LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[Gerald Fiennes]

LNER are no longer bound by the 'privatisation rules'. They can price and structure their own fares as they wish, being constrained only by the constraints of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement and not the franchise agreements. This allows them to alter interavailable fares although it is questionable if they can change the structure (ie. the =/-70min thing) quite as much as is now being applied given the effect this have on non-lead operators (in techno speak, ie. Lumo, GC and XC in this example). That said, as open access and other operators may benefit (by removing the ceiling prices on Saver fares), it may well be that they are not going to complain much.

Ironically, one of the changes that follows from their new status is that LNER may not be that interested in revenue maximisation compared with complaint minimisation as an objective, ie. reduction of crowding on peak trains as the thedbdiboy implies above.

Perhaps the only question left is that of whether dropping Savers in this way is actually better than just further restricting their days of use (only valid Mon-Thurs, perhaps?) although doubtless commentators here would say that this was too 'complicated'. (The public, aided by websites/apps, seem actually pretty capable of finding the cheaper/cheapest fares so far as I can see and often seem to report that the fare they found was good value, when surveyed.)

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

I didn’t really see anything fancy in it. It makes a lot of sense. Currently we are seeing a lot of chickens come home to roost. Lack of capacity and lack of potential to extend capacity are key.

Britain has a relatively unusual political schism when it comes to its railways. The government are going to be naturally inclined to ensure that such a very heavily subsidised piece of infrastructure delivers value for money to the taxpayer. Remember, most people here wanted the thing nationalised. Here it is boys! Welcome to the nationalised railway where the Treasury calls all the shots. Well played everyone (!).

Perversely, there is clamour about delivering a “walk on railway”. Why does Britain seem to demand this all the time? Many European countries we point to and say “god their trains are so much better aren’t they?” have compulsory reservations and strong yield management. The idea of a long distance mega flexible off peak return is a totally foreign concept to many railways which deliver better value than ours.

We need to be realistic about what railways are for. We never have this debate properly in the political arena and we are now left with a railway suffering on all fronts. The LNER trial is another one which has been deliberately over egged so that some key negatives can be rolled back in time so it looks like a strategic political concession.

 

[GoneSouth]

But once it's been deemed an unqualified success by those who proposed it, there's little doubt the same treatment will be applied to many other flows priced by LNER. Including flows where there are few practical alternatives other than to travel by private car if you have access to one, or not to travel at all, if you don't.

And this is the issue that upsets me so much. For those of us that cannot have a car as an alternative it’s a horrendous prospect To have to shell out a couple of hundred quid each for long distance journeys.

I already spend annually on rail fares at least as much as it would cost me to use a car. When I factor in the use of taxis and buses and adding the cost of extra tickets for other members of the family, it’s clear the car is the only affordable method of transport for families in the long term.

If this has the effect that I think it will in increasing hugely the cost of convenience of using trains, I’m stuck at home a lot in future as it will be unaffordable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

The latter highlight misses the point (which is in the sentence before). It'll affect them too, because the fares will be cranked up, so their fare will go up. The main issue isn't flexibility, it's fare rises.

Whether BR would have done it is moot.

The point about SNCF etc fits with the above - yes they have yield management and compulsory reservation, but they also largely have reasonable prices. It's about fare increases. If a cap remained in place and it was just the Off Peak type tickets being removed, I'd be less bothered, particularly if the admin fee was removed for changes meaning I could change as many times as I wanted with the fare maxing out at the Off Peak rate.

 

[island]

The 70 minute either way limit is a bit arbitrary.

It's intended to give you an hour either way; the extra 10 minutes reflect that whilst there is a fairly consistent clockface timetable starting at either end, varying stopping patterns mean that the intermediate points might not be exactly within an hour. For example, from Newcastle to Kings Cross departure times today include 1128 1158 1226 1257 1330 1359. On a 60 minute limit a ticket for the 1257 wouldn't be valid for the 1359 for example, but the 70 minute limit consistently gives you your booked train and a choice of two trains before and two after.

which seems more popular in this country the longer the journey [so GWR 1st class is generally less well patronised than LNER 1st]

I see that as, in part, a consequence of GWR's lacklustre onboard 1st class catering compared to LNER.

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.

It's not that simple, sadly; the BahnCard 50 doesn't give 50% off some Advance ticket types, you have to pay double for a BahnCard with validity in first class, and there is a dizzying array of different pricing schemes and contracts depending on age and how long you want to commit for – 29 different BahnCards altogether. You also need to cancel it six weeks before expiry otherwise it will auto renew. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[AlterEgo]

The latter highlight misses the point (which is in the sentence before). It'll affect them too, because the fares will be cranked up, so their fare will go up. The main issue isn't flexibility, it's fare rises.

Whether BR would have done it is moot.

The point about SNCF etc fits with the above - yes they have yield management and compulsory reservation, but they also largely have reasonable prices. It's about fare increases. If a cap remained in place and it was just the Off Peak type tickets being removed, I'd be less bothered, particularly if the admin fee was removed for changes meaning I could change as many times as I wanted with the fare maxing out at the Off Peak rate.

I think we can expect a watered down version of the LNER trial to go nationwide, at least on point to point intercity routes. I don’t like the trial for the very reason it represents a fare rise, but I do see it as inevitable. Off Peak tickets are an anachronism and have been seen as such for over a decade, with Virgin fart-arsing about what to do with the “shoulder peak” (a complete fiction) since at least 2011.

 

[GoneSouth]

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

Maybe a topic for another thread, or there may already have been one, but which journeys wouldn’t have a regulated fare, and why? Is it just long distance fares that do?

 

[thedbdiboy]

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.

On 2, the Railways Act only requires that through interavailable ticketing is maintained. As the Anytime fare is still available the statutory requirement is met. As noted previously re 1, there is no statutory requirement regarding price regulation. I believe that the trial involves alternative monitoring of prices paid to ensure that average fare levels don't exceed what would have been charged with the off-peaks in place.
You're right to note that they have changed their own rules, but then again if you re-read any of the guff they wrote in 1992 about the benefits of privatisation, none of it reads like what actually happened.

 

[yorksrob]

I didn’t really see anything fancy in it. It makes a lot of sense. Currently we are seeing a lot of chickens come home to roost. Lack of capacity and lack of potential to extend capacity are key.

Britain has a relatively unusual political schism when it comes to its railways. The government are going to be naturally inclined to ensure that such a very heavily subsidised piece of infrastructure delivers value for money to the taxpayer. Remember, most people here wanted the thing nationalised. Here it is boys! Welcome to the nationalised railway where the Treasury calls all the shots. Well played everyone (!).

Perversely, there is clamour about delivering a “walk on railway”. Why does Britain seem to demand this all the time? Many European countries we point to and say “god their trains are so much better aren’t they?” have compulsory reservations and strong yield management. The idea of a long distance mega flexible off peak return is a totally foreign concept to many railways which deliver better value than ours.

We need to be realistic about what railways are for. We never have this debate properly in the political arena and we are now left with a railway suffering on all fronts. The LNER trial is another one which has been deliberately over egged so that some key negatives can be rolled back in time so it looks like a strategic political concession.

We also have a Government that chides the railway for being "a rich man's toy" then proceeds to make them even more of a rich man's toy at every opportunity.

Off-peak fares on Inter-City distances aren't generally "walk-on" for most people most of the time. They do, however make such journeys affordable if you're in a fix or you don't know exactly when you'll be travelling.

We need to remember that for most journeys in this country, the motor car is the competitor. That really is "turn up and go". The railway industry is putting itself at an ever greater disadvantage against it's competitors the more it tries to channel and control people.

And while we're on the subject of Continental practice, there are lots of things we should be following - Bahn cards for example. Surprise Surprise - we only follow continental practice where its bad for the passenger.

The railway here will deliver value when it delivers value for passengers - from there the economic benefits of people being able to afford to go about their business, will follow.

I've seen no evidence that the off-peak and super off-peak fares are regularly causing overcrowding on Inter-City services, therefore their removal is a price gouge. Talk of capacity etc in this context is an irrelevance.

 

[GoneSouth]

Even with the caveats I'd take DB's pricing over LNER's proposal.



In what way do you think it would be watered down?

The biggest thing they could change in my view that would make it tolerable, bar retaining the fare cap, would be removal of the £10 admin fee for changes. Ideally just allow refund of Advances to an evoucher so I could change to a pair of tickets for a break of journey, for instance. It's faffy but I could basically retain all my desired flexibility, just via different mechanisms.

What a load of faffing around having to change tickets is. Simpler to just have a ticket you can use on any train except peak departures from London stations. We could call it an off peak?

 

[Haywain]

Surprise Surprise - we only follow continental practice where its bad for the passenger.

And people on these forums only talk about continental practice in terms of being better than what happens here.

 

[GoneSouth]

Any chance we could introduce motorway load management and outrageous per mile charges for anytime car use?

 

[yorksrob]

And people on these forums only talk about continental practice in terms of being better than what happens here.

I don't think that's the case. Compulsory reservations and bustitutions in France are two examples off the top of my head where Continental practice is regularly criticised on here.

 

[AlterEgo]

We also have a Government that chides the railway for being "a rich man's toy" then proceeds to make them even more of a rich man's toy at every opportunity.

Hammond said this about 13 years ago! Why are people surprised that now Treasury calls all the shots, this is what is happening? The people who celebrated the de facto nationalisation of the railways were grossly naive if this has come as a surprise to them.

Off-peak fares on Inter-City distances aren't generally "walk-on" for most people most of the time. They do, however make such journeys affordable if you're in a fix or you don't know exactly when you'll be travelling.

We need to remember that for most journeys in this country, the motor car is the competitor. That really is "turn up and go". The railway industry is putting itself at an ever greater disadvantage against it's competitors the more it tries to channel and control people.

How many more car drivers can LNER attract? You say capacity is an irrelevance when it is not. How many more cars can LNER take off the road, given its services are generally very full?

Sorry no - this is chickens coming home to roost and anyone who has opposed significant capacity upgrades like HS2 and anyone who was enthusiastic about having the Treasury control the railways so directly is reaping what they've sown.

And while we're on the subject of Continental practice, there are lots of things we should be following - Bahn cards for example. Surprise Surprise - we only follow continental practice where its bad for the passenger.

I agree we should have a national railcard; there is no good reason why we segment by age or occupation.

The railway here will deliver value when it delivers value for passengers - from there the economic benefits of people being able to afford to go about their business, will follow.

You're making it sound like the trial will result in lower loadings, which I am not convinced of in the longer term. What it might do is change the market segment of passenger.

I've seen no evidence that the off-peak and super off-peak fares are regularly causing overcrowding on Inter-City services, therefore their removal is a price gouge. Talk of capacity etc in this context is an irrelevance.

No, it is not irrelevant, it is fundamental. LNER is a TOC with pretty high loadings on its services compared to, say, Avanti. Given there is limited capacity and no prospect of improving that any time soon, why should the government turn away good money it can otherwise get for those services?

I am not surprised whatsoever that Off Peaks - a fare which is unbelievably flexible and not in any way quota controlled, and which acts as an unofficial fare cap for quota controlled fares - are being removed.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Hammond said this about 13 years ago! Why are people surprised that now Treasury calls all the shots, this is what is happening? The people who celebrated the de facto nationalisation of the railways were grossly naive if this has come as a surprise to them.


How many more car drivers can LNER attract? You say capacity is an irrelevance when it is not. How many more cars can LNER take off the road, given its services are generally very full?

Sorry no - this is chickens coming home to roost and anyone who has opposed significant capacity upgrades like HS2 and anyone who was enthusiastic about having the Treasury control the railways so directly is reaping what they've sown.


I agree we should have a national railcard; there is no good reason why we segment by age or occupation.


You're making it sound like the trial will result in lower loadings, which I am not convinced of in the longer term. What it might do is change the market segment of passenger.


No, it is not irrelevant, it is fundamental. LNER is a TOC with pretty high loadings on its services compared to, say, Avanti. Given there is limited capacity and no prospect of improving that any time soon, why should the government turn away good money it can otherwise get for those services?

I am not surprised whatsoever that Off Peaks - a fare which is unbelievably flexible and not in any way quota controlled, and which acts as an unofficial fare cap for quota controlled fares - are being removed.

Exactly, I travel at various different times and the trains are mostly very busy.

 

[Haywain]

I don't think that's the case. Compulsory reservations and bustitutions in France are two examples off the top of my head where Continental practice is regularly criticised on here.

It's not something I see in this area of the forums - perhaps I should specify that I am referring to comparisons with our railways.

 

[yorksrob]

Hammond said this about 13 years ago! Why are people surprised that now Treasury calls all the shots, this is what is happening? The people who celebrated the de facto nationalisation of the railways were grossly naive if this has come as a surprise to them.

It may have been 13 years ago but the mindset is exactly the same - hence why the buses have the £2 fare scheme while train fares are increased. Buses aren't seen as a rich mans toy.

How many more car drivers can LNER attract? You say capacity is an irrelevance when it is not. How many more cars can LNER take off the road, given its services are generally very full?

Sorry no - this is chickens coming home to roost and anyone who has opposed significant capacity upgrades like HS2 and anyone who was enthusiastic about having the Treasury control the railways so directly is reaping what they've sown.

I'm sorry, but unless you have evidence that the off-peak and super off- peak fares are causing overcrowding, then capacity is an irrelevance to this development. Treasury aren't forcing this change so that the poor passengers have a bit of room on the train. This is purely a stealth increase - that is its purpose.

I agree we should have a national railcard; there is no good reason why we segment by age or occupation.

It's nice to agree occasionally !

You're making it sound like the trial will result in lower loadings, which I am not convinced of in the longer term. What it might do is change the market segment of passenger.

That's not the point I'm trying to put across. Infact I don't think this development has any thing to do with loadings whatsoever. It's purely about money.

No, it is not irrelevant, it is fundamental. LNER is a TOC with pretty high loadings on its services compared to, say, Avanti. Given there is limited capacity and no prospect of improving that any time soon, why should the government turn away good money it can otherwise get for those services?

It comes down to your point about "what are the railways for". They are there to facilitate people going about their business.

It should be the same reason why the Government is "turning away good money" through the £2 bus scheme.

I am not surprised whatsoever that Off Peaks - a fare which is unbelievably flexible and not in any way quota controlled, and which acts as an unofficial fare cap for quota controlled fares - are being removed.

Off-peaks are not "unbelievably flexible" by any stretch. They are priced for that flexibility.

 

[yorkie]

Does anyone have anything to add which is directly relevant to this change?

Comparisons with other modes and/or countries, detailed discussion of any potential root causes (such as lack of capacity), and of course anything of a speculative nature, all belong in separate threads (which people are very welcome to create)

 

[Angmering1974]

And while we're on the subject of Continental practice, there are lots of things we should be following - Bahn cards for example. Surprise Surprise - we only follow continental practice where its bad for the passenger.

Well said. What about the long Dutch trains that let you buy a walk up fare at peak time for a 3.5 hour journey the across the country for less than 30 EUR… oh no we can’t do that

 

[yorksrob]

Well said. What about the long Dutch trains that let you buy a walk up fare at peak time for a 3.5 hour journey the across the country for less than 30 EUR… oh no we can’t do that

Indeed. The way some people are going on about off-peak fares here, you'd have thought those trains must be so crowded at that price, people must be sitting on the roof. Yet the Dutch system doesn't appear to have collapsed under the weight of demand.

The idea that our long distance off-peak fares must be removed or else the system will collapse under its own popularity is absurd.

 

[Frontera2]

Perversely, there is clamour about delivering a “walk on railway”. Why does Britain seem to demand this all the time? Many European countries we point to and say “god their trains are so much better aren’t they?” have compulsory reservations and strong yield management. The idea of a long distance mega flexible off peak return is a totally foreign concept to many railways which deliver better value than ours.

Totally agree on this - from a customer experience point. Take Bank Holidays where there's pictures of packed long distance trains, and the usual howls of "The train company has sold too many tickets" etc. This would deal with that..

Even if you've a seat, a train that's full and standing is not a pleasant experience. For example fighting your way through to reach the toilet or buffet etc.

We are one of the few rail networks in the western world that allow unrestricted / "walk up" tickets on long distance trains.

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

Totally agree 100% how many passengers are really going to be affected by this

 

[yorksrob]

Totally agree on this - from a customer experience point. Take Bank Holidays where there's pictures of packed long distance trains, and the usual howls of "The train company has sold too many tickets" etc. This would deal with that..

Even if you've a seat, a train that's full and standing is not a pleasant experience. For example fighting your way through to reach the toilet or buffet etc.

We are one of the few rail networks in the western world that allow unrestricted / "walk up" tickets on long distance trains.


Totally agree 100% how many passengers are really going to be affected by this

You can't have it both ways.

Either off-peak fares are so popular they're causing overcrowding, or they're so unpopular that not many passengers will be affected.

Which is it ?

 

[trei2k]

Totally agree on this - from a customer experience point. Take Bank Holidays where there's pictures of packed long distance trains, and the usual howls of "The train company has sold too many tickets" etc. This would deal with that..

Even if you've a seat, a train that's full and standing is not a pleasant experience. For example fighting your way through to reach the toilet or buffet etc.

We are one of the few rail networks in the western world that allow unrestricted / "walk up" tickets on long distance trains.

But the alternative is worse: no way to travel. I think the majority of people would rather stand than simply being told that they couldn't travel.

I had a situation in France where I had to wait an extra day for a train due to all the seats being fully booked on every possible service. I would have been happy to stand! If I were in the UK, I would have just driven.

The elephant in the room is capacity, we are all in this tangled mess due to the lack of it. The sticking plaster of ticketing changes does not get around the fact that we don't have enough capacity.

 

[GoneSouth]

You can't have it both ways.

Either off-peak fares are so popular they're causing overcrowding, or they're so unpopular that not many passengers will be affected.

Which is it ?

Good point, I was about to ask the same question

 

[Frontera2]

Good point, I was about to ask the same question

I should have been clearer - I'm not talking about off-peak tickets in that context, I was referring to flexible tickets in general.

 

[GoneSouth]

I should have been clearer - I'm not talking about off-peak tickets in that context, I was referring to flexible tickets in general.

Well it doesn’t matter what you call them, the question remains the same about flexible tickets in general.

Are they causing overcrowding or is nobody using them. It can’t be both

 

[AlterEgo]

Well it doesn’t matter what you call them, the question remains the same about flexible tickets in general.

Are they causing overcrowding or is nobody using them. It can’t be both

Neither. The point is, they are not an effective method of generating revenue and managing capacity, two key aims of the Treasury when it comes to rail policy. The point is to get more money out of each train.

 

[yorksrob]

Neither. The point is, they are not an effective method of generating revenue and managing capacity, two key aims of the Treasury when it comes to rail policy. The point is to get more money out of each train.

And I come back to my policy that rails main competitor is motor transport.

The treasury might wish that this was the 19th century and the only alternative was a horse and cart, but it isn't. There will be people paying the substantial sums of the off peak tickets who will just get alternative transport.

 

[GoneSouth]

I think I’m done with this for now. In summary the trial is an abomination which is all about

• Huge stealth price increases
• REDUCED and not increased flexibility of travel times
• REDUCED and not improved simplicity
• REDUCED protection for refunds and amendments if something goes wrong
• Single operator only ticketing to reduced flexibility
• REMOVAL of price cap protection, unlocking the door to uncontrolled fare increases
• A realisation that 1x passenger paying £200 each way is more lucrative than 4 paying £45 each way shows there is no desire to encourage greater use of rail
• Car is king and bugger anyone who doesn’t have one

 

[AlterEgo]

And I come back to my policy that rails main competitor is motor transport.

The treasury might wish that this was the 19th century and the only alternative was a horse and cart, but it isn't. There will be people paying the substantial sums of the off peak tickets who will just get alternative transport.

Do you, or do you not, envisage the trains will be emptier under the new regime?

The whole point of the trial is to remove the revenue cap implemented by having a flexible and refundable fare sitting on top of quota controlled inflexible ones. it is not designed to make the trains emptier.

I will eat my hat if next year I find the Edinburgh trains are empty.