[MomsAVoxell]

Tell me the percentage of passengers that get on a train not intending to arrive at their desired destination ..

>Granted, "Commuter travel" vs "Leisure travel" are probably two quite different products.

The distinction is irrelevant, since both groups are travelling and, presumably wish to effect the end result of that travel: to arrive.

Sure, travelling in style and class and comfort - for sure, these are secondary sub-products/-services. But I don't get on the train for its food or for the disco car - I do, eventually, actually want to arrive in Hamburg.

[Retric]

People sometimes take leisure train trips that drop them off at the same location they boarded the train. That destination can be reached faster if the trip never occurred, so that’s not what people are paying for.

Similarly leisure trips can be vastly less sensitive to moderate delays, thus some sleeper trains stop at night so people can get a better rest even if it defeats the purpose.

[MomsAVoxell]

Yeah, but those are edge cases and are in no way representative of the final services and products of rail companies across the world.

[Retric]

Everyone is looking for a slightly different product, but edge case can tell you a lot about market conditions.

A highly optimized overnight train to Disneyland should look different than an optimized overnight train to Chicago.

[MomsAVoxell]

Yet .. both cases have a destination.

[Retric]

A stop sure, but the vast majority of people would want a round trip to Disney.

Chicago is likely a stop along a longer journey and a significant number of passengers would happily skip it allowing for more freedom in timing.

[MomsAVoxell]

Cool. Now you’re no longer discussing the nature of the product of rail transportation, but rather the nature of consumers’ free will.

Either way, if you got on a trip to Disney and ended up in Chicago, would you say that the rail company delivered the product as promised?