LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[AdamWW]

I also am concerned that it doesn't trial other things alongside it that make Advances friendlier, e.g. no admin fee for changes, refundable, break of journey allowed (provided any travel is on booked trains) etc. It's not a given that even a compulsory reservation railway has to ape Ryanair.

Presumably because it isn't a "trial" at all.

It's an introduction of the new fare scheme on a few flows, and in due course it will be declared a success and rolled out across the network.

If as Captain Deltic has suggested the only success criterion is whether it increases income, I think we all know what the conclusion will be.

One might hope that the government would explicltly announce and justify the abandonment of regulated fares for long distance travel but I suspect that one would do so in vain.

Personally it feels insulting to try to pretend that to make it much harder and more expensive to use the railway is actually somehow making passengers' lives better.

 

[yorksrob]

This is a key concern.

It'd be even more of a concern over on the WCML, as I bet they wouldn't be reducing the Anytime - £200 single Edinburgh to London is almost borderline reasonable ish (!) for a fully flexible ticket. £185 single Manchester to London, which is half the distance, very much isn't. So applying this to the WCML could be much, much worse.

This really is a slippery slope. Current fares regulation may be imperfect, but its better than none at all. I'd like to see the parties committing to maintaining, if not strengthening it at the next election.

Quite. The message is very simple. If you want to just be able to travel when you need to, with no notice, and have confidence over what it will cost you, get yourself a car. This is no longer what rail is for unless you are extremely well off.

I think I've said it before, but if a road pricing scheme like this was introduced I doubt many people in the UK would stand for it (even if they were told that it was just a "business decision").

Yes - other forms of transport work like that. But in my view that's a good reason for the taxpayer support to the railways to result in us having one form of transport that those without access to a car can use for flexible travel.

Indeed. Rail transport is the backstop for middle and long distance public transport if you need to get somewhere in a hurry. That is a public service consideration and it needs to be maintained in return for taxpayer support.

 

[AdamWW]

There are very, very few things that would have British people rioting on the streets - that just isn't us. But a national road pricing scheme of this kind would in my view be such a thing. People only accept rail being expensive and crap because they can drive.

Actually maybe we should just keep things simple and do a trial to see if a drastic increase in fuel tax results in more income to the government?

After all, that's the only thing that matters, right?

Not people's ability to travel.

 

[Krokodil]

Actually maybe we should just keep things simple and do a trial to see if a drastic increase in fuel tax results in more income to the government?

Bringing it up to the level that it would have been if it had increased at the same rate rail tickets do would probably cause a riot.

 

[Mainline421]

Just to clarify this point, I am neither "for", nor "against" the LNER experiment. It is a business matter, with three potential outcomes:. Either, it will deter passengers, ridership and revenue will fall and the new fares policy will have to be abandoned. Or it will fill more seats and increase revenue, and be judged a success.. Or it will make little or no difference. and we will have learned something towards fares reform.

We will know the outcome soon enough.

BTW, I don't have any free passes!

It's not possible for an increase in fares and removal of flexibility to fill more seats. I see no logic there?

It will deter passengers, but revenue will rise because those remaining will be fleeced for large sums of money..

 

[jon0844]

Unfortunately even if this reform does fill more seats (although presumably this could be achieved without ditching off-peak) and does increase revenue, it will still be a poor outcome in terms of freedom to travel when one needs, and a stealth price hike for passengers.

Surely they can game the system by ensuring there are many more low-cost advance and semi-flex fares available, so people snap them up and seem quite happy - without realising that in the future these prices can go up, and advance tickets can become more scarce.

Also, how many people will be so deterred as to drive or fly? In most cases, there aren't that many flights per day and there's all the hassle of airports, and in the other case, driving such a long distance is not usually very comfortable (in ANY car) unless there's more than one person able to drive so you can swap.

It seems that people will still want and need to use the train, so they'll just pay. Indeed, that MUST be what the DfT is banking on as they surely don't want to lose revenue and make roads even more congested, attracting the wrath of the the car lobby.

 

[JonathanH]

It's not possible for an increase in fares and removal of flexibility to fill more seats. I see no logic there?

In theory it is possible to fill more seats, if over time, the algorithms adapt to discourage passengers travelling on trains which are expected to be popular, making passengers accept an earlier or later service, but as part of this manipulation, the overall average of fares is set higher than the current off peak fare.

Remember that not everyone knows what the previous off-peak fare was, and some people choose to go somewhere because they want to go there, rather than because the price is acceptable. It might mean they have to choose a cheaper hotel room, or food, or other experience, as part of the trip.

It has already been seen that on certain popular days, LNER have been able to fill trains at higher prices. The next step does seem to need to be to fill seats and reservations more efficiently though.

Indeed, that MUST be what the DfT is banking on as they surely don't want to lose revenue and make roads even more congested, attracting the wrath of the the car lobby.

When do car drivers ever blame road delays as being due to trains not being full?

 

[Mainline421]

In theory it is possible to fill more seats, if over time, the algorithms adapt to discourage passengers travelling on trains which are expected to be popular, making passengers accept an earlier or later service, but as part of this manipulation, the overall average of fares is set higher than the current off peak fare.

LNER could tweak the algorithms for Advance fares all they like, but it wouldn't have any connection to the trial removal of Off-Peak tickets. Not a single person is going to make an additional journey by train because of more expensive, less flexible tickets, which is the only thing being trialled here.

In reality TOCs don't even tend to do this and will sell the same cheap advances on services that are often full and standing.

Remember that not everyone knows what the previous off-peak fare was, and some people choose to go somewhere because they want to go there, rather than because the price is acceptable. It might mean they have to choose a cheaper hotel room, or food, or other experience, as part of the trip.

Almost everyone will choose to go somewhere, then look at the cost, but there will always be an upper limit.

 

[JonathanH]

In reality TOCs don't even tend to do this and will sell the same cheap advances on services that are often full and standing.

There is less of that happening now. Many operators have hiked the price of advances in recent years, although I agree that they don't distunguish between the busiest trains and those expected to be less busy. Part of that is due to the cap on the busiest trains provided by the off-peak tickets. What the operators want is to keep the lowest advance fares high, and push up the fares on popular services to undertake the manipulation.

Not a single person is going to make an additional journey by train because of more expensive, less flexible tickets, which is the only thing being trialled here.

No, but the ones who were already travelling may now have to pay a higher price, and capacity is finite so there may not be space for additional journeys.

 

[jon0844]

When do car drivers ever blame road delays as being due to trains not being full?

Huh? Motorists complain about road congestion and associated costs all the time. If people all stopped commuting on the train, the nearby roads that people switched to would not stand a chance.

Now if people stopped using trains and didn't take to the road (e.g. worked from home, or just avoided that journey full stop) then it won't make a difference. More businesses are getting staff back to work almost every day, and people still want to travel for leisure.

LNER and the DfT is clearly seeing if people will pay more, even for discretionary leisure travel, and I think they probably will - to a point. But all they need is to make sure the trial succeeds. After that, you can tighten the screws.

 

[JonathanH]

Motorists complain about road congestion and associated costs all the time.

Yes of course they do, but I doubt that they question why the other people in the queues aren't using the railway. Instead, they wonder why there aren't more roads.

Now if people stopped using trains and didn't take to the road (e.g. worked from home, or just avoided that journey full stop) then it won't make a difference.

Quite.

LNER and the DfT is clearly seeing if people will pay more, even for discretionary leisure travel, and I think they probably will - to a point. But all they need is to make sure the trial succeeds. After that, you can tighten the screws.

Yes. Whether it works as well over shorter distances may require the kind of extension alluded to by '43068' in their customary 1 April post this year.

 

[jon0844]

...but I doubt that they question why the other people in the queues aren't using the railway.

That seems like a strange thing to suggest is going to happen.

They're going to moan about the increased congestion, not what caused it.

How would they know?

 

[yorksrob]

There is less of that happening now. Many operators have hiked the price of advances in recent years, although I agree that they don't distunguish between the busiest trains and those expected to be less busy. Part of that is due to the cap on the busiest trains provided by the off-peak tickets. What the operators want is to keep the lowest advance fares high, and push up the fares on popular services to undertake the manipulation.


No, but the ones who were already travelling may now have to pay a higher price, and capacity is finite so there may not be space for additional journeys.

Even now with the off-peak fare as a cap, there is absolutely nothing stopping TOC's from manipulating ap fares to fill up seats on quieter trains.

That they don't is because they're not incentivised to.

 

[sheff1]

I was, to be honest, utterly shocked at how brazen it is. I expected some spikes in fare e.g. Friday 1800ish from London and Sunday PM to it. But every single train has gone up, sometimes massively.

I am not surprised, never mind shocked.

Seemed obvious to me that single leg pricing with its’ accompanying price increases (welomed by many, which did surprise me) was only the first step ….. If there had been a big adverse reaction to that (as with booking office closures) they might have stepped back, but there wan’t. And, of course, by introducing this next step on just a few flows, with workrounds possible, they have so far succesfully avoided mass adverse reaction again and even gained support from some quarters.

 

[AdamWW]

I am not surprised, never mind shocked.

Seemed obvious to me that single leg pricing with its’ accompanying price increases (welomed by many, which did surprise me) was only the first step ….. If there had been a big adverse reaction to that (as with booking office closures) they might have stepped back, but there wan’t. And, of course, by introducing this next step on just a few flows, with workrounds possible, they have so far succesfully avoided mass adverse reaction again and even gained support from some quarters.

Indeed. Fascinating how they have successfully started to remove fare regulation with so little reaction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. Fascinating how they have successfully started to remove fare regulation with so little reaction.

I don't think most people understand fare regulation. They just see "trains are too expensive unless you book months in advance", and see any changes as a potential positive because the present situation is so overridingly negative.

That's where that barely literate "in favour" letter in Modern Railways came from. What that person doesn't get is that their Advance booked 2 months out will now be more expensive too, because the baseline has gone up by about 50% (£130 being a very common number for short term purchases, as against about £90 for the Super Off Peak before). This is why it was such a clever plan - if they'd just whacked the Super Off Peak up to £130 there would have been uproar, but what they've actually done is effectively that *and* removed flexibility.

The other thing people see as negative about trains is them being overcrowded, which it also addresses by making walk-up travel inordinately costly.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't think most people understand fare regulation. They just see "trains are too expensive unless you book months in advance", and see any changes as a potential positive because the present situation is so overridingly negative.

That's where that barely literate "in favour" letter in Modern Railways came from. What that person doesn't get is that their Advance booked 2 months out will now be more expensive too, because the baseline has gone up by about 50% (£130 being a very common number for short term purchases, as against about £90 for the Super Off Peak before). This is why it was such a clever plan - if they'd just whacked the Super Off Peak up to £130 there would have been uproar, but what they've actually done is effectively that *and* removed flexibility.

The other thing people see as negative about trains is them being overcrowded, which it also addresses by making walk-up travel inordinately costly.

Well, I suspect such people mostly don't realise that when they read "Train fares to go up x%") each year that it doesn't directly affect advances anyway.

So explaining that from now on instead of fares going up a few percent each year there will be no limit to how much you'll have to pay might be a simple enough way of getting the message across.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, I suspect such people mostly don't realise that when they read "Train fares to go up x%") each year that it doesn't directly affect advances anyway.

So explaining that from now on instead of fares going up a few percent each year there will be no limit to how much you'll have to pay might be a simple enough way of getting the message across.

A direct comparison with Ryanair might help get the point across, particularly if they've tried to book a flight with them in the school holidays before.

 

[BRX]

until somebody somewhere sat and went through service by service day by day and quickly realized that this is what they had done in terms of pricing

Is there anywhere that the actual fares on offer each day is being recorded?
That is, somewhere not inside of LNER?

 

[Krokodil]

Well, I suspect such people mostly don't realise that when they read "Train fares to go up x%") each year that it doesn't directly affect advances anyway.

This is why we never see any true fares simplification in this country. It's convenient for the politicians that there's a complicated system, it helps them avoid accountability for the fare rises which are ultimately up to them.

 

[JonathanH]

This is why we never see any true fares simplification in this country.

What is true fares simplification? Is there a consensus view of what it means? I suspect the answer is no.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is true fares simplification? Is there a consensus view of what it means? I suspect the answer is no.

There is very little simpler than tickets all being train specific. Be careful what is wished for.

 

[Mainline421]

There is very little simpler than tickets all being train specific. Be careful what is wished for.

All tickets being anytime. An all walk-up system is way simpler than an all advance system, and fining people for taking the wrong train doesn't make things simpler.

 

[yorksrob]

What is true fares simplification? Is there a consensus view of what it means? I suspect the answer is no.

The simplest fares system is one where you can walk up and be confident of buying a reasonably priced fare when you need to travel. There may be an uplift at busy times, but this will be predictable. There may be cheaper train specific tickets, but these won't be instead of the reasonably priced walk on fare

The only people who think otherwise, have an interest in extracting more money.

British Rail had a fairly logical system of peak, off-peak, period and day walk-on fares. They were predictable in that there was a rough distance under which day fares were available, off-peak times out of London were the same etc.

It would be better and simpler to default back to this but retain advanced purchase on longer flows so that people can still trade flexibility for cheapness.

 

[Wallsendmag]

The simplest fares system is one where you can walk up and be confident of buying a reasonably priced fare when you need to travel. There may be an uplift at busy times, but this will be predictable. There may be cheaper train specific tickets, but these won't be instead of the reasonably priced walk on fare

The only people who think otherwise, have an interest in extracting more money.

If you're truly looking at simple fares price doesn't come into the equation

 

[yorksrob]

If you're truly looking at simple fares price doesn't come into the equation

Price always comes into the equation.

You could have a simple flat fare system, but that wouldn't suit passengers particularly.

People can put up with a certain amount of complication - particularly if they can get a bargain out of it - so long as its applied logically, predictably and consistently.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Price always comes into the equation.

You could have a simple flat fare system, but that wouldn't suit passengers particularly.

People can put up with a certain amount of complication - particularly if they can get a bargain out of it - so long as its applied logically, predictably and consistently.

The simplest fare is one ticket valid at anytime but what would the price be ? That doesn't come into the question of the simplest fare

 

[yorksrob]

The simplest fare is one ticket valid at anytime but what would the price be ? That doesn't come into the question of the simplest fare

It would be, but passengers don't necessarily want "the simplest fare".

They want predictable, affordable fares.

Peak/off-peak, with some amount of consistency as to when off-peak actually is, is probably the best compromise for when this is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All tickets being anytime. An all walk-up system is way simpler than an all advance system, and fining people for taking the wrong train doesn't make things simpler.

It's not, because you have the complexity of permitted routes and the likes in a walk-up system.

 

[Adam Williams]

It's not, because you have the complexity of permitted routes and the likes in a walk-up system.

This isn't unique to tickets that aren't quota controlled