The Dutch Railways’ NS Hi-Speed brand has introduced a new train to the network: Fyra, which links Amsterdam central station and Schipol airport to Rotterdam, without going through The Hague as is usual for that segment. It uses the more direct, specially-equipped high-speed line that also enables the Paris-bound Thalys to ride at its top speed within Holland, as it does between France and Brussels.
NS just reported significant losses related to their high-speed operations. This Amsterdam-Rotterdam segment opened this winter after years of delay: they were talking about it in 1998 already as about to open, and trains aren’t delivered. Also, tuning difficulties are normal immediately after launch: late or canceled trains are to be expected for a few months. Perhaps it explains that no major marketing campaign has yet supported the launch of the new product.
But aside from those issues, Fyra has some pretty interesting usability flaws that might explain its apparent lack of success: pricing, frequency, and on-board experience.
Price as an element of usability
Any market research will tell you the same: people always think that products are too expensive, regardless of the price range (luxury products are perhaps the only exception). And one could certainly argue that the 2-euro supplement for the Amsterdam-Schiphol leg is not worth the gain of a couple of minutes over a regular direct train.
But on the Amsterdam-Rotterdam leg, at 20 minutes won on the usual hour-long journey, the gain is of more than 30%. On paper, the supplement of 7.40 euro (on a 13.50 euro ticket) might seem worth it, and I’m sure the NS performed thorough pricing analysis research that supports the price point.
However, an important issue here is the friction it creates: one can’t just board the train with a regular ticket, and the very existence of the supplement creates confusion around boarding.
On the NS’s awesome ticket machines, the very clean usability has been polluted by the supplement: it breaks the normal flow of decision, because taking the supplement or not isn’t actually a simple decision, as the user must evaluate the perception of value by looking at price (supplied), the expected time gain (not very clear, and not usually supplied by the machine), and the availability of a Fyra for their particular journey (not supplied).
When faced with a decision to spend extra money, insufficient supporting information will cause the consumer to refuse the charge, as a self-protection mechanism. When in doubt, abstain.
And planning ahead to pay only 10 euro? The incentive (a 3.50 euro saving on the regular price plus the 20-minute travel time gain) is probably not worth a radical change in planning habits people have. When you live in Amsterdam, you don’t plan a trip to Rotterdam, it’s just too close for that.
Regularity is key
The Dutch railway is an urban network, it bears more similarities to the metropolitan ones in Paris or New York, than to the French or German networks with their layers of local, inter-regional and national links. High-speed trains were designed in those countries for long-distance travel, and their economics are tough to replicate on a commuter network.
Fyra is scheduled at irregular times. I imagine the choice was based on an estimate of consumer demand and availability of high-speed trains, but scattered throughout the day, Fyra isn’t very attractive. The gain of time isn’t worth the added effort of finding out when the next one runs.
For commuters, there’s little incentive except for the most regular travelers, if you pay for your own transportation. A moderate time gain but only at certain times — that’s not extremely attractive.
Branding overkill
And while there was no formal product launch (that I’m aware of, and I travel on that segment), NS Hispeed did go through the trouble of heavily branding the service.
It starts with the name “Fyra,” which I actually find pretty cool. But they decided to use it as a creature name (i.e. “Thank you for traveling Fyra”), a grammatical annoyance and pretentious usage that I believe started with Thalys over a decade ago (thanks for both go to Globrands).
On board, branding is also strong, with special safety procedure cards and extra-long announcements that are probably not necessary for such short connections: this is little more than a long subway ride, after all!
What’s more, you can’t just hop on a Fyra: the conductors will not only charge you the regular supplement, but will add a penalty for not paying the fare. This discourages experimentation and will prevent people from getting to know (and, supposedly, want) the service.
On the balance
It seems NS Hispeed tried to launch a “train product” in the same way their European partnership Rail Team lauched Thalys or Eurostar. However, with only a marginal improvement on existing rides, I don’t think the assumptions on value perceptions were warranted.
Indeed, Eurostar simply didn’t exist before, and more than an alternative to air travel, it actually opened up London as a destination in a new way. Thalys, on the other hand, built on the reputation of high-speed trains in France, and on the expectation people have to travel fast on long distances (it actually still fails to deliver, with its ridiculously slow speed in Holland, but that is currently changing).
Fyra, though, on the Amsterdam-Rotterdam leg, competes with a metropolitan network, with a train every 15 minutes, and an extremely reliable service. Introducing a totally new service concept, pricing model, and interaction method was probably overly ambitious. It goes against a lot of existing behaviors.
What’s more aside from the desire to go faster, it doesn’t use any existing consumer motivations, and in particular none of the other motivations that move the travelers who most want to go faster. This is an uphill battle.
Fyra and the usability of train services
The Dutch Railways’ NS Hi-Speed brand has introduced a new train to the network: Fyra, which links Amsterdam central station and Schipol airport to Rotterdam, without going through The Hague as is usual for that segment. It uses the more direct, specially-equipped high-speed line that also enables the Paris-bound Thalys to ride at its top speed within Holland, as it does between France and Brussels.
NS just reported significant losses related to their high-speed operations. This Amsterdam-Rotterdam segment opened this winter after years of delay: they were talking about it in 1998 already as about to open, and trains aren’t delivered. Also, tuning difficulties are normal immediately after launch: late or canceled trains are to be expected for a few months. Perhaps it explains that no major marketing campaign has yet supported the launch of the new product.
But aside from those issues, Fyra has some pretty interesting usability flaws that might explain its apparent lack of success: pricing, frequency, and on-board experience.
Price as an element of usability
Any market research will tell you the same: people always think that products are too expensive, regardless of the price range (luxury products are perhaps the only exception). And one could certainly argue that the 2-euro supplement for the Amsterdam-Schiphol leg is not worth the gain of a couple of minutes over a regular direct train.
But on the Amsterdam-Rotterdam leg, at 20 minutes won on the usual hour-long journey, the gain is of more than 30%. On paper, the supplement of 7.40 euro (on a 13.50 euro ticket) might seem worth it, and I’m sure the NS performed thorough pricing analysis research that supports the price point.
However, an important issue here is the friction it creates: one can’t just board the train with a regular ticket, and the very existence of the supplement creates confusion around boarding.
On the NS’s awesome ticket machines, the very clean usability has been polluted by the supplement: it breaks the normal flow of decision, because taking the supplement or not isn’t actually a simple decision, as the user must evaluate the perception of value by looking at price (supplied), the expected time gain (not very clear, and not usually supplied by the machine), and the availability of a Fyra for their particular journey (not supplied).
When faced with a decision to spend extra money, insufficient supporting information will cause the consumer to refuse the charge, as a self-protection mechanism. When in doubt, abstain.
And planning ahead to pay only 10 euro? The incentive (a 3.50 euro saving on the regular price plus the 20-minute travel time gain) is probably not worth a radical change in planning habits people have. When you live in Amsterdam, you don’t plan a trip to Rotterdam, it’s just too close for that.
Regularity is key
The Dutch railway is an urban network, it bears more similarities to the metropolitan ones in Paris or New York, than to the French or German networks with their layers of local, inter-regional and national links. High-speed trains were designed in those countries for long-distance travel, and their economics are tough to replicate on a commuter network.
Fyra is scheduled at irregular times. I imagine the choice was based on an estimate of consumer demand and availability of high-speed trains, but scattered throughout the day, Fyra isn’t very attractive. The gain of time isn’t worth the added effort of finding out when the next one runs.
For commuters, there’s little incentive except for the most regular travelers, if you pay for your own transportation. A moderate time gain but only at certain times — that’s not extremely attractive.
Branding overkill
And while there was no formal product launch (that I’m aware of, and I travel on that segment), NS Hispeed did go through the trouble of heavily branding the service.
It starts with the name “Fyra,” which I actually find pretty cool. But they decided to use it as a creature name (i.e. “Thank you for traveling Fyra”), a grammatical annoyance and pretentious usage that I believe started with Thalys over a decade ago (thanks for both go to Globrands).
On board, branding is also strong, with special safety procedure cards and extra-long announcements that are probably not necessary for such short connections: this is little more than a long subway ride, after all!
What’s more, you can’t just hop on a Fyra: the conductors will not only charge you the regular supplement, but will add a penalty for not paying the fare. This discourages experimentation and will prevent people from getting to know (and, supposedly, want) the service.
On the balance
It seems NS Hispeed tried to launch a “train product” in the same way their European partnership Rail Team lauched Thalys or Eurostar. However, with only a marginal improvement on existing rides, I don’t think the assumptions on value perceptions were warranted.
Indeed, Eurostar simply didn’t exist before, and more than an alternative to air travel, it actually opened up London as a destination in a new way. Thalys, on the other hand, built on the reputation of high-speed trains in France, and on the expectation people have to travel fast on long distances (it actually still fails to deliver, with its ridiculously slow speed in Holland, but that is currently changing).
Fyra, though, on the Amsterdam-Rotterdam leg, competes with a metropolitan network, with a train every 15 minutes, and an extremely reliable service. Introducing a totally new service concept, pricing model, and interaction method was probably overly ambitious. It goes against a lot of existing behaviors.
What’s more aside from the desire to go faster, it doesn’t use any existing consumer motivations, and in particular none of the other motivations that move the travelers who most want to go faster. This is an uphill battle.