Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It is possible they will extend the trial on that basis. But I suspect they will just be trying to move from trial to full deployment as soon as possible. Extending the trial too much could jeopardise it, as it would result in more bad publicity. A smaller trial probably helps them to ensure the figures look good!
The trial is meant to be two years according to their publicity, though they could I suppose shout about it being successful (which by their criteria, namely increased income, it very likely will be) and roll it out sooner.
I'm not sure if it's been said in here already, but LNER have set up a form where you can leave comments about either the new ticket type, or the removal of the old ticket type. Slightly hidden about half way down the page in a drop down menu here:
That is wrong and I can no longer find that thread, looks like it has been deleted. However I can almost guarantee that some staff will be charging people in some situations where they shouldn't; we see that more often than we should.
His times are hypothetical, of course, but, say, a passenger with a 70min Flex for King's Cross to Berwick purchased for the 1700 decides to flex and travel on the 1800, only for it to be cancelled. Surely that passenger would then be entitled to travel on the 1900, but evidently that's not particularly clear?
Cynically, these new 70min Flex tickets might appeal to Advance ticket-holders who are unaware of their rights should their booked train get cancelled.
Yes, because timetabled departure counts
Yes, if that's the next available service
Yes, because timetabled departure counts
No, because timetabled departure counts. This is the same as currently - if you have an Advance, you can't jump on an earlier delayed train (unless somebody says you can)
Maybe. If they refuse, I would simply dispute the ticket cost with my credit card company. At least it costs LNER time and money then, even if they eventually decide in LNERs favour.
I doubt it
All these things are considered premium requirements, which mean you are there to be milked for the Anytime fare. Someone who has to challenge for one of these reasons at short notice is prepared to pay more, and LNER are keen to captialise.if you are desperate, they know you will pay more!
No you won't. You'll drive. (Borrowing or even hiring a car is cheaper and, for the longer journey, is still so even if you have to factor in an overnight stay). Or, if you have any choice in the matter, you may decide not to go - thereby missing the arrival or departure of someone from this world. Or the person for whom you would have provided emergency cover (on the stage, caring for baby, whatever) will have to cancel their plans, or make other suboptimal arrangements. (I can assure you that the rates paid for professional musicians would not make an Anytime return from London to Newcastle worth their while).
Either way, LNER, far from gaining revenue, will lose their custom.
Yep in that case you are considered fair game to be charged a premium. Especially as you don't have a car; what alternative do you have? you are there to be milked and LNER know it.
This is true. But when you have experts such as Simon Calder and Seat61 writing in newspapers advising passengers to workaround the pilot and find a "better deal" by booking to Haymarket, then the discourse among the general public changes - people jump to the conclusion that rail ticketing is a rip-off (which this fare hike arguably is), and don't even bother looking for fares for their next journey.
And of course, if a booking site other than LNER (perhaps one operated by a TOC who gets a share of the ORCATS revenue on London-Haymarket flows) adding a big splash across the results of a London-Edinburgh search saying "You could buy a ticket to Haymarket but get off at Waverley for £x less", that'd have a significant impact.
Of course, this would just incentivise LNER to extend the trial to cover Haymarket (or to create an "EDINBURGH STATIONS" group, and issue the tickets to there instead of the two individual stations)
------------
On another note, this may be venturing into the realms of conspiracy theory, but is it possible that LNER have made this deliberately bad?
i.e. that in response to pressure to simplify things which they don't really want to do, they've created a proposed "simplification" that will result in bad press, and they'll therefore be able to back away from quickly, and keep things as they were.
I also don't agree with the changes, for the record, but it's a mistake to think that the views of posters here, or vocal X users, necessarily correspond with those of the general public.
I think the large majority of the general public have a very simplistic interaction with the railway for these journeys.
1. Do a search, probably on trainline
2. Sharp intake of breath at the unreasonably high price
3. Choose between either "I'm not paying that!" and turn to another way to make the journey, or reconsider if they will still make it, or alternatively pay for the first thing they see that looks about right, but grudgingly and perhaps promising themselves not to pay so much again in future, however they might go about that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sadly, that is exactly what would happen. This is one of the biggest cons the railway has seen. The deception is clear.
The loss of these tickets is (significant) collateral damage to enable them to hike the price of Advance tickets, which means most travellers will ultimately lose out. And when those fares sell out, which they will, anyone else needing to travel will be forced to buy an exhorbitantly priced Anytime ticket.
This scheme seemingly evades regulated fares by simply doing away with those protected fares. At best, unaffordable Anytime tickets would now become the regulated fares.
The last vestiges of the concept of public transport are being thrown away in favour of pure greed.
David Horne calls this "exciting". Funnily enough, criminals also often talk about the excitement of their acts! He says LNER "look forward to hearing feedback from our customers" and that jacking up fares massively is "introducing value for money". Well, this customer believes you are a bunch of con merchants.
If LNER made this change simply saying it was a commercial necessity, and they're sorry for any inconvenience, I would still disagree with it strongly. However, I would still have a certain respect for the professional staff, who were bringing in an unpopular change in response to overwhelming fiscal pressures. Rarely, a difficult decision which will be deeply unpopular in the short term does have to be taken where there's clear evidence it's in the public interest to do so.
Instead, what Mr Horne and his senior managers, and indeed also Ministers, have conspired to do is make false claims about the benefits of the changes for consumers. I agree with you that this contemptible.
As a state corporation whose losses have been publicly-funded for some years now, for claims that aren't true to be pushed out to us by their senior management hurts double, because they're disrespecting us both as consumers and also the public who are contributing through subsidy.
In short, don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining.
I think the large majority of the general public have a very simplistic interaction with the railway for these journeys.
1. Do a search, probably on trainline
2. Sharp intake of breath at the unreasonably high price
3. Choose between either "I'm not paying that!" and turn to another way to make the journey, or reconsider if they will still make it, or alternatively pay for the first thing they see that looks about right, but grudgingly and perhaps promising themselves not to pay so much again in future, however they might go about that
At either step 1 or step 3, a considerable percentage of people will ask a friend of family member who they know travels frequently for advice, or look at a site like MoneySavingExpert. This may result in maybe 5% of people doing things like the Haymarket trick.
And those steps apply mainly to people spending their own money. Those travelling on their employer's money behave differently.
Not just enthusiasts, but anyone in the know and split ticketing websites/retailers, as well as any ticket office staff (or other retail staff) who offer splits.
LNER have reminded their ticket office staff to only offer tickets from origin to destination; the only time ticket offices should be offering a ticket to start or finish "short" is where the customer specifically requests it. The only time splits should be offered are either where the customer requests it, or where a through fare does not exist. Ticket office staff can get into trouble if they go against this and proactively offer such cheaper fares, even though such fares are valid.
LNER don't like our website offering splits, but they can't stop us.
If LNER made this change simply saying it was a commercial necessity, and they're sorry for any inconvenience, I would still disagree with it strongly. However, I would still have a certain respect for the professional staff, who were bringing in an unpopular change in response to overwhelming fiscal pressures. Rarely, a difficult decision which will be deeply unpopular in the short term does have to be taken where there's clear evidence it's in the public interest to do so.
And of course, if a booking site other than LNER (perhaps one operated by a TOC who gets a share of the ORCATS revenue on London-Haymarket flows) adding a big splash across the results of a London-Edinburgh search saying "You could buy a ticket to Haymarket but get off at Waverley for £x less", that'd have a significant impact.
On another note, this may be venturing into the realms of conspiracy theory, but is it possible that LNER have made this deliberately bad?
i.e. that in response to pressure to simplify things which they don't really want to do, they've created a proposed "simplification" that will result in bad press, and they'll therefore be able to back away from quickly, and keep things as they were.
I don't think so; the DfT want this to happen. LNER are acting under instructions.
I am sure there are good people at LNER who want it to fail, but they probably can't speak up (certainly not publicly).
Ticket office staff who advise customers of alternative options could get into big trouble for "distorting the market"; a memo sent to them made this very clear.
While the forum's site is allowed to "distort the market", LNER spend a lot of taxpayers money encouraging people to "book direct", to avoid the majority of their customers finding out that we can offer them cheaper deals.
Not just enthusiasts, but anyone in the know and split ticketing websites/retailers, as well as any ticket office staff (or other retail staff) who offer splits.
Including their own app, or have they sneakily turned that off for this trial?
Trainline also do splits. In both cases only the cheapest (so Advances), but that'll be a split involving Advances still capped by Super Off Peaks rather than the no doubt cranked up through ones.
Including their own app, or have they sneakily turned that off for this trial?
Trainline also do splits. In both cases only the cheapest (so Advances), but that'll be a split involving Advances still capped by Super Off Peaks rather than the no doubt cranked up through ones.
All the app does is look for cheaper splits at a few pre-defined locations, for LNER only journeys. It doesn't offer cheaper walk-up fares, which is what we will be doing to circumvent this.
Trainline also do splits. In both cases only the cheapest (so Advances), but that'll be a split involving Advances still capped by Super Off Peaks rather than the no doubt cranked up through ones.
Yes if LNER have through Advances that are more than the sum of cheaper ones, in some cases Trainline will find them.
Do bear in mind Trainline's split ticketing is much more limited than ours.
If someone finds a split we are not offering, all you have to do is tell me, and I will tell the relevant people, and they will usually get it sorted for the next morning. It's only happened about once in the last 6 months: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...for-booking-rail-tickets.258764/#post-6530760 and if anyone finds a load of these, we'll absolutely pay for you to have a forum meal and a drink on us!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Some people will (and that is fine; the DfT do not want too much growth!) but for Newcastle / Edinburgh to London, there are enough people who, if pushed, will pay a three figure sum for one-way travel, as a distress purchase. DfT/LNER know there are plenty of people to be milked. It's not run as a public service any more.
(Borrowing or even hiring a car is cheaper and, for the longer journey, is still so even if you have to factor in an overnight stay). Or, if you have any choice in the matter, you may decide not to go - thereby missing the arrival or departure of someone from this world. Or the person for whom you would have provided emergency cover (on the stage, caring for baby, whatever) will have to cancel their plans, or make other suboptimal arrangements. (I can assure you that the rates paid for professional musicians would not make an Anytime return from London to Newcastle worth their while).
They will gain overall. Yes some will drive, some will go by air (which the Governement is encouraging). Some will take other operators. A few may go by coach.
However overall the demand for journeys is rising and the Government have to avoid too much growth. There is nowhere near enough capacity for the demand there would be if ticket prices for flexible travel was cheap. It would cost too much for the Government to cater for the demand. Losing some customers is not a problem for LNER; they don't value customers in the way that (say) a restaurant does. If a passenger makes a mistake, it's deemed fair game to charge them £190, on the basis that if the customer vows never to use LNER again, it's no great loss.
Most people will continue to travel, either through lack of choice or just being accepting of the higher fares, and the revenue per customer will go up.
It's not a positive change for passengers, but this move is about reducing subsidy and increasing the amounts people pay for their journeys. It achieves the aims the DfT set out to achieve.
So as far as DfT/LNER are concerned, it will be deemed to be a success.
And of course, if a booking site other than LNER (perhaps one operated by a TOC who gets a share of the ORCATS revenue on London-Haymarket flows) adding a big splash across the results of a London-Edinburgh search saying "You could buy a ticket to Haymarket but get off at Waverley for £x less", that'd have a significant impact.
Of course, this would just incentivise LNER to extend the trial to cover Haymarket (or to create an "EDINBURGH STATIONS" group, and issue the tickets to there instead of the two individual stations)
------------
On another note, this may be venturing into the realms of conspiracy theory, but is it possible that LNER have made this deliberately bad?
i.e. that in response to pressure to simplify things which they don't really want to do, they've created a proposed "simplification" that will result in bad press, and they'll therefore be able to back away from quickly, and keep things as they were.
I am thinking if the forum ticketing site or Trainsplit would be creating thr “long buying” option to provide further more savings?
It seems that all the “distort the market” tricks just save the money but do make a more difficult case for analyst to understand fully the true demand (origin - destination, linkload, etc); which was pointed out by Network Rail OD dataset in 2022
What an utterly awful idea. Dare I suspect that the intention is that the feedback will be "that's complicated" and thus they can move to Anytime and Advance only?
That's me not using LNER then, not that I do very often anyway! How will Fares Regulation be approached, using a fares basket? Or are they being given free rein to charge what they like?
Have they calculated that they will make more money if no Off-Peak tickets exist, and therefore can get away with it financially?
"Less complicated" of course means "better financially for us". It's one of these ridiculous phrases that are always wheeled out when changes are introduced by a service company that makes things more expensive for the consumer but better for the company itself.
Don't agree with it in the slightest, but I suppose it's typical of the rather hard-nosed attitude of the DoT-run post-Covid railway which is all about minimising costs and maximising revenue even if customer service suffers.
Not exactly sure what one can do about it, besides voting this lot out later in the year. If it was a more fully-privatised railway, the Government could perhaps intervene, but of course the whole ethos of the contemporary railway is Government driven in the first place, so one must blame the politicians first and foremost!
Given a co-ordinated effort managed to stop the ticket office closures, surely it's time for something similar again. It is essential that it is highlighted nationwide that the existing single fares trial has already led to increased fares and this new trial will more than double some walk up fares on busy days when there is no flex available and travelers won't all realise you can bypass them by buying to other stations. If this gets extended or adopted nationwide this will lead to everyone that can't fix to a certain 2 hour period or want to break their trip en-route and leave the station seeing huge fare increases nationwide. This is the biggest threat to rail travel since Beeching.
The fact that even on this forum there are differing views about how these flex tickets work and they have unpublished restrictions that very much affect them shows that they are deliberately far from simple. I suspect Manors and Haymarket will see huge jumps in ticket sales..at least I certainly hope so. However, LNER will then exclude these tickets from their trial results and so claim their ticket trial was a success.
I thought LNER sneakily not selling Groupsave tickets was underhand and an a deliberate attempt to overcharge people but this is a whole new level.
Having had some time to digest this (and I wrote up a long-form summary on my own blog, but I won't regurgitate that in full here, most of it's been covered across this thread!) - I still can't get over how bad this will be if rolled out nationwide and thus I'll be doing everything possible to not add to their sales figures on the new types particularly...
Sadly I suspect we might be stuck with this on the trial routes at least until a change in Government - LNER backing down will presumably be highly discouraged by the DfT.
Then I presume people will look to see what other destinations close to Edinburgh which still get the super off-peak single available or at the London end (ie West Hampstead Thameslink - Edinburgh)
It's also manipulative to remove the fare product entirely - of course you can say 'no-one uses it' or 'everyone has moved to a different product' when you have removed the choice not to do so!
(save for the now well-distributed workarounds to access the existing fare...)
It's also manipulative to remove the fare product entirely - of course you can say 'no-one uses it' or 'everyone has moved to a different product' when you have removed the choice not to do so!
(save for the now well-distributed workarounds to access the existing fare...)
Something not yet mentioned is that LNER can change (ie increase) the £20 uplift at a whim should they decide to do so.. (I notice a post upthread highlighted a ticket at a higher amount though I would suggest this is possibly an error).
The staff briefing document says "Prices shall align with our advance fares with an added cost of £20 during phase 1 for the defined flexibility on offer. This is subject to change throughout the pilot to enable us to learn more about customers ticket choices".
The Phase 1 of the pilot is to last two years, if successful says they will look at extending it after this to "other stations in the North East and Scotland for travel to/from London".
Sorry can't post a link to the quotes due to being internal document.
That was me who posted the screenshot of the > £20 fare difference.
It’s hard to see how it can have happened by accident. In the absence of any official explanation from LNER, I have to assume it’s deliberate. Especially given that this example is at the shoulder of the peak.
That was me who posted the screenshot of the > £20 fare difference.
It’s hard to see how it can have happened by accident. In the absence of any official explanation from LNER, I have to assume it’s deliberate. Especially given that this example is at the shoulder of the peak.
While I appreciate it looks suspicious, I probably would give LNER the benefit of the doubt here, and the difference was intended to be £20 here
The reservation system that controls the quotas has a lot of weird behavior and it's very prone to TOCs making input mistakes with absolutely no protection for doing very bad things, let alone this
While I appreciate it looks suspicious, I probably would give LNER the benefit of the doubt here, and the difference was intended to be £20 here
The reservation system that controls the quotas has a lot of weird behavior and it's very prone to TOCs making input mistakes with absolutely no protection for doing very bad things, let alone this
Just looking through the first few days of the new regime, this > £20 fare difference (between Advance and Semi-Flex 70) crops up a few times on the 0830 train, but then later on it seems to settle down to being a £20 difference.
Can the reservation system (RARS2 I think?) automatically link availability of different fare quotas, i.e. linking the Semi-Flex 70 to the Advance fare, or does this need input from LNER's own systems? I would hope the former is possible, otherwise with this new fares regime things would likely get out of sync quite rapidly!
I think the limitation will come more in just not making Semi-Flex 70 tickets available on shoulder peak trains, so as to limit people 'playing' / 'maximising' the system by flexing their Semi-Flex ticket and using it on peak trains (within the -/+ 70 mins window).
I do wish the incoming Labour government were more pro public transport but sadly I don’t thing they’ll change much that the current clowns have implemented.
The fact that you don't have to do the driving yourself is about their only major selling point. In a way, it's a relief that the marketing campaign doesn't try to say the service is very good value for money or a cheap option.
Just looking through the first few days of the new regime, this > £20 fare difference (between Advance and Semi-Flex 70) crops up a few times on the 0830 train, but then later on it seems to settle down to being a £20 difference.
Can the reservation system (RARS2 I think?) automatically link availability of different fare quotas, i.e. linking the Semi-Flex 70 to the Advance fare, or does this need input from LNER's own systems? I would hope the former is possible, otherwise with this new fares regime things would likely get out of sync quite rapidly!
I think the limitation will come more in just not making Semi-Flex 70 tickets available on shoulder peak trains, so as to limit people 'playing' / 'maximising' the system by flexing their Semi-Flex ticket and using it on peak trains (within the -/+ 70 mins window).
So not just more restrictive than off peak, it’s actually extending the peak fare period too (sorry, obviously I meant anytime as the concept of peak no longer exists).
What an utter disgrace this government is. I loath them all.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
www.lner.co.uk
