# MISC | Yield Management in Railways



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I have a deep knowledge of Brazilian economy. Railways, which were in the brink of collapse, were privatized in 1996 (90% of trackage). New private owners revamped the tracks and freight traffic increased 10-fold in a national basis.

As for passenger rail, the government vision (and money) is most geared toward express, high-speed links. There is an ongoing project (70% already secured, enviromental assessment on its way) to build a 540 km pure high-speed rail linking Rio de janeiro, São Paulo and Campinas (and their international airports), with some intermediate (3/4 additional cities in the way) stations.

It will be a private concession for 40 years, meant for passenger service only. It will receive a special loand of € 9 bln. from the central government (at lower interest rates), but otherwise will operate by itself under few guidelines like maximum fares allowed and minimum service frequency.

Apart form that, there is no reliable study plan to run any long-distance passenger rail.

Remember, Brazil is not India: 8,5 million sq. kilometers area, 194 miln. population only, very sparsely populated in general, with low land costs and an ongoing enrichment process of its middle class (car ownership rate jumped ~120% between 1994 and 2008).


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Still, you can't compare a single high speed line with a decent network of passenger rail services covering a large part and providing mobility for more or less everyone.

You're right when you say that cars aren't trains (the first being a device of individual mobility and the second providing services one can choose to buy).
But I can't agree with you on letting run everything on a free-market ideology. The purpose of the rail network in Europe is to provide transport for those who want to use it (or are forced to do so because they can't afford a car or don't have a driving licence). So one has to ensure that there is a minimum level of service on the whole network. If you want to let run the train operators on free-market base, you can be certain that a large part of the lines won't have as good services as they have now and numberous lines even have no service at all! That's not exactly the point of public transport, is it?

I guess the current organization of the German regional rail is quite ok: The state governments contract rail operators (not necessarily DB) to run trains and writing frequencies, etc. in the contract. Another advantage is that every operator has to integrate in a common price system which makes travelling much more comfortable for passengers (because you have good connections, a single fare system which doesn't force you to buy another ticket when changing trains, etc.).

Running a European rail network on a free market base would pretty sure have fatal results. The privatisation of British Rail is a good example, I'd say.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> I do not dispute that. Mortality rates for car transportation are 1.200 times higher per km-travelled than air. However, the car is far more than a mean of transportation: it is a freedom-enabling "device", one that gave members of more advanced countries mobility and brought down the sick cramped industrial city paradigma of the late 18th Century with its epidemics, riots and excessive density. Car increases people mobility, allows them to expand the notion of "surrodings" from one they can walk to (2 km if you are healthy?) to one they can easily drive to (40/50 km), dramatically increases your privacy (no need to deal with strangers while moving from point A to point B, dealing with other drivers is far less privacy-disrespectful than having a fetid follow citizen exhalating his odors in your subway car), etc.
> 
> Sure we should word to reduce reasonably car death rates (and they have never been so low as now), but the "mortality" argument shall not prevail. If it would, what about, per analogy, fast-food? Shoudl we "ban" fast food because unwise comsumption of it makes you unhealthy?


What a boatload of...
People can choose anything between fast food and food made from scratch.
A well integrated transport system that includes high speed trains, regular trains, subways, buses and even taxies in the rural areas and/or during late night hours, with rail at the core it, like the German one, can deliver the freedeom/mobility described above.
People should be able to choose between a well integrated transport system and cars.
If you want mobility on demand with your car, you should pay for the full social cost of it.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

thun said:


> But I can't agree with you on letting run everything on a free-market ideology. The purpose of the rail network in Europe is to provide transport for those who want to use it (or are forced to do so because they can't afford a car or don't have a driving licence). So one has to ensure that there is a minimum level of service on the whole network. If you want to let run the train operators on free-market base, you can be certain that a large part of the lines won't have as good services as they have now and numberous lines even have no service at all! That's not exactly the point of public transport, is it?


Well, things are a little mixed-up here. I separate the functions of having a track network (and stations, roundhouses, sidings, energy convert transformers etc.) as something worth on its own, like having a freeway network where cars and trucks might drive, but are not exaclty tied to them (think of car as the most interoperable transportation vehicle in the world after the airplane - apart from LHS or RHS-driving and auto or manual shift, everything else is pretty much the same everywhere).

So, the point of having a track network would be to allow private operators to run services they want. As I said before, I make a huge distinction between metropolitan, commuter-like traffic (which can, to a certain extent, justify transit projects with coordinated schedules etc.) and medium and long-distance travel. Why travelling accross Europe would be an entitlement? I know some leftist student organizations want a "EU-scheme" to allow university students under 26 free travel on ALL train networks so they can "enhance" their cultural formation and their international experiences... 

I do not see the point of having subsidized long-distance transit in peacetime (and giving Ryanair some airports to operate would be of less cost too). Again, let the governmnents provide the tracks, but the privates to run trains if and when they want.

Imagine if we were in the bad days when government regulated every aspect of airlines operation, including imposition of "coordinated schedules"... Fares would cost the triple and Ryanair would never come into existence.


----------



## mozatellac (Jan 10, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> I do not see the point of having subsidized long-distance transit in peacetime (and giving Ryanair some airports to operate would be of less cost too). Again, let the governmnents provide the tracks, but the privates to run trains if and when they want.


That's probably why modern long-distance train services (TGV, ICE, AVE...) are generally not subsidized in western Europe. That's also why over there, gas taxes are much higher than in the US and many highways have tolls.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> So, the point of having a track network would be to allow private operators to run services they want. As I said before, I make a huge distinction between metropolitan, commuter-like traffic (which can, to a certain extent, justify transit projects with coordinated schedules etc.) and medium and long-distance travel...



No you certainly did not.


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

In fact, one of the most successful rail operator is SBB (although fares are quite high and it is a monopolist). The perfectly coordinated schedule between short, medium and long-distance services is one of the main reasons.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Most monopolies should be able to make a profit! Let some private operator skim out the most lucratives routes in Switzerland, forcing prices down, for instance, with fair access policies and slot auctions where there is excessive demand for traffic.

Underlying all this questions we could ask: which is ultimatelly better - having efficient markets determining the true price of providing non-profitable services, and having private competitors fight each other to provide lower fares where they can be achieved, or have a mammoth-size public authority filled with bureaucrats trying to "coordinate" schedules and services?

A private, for-profit COMPETITIVE system can still provide service to remote locations etc., provided the government subidize, directly, unprofitable routes. What it bring is greater fairness in the sense that people travelling between major centers could be served by faster (few if any calls) and cheper service. 

Economic theory has long demonstrated that true competitive (which is different than what UK did in the 1990's, just "slicing" different regions and dictating terms of service) service markets, even when comprehensive coverage is requires with subsidiation for unporofitable sections of those markets, will deliver overall less costly services, at expense of convenience or "equal access" (because subsides would have to be high, mountain location or isolated places might get no more than 3 or 4 daily public transit services instead of 14, for instance).

Then, again, I point out: the backbone transportation industry of every decent country are the roads. A paved surface, not a track, is what ultimatelly allow people and goods to reach end-point destinations, e.g., houses or offices. Trains are a necessity, but no to the extent of roads.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

thun said:


> Running a European rail network on a free market base would pretty sure have fatal results. The privatisation of British Rail is a good example, I'd say.


I wouldn't say that the privatisation of British Rail is a good example of running a rail network on a free market base (nor did it have "fatal" results, btw...)


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> Most monopolies should be able to make a profit! Let some private operator skim out the most lucratives routes in Switzerland, forcing prices down, for instance, with fair access policies and slot auctions where there is excessive demand for traffic.


The Swiss people won't let this happen though.



> Underlying all this questions we could ask: which is ultimatelly better - having efficient markets determining the true price of providing non-profitable services, and having private competitors fight each other to provide lower fares where they can be achieved, or have a mammoth-size public authority filled with bureaucrats trying to "coordinate" schedules and services?


The truth is somewhere in the middle. Have a governement authority set service levels, and schedules, and contract out the provision of the provision of the service to private contractors.

The big issue with public transportation is that integration and coordination have a high positive externality, which companies can't or won't internalize on their own. There the governement has a role.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

thun said:


> In fact, one of the most successful rail operator is SBB (although fares are quite high and it is a monopolist). The perfectly coordinated schedule between short, medium and long-distance services is one of the main reasons.


Interestingly the SBB fares are not as high as they are reputed to be, especially if you travel a lot. The Swiss GeneralAbo for example is quite cheap if you compare it to similar offers in the Netherlands or Belgium. 

Single tickets for people who don't travel on the trains a lot are expensive, but that's more a tax on tourists...


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

2co2co said:


> I travelled from Osaka to Nagoya on Shinkansen by just turning up, buying ticket (at regular price) - seats were full, so I stood (with yummy Takoyaki in hand )
> 
> Apparently, this is unthinkable for Europeans... (especially the standing bit)
> Is there any particular reason why high-speed rails cannot operate like a commuter train? The travel times of low-speed short distance and high-speed long distance are roughly the same.


Why? That is what I encounter when I travel with german ICE trains. Often enough peopel have to stand in the aisle or sit on the ground next to their bags.

High speed rail is often enough used as commuter rail.


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

^^
Quite the case. I once rode the TGV from Paris to Besancon in the rear baggage space, having a ticket but no seat reservation. No one ever checked my ticket.


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Most monopolies should be able to make a profit!


The point is that it's NOT about profit alone. Much more important is to provide affordable transport for those who don't use the road for some reason (jams, costs, comfort, etc.) as a backbone of public transport. And that only works with integrated schedules and fares. The administration is needed to ensure that remoted areas have enough and regular services, too. And keep in mind that most travellers don't travel necessarily between the large cities, a very large piece is travelling from one rural area to another.
If you would let run everything on a free market base, it'll be pretty much end up like in the US, where passenger rail service is pretty much non-existent in most of the country (and where long-distance services exist, they only do because of the subsidiated Amtrak). And the result being: People using the car more (at least those who can afford one and are old enough - the others are pretty much fu**d up) which means higher (public!) investions in roads, more land use for new roads (a HSL needs much less land than a motorway) and more exhausts. Not really a mayor improvement, I'd say.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Some people need to understand the nature of railways and indeed public transport before they try to preech their 'economic' views. Competition in public transport is a whole different kettle of fish to that in your average retail products.

You can go to a supermarket and choose between your Hovis, Kingsmill, Warberton and Tesco's value and get what you want when you want it. 20 Warburtons or 5 or each kind makes no difference to the convenience of someone wanting a loaf of Warburtons.

Unlike a loaf of bread which is THE product a consumer purchases, a single train journey is only part of an overall product. A regular frequency and simple fare structure are also core parts of the product. 9 SteamAhead trains per hour is fundamentally different to 3 of each of SteamAhead, ElectricLoco and DieseLine. If companies operated independently you sacrifice convenience (aka to a lower quality product); if integrated tickets were to exist you don't have 'free-market'; left to the market you have natural monopoly. *None* of these situations give you maximum production at minimum prices. You HAVE to have state intervention, at the very least a state-engineered franchising system where service levels and prices are regulated.

Isn't it ironic how somebody who worships the 'freedom' of private transport wants to squeeze every ounce of it out of public transport in the name of 'future'?


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

NCT said:


> Isn't it ironic how somebody who worships the 'freedom' of private transport wants to squeeze every ounce of it out of public transport in the name of 'future'?



Exactly. Right on! Even many Americans do not describe the automobile transport as the transport of the "future."




Suburbanist said:


> Then, again, I point out: the backbone transportation industry of every decent country are the roads. A paved surface, not a track, is what ultimatelly allow people and goods to reach end-point destinations, e.g., houses or offices. Trains are a necessity, but no to the extent of roads.


Sure... try to move the "goods" across the USA and across the Alps alone and see what happens :lol: A "decent" country cannot even survive mostly on roads.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

It's always very interesting to note that roads are never expected to yield a profit.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Guys, I've written this a dozen times.

FAIR COMPETITION

Air - government provides airport, security, traffic control; private airlines buy/lease planes, hire crews, buy untasty food etc.

Road - government provides highway infrastructure and maybe charge tolls/gas taxes. Private companies and drivers buy or rent vehicles, insure them, fuel them and drive them.

Rail - government provides tracks with completely open access. Private companies buy trainsets, engines and run services according to their will.

Highways are not expected to make a profit, but bus companies, truck companies, rental car companies, automakers etc. are usually expected to do so.

UNFAIR COMPETITION

Air - charging airlines for CO2 emissions, obligating them to serve, without compensation, remote routes as a precondition to operate "crown jewels" ones.

Road - using toll, congestion charges or gas taxes to any other purpose but build, maintain and expand roads.

Rail - communist inspired governments taking over direct operation of trains, imposing schedules etc.


So, I don't expect that rail and station tack ownership, maintenance and operation to be profitable, but I DO expect trains can pay their marginal costs comprising train crews, depreciation, capital costs etc. Track should form a comprehensive physical networks, but trains should be operated over them only by private companies on a fair basis.

As for minors, one of the reasons it is so difficult to advance lower driving age in Europe is because comprehensive transit networks provide an excuse (I'm part of a small but European-wide articulated groups trying to, someday, lower the driving age for cars with less than 1400cc to 15 years over EU as a human derived right to mobility and against youth prejudice that they "can't operate a car").


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Road - using toll, congestion charges or gas taxes to any other purpose but build, maintain and expand roads.


And why would that be unfair ? If competition between different modes of
transport must be fair, then road transport must pay for all the societal
cost they generate, i.e. need for police, medical infrastructure, solutions to
pollution problems, etc. Road transport today is partly paid by taxes that
do not come from road transport itself, that must be corrected...



Suburbanist said:


> Rail - communist inspired governments taking over direct operation of trains, imposing schedules etc.


And again, why is this unfair ? It is just another model, not one that you like,
but the fact that you do not like it does not give you the right to make it
"unfair" !



Suburbanist said:


> trains should be operated over them only by private companies on a fair basis.


This again may be your model of preference but I do not see any intrinsic
reason why it should be enforced. 



Suburbanist said:


> lower the driving age for cars with less than 1400cc to 15 years over EU.


God forbids that this ever happens. We have already enough people dying
on the roads without that. I'd rather see it elevated to 21.


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> As for minors, one of the reasons it is so difficult to advance lower driving age in Europe is because comprehensive transit networks provide an excuse (I'm part of a small but European-wide articulated groups trying to, someday, lower the driving age for cars with less than 1400cc to 15 years over EU as a human derived right to mobility and against youth prejudice that they "can't operate a car").


I can assure you that the reason 15 year olds are not allowed to drive in the EU has nothing to do with public transport. Most of the people I knew at that age would have been lethal in a car (even under 1400cc) moreso than when they were 17 (the legal driving age in the UK unless disabled, then a special concession is allowed to 16) I cannot see how this or anything else you are proposing would be progress. There is no human right to a car and there are many reasons people can't have them, like age, disability, parking, initial cost of ownership, fear of driving, driving bans, etc therefore 'human right to mobility' is an arguement for a comprehensive public transport system which is heavily subsidised.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> They can provide urban mobility, not rural mobility. I doubt you can go to any farm, remote outspot, mountain pass, "in the middle of nothing" field by public transportation.
> 
> And, no, a twice-daily service is not an alternative. We ought to exercise our rights to be individualistic enough not to stick ourselves to "oh, want to go to that remote beach, you can go at 8 AM or at 3 PM.".
> 
> But that is another discussion. As for "lack of clout", automobile industry employs, pays taxes, innovates and exerts political pressure on governments on my behalf.


minimum service in most european countryside is 3/4 services per day ... PLUS a "transport-on-call" redundant service.

Aditionally you can just CALL A plucking CAB/TAXI. :nuts:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

aab7772003 said:


> Actually the Swiss and German public transport systems reach everywhere within Switzerland and Germany often with hourly frequencies. Public buses in Spain and Greece do get you to remote beaches in Spain and Greece during the hours when most normal people would like to enjoy the sun and the sea. Try driving your all terrain car up in the mountains :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would you mind explaining to HIM and to ME what is a "remote beach" in Spain ??? :cheers:


Most places where there's actually SAND have a LARGE BUS station in (at most) 1000m boundary. :bash:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> I did not support GM bailout as much as I didn't support Alitalia bailout and Trenitalia "revamp" with taxpayer money.
> 
> I do not believe in conspirations, like the one that GM "destroyed" public transport systems in US. If they legally bought such companies, then private, and decided for greater shareholder profit to shut them down, and did it according to the laws of that time, there is nothing to punish those companies about. Remember: back then, oil cost US$ 3 per barrel, and electricity far more than today.
> 
> This is other discussion better left to the City Issues subforum: how dismantling crap transit systems opened the way for the realization of the American dream of a suburban house with a car in its garage.


Greedy corporations ultimatelly FAIL 



GM is a very good example of one company who had everything to suceed but instead choose the down-to-the-depths-of-hell methods ... :lol:


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> If someone doesn't want to have a driver's license, it is their option, but when I was 16 there was no way I could drive, yet I still paid all the taxes, directly (VAT on college prep books and games) or indirectly.


What the hell are you trying to say exactly?

Driving is a choice, not some "God-given" human rights covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You do have the rights to choose to drive. You think that people do not get your message. We do actually; we see that you would kill to drive.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

K_ said:


> These next-generation drive-by-wire cars have been on the horizon for how many decades now?


On the other hand, driverless subway/metro cars are in operations now


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Teenagers might be more restless because they are beings under development, to say so, but at age 15 most of them already have the biological skills needed to operate a car.


It's not the biological skills that bother me, its their psychological skills. And they are closely connnected to their personal development right at this age.


Btw.: If you so mad about individual traffic (=driving), why do you want rail to fail? So taht the additional cars gridlock your loved roads?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I don't want railways to fail, I want they to suceed under a for-profit, unregulated framework like airlines. Let them compete and cut each other (companies') throats to death, and see market equilibrium and the hidden hand operating at full force over tracks, to the extent it is possible.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't want railways to fail, I want they to suceed under a for-profit, unregulated framework like airlines. Let them compete and cut each other (companies') throats to death, and see market equilibrium and the hidden hand operating at full force over tracks, to the extent it is possible.


In fact, the railroad industry is not as regulated as it seems and the airline industry is not as deregulated as it seems. On the other hand, airlines actually did not get passengers to the destinations they wanted to go with the the frequencies they desired before the deregulation while railways today in Western Europe and selected Asian countries bring passengers to their destinations with shuttle frequencies. DB, Thalys, Eurostar, Renfe, SNCF, Trenitalia and the rail operators in the UK are managing their capacities with "airline-style" capacity, revenue and yield management on all of their intercity routes.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't want railways to fail, I want they to suceed under a for-profit, unregulated framework like airlines. Let them compete and cut each other (companies') throats to death, and see market equilibrium and the hidden hand operating at full force over tracks, to the extent it is possible.


You want railways to succeed for the fat-cat share holders, i.e. fail for the people.

Markets are always self-distoring when completely left to their own devices.

As for why it's naive to think railways can be run like Tesco's supermarkets, I might as well have been banging my head against a brick wall.

*How do you coordinate train paths when you allow private companies to do what they wish?*


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

*Hey Suburbanist, looky here*










Looks like these people would appreciate some of your expertise:laugh:

The picture was taken recently at Dongguan Station, China. The station master was subsequently canned for allowing passengers to be boarded in this rather, ah, "direct" manner.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

NCT said:


> You want railways to succeed for the fat-cat share holders, i.e. fail for the people.
> 
> Markets are always self-distoring when completely left to their own devices.
> 
> ...


As the track managment authority, you do the following:

1. Establish a short-term cycle (120, 180 days) to reorganize all traffic rights.

2. Request companies to submit their service plans, individually.

3. Competitive put slots for bid, dinamically, so companies can pay to have the traffic rights where there is more demand than track or station capacity. Dinamic bidding is used frequently in allocation of airwave rights, where intracompany coordination is important.

4. In slots where there is no excessive demand, only the track fee would be charged, in slots that are "overbooked", companies would outbid one another for the traffic rights.

I don't think train services from different companies have to be, necessarily, coordinated. Airlines or airlines' alliances don't coordinate their flights when competing directly. Indeed, they schedule their competing flights to undercut demand for other airlines.

Bear in mind that regional privatization is nothing what I have in mind: giving a company "x" rights to operate a pre-defined schedule with pre-defined rolling stock is not real private competition, but indeed some private contract for public services.

If there is no demand, I really don't care that some people travelling by train in odd routes between unusual origin/destination points couldn't have a way to travel fast. It is makert, and they can always get into their cars if they want to.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> If there is no demand, I really don't care that some people travelling by train in odd routes between unusual origin/destination points couldn't have a way to travel fast. It is makert, and they can always get into their cars if they want to.


They can always get in to their cars. That assumes everybody has a car. It also assumes as a given that you compete against the marginal utility of a car. However, if you provide a service that can completely _replace_ a car you can charge a lot more money for it. You said you wanted profits? Well, SBB is profitable. Trenitalia isn't...

Another problem with your proposal is that you forget that coordinating rail services has high positive externalities. It might be better for a company to schedule it's service a few minutes before that of a competitor (in the short run at least), however, for society as a whole more services spread over a larger part of the day has a higher utility. This will however not necessarily happen by itself. Because often externalities are not easily internalised an efficient solution not always arises if you leave things solely to the market.
It is quite possible for a company to be profitable and at the same time make us all less well off...
Integration of long distance services in regional services is also often needed to make the service profitable. I don't think the Basel - Köln ICE service would be profitable if one was banned from using it for going grom Basel to Freiburg. However try implementing yield management on what is essentially a local trip. Another example are the Zürich - Paris TGVs that also take commuters from Zürich to Basel. If they didn't they would never have gotten a fast path from Zürich to Basel...


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't think train services from different companies have to be, necessarily, coordinated. Airlines or airlines' alliances don't coordinate their flights when competing directly. Indeed, they schedule their competing flights to undercut demand for other airlines.


There's something called *paths*. If the paths are not coordinated then the line cannot be used to its full capacity. 



> Bear in mind that regional privatization is nothing what I have in mind: giving a company "x" rights to operate a pre-defined schedule with pre-defined rolling stock is not real private competition, but indeed some private contract for public services.
> 
> If there is no demand, I really don't care that some people travelling by train in odd routes between unusual origin/destination points couldn't have a way to travel fast. It is makert, and they can always get into their cars if they want to.


Lines in Europe frequently ARE saturated, by natural demand not artificial oversupply. We've just proven 'real private competition' does NOT lead to the most efficient use of resources, what why do you go on defending it?


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Another side-effect: If you establish short-term bidding cycles for pathes, you take long- and even middle-term planning security from all companies. As a result, they will invest as little as possible because they're constantly on the risk to loose their income when being overbid or - probably in most cases - won't enter such a risky system at all. And in the end you're worse off than before, sitting in an overpriced and crappy train without dcent service.
Keep in mind that there's a difference between buying some computers for your web-based company and buying and maintaining full train sets, employ skilled workers and provide the infrastructure needed to sell your tickets.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> ...
> 
> I don't think train services from different companies have to be, necessarily, coordinated. Airlines or airlines' alliances don't coordinate their flights when competing directly. Indeed, they schedule their competing flights to undercut demand for other airlines.
> 
> ...


Don´t make up nonsense about airline scheduling because what you said does not reflect how the reality works.

Many people do not want to have their own cars and frankly they cannot care less what kind of hell car owners are in. 

We live in the imperfect market everywhere. If you will kill to drive, you will make car ownership work for you in the imperfect market. Cars also distort the "market" dynamics, do not bother for a moment to tell us that cars are the natural order of things in the "market."


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

K_ said:


> They can always get in to their cars. That assumes everybody has a car. It also assumes as a given that you compete against the marginal utility of a car. However, if you provide a service that can completely _replace_ a car you can charge a lot more money for it. You said you wanted profits? Well, SBB is profitable. Trenitalia isn't...
> 
> Another problem with your proposal is that you forget that coordinating rail services has high positive externalities. It might be better for a company to schedule it's service a few minutes before that of a competitor (in the short run at least), however, for society as a whole more services spread over a larger part of the day has a higher utility. This will however not necessarily happen by itself. Because often externalities are not easily internalised an efficient solution not always arises if you leave things solely to the market.
> It is quite possible for a company to be profitable and at the same time make us all less well off...
> Integration of long distance services in regional services is also often needed to make the service profitable. I don't think the Basel - Köln ICE service would be profitable if one was banned from using it for going grom Basel to Freiburg. However try implementing yield management on what is essentially a local trip. Another example are the Zürich - Paris TGVs that also take commuters from Zürich to Basel. If they didn't they would never have gotten a fast path from Zürich to Basel...


Competitors coordinated schedules amount to oligopoly power. I'm for-profit as much as I'm for competition, the kind that kills companies here and there and brings stifly cost controls and price wars, ultimately bringing benefit to costumers.

Coordinating trains from different competitors with the goal of making reasonably possible to live without a car is a lock-in strategy contraty to free market principles and that couldn't happen without anti-trust exemptions (which national coordinated contracted private services ammount to).


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

aab7772003 said:


> Don´t make up nonsense about airline scheduling because what you said does not reflect how the reality works.
> 
> Many people do not want to have their own cars and frankly they cannot care less what kind of hell car owners are in.
> 
> We live in the imperfect market everywhere. If you will kill to drive, you will make car ownership work for you in the imperfect market. Cars also distort the "market" dynamics, do not bother for a moment to tell us that cars are the natural order of things in the "market."


Self-selection again: people living without cars usually come from the same well-defined and small demographic groups, and tend to exaggerate their perception of reality.

In EU-15, more than 85% of houlseholds have at least one car. Then you have 15% of too poor households, too incapacitated, illegal immigrants who cannot buy cars and all the yupster living in ultra-dense megacities who, as you said, don't mind to have a car.

Now, please, in a context where cars and drivers are paying cost in-par with their direct costs like road expansion and maitenance, health insurance equivalent to injuries and deaths in crashes etc. (don't come with "impact on livable streets and neighborhood retailing", as nobody is entitled to claim others patronage or errands on their streets), how would car drivers being there distorting the market?

The only real issue with car ownership is the sunken costs, as most driving costs are incurred in advance and are relatively fixed regardless of amount driven or individual trip decision (insurance, license tax, monthly payments). Some countries are working on this issue, like road taxes charged according to time and place and distance driving by menas of a comprehensive GPS "blind" monitoring, like the The Netherlands.

Markets are not perfect, but medium and long distance passenger trains service is not or should be not, for the sake of free market principles, treated as something absolutelly essential like it were proper disposition of nuclear waste, fire protection services, garbage collection, ambullance service and so on. It is a public non-essential service, contrary to road transport.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Self-selection again: people living without cars usually come from the same well-defined and small demographic groups, and tend to exaggerate their perception of reality.


The same can be said about hardcore motorists.



Suburbanist said:


> In EU-15, more than 85% of houlseholds have at least one car. Then you have 15% of too poor households, too incapacitated, illegal immigrants who cannot buy cars and all the yupster living in ultra-dense megacities who, as you said, don't mind to have a car.


"Households." Misinterpretation alarm! "Households" range from 1-person households in northern European cities to 10-member households in southern European surburbs. Many 1-person households in northern European cities choose not to have cars; many of such households are not financially struggling immigrants.




Suburbanist said:


> Now, please, in a context where cars and drivers are paying cost in-par with their direct costs like road expansion and maitenance, health insurance equivalent to injuries and deaths in crashes etc. (don't come with "impact on livable streets and neighborhood retailing", as nobody is entitled to claim others patronage or errands on their streets), how would car drivers being there distorting the market?
> 
> ...
> 
> Markets are not perfect, but medium and long distance passenger trains service is not or should be not, for the sake of free market principles, treated as something absolutelly essential like it were proper disposition of nuclear waste, fire protection services, garbage collection, ambullance service and so on. It is a public non-essential service, contrary to road transport.



Isn´t long distance driving really just a luxury as well, according to the twisted logics you have been using on long-distance rail travel? In Europe, it is more likely that drivers drive long distance on holidays. 

By the way, it is indisputable that your English skills are very much left to be desired with numerous misspells and misuse of words. It is very hard to take someone struggling with flawed logics and imperfect command of a language seriously.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

thun said:


> Another side-effect: If you establish short-term bidding cycles for pathes, you take long- and even middle-term planning security from all companies. As a result, they will invest as little as possible because they're constantly on the risk to loose their income when being overbid or - probably in most cases - won't enter such a risky system at all. And in the end you're worse off than before, sitting in an overpriced and crappy train without dcent service.
> Keep in mind that there's a difference between buying some computers for your web-based company and buying and maintaining full train sets, employ skilled workers and provide the infrastructure needed to sell your tickets.


In all cases, as one can read from my earlier posts in this thread, I favor a public agency taking the role as owner of the tracks and stations.

Rolling stock is surely expensive, but is also very interchangeable, like aircrafts. Therefore, major asset leasing companies would rise on the market of buying dozens or hundreds of rolling stock units from major suppliers, then leasing them to different trains companies who could then rent (instead of only having the feasible option of buying it) according to their needs. You can increase the bidding cycles too and rely mostly on automatick ticket selling - there is no rational need for dozens of staffed counters to sell train tickets in the 2.0 e-commerce age.


----------



## aab7772003 (Apr 10, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> ...
> Rolling stock is surely expensive, but is also very interchangeable, like aircrafts. Therefore, major asset leasing companies would rise on the market of buying dozens or hundreds of rolling stock units from major suppliers, then leasing them to different trains companies who could then rent (instead of only having the feasible option of buying it) according to their needs. You can increase the bidding cycles too and rely mostly on automatick ticket selling - there is no rational need for dozens of staffed counters to sell train tickets in the 2.0 e-commerce age.


Saying rolling stocks are as "interchangeable" as commercial jetliners are is like saying huge American SUVs made for the US roads can navigate in Japan just fine. 

Rail operators sure understand 2.0 e-commerce much better than you do. For example DB has been cutting ticket sales agents and adding automated ticket machines for years. DB has overhauled its website and online ticket service once again this year. When you buy a ticket from a real DB ticket agent or have your ticket mailed to you, you pay a service fee. 

There are a myriad of reasons why real ticket agents are still needed. For example, Trenitalia is notorious for rejecting credit cards issued outside the EU on its website and through its automated ticket machines.

By the way, car drivers who cannot even properly walk with their own feet can be "re-educated" to use public transport.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

trainrover said:


> The French which, eh? Eliminating the margin of error shall probably proove to bite no matter whomever really HARD in the ass.


You don't measure margin of error of fast trains with full in-cab signaling based on time, but rather based on braking distance, wither using block signals with PTC or the more modern dynamic signaling.

A high-speed train can come to a halt from 300km/h in less than 70 seconds under emergency stop protocols with safety (though a bit of discomfort for passengers). You don't need more than that as a safety margin, you don't want to have the train ddriver deciding whether to stop or not, you want a system that detects a faulty/broken/crashed train or railway with intrusion of foreign object and then suddenly deploys emergency stop activation in your trains in milliseconds.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

So many clawbacks being reported are enough to make wonder whether redundancy is no longer devised. Although I haven't done the arithmetic, a 6' headway at great speed strikes me as pushing the braking distance should operations go awry, let alone a 1' one.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

trainrover said:


> So many clawbacks being reported are enough to make wonder whether redundancy is no longer devised. Although I haven't done the arithmetic, a 6' headway at great speed strikes me as pushing the braking distance should operations go awry, let alone a 1' one.


Well, maybe it's time for some arithmetic then.

3' at 360kph means 18km between trains. The normal stopping distance at that speed is about 9 km. So there is still quite a bit of safety margin there.

If you want to reduce headways to 2', you reduce train separation to 12km. That means that your safety margin gets reduced. There are two things you now need to do:
- Shorten your stopping distance. That can be done using eddy current brakes. 
- Improve the signalling. That is what ETCS is for. 2' headways at 200kph are already in daily use. The LGV from Paris to Lyon uses 4 minutes as minimum headway, using a system that was originally designed for 5', and will go to 3' soon. It might even go to 2' as this is probably going to be a lot cheaper than building an additional LGV...

So 6' is being very prudent...


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Note that off-peak the headways are easy to keep. The xx:30 express train leaves Taibei 6 minutes before the xx:36 milk train, and never approaches. Since it is 24 minutes faster than the xx:00 milk train, it reaches Zuoying 6 minutes after the xx:00 milk train.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

trainrover said:


> So many clawbacks being reported are enough to make wonder whether redundancy is no longer devised. Although I haven't done the arithmetic, a 6' headway at great speed strikes me as pushing the braking distance should operations go awry, let alone a 1' one.


You have the whole concept back to front. Braking distance is a distance in space. Headway is a distance in time. They are not the same thing. Signalling systems separate trains by the necessary distance in space, not time. The headway is something that is an output after the safety of the system has been guaranteed.

Breaking characteristics > Signal block length > then at this point we can go back a calculate minimum headway.

Rather than sticking with a misapprehension, there are lots of sources on the web help understand how signalling systems function.


----------



## Silver Swordsman (Nov 8, 2011)

Implementing a new system will obviously cost manpower, time and money. Right now, in Taiwan, there simply isn't a need to ramp up frequency that much. Not saying that it can't, but right now, I don't think it's a feasible thing to do business-wise. Just because you _can_ doesn't mean you _should_. However, there are recent reports that THSR plans to ramp up the number of services to over 200 per day... so I guess that will definitely mean higher frequencies. (200 trains north and south over 18hrs)


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Silver Swordsman said:


> Implementing a new system will obviously cost manpower, time and money. Right now, in Taiwan, there simply isn't a need to ramp up frequency that much. Not saying that it can't, but right now, I don't think it's a feasible thing to do business-wise.


The THSR trainsets are now all (30 existing, 4 under construction) 12 cars each.

Would it be useful to add smaller trains, e. g. 8 car trains, to THSR so as to increase frequencies without excessive cost?


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Good, sounds better  I imagined the distance between HSTs running at full speed much less than 12Km.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Note that off-peak the headways are easy to keep. The xx:30 express train leaves Taibei 6 minutes before the xx:36 milk train, and never approaches. Since it is 24 minutes faster than the xx:00 milk train, it reaches Zuoying 6 minutes after the xx:00 milk train.


In this case it makes sense. However they could use the extra 6 minutes to maybe add in another stop on the milk train. I don't know if the times of other trains in Taibei and Zuoying are coordinated with those on the high speed line.

On the Swiss network the departure times of trains are coordinated at the major hubs, and for that reason trains are run as closely as possible on the high speed line from Bern to Olten (with 2' headways), even though with six trains per hour they could spread them out more.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

11 Dec 2012







:
_Proposed railway service penalties unnnecessary, CN Rail, CP Rail chiefs argue _​
:sly:


----------



## Silver Swordsman (Nov 8, 2011)

chornedsnorkack said:


> The THSR trainsets are now all (30 existing, 4 under construction) 12 cars each.
> 
> Would it be useful to add smaller trains, e. g. 8 car trains, to THSR so as to increase frequencies without excessive cost?


I've thought about that as well, but it seems that because the 700T is an EMU, rearranging trainsets is difficult. If they want 8car consists, they're going to need a completely new different trainset. 

I think, for now, Taiwanese peeps still see trains as "trains" with a timetable, instead of a fast metro service (with insane frequency.)


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

^^
It's also helpful to have consistent train lengths when the occasional cancelled service (due to breakdown, accident, etc.) needs to be replaced with a spare trainset- you can provide seating for all passengers with reserved tickets who were scheduled to be on the cancelled service. This is one reason why JR Central only runs 16 car trains on the Tokaido Shinkansen.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

radamfi said:


> The UK is of course the place to go if you want to see peak pricing, and it isn't pretty. It can be more than four times as expensive to travel at peak times. On certain long distance routes, peak travel is only affordable for rich businessmen and celebrities. Some companies do not allow employees to travel on peak hour trains unless they get a cheaper advance purchase ticket.
> 
> In the evening peak, the first train after the peak if often overcrowded and the last peak train can be empty.
> 
> To give you some idea, London to Manchester return can be as much as 329 GBP but off-peak it is 81.60 GBP return (walk on). Advance purchase singles can be less than 20 GBP.


I still say that this kind of pricing is what forces people to turn to other modes over the train. Flat fees are still best in my opinion. The UK is an example of yield management gone absolutely mad. Give me Japanese style TUAG any day.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

radamfi said:


> The UK is of course the place to go if you want to see peak pricing, and it isn't pretty. It can be more than four times as expensive to travel at peak times. On certain long distance routes, peak travel is only affordable for rich businessmen and celebrities. *Some companies do not allow employees to travel on peak hour trains unless they get a cheaper advance purchase ticket.*


So it seems to be working then.


----------



## radamfi (Aug 7, 2008)

K_ said:


> So it seems to be working then.


But if the meeting overruns, you have to pay top price for a new ticket, and then have to explain the cost when you claim your expenses. Some companies time meetings so that people don't have to travel in peak time. People also stay in hotels to avoid peak hour. Obviously lots drive rather than pay for peak train fares.

Another problem is that people don't know when the peak time is at it varies by route, or even by destination on the same route. So some people pay too much to be safe, or get surcharged because they have the wrong ticket. The good thing about the Dutch system is that it works out the right fare for you automatically.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Guys there is no way around it. Either you incentive non peak travel to smooth demand over the day or you deal with humongous fixed cost assets idling more during non peak time


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

radamfi said:


> But if the meeting overruns, you have to pay top price for a new ticket, and then have to explain the cost when you claim your expenses.


So don't let the meeting overrun then. 

Really: This is all of economics in one sentence:
"people react to incentives".


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

All forms of peak travel extract a cost somehow from travelers. Highways get congested (you pay in time). Urban transportation gets very crowded (you pay in discomfort).


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> All forms of peak travel extract a cost somehow from travelers. Highways get congested (you pay in time). Urban transportation gets very crowded (you pay in discomfort).


No different to the crowded regional trains described above, then. I'd rather have them crowded at peak than institute the stupidity that is yield management. I know many people advocate it, but I lived in the UK with this madness, and now I live in Sweden with this madness. It just puts me off travelling, ever. It doesn't result in a better travel experience at all in my mind, it only benefits the rail operator, not consumers.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> No different to the crowded regional trains described above, then. I'd rather have them crowded at peak than institute the stupidity that is yield management. I know many people advocate it, but I lived in the UK with this madness, and now I live in Sweden with this madness. It just puts me off travelling, ever. It doesn't result in a better travel experience at all in my mind, it only benefits the rail operator, not consumers.


The point you miss is that crowded trains are also slower trains. They take longer to cycle through stations. If they are really crowded, then people boarding at intermediate stations cannot board and need to wait for other train or just give up travelling. This is really bad policy. 

As I said, Netherlands already has a quite hefty surcharge to travel at peak times, in practice. The only difference it that it is disguised as a "discount for off-peak travel" and then many people buy the spin though maths doesn't lie.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> I just fly abroad rather than travel in Sweden as the yield management on the trains makes taking them to go to Gothenburg more expensive than taking a last minute flight to go to London, and I sure as hell would rather go to Lonon than Gothenburg.


You know that the only reason you can get a cheap last minute ticket for London is that the airlines practive yield management... 

Anyway, I see that a last minute ticket for Stockholm - Göteborg would cost 82,- EUR. 97,- if I want a rebookable one. I do not find that excessively expensive. 
No you tell me where I can get a plane ticket for London for departure in the next few hours for the same price...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> The fact is, though, that at the weekend a family can jump into the car and go on a trip. A family will struggle to be able to take that same trip by train due to the extreme price fluctuations. They'll just end up taking the car, heck I would (if Sweden wasn't retarded on their driving laws).
> .


Of course people vastle underestimate what it costs to get somewhere by car. 

And you also seem te forget something: The railway doesn't need to be appealing to everybody. Some people are stupid enough to keep using their cars for everything matter what.

And I would like to know what family that is that manages to go somewhere on a weekend on the spur of the moment without any advance planning...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Ryanair last minute flights can be cheaper to London, for example, than the Gothenburg rail example I gave.



You are claiming that it is possible to go to an airport, go to a ticket desk there, and get a ticket to some destination, departure within a few hours, for less than 92,- euro?

I don't believe you. Show me the proof.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

K_ said:


> You know that the only reason you can get a cheap last minute ticket for London is that the airlines practive yield management...
> 
> Anyway, I see that a last minute ticket for Stockholm - Göteborg would cost 82,- EUR. 97,- if I want a rebookable one. I do not find that excessively expensive.
> No you tell me where I can get a plane ticket for London for departure in the next few hours for the same price...


Yes, but with airlines there is a LOT more competition. With trains you have much more of a monopoly in most cases so it doesn't work in the same way to lower prices. Something that works for one mode does not necessarily work for others. I don't mind yield management so much when there are so many choices like there is for air travel. 

To answer your question about walk up fares, yes. I prefer having a fixed price walk up fare, though it doesn't always happen to be "more expensive". Again I point to Japan where, unless you're using the premium services that carry a surcharge, the fares are quite reasonable and wholly calculated by km. Further away you go, more you pay. 

To try to answer your question about prices between air and rail, I cannot book today now as it is too late in the day. I would book Friday as that is when I know so yes, not a "few hours" before, but definitely a day before you can get it cheaper than the rail fare. I use momondo.se for the airfares so have a play yourself. Flights to the UK next day can be as low as 70-80 euros even, which is very reasonable given I can get to London faster than I can get to Gothenburg and, like I said, it's London, not Gothenburg so far much better to visit too. 

And as for going away for the weekend without planning, well, we used to do it all the time when I was younger, jump in the car and go off to the countryside or out for the day or perhaps down to London by train as we were only an hour away, and my wife and I do try to do the same now. I have a very "last minute" lifestyle unfortunately due to experiments that can sometimes terminate at odd hours or require me to work weekends, so unless it's a full holiday booked ages and ages in advance (like a trip back home to NZ for me, for example) I have to book quite close to dates as I never know if I can go somewhere or not. 

One thing I can answer is about the car rental. I cannot rent a car now for today, so I've used Monday as an example for my wife and I to travel. I chose Linköping as the city as that is a daytrip distance and a place I would actually go to from Stockholm in a day. True it's not 50km as that was an exaggeration (and actually at 50km you'd still be within the city of Stockholm as it sprawls that far. Here we go:





And then you have the flexibility of having a car too. Plus as you note, I even added all extra protections to the car too.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Also, is Germany really truly yield managed these days? I didn't realise that they got rid of flat fares as I was sure they kept them for most things except for offering an advance booking reduction, the fare doesn't increase incrementally unless I am wrong, so you still know how much your fare would be even if you did not book the advance ticket


Germany is like Sweden. There is a normal, walk up fare that is always available.
And there are advance pruchase fares that are cheaper, and that become more expensive as you get close to the time of departure.

Take for example Dortmund - Berlin. A distance comparable to Stockholm - Göteborg. Walk up fare for the fastest trains is 98,- So for comparable trains you see comparable prices. DB is a bit more expensive than SJ though.
The cheapest SJ offers on Göteburg - Stockholm is 20,- EUR. Firstly this does not support your claim that the price difference between cheapest and most expensive tickets is tenfold, as it clearly isn't...
The cheapest DB offers is 29,-

So it would appear that both companies fare policies aren't that much different.

I btw, always try to take advantage of cheap advance fares. For example: Basel to Belgium for 119,- in 1st class. Without yield management offering fares like that would not be possible. 



> Also, I don't operate my own car, I would rent rather than take the train because it is a LOT cheaper most of the time at least in Sweden. This means, in my mind, yield management is being done wrong.


I would like to see some numbers to back this. I don't believe that renting a car can be cheaper than even a walk up train fare.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

But you assume that walk up fares are fixed in Sweden. They are not, they jump all over the place so it is almost impossible to ascertain a fixed price. 

You can get fares as low as 195kr one way to Malmö for advanced fares. If I book today I can see fares as high as 1135kr because the others are sold out for today. Not quite 10 times but 5.8 times on this example at least. 

Anyway, I am going to move this discussion to the yield managed discussion.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> To answer your question about walk up fares, yes. I prefer having a fixed price walk up fare, though it doesn't always happen to be "more expensive". Again I point to Japan where, unless you're using the premium services that carry a surcharge, the fares are quite reasonable and wholly calculated by km. Further away you go, more you pay.


A quick check shows me that the fares in Japan are comparable to the walk-up fares in Germany or Sweden for similar distances. If you consider these prices reasonable, what are you complaining about?



> To try to answer your question about prices between air and rail, I cannot book today now as it is too late in the day. I would book Friday as that is when I know so yes, not a "few hours" before, but definitely a day before you can get it cheaper than the rail fare. I use momondo.se for the airfares so have a play yourself. Flights to the UK next day can be as low as 70-80 euros even, which is very reasonable given I can get to London faster than I can get to Gothenburg and, like I said, it's London, not Gothenburg so far much better to visit too.


You're again comparing apples to oranges. Yes. you can get cheap fares on the day before. But the same again applies to rail. I'm still seeing a lot of discounted tickes for tomorrow on SJ trains for example. You can easily save 50% or more by just booking one day in advance. I wish DB would do this too.



> ... I have a very "last minute" lifestyle unfortunately due to experiments that can sometimes terminate at odd hours or require me to work weekends,...


That is of course your choice.



> One thing I can answer is about the car rental. I cannot rent a car now for today, so I've used Monday as an example for my wife and I to travel. I chose Linköping as the city as that is a daytrip distance and a place I would actually go to from Stockholm in a day. True it's not 50km as that was an exaggeration (and actually at 50km you'd still be within the city of Stockholm as it sprawls that far. Here we go:


Interesting. So you car will cost you 78,- euro. Add about 50,- for fuel and tolls. I'll leave parking out. (I didn't pay attention to parking prices when I was in Linköping, as I waas by train). 
So that is 128,- for the two of you.
The train tickets you show come to 137,- Euro. 
So it's not that much different. Especially given that the train is significantly faster. If you are willing to travel at car speeds you can take an SJ Regional train, which is significantly cheaper, and still faster then a car.
So again, what are you are really complaining about?




Svartmetall said:


> But you assume that walk up fares are fixed in Sweden. They are not, they jump all over the place so it is almost impossible to ascertain a fixed price.
> 
> You can get fares as low as 195kr one way to Malmö for advanced fares. If I book today I can see fares as high as 1135kr because the others are sold out for today. Not quite 10 times but 5.8 times on this example at least.


When I look up rpices I see that the 2nd class walk up fare for Stokholm to Malmö equals to 1194,- SEK for each departure. So they do not "jump all over the place". The discounted fares are indeed not the same for each departure. But that is yield management.
And you can go for half that if you are willing to settle for a slightly slower train. If only we had this in Switzerland...
My impression is that, yes, walkup fares are fixed, you can dus know in advance what last moment travel will cost.


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

Switzerland actually is not that great for those on a limited budget. If you don't own your own car then traveling across the country is going to be pretty expensive. Supersaver tickets help a bit (need luck) and if you plan a lot in advance gemeinde tageskarte might be the cheapest way, but that's about it. No cheap buses here...


----------



## webeagle12 (Oct 1, 2007)

Sunfuns said:


> Switzerland actually is not that great for those on a limited budget. If you don't own your own car then traveling across the country is going to be pretty expensive. Supersaver tickets help a bit (need luck) and if you plan a lot in advance gemeinde tageskarte might be the cheapest way, but that's about it. No cheap buses here...


Actually you can buy unlimited travel for year card or 1/2 yearly card.


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

webeagle12 said:


> Actually you can buy unlimited travel for year card or 1/2 yearly card.


Yes, you can buy GA card but the current price is 3655 chf. Only pays off if you need it for commuting to work or if you travel for some reason from one corner to another at least twice a month.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

K_ said:


> A quick check shows me that the fares in Japan are comparable to the walk-up fares in Germany or Sweden for similar distances. If you consider these prices reasonable, what are you complaining about?


Really? You think? An example here for walk up fares. Tokyo to Utsunomiya - 132km = 14 euros = 0.106 euros / km.
Stockholm - Norrköping - 162km = 24 euros = 0.146 euros / km 

No, they're cheaper and they are fixed prices so they are very scalable in Japan - and this, by the way, was taking JR - there is another company that goes to Utsunomiya called Tobu, and they are cheaper again at 8.90 euros for the journey from Tokyo to Utsunomiya. Dunno if you have been there or not, but most assuredly the trains are cheaper than here.



K_ said:


> You're again comparing apples to oranges. Yes. you can get cheap fares on the day before. But the same again applies to rail. I'm still seeing a lot of discounted tickes for tomorrow on SJ trains for example. You can easily save 50% or more by just booking one day in advance. I wish DB would do this too.


You do not save that amount at all! Additionally, you do NOT live here and you do NOT take the system. I am sorry, but if you had to live with our rail system you'd too resent paying anything over peanuts for it. I cannot search for same day departures right now as we're out of trains, but I will do so tomorrow to compare just in case you really do save that magical "50% by booking the next day". 

Also, I was comparing apples with apples - flight booking next day vs. train booking next day. Tried both, gave up on travelling in this hole and went for travelling abroad instead. 




K_ said:


> That is of course your choice.


No, that is the realities of life. Your life cannot fit around a yield managed railway. It is not about choice it is about having flexibility of travel and you do not have it if you are constantly having shifting fares. I would rather settle for a fixed fare that is lower than the walk up price we have constantly than have the chance to "bag a bargain". But, as evidenced from your support, the "must get a bargain" psychology works very well on the masses. 



K_ said:


> Interesting. So you car will cost you 78,- euro. Add about 50,- for fuel and tolls. I'll leave parking out. (I didn't pay attention to parking prices when I was in Linköping, as I waas by train).
> So that is 128,- for the two of you.
> The train tickets you show come to 137,- Euro.
> So it's not that much different. Especially given that the train is significantly faster. If you are willing to travel at car speeds you can take an SJ Regional train, which is significantly cheaper, and still faster then a car.
> So again, what are you are really complaining about?


Car = flexible. Car = far more comfortable and car definitely with the Swedish joke of a rail system = more reliable. I will, if I can avoid it, never take a train in this sorry excuse for a country again. Each time there have been delays, cancellations, poor customer service and dilapidated, old and smelly trains. If this is what our crazy fare system pays for then they can keep it. 

Anyway, if you think this is just "complaining" as you put it, fine. You like the yield managed systems, I don't. I think we reach an impasse and there is little point in discussing further. 

Out of interest, you live in Switzerland, right? Yeah, you're at least lucky to have a clean, punctual and decent railway system that justifies its high fares. Us, not so much.


----------



## radamfi (Aug 7, 2008)

In the above comparisons, are we using the BahnCard 50 or Swiss Half Fare Card? if so, I suspect German and even Swiss walk up fares would be look reasonably priced.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Really? You think? An example here for walk up fares. Tokyo to Utsunomiya - 132km = 14 euros = 0.106 euros / km.
> Stockholm - Norrköping - 162km = 24 euros = 0.146 euros / km


According to jorudan.co.jp the distance from Tokyo to Utsunomiya is 109 km. 
The train takes two hours and costs indeed 14 euro. That's 0,12 euros /km.

On Stockholm - Norrköping the SJ regional trains on that route are a lot faster than on the Japanes route you compared it with. And they are indeed a bit more expensive, but not a lot. 



> You do not save that amount at all! Additionally, you do NOT live here and you do NOT take the system. I am sorry, but if you had to live with our rail system you'd too resent paying anything over peanuts for it.


It is true I do not live there. But that allows me to be a bit more objective though. Do you actually realise what you are complaining about. You're basicaly complaining the SJ allows other people to take the train for less than you end up paying. 

I've pulled up quite a few figures so far, and all I can see is that walk up fares in Sweden are not that more expensive than walk up fares elsewhere in North-Western Europe. 163 km on the NS network will cost you 22,- In Belgium 21,20. 
Don't forget, that in your example (Stockholm - Norrköping) even the slower regional trains are still faster than an NS or NMBS intercity...

So if you were willing to live with a fare structure like NS or NMBS offers, than you do have that option. You can just ignore the bargain prices.



> No, that is the realities of life. Your life cannot fit around a yield managed railway. It is not about choice it is about having flexibility of travel and you do not have it if you are constantly having shifting fares. I would rather settle for a fixed fare that is lower than the walk up price we have constantly than have the chance to "bag a bargain". But, as evidenced from your support, the "must get a bargain" psychology works very well on the masses.


You would rather have a fixed price that is lower thatn the current walk up fare. I understand that. But your preferred option isn't always on the table. That is also the reality of life.

In the US the railways were not allowed to set their own fares. It is one of the things that killed them.
I would rather see railways thrive then see them wither away.



> Out of interest, you live in Switzerland, right? Yeah, you're at least lucky to have a clean, punctual and decent railway system that justifies its high fares. Us, not so much.


The trains in Switzerland are great. If you're rich. Poor people actually can't afford to take the train here, and there is no alternative for them. (Well there wasn't, until SBB started offering supersaver fares)
Zürich - Bern will cost you 50,- CHF. Or 45,- euro. And that is for a distance of 132 km...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

radamfi said:


> In the above comparisons, are we using the BahnCard 50 or Swiss Half Fare Card? if so, I suspect German and even Swiss walk up fares would be look reasonably priced.


Recently SBB started offering supersaver fares. What I now see is that a lot of people that don't travel by train a lot no longer buy the Half Fare Card, and get supersaver tickets in stead.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Of course they are faster in Sweden. There is nothing in this wasteland so they have few stops, 5ake a look at Utsunomiya line and tell me how many stops there are there by comparison, it is an incredibly dense part of the country. Plus the trains are way more frequent, way more reliable, cleaner and generally better than the junk we have here. Same of course for the Swiss rail system. Dutch I cannot comment on as I have not used it. Anyway, I won'the argue any more. I will just vote with my feet and simply not take this shockingly 3rd world rail system. At least when I have taken trains elsewhere and had to buy last minute fares I have felt I got my money's worth.


----------



## radamfi (Aug 7, 2008)

K_ said:


> 163 km on the NS network will cost you 22,- In Belgium 21,20.


But the NS fare would be 40% less than that in the off-peak if you have the discount card. The Belgian fare would be 7.60 with a RailPass, even in peak:

http://www.belgianrail.be/en/travel-tickets/passes-cards/rail-pass.aspx



K_ said:


> Zürich - Bern will cost you 50,- CHF. Or 45,- euro. And that is for a distance of 132 km...


But only 25 CHF with a Half Fare Card, valid in peak too. That's cheap given the cost of living and high wages.


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

Yield management sometimes has weird effects on prices. I recently booked a short trip in Italy (around 100 km) with a Frecciarossa AVT and booked the cheapest fares, at 13 and 9 Euros (I bought them very late). When I boarded, I discovered that the 13 Euro ticket was for premium class, and I even managed to get a complementary glass of Prosecco and a snack. I thought that was very good value. I also had this in Spain: Preferente class tickets ending up being just slightly more expensive than Turista class ones.


----------



## Sunfuns (Mar 26, 2012)

Italian HS train tickets are the cheapest in Europe (20 euros Rome-Naples last time I used) and Spanish ones aren't too bad either. With an advance purchase of course.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Of course they are faster in Sweden. There is nothing in this wasteland so they have few stops, 5ake a look at Utsunomiya line and tell me how many stops there are there by comparison, it is an incredibly dense part of the country. Plus the trains are way more frequent, way more reliable, cleaner and generally better than the junk we have here. Same of course for the Swiss rail system.


Of course the system is different. Sweden is a different country, and has thus different needs. My impression is that SJ has adapted itself to the different needs, and the different reality that Sweden is.
If you have a lower population density you need to have faster trains. But those faster trains are also more expensive to run. Running a good railway in a sparsely populate country is not trivial. SJ seems to be doing a rather good job.

I would not call it a 3d world system by any measure. For example: In Sweden you can still get food and drinks on intercity trains. Try to get that in the Netherlands...

A 3d world country railway system in a country like Sweden would mean: No trains at all.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Robi_damian said:


> Yield management sometimes has weird effects on prices. I recently booked a short trip in Italy (around 100 km) with a Frecciarossa AVT and booked the cheapest fares, at 13 and 9 Euros (I bought them very late). When I boarded, I discovered that the 13 Euro ticket was for premium class, and I even managed to get a complementary glass of Prosecco and a snack. I thought that was very good value. I also had this in Spain: Preferente class tickets ending up being just slightly more expensive than Turista class ones.


Indeed. I normally travel first class in Germany because when I book the 1st class Sparpreise are usually only like 10-15% more than the second class ones. The same I have ended up doing in Italy as well. I absolutely love the free coffee and tea you get on Scandinavian trains in 1st class, or indeed the complementary drinks you get in Italy.

This is exactly the way the system is supposed to work... Reward people that are willing to cooperate with making the system more efficient.


----------

