LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[yorksrob]

It may seem laughable, but the approach is not far from what the explainers of privatisation were hoping to achieve.

And what a clueless bunch of half-wits they were.

 

[miklcct]

And if there's a Gatwick-Edinburgh, which there probably is, add huge chunks of south and east London and the countryside around there too.

This was the first, and the only, domestic flight I have taken in the UK. Starting anywhere south of it, flying from Gatwick beats train travel to Edinburgh on time by a lot, and given how LNER prices out itself from the market, I still have some change left booking a hotel in Horley compared to taking the train.

 

[ainsworth74]

14, as of my request last night!

London-Edinburgh fares - a Freedom of Information request to London North Eastern Railway Limited

Please provide, for fares between London and Edinburgh: * The number of Advance tickets LNER makes available at each price point. * Any variations in this, for example based on season or time of day. * Any plans to change the above after the elimination of Super Off-Peak tickets. If it's...

www.whatdotheyknow.com

Good good

As I said there, my sympathies to the LNER FOI person team (person?), who are/is lovely.

I think it's just one person at LNER! And they are indeed lovely in my experience so hopefully they'll get some help!

Never mind FOI requests, the focus should be on whether they are legally allowed to do this in the first

However FOI may well help illuminate and help give you the answers that you're looking for considering internal discussions between the likes of LNER, the DfT, the ORR and others may be quite revealing. I think you dismiss the importance of FOI at your own risk!

 

[yorkie]

It may seem laughable, but the approach is not far from what the explainers of privatisation were hoping to achieve. ...

Indeed, and certain TOCs have been trying to abolish the cheapest 'walk-up' fares from pretty much the beginning of the latest privatised era; for example, this article dates back to 1997:

Virgin backs down over walk-on fares

Virgin Trains, tried last month to abolish its cheapest walk-on fares. But opposition from passenger groups and industry regulators has forced management to think again.

www.independent.co.uk

Virgin Trains, tried last month to abolish its cheapest walk-on fares. But opposition from passenger groups and industry regulators has forced management to think again.

They abandoned those plans, but only temporarily; they then abolished the SuperSaver. They tried to get rid of the Saver on many occasions (this was documented in other threads at the time), and in 2019 it was revealed that they were hoping to do pretty much what LNER have now done:

Standing on long rail journeys to be banned under Virgin Trains plan for airline-style fare

Don't know if anyone has seen this article in the Daily Telegraph this morning. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/23/standing-long-rail-journeys-banned-virgin-trains-plan/ Standing on long train journeys will be effectively banned under radical proposals by Virgin Trains to force all...

www.railforums.co.uk

Train companies are currently often obliged to accept walk-up fares, meaning they have no control over the number of people getting on a particular train unless it is deemed unsafe.
But under the plans for airline-style fares with one fare available at any given time for any one service, walk on tickets and open returns will be phased out.

Of course, we do still have one walk-up fare under LNER's new system, but it's too expensive for an 'ordinary' person, who isn't on expenses or financially very well-off, to consider it a palatable option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, and certain TOCs have been trying to abolish the cheapest 'walk-up' fares from pretty much the beginning of the latest privatised era; for example, this article dates back to 1997:

Ironically the eventual abolition of the SuperSaver (and reduction of the Saver to the average of that and the SuperSaver, at which level it became regulated) is the reason why we on the WCML benefit, in 2024, from walk up off peak fares 10-20% cheaper than other InterCity routes...so maybe it wasn't entirely a bad thing!

 

[Bikeman78]

If it was about simplicity they'd just go Anytime or Advance, and maybe bin the £10 admin fee (the latter would certainly be a good thing; it's outdated as nobody is doing any admin - it should be noted that for instance Premier Inn's equivalent rate charges no admin fee for an amendment, you just pay the increase in room rate - and unlike the railway they even refund the difference if it's cheaper!). It clearly isn't, it's about fare increases. They'll just sneak them in later now the framework has been set up for them to do so quietly.

The Premier Inn small print says you won't get the difference refunded if you switch to a cheaper date but, as you say, in reality they do refund it.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Indeed, and certain TOCs have been trying to abolish the cheapest 'walk-up' fares from pretty much the beginning of the latest privatised era

It would be unrealistic to expect private operators not to seek to increase their profits wherever and whenever they could. It's the reason why regulation was necessary.

Were train operator's profits still dependent on revenue from fares, they would continue to push back against regulation in exactly the same way. But this latest pilot is not the successors of Virgin trying to increase their profits. It's the government taking the view that because revenue from rail fares is now one of its income streams it can quietly disregard regulated fares where they get in the way of maximising that income.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Certainly if the railway goes this way the coach industry is likely to benefit massively, both in terms of increased custom and the ability to stick their prices up a bit. And with a shift to EVs can wave the environmental flag too. Sure, coaches are (by law) compulsory reservation/no standing, but NatEx fares right up to departure aren't typically swingeing* if there are seats left and coach interiors (unlike train interiors) are improving all the time.

It takes only a quick glance at Spain to see what a self-serving railway network does to the coach market - Spain has probably the biggest such market in western Europe (and much of it owned by our very own NatEx!).

* About 20 quid seems to be the going rate for both NatEx and Megabus for the next Edinburgh departure, admittedly that's overnight but tomorrow's morning daytime NatEx is also going for around that price. That's even cheaper than I expected!

The combo of Trentbarton & Flixbus I've been looking at is around the £35 mark if operators are canny there will be more equivalents to TrentBarton's Red Arrow & Arriva's X6, definitely the wrong kind of modal shift especially if more flock to the roads, the motorways are bad enough as it is.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Ironically the eventual abolition of the SuperSaver (and reduction of the Saver to the average of that and the SuperSaver, at which level it became regulated) is the reason why we on the WCML benefit, in 2024, from walk up off peak fares 10-20% cheaper than other InterCity routes...so maybe it wasn't entirely a bad thing!

Didn't the SuperSaver vanish 20 years ago

 

[island]

Didn't the SuperSaver vanish 20 years ago

Not quite but heading that way

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didn't the SuperSaver vanish 20 years ago

Yes. That's what the Independent article above was discussing.

Not quite but heading that way

There are no tickets left I'm aware of that are true children of the SuperSaver (not valid Friday/summer Saturday). All TOCs in the end got rid. The Super Off Peaks we see now generally came later.

LNER's original Off Peak/Super Off Peak split was the child of GNER's Business Saver and the original Saver. Virgin didn't do this as they preferred Advances so ended up with just one level, the former Saver.

 

[jon0844]

Dare I say it, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

LNER (and the DfT) have been wanting to have better yield management for a while now - especially with the main source of complaint on long distance flows being lack of seats/luggage space.

And let's be real, outside the railway community very few people care about turn up and go, and even fewer about break of journey. In fact, I reckon more people think they're restricted to the train they choose on Trainline (even with an Anytime ticket!)

I think this product strikes a better balance than most give it credit for. It gives the vast majority of passengers the flexibility they'd use, and gives the ability to better manage capacity.

It's not perfect. I'd like to see a price cap versus an anytime ticket, fully refundable (at least) three days before departure, and usable on any operator.

But compared to equivalent IC operations in Europe and the airlines, it's a far better proposition. Something needed to be done about off peak capacity, and this is arguably the best solution.

You wouldn't get this level of flexibility on OBB!

I agree that most people will be able to plan in advance, just as they have to for flying (almost nobody will turn up and go on a flight, unless it's a serious distress purchase). Long distance travel is generally accepted (or expected at least) to be expensive, and so advance fares are going to be preferred by many.

But circumstances can often change, and I've often booked a ticket and either woken up in a hotel and felt I just want to go home rather than stay to xx:xx for my train, or maybe I am doing something on the last day of a trip and want to actually travel later but can't.

For this, the flex tickets are going to be useful as it's easier than attempting to change an advance ticket. Of course, when a load of people are going home on a Sunday, getting reservations can be near impossible at short notice, so you are stuck with your train or potentially standing the whole way (or upgrading to first or standard premier etc).

I would however like to see off peak or super off peak tickets remain an option, priced slightly higher but giving the ultimate flexibility. You might travel somewhere on an advance or flex, but come back with a super off peak because you don't really know your plans. That's not just for someone going on holiday, but also business meetings (and not all businesses are going to shell out for an anytime ticket these days).

Anyway, long story short, why not keep anytime, advance, flex AND at least off-peak or super off-peak tickets (but perhaps not both to simplify things)? Promote flex heavily, but don't remove other existing options. The market will decide, and if 'only' 11% of customers are buying an off-peak or super off-peak ticket, that's still fairly high. If it was 1% or 0.1% then maybe they'd have a valid argument.

A whackier idea still might be to make anytime tickets nearer to the price of an off-peak, sitting above flex and advance in the pricing ladder. If businesses aren't likely paying anytime fares anymore, they'll go for flex. Most people will go for an advance for leisure, but for those who want flexibility they can buy the more reasonably priced advance. You can still charge more for first class, for the people who have never heard of the words 'cost of living crisis', and price seasons accordingly (it would be quite complex to calculate, but you could perhaps do it - or come up with more flexible seasons).

Basically, a major overhaul but arguably actually simpler at the end of the day.

 

[Alex C.]

Can quotas be removed quickly by LNER?

Currently, with an off peak return if I get to the station and find there is disruption I can generally find a way of being accommodated (might be busy) or taking an alternative route.

Given a few mentions have been made on here of advances being available on the day, if I don't know what time I will be returning, is it safe to assume that even during disruption that advance tickets will be available until departure subject to quota levels? Or can LNER essentially remove all availability in real time?

 

[Haywain]

Can quotas be removed quickly by LNER?

Very quickly, but that's not to say it happens.

Given a few mentions have been made on here of advances being available on the day, if I don't know what time I will be returning, is it safe to assume that even during disruption that advance tickets will be available until departure subject to quota levels? Or can LNER essentially remove all availability in real time?

It is never safe to assume that Advances will be available until departure, with or without disruption. They often sell out well ahead of the day of travel and it seems unlikely that the new system will change that.

 

[yorksrob]

Very quickly, but that's not to say it happens.

It is never safe to assume that Advances will be available until departure, with or without disruption. They often sell out well ahead of the day of travel and it seems unlikely that the new system will change that.

Indeed, which is one reason why the new system is so terrible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyway, long story short, why not keep anytime, advance, flex AND at least off-peak or super off-peak tickets (but perhaps not both to simplify things)?

Because it's not about flexibility (LNER don't hate flexibility - if they did the Anytime would be going too). It's about removing the cap the Super Off Peak provides so the fares can be cranked right up at busy "off peak" times like Friday/Sunday PM.

Secondarily, it's about being able to hide fare increases so you don't get the bad publicity.

When you understand this, it all makes sense.

 

[Haywain]

Indeed, which is one reason why the new system is so terrible.

Yes, one of many reasons.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, one of many reasons.

Indeed.

 

[thedbdiboy]

It would be unrealistic to expect private operators not to seek to increase their profits wherever and whenever they could. It's the reason why regulation was necessary.

Were train operator's profits still dependent on revenue from fares, they would continue to push back against regulation in exactly the same way. But this latest pilot is not the successors of Virgin trying to increase their profits. It's the government taking the view that because revenue from rail fares is now one of its income streams it can quietly disregard regulated fares where they get in the way of maximising that income.

It is one of the great myths perpetuated that public control somehow automatically leads to lower fares, better services etc. British Rail (for whom I worked until privatisation) was only allowed to invest in the 1980s - following years of austerity and the threat of further retrenchment - by putting in an organisational structure that ruthlessly increased revenue and reduced costs. The first major fares restructuring of this period, which occurred in 1985, led to the abolition of various popular but unprofitable ticket types. How many people here decrying the withdrawal of the LNER off-peak tickets know that when they were introduced by Intercity as 'Savers', they were hated by many enthusiasts because they replaced - at higher cost - the cheap day returns that previously offered the lowest cost fares for journeys over 50 miles, and had been available in both 2nd and 1st class? BR did not have the funds to lengthen services and increase frequencies so pursued a policy of pricing off excess demand. Annual fare increases were always above inflation and reduced taxpayer subsidy.

Ironically, when the Tories came up with their privatisation wheeze, money that not been available to BR suddenly materialised to ensure the 'success' of privatisation.
The fares regulation built into the process was 'priced' into the contracts. It also had the side-effect of ossifying the fares structure. If privatisation hadn't happened, I absolutely guarantee that BR would have moved towards an Intercity fare structure similar that which LNER is testing now, except that it would have happened in the early 2000s. If you want to maximise revenue and still offer cheap fares at least for some seats on that sort of operation you have to yield manage it. Paradoxically, the only thing that stopped it happening was the franchising regime which meant that whenever operators tried to make changes, ministers and the DfT would effectively say 'you bid for it, so you need to run it'.

So it is not really a surprise that now the Government is on the hook for the full costs and revenue for the railway that it's own directly managed bit of InterCity is at last testing this fares approach. Whatever the wilder predictions expressed by some here, it really is only going to work if there is good availability of tickets right up to departure at prices similar to those that people are used to paying. In that sense, the new fares are not really 'advance' any more than an off-peak fare is, in the sense that you need to buy it before you get on board. But there is obviously quite a loss of price guarantee and utility that anyone familiar with the full range of features of off-peak tickets will notice. The big question will be though how much this matters in real life to the majority of people who have never made use of route flexibility, break of journey, pottering around off the direct route where others are permitted etc.

I do think that it's likely that the refund rules and the limits of the flexibility will need to be reviewed. But in terms of generating revenue, I don't think any government of any hue is going to be able to ignore revenue opportunities there for the taking when there are so many urgent calls on public money - especially considering that eventually the industrial disputes that are so poisoning the railway will need to be sorted, and that's going to need funding at some point too.

 

[yorksrob]

It is one of the great myths perpetuated that public control somehow automatically leads to lower fares, better services etc. British Rail (for whom I worked until privatisation) was only allowed to invest in the 1980s - following years of austerity and the threat of further retrenchment - by putting in an organisational structure that ruthlessly increased revenue and reduced costs. The first major fares restructuring of this period, which occurred in 1985, led to the abolition of various popular but unprofitable ticket types. How many people here decrying the withdrawal of the LNER off-peak tickets know that when they were introduced by Intercity as 'Savers', they were hated by many enthusiasts because they replaced - at higher cost - the cheap day returns that previously offered the lowest cost fares for journeys over 50 miles, and had been available in both 2nd and 1st class? BR did not have the funds to lengthen services and increase frequencies so pursued a policy of pricing off excess demand. Annual fare increases were always above inflation and reduced taxpayer subsidy.

Ironically, when the Tories came up with their privatisation wheeze, money that not been available to BR suddenly materialised to ensure the 'success' of privatisation.
The fares regulation built into the process was 'priced' into the contracts. It also had the side-effect of ossifying the fares structure. If privatisation hadn't happened, I absolutely guarantee that BR would have moved towards an Intercity fare structure similar that which LNER is testing now, except that it would have happened in the early 2000s. If you want to maximise revenue and still offer cheap fares at least for some seats on that sort of operation you have to yield manage it. Paradoxically, the only thing that stopped it happening was the franchising regime which meat that whenever operators tried to make changes, ministers and the DfT would effectively say 'you bid for it, so you need to run it'.

So it is not really a surprise that now the Government is on the hook for the full costs and revenue for the railway that it's own directly managed bit of InterCity is at last testing this fares approach. Whatever the wilder predictions expressed by some here, it really is only going to work if there is good availability of tickets right up to departure at prices similar to those that people are used to paying. In that sense, the new fares are not really 'advance' any more than an off-peak fare is, in the sense that you need to buy it before you get on board. But there is obviously quite a loss of price guarantee and utility that anyone familiar with the full range of features of off-peak tickets will notice. The big question will be though how much this matters in real life to the majority of people who have never made use of route flexibility, break of journey, pottering around off the direct route where others are permitted etc.

I do think that it's likely that the refund rules and the limits of the flexibility will need to be reviewed. But in terms of generating revenue, I don't think any government of any hue is going to be able to ignore revenue opportunities there for the taking when there are so many urgent calls on public money - especially considering that eventually the industrial disputes that are so poisoning the railway will need to be sorted, and that's going to need funding at some point too.

Bravo. An enjoyable piece.

But by "ignoring revenue opportunities" you basically mean not jacking up the price to twice the ordinary walk on fare.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Bravo. An enjoyable piece.

But by "ignoring revenue opportunities" you basically mean not jacking up the price to twice the ordinary walk on fare.

The real secret of effective revenue management is to raise prices by just enough where you can so that people pay up without giving up in disgust. So yes, to be a success, it needs some people to pay more. But by the same token, it won't work just by trying to get people to buy the Anytime fare - because in most case they won't.

 

[yorksrob]

The real secret of effective revenue management is to raise prices by just enough where you can so that people pay up without giving up in disgust. So yes, to be a success, it needs some people to pay more. But by the same token, it won't work just by trying to get people to buy the Anytime fare - because in most case they won't.

The reality is that people will tollerate revenue management so far on a publicly funded service, but eventually they will want more ease of booking.

 

[NARobertson]

The 70 minute either way limit is a bit arbitrary. But not as arbitrary as having one set of ticket types between some destinations and another set for other destinations. It is also the case that another company now operates between Kings Cross and Edinburgh with the current ticket system. They, however, have no first class, which seems more popular in this country the longer the journey [so GWR 1st class is generally less well patronised than LNER 1st]. The German railways have long had a choice between cheap train-specific tickets and dear fully flexible ones. But they do offer further ticket price options through railcards with 25% and 50% discounts on all ticket types that any one can buy if at a price.

 

[modernrail]

And conversely, any breach of regulated fares rules* does not give random passengers any legal remedies. It is at most a breach of a contract between the DFT and the relevant remedy is civil action by the DFT, if it wishes to take it.

*For the avoidance of doubt I express no opinion on whether LNER's changes constitute such a breach

Interesting. Their use of the term ‘Regulated’ has always been a misnomer then. It is a mere contractual obligation. Not something that is ‘regulated’ by a Statutory Regulator.

A slight of spin that goes back to privatisation then.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is one of the great myths perpetuated that public control somehow automatically leads to lower fares, better services etc. British Rail (for whom I worked until privatisation) was only allowed to invest in the 1980s - following years of austerity and the threat of further retrenchment - by putting in an organisational structure that ruthlessly increased revenue and reduced costs. The first major fares restructuring of this period, which occurred in 1985, led to the abolition of various popular but unprofitable ticket types. How many people here decrying the withdrawal of the LNER off-peak tickets know that when they were introduced by Intercity as 'Savers', they were hated by many enthusiasts because they replaced - at higher cost - the cheap day returns that previously offered the lowest cost fares for journeys over 50 miles, and had been available in both 2nd and 1st class? BR did not have the funds to lengthen services and increase frequencies so pursued a policy of pricing off excess demand. Annual fare increases were always above inflation and reduced taxpayer subsidy.

Ironically, when the Tories came up with their privatisation wheeze, money that not been available to BR suddenly materialised to ensure the 'success' of privatisation.
The fares regulation built into the process was 'priced' into the contracts. It also had the side-effect of ossifying the fares structure. If privatisation hadn't happened, I absolutely guarantee that BR would have moved towards an Intercity fare structure similar that which LNER is testing now, except that it would have happened in the early 2000s. If you want to maximise revenue and still offer cheap fares at least for some seats on that sort of operation you have to yield manage it. Paradoxically, the only thing that stopped it happening was the franchising regime which meat that whenever operators tried to make changes, ministers and the DfT would effectively say 'you bid for it, so you need to run it'.

So it is not really a surprise that now the Government is on the hook for the full costs and revenue for the railway that it's own directly managed bit of InterCity is at last testing this fares approach. Whatever the wilder predictions expressed by some here, it really is only going to work if there is good availability of tickets right up to departure at prices similar to those that people are used to paying. In that sense, the new fares are not really 'advance' any more than an off-peak fare is, in the sense that you need to buy it before you get on board. But there is obviously quite a loss of price guarantee and utility that anyone familiar with the full range of features of off-peak tickets will notice. The big question will be though how much this matters in real life to the majority of people who have never made use of route flexibility, break of journey, pottering around off the direct route where others are permitted etc.

I do think that it's likely that the refund rules and the limits of the flexibility will need to be reviewed. But in terms of generating revenue, I don't think any government of any hue is going to be able to ignore revenue opportunities there for the taking when there are so many urgent calls on public money - especially considering that eventually the industrial disputes that are so poisoning the railway will need to be sorted, and that's going to need funding at some point too.

Most sensible post in the thread. Especially the bolded parts.

 

[yorksrob]

Most sensible post in the thread. Especially the bolded parts.

The real question is how the loss of the off peak ticket will screw us all over, but why not get distracted by a fancy monologue instead.

 

[modernrail]

Interesting. Their use of the term ‘Regulated’ has always been a misnomer then. It is a mere contractual obligation. Not something that is ‘regulated’ by a Statutory Regulator.

A slight of spin that goes back to privatisation then.

Most sensible post in the thread. Especially the bolded parts.

Depends on your perspective.

If you want to be able to use trains with some flexibility and certainty of pricing and avoid the peak to save money then presumably you think some certainty of pricing and flexibility and an acknowledgment that you are travelling outside the peak is a good thing. Most revenue comes from passengers making this decision according to the attached, unless I am reading it incorrectly.

If you want to create a railway that is confusing to use, unpredictable and inflexible, you will favour an uncertain pricing structure, especially if you get all excited about over technical real time pricing structures.

We could apply demand based pricing with a massively high cap to utilities. Suddenly watching Michael Portillo would become Russian roulette. Might cost you a tenner, might cost you £100. You might not to be able to watch him at all.

It is very sensible to incentivise not to watch Michael at the busiest times, but it is not really a public service any more if the cost different between 30 mins of Michael might be x10.

There has always been a very effective policing mechanism for demand on longer distance trains. Your bum not having a seat to put itself on. That leads most people to book a seat. If you don’t, you take a risk.

Most of the crush or uncomfortably loaded long distance trains I have been on, and I travel by train A LOT, have been when there has been disruption due to technical failure or where there has been an inability to arrange those little details like drivers, guards or trains.

 

[Joe Paxton]

It is one of the great myths perpetuated that public control somehow automatically leads to lower fares, better services etc. British Rail (for whom I worked until privatisation) was only allowed to invest in the 1980s - following years of austerity and the threat of further retrenchment - by putting in an organisational structure that ruthlessly increased revenue and reduced costs. The first major fares restructuring of this period, which occurred in 1985, led to the abolition of various popular but unprofitable ticket types. How many people here decrying the withdrawal of the LNER off-peak tickets know that when they were introduced by Intercity as 'Savers', they were hated by many enthusiasts because they replaced - at higher cost - the cheap day returns that previously offered the lowest cost fares for journeys over 50 miles, and had been available in both 2nd and 1st class? BR did not have the funds to lengthen services and increase frequencies so pursued a policy of pricing off excess demand. Annual fare increases were always above inflation and reduced taxpayer subsidy.

Ironically, when the Tories came up with their privatisation wheeze, money that not been available to BR suddenly materialised to ensure the 'success' of privatisation.
The fares regulation built into the process was 'priced' into the contracts. It also had the side-effect of ossifying the fares structure. If privatisation hadn't happened, I absolutely guarantee that BR would have moved towards an Intercity fare structure similar that which LNER is testing now, except that it would have happened in the early 2000s. If you want to maximise revenue and still offer cheap fares at least for some seats on that sort of operation you have to yield manage it. Paradoxically, the only thing that stopped it happening was the franchising regime which meat that whenever operators tried to make changes, ministers and the DfT would effectively say 'you bid for it, so you need to run it'.

So it is not really a surprise that now the Government is on the hook for the full costs and revenue for the railway that it's own directly managed bit of InterCity is at last testing this fares approach. Whatever the wilder predictions expressed by some here, it really is only going to work if there is good availability of tickets right up to departure at prices similar to those that people are used to paying. In that sense, the new fares are not really 'advance' any more than an off-peak fare is, in the sense that you need to buy it before you get on board. But there is obviously quite a loss of price guarantee and utility that anyone familiar with the full range of features of off-peak tickets will notice. The big question will be though how much this matters in real life to the majority of people who have never made use of route flexibility, break of journey, pottering around off the direct route where others are permitted etc.

I do think that it's likely that the refund rules and the limits of the flexibility will need to be reviewed. But in terms of generating revenue, I don't think any government of any hue is going to be able to ignore revenue opportunities there for the taking when there are so many urgent calls on public money - especially considering that eventually the industrial disputes that are so poisoning the railway will need to be sorted, and that's going to need funding at some point too.

A great contribution as always, providing some very worthwhile context along with a bit of historical background to today's situation regarding rail fares.

To really be able to take proper stock of this new system, it'll need to be carefully observed in action over a decent period of time.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Interesting. Their use of the term ‘Regulated’ has always been a misnomer then. It is a mere contractual obligation. Not something that is ‘regulated’ by a Statutory Regulator.

A slight of spin that goes back to privatisation then.

The main point of regulation is to cap how much TOCs can increase the relevant fares. Anything else is fair game. That said, some TOCs just increase all their walk up fares by the regulated amount anyway to keep things simple.

What constitutes the regulated fare can be changed by the DfT upon request, and there are some journeys don't have any regulated fares.

 

[modernrail]

The main point of regulation is to cap how much TOCs can increase the relevant fares. Anything else is fair game. That said, some TOCs just increase all their walk up fares by the regulated amount anyway to keep things simple.

What constitutes the regulated fare can be changed by the DfT upon request, and there are some journeys don't have any regulated fares.

It’s not just that there is a cap, it is that the class of fare is available in the first place.

LNER are doing 2 very bad things here.

1. Taking away a fixed price guaranteed availability fare that was subject to a ‘regulated’ price increase each year.
2. Somehow arbitrarily removing one of the key conditions of privatisation - namely the availability of a TOC agnostic off-peak ticket for a route. I really don’t get how LNER can be allowed to arbitrarily do this.

So the Tories are managing to use the cloak of partial re-nationalisation to introduce moves that would have been a contractual breach of a TOC under their own privatisation rules - a double slight of hand that is incredibly typical of the beast.