LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[Kite159]

The vast majority of the public will not even contemplate the anytime fare. I used to work at NRES. When I quoted the peak fare to Manchester the caller invariably laughed and said forget it.


Easter will be worth watching.

And those in the know will know they can get a cheaper ticket by buying from Haymarket than overpaying for an advance from Edinburgh.

Heck it's even cheaper to buy an advance to Haymarket than to Edinburgh on some of those trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about an even simpler system in which the fare of a train service is always fixed and pre-announced, dependent only on the stations and departure time? For example, 08:00 costs £200, 08:30 costs £180 ... 10:00 £100 etc., and the tickets can be changed by paying the difference. The total number of passengers is quite predictable. Having different fares at different time, but not the time of booking, would already achieve some kind of demand management.

Yield management is headed that way anyway, there's a lot less variation than there was. It used to be a case of "first few tickets £5, last few £200" with a curve in between, but now it's more about working out what you can get away with for any given service which results in fewer headline fares.

 

[Krokodil]

So the 1130 and 1200 are £80 ,still less than a SSS

So the Advance (which was probably available anyway) saves you £7 compared with the SSS, and only then on two trains. If you want any kind of flexibility (far less than you may be used to it'll cost you an extra £20 or so. Never mind those who wanted to get any other trains.

 

[ainsworth74]

So the 1130 and 1200 are £80 ,still less than a SSS

Yes and on Friday 23 February the 11 is £113.40 the best part of £30 more than the SSS whilst the 1130 and 1200 are £101.70 around £20 more than the SSS.

I appreciate that you may have to come and bat for this idea but surely you can see how for many people having to pay £30 more than they would have a month ago for the same train is not going to be winning them over no matter the supposed "benefits" that the trial brings to passengers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes and on Friday 23 February the 11 is £113.40 the best part of £30 more than the SSS whilst the 1130 and 1200 are £101.70 around £20 more than the SSS.

I appreciate that you may have to come and bat for this idea but surely you can see how for many people having to pay £30 more than they would have a month ago for the same train is not going to be winning them over no matter the supposed "benefits" that the trial brings to passengers?

I don't think I'd "bat" for the idea myself, if I was involved in it in some way I'd just say nothing.

It's now proven it's wholly about massive fare increases, and that's not something I'd be actively supporting in public.

Quite different from the single fare pricing which I supported even though it carried a small fare increase because it adds some types of flexibility as well. I'm similarly in favour of that as it's been applied to Project Oval area fares (even more so as there are still returns at twice the single) even though it'll carry a couple of quid of fare increase for many of my trips (and the restrictions for cross London are incredibly clumsy, so splitting will almost always save significant money). But this takes away twice - flexibility and now, as we suspected, more money too.

There are, in line with that, versions of it I could be persuaded to support, e.g. if Anytimes (and thus the cap on Advances) were reduced to say £120 a pop. That would still be a whacking increase on the price of a flexible ticket, but at least you'd get more flexibility for your extra money and it wouldn't be swingeing. Perhaps LNER might consider trialling that version on another route, and perhaps also binning the £10 admin fee.

 

[robbeech]

the point I was making is that it will be the views of the majority that influence the feedback rather than what you or I think.

It'll be the views of The Railway, not a single piece of data or suggestion from any passenger will even go into the hat.

the aim will be to find a way to maximise revenue in a way that meets the requirements of as many passengers as possible.

Corrected that one for you.

You're not making a like for like comparison though - you're comparing prices for fixed flights, bought ahead of time, to totally flexible Anytime tickets available for purchase right up to the moment of departure.

I'm very firmly against the usual non like for like comparisons people do to make the railway seem even worse than it is. However this is different. This will in many cases be the ONLY comparison. There are already trains where there are NO advances or flex tickets available so the only option for that train is the Anytime ticket, even when booked in advance. So in this case it IS a like for like.

And those in the know will know they can get a cheaper ticket by buying from Haymarket than overpaying for an advance from Edinburgh.

I'm trying to avoid using this suggestion as anything more than a temporary solution. It would imo be folly to fool people into thinking that this is a fix as we all know that when they confirm the increase in revenue and consider the trial a success (as this is entirely the aim) and this is rolled out to the entire ECML it will include connections too wherever possible.

 

[bakerstreet]

Well, it didn't take long...

Is this inclusive of the Great British Rail Sale 50% discount ?!

 

[AlterEgo]

How about an even simpler system in which the fare of a train service is always fixed and pre-announced, dependent only on the stations and departure time? For example, 08:00 costs £200, 08:30 costs £180 ... 10:00 £100 etc., and the tickets can be changed by paying the difference. The total number of passengers is quite predictable.

It isn't that predictable. There is quite a flux of demand, even weekday to weekday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't that predictable. There is quite a flux of demand, even weekday to weekday.

It's very predictable. It's not always the same on the same time at different days, but if you look at the pricing on the easyJet website it isn't now a case of it going up over time quite as much, they tend to predict what they can charge for a given flight months beforehand. Premier Inns are similar, I just booked one for this weekend at a fairly reasonable rate which is no doubt very close to what it went on sale as (and the website said "last few rooms" at that one, I don't know what triggers that though), and similarly if it's a school holiday they don't go up at £29 for the first few rooms, they start off at £150 and stay roughly around there.

Some things can affect it like school holidays and major events, but again those are inherently predictable.

What I do agree with in the OP's principle is that the £10 admin fee for Advance changes needs to go*, and ideally if you switch to a cheaper train (thus doing the railway a favour, because it'll probably easily resell the more expensive seat) you should be able to get an e-voucher for the difference. It used to be the case that you'd just buy a walk up ticket if you wanted flexibility to change plans, but this is no longer within reach and so given that the purpose is more granular pricing rather than getting money in advance it doesn't make sense to clout people for changing plans. Premier Inn now doesn't charge a change fee and refunds the difference (as actual money) if you change to a cheaper option.

In short, if the future is Advances for everything, Advances need to become more user-friendly and not still be seen as bargain basement, super-restricted tickets.

* Maybe allow refunds and keep it for those, or allow a percentage refund, say 80%.

 

[Mark J]

Just another way to raise fares further by the back door.

When will operators and the Government finally understand that you get fuller trains when fares are reasonable and transparent. Not when they are expensive and complicated!

The industry has still yet to fully recover after Covid. Making things more expensive and complicated will not help get numbers back to pre-covid levels.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's very predictable. It's not always the same on the same time at different days, but if you look at the pricing on the easyJet website it isn't now a case of it going up over time quite as much, they tend to predict what they can charge for a given flight months beforehand. Premier Inns are similar, I just booked one for this weekend at a fairly reasonable rate which is no doubt very close to what it went on sale as (and the website said "last few rooms" at that one, I don't know what triggers that though), and similarly if it's a school holiday they don't go up at £29 for the first few rooms, they start off at £150 and stay roughly around there.

Some things can affect it like school holidays and major events, but again those are inherently predictable.

Premier Inn still has quota controlled rooms though, and Easyjet still does yield management - they're not daft enough to offer fixed rates as the original poster was suggesting. You can also induce demand with very cheap tickets - if you need to.

Just another way to raise fares further by the back door.

When will operators and the Government understand that you get fuller trains when fares are reasonable and transparent. Not when they are expensive and complicated!

LNER trains are quite full though, and especially so on the Anglo Scot route. Last half a dozen times I've travelled it's been literally sold out in first class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNER trains are quite full though, and especially so on the Anglo Scot route. Last half a dozen times I've travelled it's been literally sold out in first class.

Which begs the question - why aren't we trying to increase capacity, such as by way of longer trains? You wouldn't have to extend many platforms to get to 400m on the new fast Edinburgh (though you would need to rejig KX throat again to be able to extend that far - but you could do 300m now).

And more to the point why are TOCs being allowed to waste ECML paths with 5 coach trains? Lumo should have been required to be at least 200m from the get-go, and Grand Central and Hull are similarly wasting paths with their short trains.

 

[Mark J]

Premier Inn still has quota controlled rooms though, and Easyjet still does yield management - they're not daft enough to offer fixed rates as the original poster was suggesting. You can also induce demand with very cheap tickets - if you need to.


LNER trains are quite full though, and especially so on the Anglo Scot route. Last half a dozen times I've travelled it's been literally sold out in first class.

One of the RF site team has previously stated (on another thread) that we should resist the LNER single leg pricing and ticket simplification as it will ultimately lead to even higher fares. Especially when rolled out elsewhere across the network.

I fully agree.

The railways can be expensive enough, without prices rising even more (above the annual inflation increase) due to new pricing/ticket structures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Premier Inn still has quota controlled rooms though, and Easyjet still does yield management - they're not daft enough to offer fixed rates as the original poster was suggesting.

They're not completely fixed, but they now don't change much over time because they have more sophisticated systems in place that predict what you can sell a given seat for. It's not the old situation of £1 for the first seat, £299 for the last and a bell curve of some sort in between. Bar the lead-in fares even Megabus don't really do that any more.

This is all a bit less unpalatable if you're not caned for booking/changing on the day.

(Though part of the problem is that UK fares are just too high. If you're in Italy or France, outrageously-priced "Eurostar Red" aside, it's normally not that expensive and so a bit of variance can be tolerated - just like everyone's favourite purple hotels which do overprice occasionally but typically not too badly).

 

[Mark J]

Why can't the entire network just be moved to a simple flat rate x number of pence per mile structure.

Would be easier overall - and fairer!

 

[Krokodil]

Lumo should have been required to be at least 200m from the get-go

Didn't the DfT specify a 400 seat minimum per train, thinking that Lumo would use longer trains to accomplish it? Lumo managed to squeeze the required number of seats into five coaches, against expectations.

Talking of short trains, XC continue to get away with running four coach trains, with far fewer seats per vehicle than an 800. No sign of a cascade of the Avanti 221s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didn't the DfT specify a 400 seat minimum per train, thinking that Lumo would use longer trains to accomplish it? Lumo managed to squeeze the required number of seats into five coaches, against expectations.

Yes, and that's what caused their luggage issues.

400 was perhaps too low - 9-car low density units have 600+ seats.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why can't the entire network just be moved to a simple flat rate x number of pence per mile structure.

Would be easier overall - and fairer!

You're risking the wrath of @yorkie here - pence per mile is the most harmful of all options for fare simplification.

 

[Mark J]

Didn't the DfT specify a 400 seat minimum per train, thinking that Lumo would use longer trains to accomplish it? Lumo managed to squeeze the required number of seats into five coaches, against expectations.

Talking of short trains, XC continue to get away with running four coach trains, with far fewer seats per vehicle than an 800. No sign of a cascade of the Avanti 221s.

XC are a disgrace (even some of the staff I know agree with that!).

Their problems could largely disappear with extra capacity/longer trains.

 

[yorksrob]

Premier Inn still has quota controlled rooms though, and Easyjet still does yield management - they're not daft enough to offer fixed rates as the original poster was suggesting. You can also induce demand with very cheap tickets - if you need to.


LNER trains are quite full though, and especially so on the Anglo Scot route. Last half a dozen times I've travelled it's been literally sold out in first class.

The railway is not a hotel (sleeper services excepted).

How about an even simpler system in which the fare of a train service is always fixed and pre-announced, dependent only on the stations and departure time? For example, 08:00 costs £200, 08:30 costs £180 ... 10:00 £100 etc., and the tickets can be changed by paying the difference. The total number of passengers is quite predictable. Having different fares at different time, but not the time of booking, would already achieve some kind of demand management.

Isn't that off-peak, super off-peak etc ?

 

[AlterEgo]

The railway is not a hotel (sleeper services excepted).

So what? Neither are airlines. Or long distance coaches.

The idea that the railways are ever going to move away from yield management when there is such limited capacity is so fanciful it doesn't deserve entertaining as a serious idea.

 

[yorksrob]

So what? Neither are airlines. Or long distance coaches.

The idea that the railways are ever going to move away from yield management when there is such limited capacity is so fanciful it doesn't deserve entertaining as a serious idea.

And I'm sick and tired of people making spurious suggestions that the railway should be like those as well.

The railway already has yield management. It has had it for decades Again I ask, where is evidence that the current off-peak regime is in itself a large strain on capacity. This suggestion is a distraction from the real/only reason this change is happening.

 

[Haywain]

The railway already has yield management. It has had it for decades

What is has had is yield management with a price ceiling - that can only ever be considered to be limited yield management. I would prefer that situation to remain, but we have to be realistic about what it is.

 

[AlterEgo]

Again I ask, where is evidence that the current off-peak regime is in itself a large strain on capacity.

How many times does it have to be explained that the point of the fares trial is (supposedly) to get very heavily subsidised railway to start bringing some taxpayer value? This is not a demand management issue about overcrowding; this is about getting people to pay more money while still filling trains. This is why the unofficial fares cap has been removed by nixing Off Peaks. You can absolutely do that when you are currently selling out trains - even in first class!

I dislike like that as much as you; railways should be run as a public good in my view - but I still prefer to live in the real world and meet the challenge where it is. Britain should be heavily investing in boosting capacity and should be looking at using its railways far more efficiently. However, we also have challenges baked into our culture - building new things is expensive and difficult, our political system is broken and cannot use its executive to do anything meaningful by fiat, and most unfortunately of all, the opposition to these reforms is ill-directed and misses the target.

I cannot believe you are still labouring under the completely incorrect notion that this is about solving crowding and getting emptier trains.

 

[yorksrob]

What is has had is yield management with a price ceiling - that can only ever be considered to be limited yield management. I would prefer that situation to remain, but we have to be realistic about what it is.

And the railway is a publicly funded service, therefore it is right that there is a ceiling on fares. Making fares more expensive in this way is only politically acceptable because they're able to obscure what they're actually doing.

Maybe the main stream media will cotton on (but since it's passed one of the main public transport advocating organisations by, that may be a vain hope).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I cannot believe you are still labouring under the completely incorrect notion that this is about solving crowding and getting emptier trains.

It is to an extent - it's pricing people off busier trains, ideally (for LNER) onto less busy ones but also into cars.

NatEx and Megabus must be rubbing their hands together with glee if this is likely to go national, though; there'll be far more people who can't afford rail any more and thus huge potential for increased coach business, and potentially at slightly higher fares too.

But in LNER's case the solution isn't just fares, it's more capacity. Both longer trains (expensive) but also potentially higher density interiors with fewer tables which could probably get another 50+ seats into a 9 car.

 

[yorksrob]

How many times does it have to be explained that the point of the fares trial is (supposedly) to get very heavily subsidised railway to start bringing some taxpayer value? This is not a demand management issue about overcrowding; this is about getting people to pay more money while still filling trains. This is why the unofficial fares cap has been removed by nixing Off Peaks. You can absolutely do that when you are currently selling out trains - even in first class!

I dislike like that as much as you; railways should be run as a public good in my view - but I still prefer to live in the real world and meet the challenge where it is. Britain should be heavily investing in boosting capacity and should be looking at using its railways far more efficiently. However, we also have challenges baked into our culture - building new things is expensive and difficult, our political system is broken and cannot use its executive to do anything meaningful by fiat, and most unfortunately of all, the opposition to these reforms is ill-directed and misses the target.

I cannot believe you are still labouring under the completely incorrect notion that this is about solving crowding and getting emptier trains.

You're the one who keeps on implying that its somehow about about capacity and throwing the cost of infrastructure etc into the mix. I (along with the majority of right minded people on here) have been clear all along that this is nothing but a back door fares hike.

It's a fallacy perpetuated by our right wing fringe government that the only way to bring more tax payer value for money is to rinse more from existing passengers. They should do more to increase numbers across the network which will generate more economic activity (and may even bring in some more revenue as well).

 

[Krokodil]

400 was perhaps too low - 9-car low density units have 600+ seats.

Presumably the DfT hoped that 400 would be enough to force the use of 7-car sets (six not being possible with 80x).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably the DfT hoped that 400 would be enough to force the use of 7-car sets (six not being possible with 80x).

Possibly, but even 7 is too short - everything should be full length on such a congested railway.

 

[Haywain]

Making fares more expensive in this way is only politically acceptable because they're able to obscure what they're actually doing.

It's only politically acceptable because politicians are happy to accept it.