Does advance booking and the internet age require a different timetable structure?

[zwk500]

There are very, very few people who are choosing to drive because the train might be full. They drive because the train is too expensive, or because it's more convenient. Your idea might help with the former but at the cost of the latter. Changing an every 20 minute service into a an hourly one is going to put a lot more people off than will be attracted by the fact that they're guaranteed* a seat.

*If enough other people also want to travel that the relief service runs.

To be fair, when I lived in Sussex it was very common practise for people to drive a lot further than their nearest station in order to give themselves a greater chance of securing a seat. Either by driving to an alternate line, or by driving to a station with more trains.

 

[najaB]

To be fair, when I lived in Sussex it was very common practise for people to drive a lot further than their nearest station in order to give themselves a greater chance of securing a seat. Either by driving to an alternate line, or by driving to a station with more trains.

But the OP is focused on long distance trains, rather than on commuter services.

 

[Falcon1200]

Late bookings are forecast using big data.

The number of trains has to be decided in time for the rolling stock and train crew deployment, about 2 weeks before. After that yield management takes over completely just like it does now.

You've completely lost me now. Are you really saying that the timetable should be decided in the basis of bookings made 2 weeks before, perhaps with a bit of guesswork on late bookings, but disregarding last minute changes to travel plans after that time? And yield management now does not mean that trains are cancelled because too few people have booked in advance.

Don't delude yourself that people are travelling when they want to now.

How on earth do you presume to know that? It seems pretty obvious to me that providing passengers with a choice of 3 trains per hour now, rather than just one in future, does indeed give them a far better chance of travelling when they want to!

 

[Magdalia]

The OP explained that his idea was based on his experience of seeing the number of seat reservations on trains. I'll quote my experience of phonecalls overheard on departure from Manchester/ Liverpool along the lines of "I managed to catch the 1655 so I'll be earlier getting home" to suggest that there are still plenty of people who like to catch the first train available after they arrive at the station.

Probably people going to Runcorn or Macclesfield. Unlikely to be to London because of the expensive turn up and go fares.

They drive because the train is too expensive, or because it's more convenient.

Lots of people now are choosing to drive because they can't get a ticket at an acceptable price. Those that do book in advance are having to make a trade off between costs and convenience, substituting what they want with what they can get. Supply management means more of them get what they are looking for.

How on earth do you presume to know that? It seems pretty obvious to me that providing passengers with a choice of 3 trains per hour now, rather than just one in future, does indeed give them a far better chance of travelling when they want to!

An education in economics. It is one of the things that happen when demand exceeds supply. Excess demand can be rationed by price, queue, lottery or substitution. With long distance railway travel it is a concoction of all of these. People travelling at sub-optimal times is part of substitution, as is going by car instead.

Economically, the main purpose of yield management is to use the price mechanism to persuade people to travel when the railway chooses to run trains, not when those people want to travel.

Are you really saying that the timetable should be decided in the basis of bookings made 2 weeks before, perhaps with a bit of guesswork on late bookings, but disregarding last minute changes to travel plans after that time?

So we stick with a timetable that's fixed 6 months in advance instead? A timetable fixed 2 weeks in advance can be far more responsive to fluctuations in demand than something fixed 6 months earlier.

You've completely lost me now.

I can see that.

 

[stuu]

In yield management adjustment of fares is a continuous process.

Late bookings are forecast using big data.

How can you sensibly use yield management if you don't know how much capacity you have to fill?
It would be much more sensible to have a fixed capacity and use data analysis to run far more detailed yield management. Perhaps to the extent of sending out emails/sms to previous customers when there is a good price - "fancy an evening out? Birmingham return for £25 tonight" or similar. I do agree that much more could be done using the data available, but this isn't the way to go

 

[The Planner]

So we stick with a timetable that's fixed 6 months in advance instead? A timetable fixed 2 weeks in advance can be far more responsive to fluctuations in demand than something fixed 6 months earlier.

So if at 2 weeks notice you aren't running those trains you have a shed load of capacity that is eaten up with the Q paths because no one else can respond quick enough. It won't work.

 

[HSTEd]

Now I could certainly see some the merit in moving to a faster timetable cycle, but unless you intend to bring the entirety of the railway under state control it will be seriously problematic to get everyone to go along with it. It would force the redesign or outright replacement of various systems.

The computational requirements of timetable design are not trivial, even during the computer era.

 

[najaB]

So we stick with a timetable that's fixed 6 months in advance instead? A timetable fixed 2 weeks in advance can be far more responsive to fluctuations in demand than something fixed 6 months earlier.

Do you know why the timetable is only changed twice a year? Largely because it takes the better part of six months to work out a timetable that works! I'm starting to get the feeling that you have no idea at all what you are talking about.

 

[zwk500]

Do you know why the timetable is only changed twice a year? Largely because it takes the better part of six months to work out a timetable that works! I'm starting to get the feeling that you have no idea at all what you are talking about.

It takes a darn sight more than six months to work out the timetable each time!

 

[The Planner]

Now I could certainly see some the merit in moving to a faster timetable cycle, but unless you intend to bring the entirety of the railway under state control it will be seriously problematic to get everyone to go along with it. It would force the redesign or outright replacement of various systems.

The computational requirements of timetable design are not trivial, even during the computer era.

That still hasn't gone away, but computational wise we are still only at the point of automated clash detection based upon the planning rules, and that still isn't anywhere near perfect.

 

[Magdalia]

How can you sensibly use yield management if you don't know how much capacity you have to fill?

You are right that yield management has to start with a base assumption for capacity.

It also has to forecast demand in order to set prices that will maximise revenue, if the forecasts are in the right ballpark.

The algorithm would then include a loop to test the base assumption against alternatives. If another timetable option forecast significantly increased revenue, then the algorithm would recommend a switch. Once a cut off point had been reached that option would cease to be available.

So if at 2 weeks notice you aren't running those trains you have a shed load of capacity that is eaten up with the Q paths because no one else can respond quick enough. It won't work.

Perhaps to the extent of sending out emails/sms to previous customers when there is a good price - "fancy an evening out? Birmingham return for £25 tonight" or similar.

Where supply exceeds demand a different approach is needed, and this is a good example of what could be done. It is the 2020s version of 1980s Network Days, with smartphones/internet allowing a much shorter response time.

Now I could certainly see some the merit in moving to a faster timetable cycle, but unless you intend to bring the entirety of the railway under state control it will be seriously problematic to get everyone to go along with it. It would force the redesign or outright replacement of various systems.

The computational requirements of timetable design are not trivial, even during the computer era.

I accept that timetable revisions are major projects, and supply management could only be introduced as part of a major revision. It couldn't bolted on to an existing timetable.

And I agree that the fragmentation of the railway industry makes timetable revisions much more difficult.

 

[Falcon1200]

So we stick with a timetable that's fixed 6 months in advance instead?

Yes; because...

A timetable fixed 2 weeks in advance can be far more responsive to fluctuations in demand than something fixed 6 months earlier.

Which does not allow anyone to plan their journey more than two weeks in advance, because they won't have a clue what trains are running when!

I'm starting to get the feeling that you have no idea at all what you are talking about.

Could not have put it better myself.

 

[6Gman]

Probably people going to Runcorn or Macclesfield. Unlikely to be to London because of the expensive turn up and go fares.

Probably not, since they are usually still on the train when I get off at Crewe . . .

So if at 2 weeks notice you aren't running those trains you have a shed load of capacity that is eaten up with the Q paths because no one else can respond quick enough. It won't work.

And trains. And staff. All of which need to be paid for whether they are used or not.

 

[Pintodog]

Adding onto this: local, regional, and to an extent long-distance transport should be a *public service*, not a business. People need to get places, so adequate means of travel needs to be provided. Take another service that has varying levels of demand: local doctors/GP surgeries. You will have a mix of people booking a few weeks/days in advance, and walking up on the day (or at least you would if the NHS hadn't been broken by the Tories), but you would expect that your doctor is in on the days they have posted in advance, you wouldnt wait for the receptionist to call them in just to see you. It's impractical and adds a massive amount of unpredicatbility.

This also applies to this, frankly absurd, proposal. The last thing today's railway needs is more unpredictability, what with the state of chaos and managed decline we are currently in. We need a stable rebuilding of services, with turn-up-and-go frequencies where possible.