** (1) Earlier about 10% seats were sold by IR at the last minute under tatkal scheme with approx 30% of base fare charged extra.
(2) Also Premium tatkal scheme was also introduced in popular trains where in a fraction of seats were sold at many times the normal price.
(3) Also trains were introduced under special category where 100% seats were charged more than normal fare may be around 130% of normal fare
(4)...
more...

Also Suvidha trains were introduced again fare being very high and a fraction of tickets being multiple times the normal fare
(5) Flexifare where about only 10% seats were sold at normal rate and 50% seats were charged 50% extra. Rest 40% seats sold at 10%,20%,30% & 40% extra fare
** As a result a large number of seats were going vacant in the flexifare Rajdhani/Shatabdi trains which used to have perennial waiting lists in pre-Flexifare era.
** All the gimmickries were done by IR to imitate Airline operators who are commercially smart and ensure maximum occupancy as well as revenue by offering heavy discounts to last minute passengers if seats are not booked. IR on the other hand continued to operate flexifare trains at much lower occupancies (then it used to be).
** What IR has introduced is not dynamic/Flexifare but a graded price increase due to which a large number of paxs could not do their journey as they cannot afford flexifares. This is wastage of national resource (transportation capacity) by IR
* Being a Govt organisation operating with public funding, IR has accountability towards public/ tax-payer of India who indirectly is owner of and funds IR. Such acts of IR does not justify the monopoly status it currently enjoys.

** Rich/ Upper middle class people normally travel in ACII/ ACI or by air, and also by private vehicle thanks to proliferation of expressways
** Middle class people travel by ACIII which constitute about 60-70% of total paxs in Raj trains
** Ironically IR is earning from middle class persons (ACIII) and suffering losses from rich persons (ACII & ACI classes).
**...
more...

It may be noted that ACI (only riches travel) is kept out of flexifare!
** If IR will brand a train for rich and operates it with poor occupancy & higher flexi-fares it is neither in the interest of people (nation) nor in the interest of IR.
**This situation indicates that the flexifare imposed by IR is too high & beyond the pockets of masses.
** It would be better to dilute the flexifare by increasing the % of normal fare seats from 10% to 50% and reducing the maximum flexi surcharge from 50% to 20/30%. Such a flexifare may not dent the occupancy levels.