken is negligible, everyone gets a seat anyway and compulsory reservations are just pointless bureaucracy.

 

[BayPaul]

If the likelihood of all seats being taken is more than negligible, it's still a problem -- there's a big difference between 'I'll probably get a seat, but if I don't the worst-case scenario is having to stand' and 'I'll probably get a seat (with some extra faff to reserve it), but if I don't the worst-case scenario is getting stranded overnight'.

And when the likelihood of all seats being taken is negligible, everyone gets a seat anyway and compulsory reservations are just pointless bureaucracy.

I completely agree. And even if it isn't being stranded overnight, being delayed an hour or two is far worse in my mind than having to stand, especially as chances are you'll find a seat at the next station.

 

[Hadders]

With compulsory reservations if there isn't a specific seat available for your whole journey then you're not travelling.

What happens at present is that you might have to start by standing, but later on in the journey a seat might become available, or you might get a seat to start with and then have to vacate it later in the journey, or there might be some available seats but you'll have to move a couple of times - none ideal but better than not travelling. Or you might get lucky and someone not turn up meaning you've got a seat after all.

With compulsory reservations none of this would happen. Trains would, in fact, arrive at your station with some seats not taken, because they might be reserved later in the journey. Seeing this happen would go down like a lead balloon with passengers.

 

[miami]

Just use the car, which doesn't need to be reserved in advance.

The winner.

Compulsory reservations not only has people turning up and finding no room on the train (despite paying the highest prices for a ticket), it then means they don't bother with the unreliable railway network again, and vote to get rid of the enourmous subsidies and probably pave over the entire network with (ideally) linear parks or (realistically) road capacity.

Based on many railfans and railstaff's opinions that passengers are more trouble than they're worth, that certainly has some appeal.

I completely agree. And even if it isn't being stranded overnight, being delayed an hour or two is far worse in my mind than having to stand, especially as chances are you'll find a seat at the next station.

That's not what's been argued. If you want a reservation, you can make one, and hope that the train isn't short formed, or that someone isn't sat in your reserved seat anyway. Nobody is suggesting not having reservations available for those who want them.

What's being argued is that leisure passengers who book 12 weeks in advance (often on a railcard) for a 15p/mile trip don't want their trip "spoilt" by other people who buy walk on fares, choosing the train they want a few minutes before departure, paying 90p/mile, standing near those leisure passengers, and "ruining" their experience.

If the train from Cardiff gets into Crewe late, the passengers are then abandoned at Crewe because they've missed their reservations. Or is it that they get on the next train regardless and have to stand?

Yes, this. For leisure journeys, even hiring a car gives more flexibolity and less covid exposure than a compulsory reservation ticket and many non-railfans will prefer to pay the extra and pollute more than jump obstacles to use trains. Compulsory reserves would be a big foot shot for a railway in recovery.

Absolutely, far cheaper too if you're travelling in a group. I want to take the family to London in May bank holiday, the best fare without jumping through hoops is £258 return off peak. Hiring a car for a one-way trip each direction and paying for petrol is already cheaper and more flexible than the train, let alone using my own car and parking cheaply near to London.

Remove flexibility to come back at 2pm or 6pm or 10am on the last day and it tips the balance even further.

 

[Robertj21a]

There is only one winner in all this, the car.
Compulsory reservations are only going to work in a few isolated cases - sleepers, non stop long distance expresses etc. Against that, we would all lose the massive benefit and flexibility of Turn up and Go.

 

[BayPaul]

That's not what's been argued. If you want a reservation, you can make one, and hope that the train isn't short formed, or that someone isn't sat in your reserved seat anyway. Nobody is suggesting not having reservations available for those who want them.

My point was, if reservations are compulsory, but you can't plan your travel time long in advance, you may have to miss a few busy trains before you are able to find a reservation on a free train.

 

[miami]

My point was, if reservations are compulsory, but you can't plan your travel time long in advance, you may have to miss a few busy trains before you are able to find a reservation on a free train.

Except that's not what will happen in reality, in reality you'll take the car instead as the train becomes solely for rich people being subsidised to go on holiday

Nobody benefits from compulsory reservation

 

[zwk500]

Just use the car, which doesn't need to be reserved in advance.

On a pedantic note, the car is permanently reserved to you, unless you are part of a car pool or share it with family. In the latter 2 cases, they usually do need to be reserved in advance, although the formality of the arrangement may vary.

For me personally, compulsory reservations are far more a first-class thing. If you're paying that much for a ticket it's fair enough to expect no standing, guaranteed seat and so on, but I don't see it being viable for standard class. I particularly agree with the posts above where you might board a train without a seat but after the first stop have a fair chance of grabbing one.

 

[lttgroup]

Is it just me who imagines this scheme to have been devised by well-paid business types who get to travel long distances with expenses paid and thus their main inconvenience is the rest of us wanting to travel but having to stand? I suggest some of them ought to try out travelling as most of us in the real world have to - Shockingly some of us don't necessarily have the option of having things planned for us weeks in advance.

 

[takno]

Is it just me who imagines this scheme to have been devised by well-paid business types who get to travel long distances with expenses paid and thus their main inconvenience is the rest of us wanting to travel but having to stand? I suggest some of them ought to try out travelling as most of us in the real world have to - Shockingly some of us don't necessarily have the option of having things planned for us weeks in advance.

I doubt any business types outside of the industry were consulted at all. In practice, most business travellers will find the whole thing a monumental inconvenience - the whole value of getting the train is being able to turn up for the first available one when your meetings overrun or finish early. If you're going to book weeks in advance and waste hours sitting around waiting then you might as well get a flight - at least it will be quick once you're on it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that's not what will happen in reality, in reality you'll take the car instead as the train becomes solely for rich people being subsidised to go on holiday

Can you provide some evidence that that is the case in Spain, Italy and France?

I doubt any business types outside of the industry were consulted at all. In practice, most business travellers will find the whole thing a monumental inconvenience - the whole value of getting the train is being able to turn up for the first available one when your meetings overrun or finish early. If you're going to book weeks in advance and waste hours sitting around waiting then you might as well get a flight - at least it will be quick once you're on it.

Not true. Most businesses insist on "cheapest ticket" these days, which means an Advance.

I do more walk-up personal travel than business travel (in proportion). I'm willing to pay extra for flexibility, the company very much isn't.

 

[takno]

Not true. Most businesses insist on "cheapest ticket" these days, which means an Advance.

I do more walk-up personal travel than business travel (in proportion). I'm willing to pay extra for flexibility, the company very much isn't.

Most business travel policies require you to get the cheapest ticket for the journey you need to make. I'm sorry if you aren't any good at dealing with your corporate travel team, or work for an employer who doesn't value your time at all, but honestly you'd be better off looking for a better job than assuming that everyone is in the same boat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most business travel policies require you to get the cheapest ticket for the journey you need to make.

Yes, precisely. And most of the time that will be an Advance for the sort of journeys we are talking about here, mostly by a very considerable margin due to the outrageous cost of InterCity Anytime fares.

I'm not talking about short-distance journeys, such as an employee who is based in MK spending an occasional day in London, as Anytime fares on London commuter operations are reasonable and there often aren't Advances at all anyway. Nobody is proposing that operators like LNR or Southern would have compulsory reservations, so that sort of example is just not relevant.

I'm sorry if you aren't any good at dealing with your corporate travel team, or work for an employer who doesn't value your time at all, but honestly you'd be better off looking for a better job than assuming that everyone is in the same boat.

I think that is actually an outrageous slight on my employer, for whom I have a lot of time, and it can be countered with "poor planning is expensive, so a well-managed business should not tolerate it". We don't have a corporate travel team for rail, anyway, and air is a contracted booking portal, but we are asked, quite reasonably, to choose the cheapest ticket on the necessary trains (and if possible to shift travel a short time if that means a considerable saving).

 

[BayPaul]

Most business travel policies require you to get the cheapest ticket for the journey you need to make. I'm sorry if you aren't any good at dealing with your corporate travel team, or work for an employer who doesn't value your time at all, but honestly you'd be better off looking for a better job than assuming that everyone is in the same boat.

I would hate to work for a business that puts so little emphasis on financial management as you seem to suggest!
The right answer of course, is it depends on the situation. My company normally insists on reasonably cheap advances, but if I absolutely need to get a walk up fare and can justify it, they are happy for that as well.
A business-friendly rail ticket would ideally be one that is strict on the timings for the outward journey, but has some flexibility for the homeward - perhaps allowing a change by an hour or two either way for a small charge. This would also be great for air travel connections, and I don't know why something like this isn't in general existence!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A business-friendly rail ticket would ideally be one that is strict on the timings for the outward journey, but has some flexibility for the homeward - perhaps allowing a change by an hour or two either way for a small charge. This would also be great for air travel connections, and I don't know why something like this isn't in general existence!

Interestingly, Virgin Trains used to have a "Saturday Day Out" ticket for tourists from the North West to London, which had a fixed outward but flexible return.

The best answer to this is single-fare pricing, so you can simply buy an Advance for the outward and a flexible* single back. Some airlines (e.g. easyJet) sort of have that kind of arrangement, in that you can pay a small fixed fee (used to be free) to switch to an earlier flight on the same day if there's space.

* Even with compulsory reservations I could see this still existing, because there is demand for it, but rather than it being unreserved as at present, it would be an extra fee/maximum priced fare that would allow you to change it an unlimited number of times for free subject to seats being available. The tactic for using it would be to book it on the latest train you're likely to use, and if the day is looking worse than expected rebook it from your phone, whereas if you finish early move it earlier if there's space.

 

[miami]

Can you provide some evidence that that is the case in Spain, Italy and France?

By removing flexibility for business travellers you reduce that group of people.

As for "rich"




I haven't got data on the proportion of users buying flexible tickets vs inflexible tickets. There are 3 trains an hour from London to Birmingham, 3 trains an hour from London to Manchester, completely pointless if you don't have flexibility. When I travel to Newcastle next week, it will be to do a specific task, when it's done (which will hopefully take an hour, but could take 10) I will return home. I may have to stay in a hotel, I may not.

Choice is to either drive or to take the train. With compulsory reservations there is no choice.


But again we're skirting the question -- who benefits from making people who want/need flexibility use cars instead?

A business-friendly rail ticket would ideally be one that is strict on the timings for the outward journey, but has some flexibility for the homeward - perhaps allowing a change by an hour or two either way for a small charge. This would also be great for air travel connections, and I don't know why something like this isn't in general existence!

Why have a ticket that's more restricted than a normal open ticket?

 

[BayPaul]

Why have a ticket that's more restricted than a normal open ticket?

I'm assuming it would also have a cheaper price than a normal open ticket. To be fair, @Bletchleyite 's suggestion a few posts up of single leg pricing would indeed offer a similar amount of discount and flexibility

(oh and by the way, in case it isn't completely clear, I agree with you that compulsory reservations is a ridiculous idea that benefits no-one but the airlines)

Can you provide some evidence that that is the case in Spain, Italy and France?

Personal experience is, of course, not evidence, but I have personally abandoned a day out by rail in the south of France when I realised that I would need to reserve my return leg when booking my outbound, and I had no idea how long I would want to stay in the destination. Similar to the UK, it was on a fairly short distance route, where most of the services were provided by TGV trains. I spent the day on the beach instead, and SNCF didn't get my money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But again we're skirting the question -- who benefits from making people who want/need flexibility use cars instead?

Because it makes for a more pleasant on-board travelling environment.