Was there anything specific suggesting it's an error or is that just your best guess? As you hint, there's absolutely nothing in writing that the £20 difference is something they're obliged to offer. Indeed LNER are perfectly free to offer zero 70 Min Advances for a period of a day if they so choose, same as how they'd be perfectly free to offer zero normal advances for some services.I notice a post upthread highlighted a ticket at a higher amount though I would suggest this is possibly an error
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Is there some concrete evidence that the £20 difference is actually policy though, or just a tweet that says they are looking at it as part of the trial?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
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If they push through the incredibly unpopular timetable changes which will reduce frequency and capacity for regional journeys (e.g. Northallerton - Newcastle, Berwick-upon-Tweed - Newcastle, Grantham - Newark and so on) in exchange for a 15 minute cut in Edinburgh - London journey times I would expect these new higher prices will result in a huge rise in revenue. Shamefully so. Both policies are plainly Treasury-driven ('financial-first') and damn the economic and strategic dimensions.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.
Last edited: