Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

[nr758123]

East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways

The author doesn't seem to be a transport specialist, but I think the lack of mention of the LNER fare reform – I don't think it's right to keep calling it a trial when they seem so intent on pushing it through – shows a lack of attention / understanding of the issue in the media.

The author works for a free market think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, based at Tufton Street.

Tony Lodge is a political and energy analyst and Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies.

He is the author of numerous CPS papers on the energy and rail sectors, a former Editor of the European Journal and a former Chief of Staff to the Shadow Attorney General and Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He has written regularly in the national and international media and appeared on national TV and radio covering energy policy issues.

This appears a classic attempt to confuse correlation with causality.

It's what these Tufton Street think tanks do best.

Open Access makes a marginal difference on a handful of routes. It's a complete irrelevance on routes where there isn't the spare capacity to allow it, which is most places.

All this is somewhat off-topic. in a halfhearted attempt to get it back on topic, the reason the author doesn't mention the fare trial/reform/increase is because he is only interested in promoting his organisation's ideology.

 

[richardderby]

I do wonder if LNER are trying to recoup the losses from the (roughly) half singles, other companies (EMR etc) still charge 10p less than a return for a single. Fares simplification?..

 

[takno]

I do wonder if LNER are trying to recoup the losses from the (roughly) half singles, other companies (EMR etc) still charge 10p less than a return for a single. Fares simplification?..

It's certainly quite annoying that they still go on about that bit of fares simplification when this bit entirely eliminates it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do wonder if LNER are trying to recoup the losses from the (roughly) half singles, other companies (EMR etc) still charge 10p less than a return for a single. Fares simplification?..

The increase in the Super Off Peaks did that. This is (according to Modern Railways) revenue neutral compared to that - in essence they're charging fewer people more.

 

[AdamWW]

The increase in the Super Off Peaks did that. This is (according to Modern Railways) revenue neutral compared to that - in essence they're charging fewer people more.

Do we know that there isn't also an element of better value now for those who can plan their lives months in ahead balanced out by much higher fares for those travelling on the day?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do we know that there isn't also an element of better value now for those who can plan their lives months in ahead balanced out by much higher fares for those travelling on the day?

It's possible, I haven't monitored it to that extent. However one thing they said would happen (less traditional peak gouging) hasn't.

I do think the trial route was specifically chosen for maximum support (hardly anyone takes ad-hoc trips from London to Edinburgh) - if they'd done this on the Leeds route that was used for the single fare pricing trial I can't see it having been as popular.

 

[BRX]

(hardly anyone takes ad-hoc trips from London to Edinburgh)

To what extent can we know that? It might be that ticket data shows a small number of off-peaks being used, relative to Advances, do we know when those Advances are bought? Any advances bought fairly close to departure, in a system that retains off peaks, can be regarded as "ad hoc" because they are capped, and the person buying them can know that if there's no advance ticket left when they book, the worst that can happen is that they buy an off peak. If (for example) 2% of tickets are off peaks but 20% are Advances bought within 24 hrs of travel then I'd see that as indicating a significant amount of "ad hoc" trips.

That's all changed now though, of course. It would be interesting to know if the change has resulted in people generally booking earlier (because they are scared of being stung if they leave it as late as they would really like to).

 

[AdamWW]

To what extent can we know that? It might be that ticket data shows a small number of off-peaks being used, relative to Advances, do we know when those Advances are bought? Any advances bought fairly close to departure, in a system that retains off peaks, can be regarded as "ad hoc" because they are capped, and the person buying them can know that if there's no advance ticket left when they book, the worst that can happen is that they buy an off peak. If (for example) 2% of tickets are off peaks but 20% are Advances bought within 24 hrs of travel then I'd see that as indicating a significant amount of "ad hoc" trips.

That's all changed now though, of course. It would be interesting to know if the change has resulted in people generally booking earlier (because they are scared of being stung if they leave it as late as they would really like to).

And of course some sales of off peak tickets are likely to have been to people who knew they were going to travel but couldn't commit to a particular train (or even to "modern" flexibility).

One of the benefits of rail over (road) coaches and air travel is the ability to carry standing passengers - not great of course but for some people far better than being unable to travel at all.

It seems a shame to me when railways decide to throw away that advantage.

 

[Indigo Soup]

At the moment it's too easy for them to bamboozle with detail that covers up the essential fact that this long standing component of the UK rail fare structure is being entirely abolished.

The whole thing seems to be being pushed through on the idea that off peak fares are too complicated to understand. Which I really don't see.

The only minor confusion arises from the restrictions being compressed down to things like 1E or 3A (which are basically the same!) to fit on a credit card sized ticket. Just telling people what the restriction actually is would solve the problem without getting rid of the flexibility.

A bit of harmonisation wouldn't be a bad thing. But that can be said for a lot of fares policy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole thing seems to be being pushed through on the idea that off peak fares are too complicated to understand. Which I really don't see.

I think Off Peak fares *are* quite complicated, but technology could work around that. Just as per the 70 minute ticket where if you rebook online it charges you £0 if it's within 70 minutes but £10+difference if it's outside, the LNER website could allow you to rebook an Off Peak the same way - if valid for that journey £0, if not then an appropriate excess fare. You can also simplify the restrictions as XC did - all theirs are "0930 or later" - not perfect (as it creates some anomalies) but definitely simple.

Obviously if you know your fare's restrictions and don't mind not having a seat reserved you wouldn't need to rebook, but if you wanted to the option could be there.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I think Off Peak fares *are* quite complicated, but technology could work around that. Just as per the 70 minute ticket where if you rebook online it charges you £0 if it's within 70 minutes but £10+difference if it's outside, the LNER website could allow you to rebook an Off Peak the same way - if valid for that journey £0, if not then an appropriate excess fare.

TBH just letting people excess their Off-Peak to an Anytime on the train would achieve the same thing just fine. Not too worried about fare evasion as any station busy enough to have peak restrictions on arrival will have barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH just letting people excess their Off-Peak to an Anytime on the train would achieve the same thing just fine.

And assuming you get to the train you can, that's specifically allowed by the NRCoT. But like with the 70 minute ticket knowing beforehand provides reassurance.

 

[yorksrob]

The whole thing seems to be being pushed through on the idea that off peak fares are too complicated to understand. Which I really don't see.

That's the public justification.

The real reason is to raise fares.

 

[BRX]

The real reason is to raise fares.

My feeling is that there's also a lack of commitment to the idea that the railways should (affordably) facilitate flexible travel plans. That's the core issue.

To me, this principle is critically important. To some decision makers (who might genuinely want to make revenue neutral changes that reduce overcrowding, say) I reckon it just isn't. They perhaps don't use the railways in the same way, maybe because they travel by car a lot and use the train for pre-planned long distance trips. They don't have any anxiety about the possibility that they simply won't be able to get places at short notice either due to cost or due to a new policy that a train is simply full and that's that. If they really need to get somewhere they just drive. It might be an inconvenience but it won't mean that they simply can't get somewhere.

 

[AdamWW]

My feeling is that there's also a lack of commitment to the idea that the railways should (affordably) facilitate flexible travel plans. That's the core issue.

To me, this principle is critically important. To some decision makers (who might genuinely want to make revenue neutral changes that reduce overcrowding, say) I reckon it just isn't. They perhaps don't use the railways in the same way, maybe because they travel by car a lot and use the train for pre-planned long distance trips. They don't have any anxiety about the possibility that they simply won't be able to get places at short notice either due to cost or due to a new policy that a train is simply full and that's that. If they really need to get somewhere they just drive. It might be an inconvenience but it won't mean that they simply can't get somewhere.

Absolutely.

I wonder how many of the decision makers rely (or have ever relied on public transport).

But many countries have railways that work in this way so I can't see any reason in principle that the UK couldn't go in this direction.

 

[Indigo Soup]

To me, this principle is critically important. To some decision makers (who might genuinely want to make revenue neutral changes that reduce overcrowding, say) I reckon it just isn't. They perhaps don't use the railways in the same way, maybe because they travel by car a lot and use the train for pre-planned long distance trips. They don't have any anxiety about the possibility that they simply won't be able to get places at short notice either due to cost or due to a new policy that a train is simply full and that's that. If they really need to get somewhere they just drive. It might be an inconvenience but it won't mean that they simply can't get somewhere.

They're also the kind of people who, if they say their train is at 15:30, the people they're meeting will arrange their day to suit that time. If you or I have that problem, we're told to get a different train.

 

[yorksrob]

My feeling is that there's also a lack of commitment to the idea that the railways should (affordably) facilitate flexible travel plans. That's the core issue.

To me, this principle is critically important. To some decision makers (who might genuinely want to make revenue neutral changes that reduce overcrowding, say) I reckon it just isn't. They perhaps don't use the railways in the same way, maybe because they travel by car a lot and use the train for pre-planned long distance trips. They don't have any anxiety about the possibility that they simply won't be able to get places at short notice either due to cost or due to a new policy that a train is simply full and that's that. If they really need to get somewhere they just drive. It might be an inconvenience but it won't mean that they simply can't get somewhere.

Controlled by people in their Whitehall/Westminster bubble.

 

[Kite159]

"LNER had 21.2 million passengers in 2019-20 and 24.2 million in 2023-24. On the rival West Coast Main Line, the monopoly operator, Avanti, is still struggling to get passengers back. In 2019-20 it carried 37.5 million but in 2023-24 only 32.8 million. On the Great Western Main Line numbers were 82.6 million in 2023-24, down from 97 million in 2019-20."

Would the fall of passengers for GWR be simply that they no longer run the suburban services between Reading & Paddington since TfL took over with the Elizabeth line. Or is that similar to the Press's favourite of comparing a long distance anytime single ticket with the price of an 'advance' airplane ticket purchased months in advance for a "you can fly to "X" for cheaper than taking the train"

-----

Some parts of the media can try and spin it as much as they want, but removing the super off-peak single for those flows removes the price cap and allows for advance fares to be greater than the previous cap. Using tomorrow on a London - Edinburgh journey during the middle of the day, LNER wants £96.80+ for advance tickets, change the search to be London - Newcraighall and oh look you can buy flexible single tickets for £91.20. Those in the know whom might need to make a last minute journey to Edinburgh (i.e. family emergency) will be paying over the odds compared to those in the know who will buy flexible tickets and make another seat reservation if required.

 

[Mainline421]

Somewhat interesting response on WhatDoTheyKnow today (looks very incomplete) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...cia?nocache=incoming-2866083#incoming-2866083

 

[PG]

Somewhat interesting response on WhatDoTheyKnow today (looks very incomplete) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...cia?nocache=incoming-2866083#incoming-2866083

It sure seems like you don't get much information for 18 hours work by LNER, some law firms would be envious of how little information has resulted in that time!

 

[norbitonflyer]

MSN

If the Government is investigating the iniquities of dynamic pricing for frivolities like concerts, will it be cracking down on the much greater iniqiuities of dynamic pricing on essentials like travel. (Including much so-called "leisure" travel, which is actually necessary personal or family business, and certainly includes all return halves of return journeys - it may not have been necessary to go on holiday but, having done so, it's always necessary to go home again)

 

[Kite159]

MSN

If the Government is investigating the iniquities of dynamic pricing for frivolities like concerts, will it be cracking down on the much greater iniqiuities of dynamic pricing on essentials like travel. (Including much so-called "leisure" travel, which is actually necessary personal or family business, and certainly includes all return halves of return journeys - it may not have been necessary to go on holiday but, having done so, it's always necessary to go home again)

Such a 'crack down' on dynamic pricing for travel will likely just result in advances disappearing with there being one (or two) prices to travel which are fixed.

 

[Hadders]

Such a 'crack down' on dynamic pricing for travel will likely just result in advances disappearing with there being one (or two) prices to travel which are fixed.

We could call them Anytime and Off Peak

 

[takno]

Such a 'crack down' on dynamic pricing for travel will likely just result in advances disappearing with there being one (or two) prices to travel which are fixed.

I think people may be making too much of this. The focus of the review is on pricing being so dynamic for the Oasis gigs that people were getting a much higher price at checkout than what they clicked on. it's the unpredictability in the booking process that they are looking at. Running a quota system, or gradually increasing prices over time isn't likely to be seen as problematic.

 

[AdamWW]

Such a 'crack down' on dynamic pricing for travel will likely just result in advances disappearing with there being one (or two) prices to travel which are fixed.

Hard to see why even a complete removal of advances would result in removing the current three tier (super off peak, peak, anytime) structure where it exists.

I that already on some distance routes advances at much less than half the relevant flexible fare are rare.

And some of us would prefer an abolition of advances to the system it looks as if we're going to get where there will be effectively only be completely unregulated advance fares, with fixed fares set at a level that they might as well not exist for most people until they accidentally end up on the wrong train and are charged an eye watering penalty.

(Talking of which, I believe LNER made vague suggestions that on the "trial" flows they wouldn't be charging people the full anytime fare for being on the wrong train with an advance - did that happen?)

 

[Sonic1234]

with fixed fares set at a level that they might as well not exist for most people until they accidentally end up on the wrong train and are charged an eye watering penalty.

And then never return, not that the railway seems concerned about that. In some ways, they encourage it.

 

[thedbdiboy]

And some of us would prefer an abolition of advances to the system it looks as if we're going to get where there will be effectively only be completely unregulated advance fares, with fixed fares set at a level that they might as well not exist for most people until they accidentally end up on the wrong train and are charged an eye watering penalty.

Whatever the debate about fare levels, people are going to need to get used to the idea that 'regulation' won't exist in a nationalised, state operated industry. It doesn't on TfL, Tyne & Wear Metro etc, it didn't under British Rail - it was needed for privatisation when private companies set 'monopoly' fares. Fare levels will depend on the public finances and the political appetite to balance difficult decisions. This doesn't mean unfettered fare rises because economic growth is reliant on enabling rather than supressing travel. But it will mean that where people grumble but still pay higher prices, there'll be no referencing to an arbitrary 'regulation' point that just happened to be set in September 1995.

 

[redreni]

Whatever the debate about fare levels, people are going to need to get used to the idea that 'regulation' won't exist in a nationalised, state operated industry. It doesn't on TfL, Tyne & Wear Metro etc, it didn't under British Rail - it was needed for privatisation when private companies set 'monopoly' fares. Fare levels will depend on the public finances and the political appetite to balance difficult decisions. This doesn't mean unfettered fare rises because economic growth is reliant on enabling rather than supressing travel. But it will mean that where people grumble but still pay higher prices, there'll be no referencing to an arbitrary 'regulation' point that just happened to be set in September 1995.

I struggle to believe that there was no fares regulation in the BR era. It may not have been public information. It may not even have been formal. I agree it wouldn't have been regulated in the sense of the minister setting limits pursuant to Regulations. But I can't believe BR had carte blanche to do whatever it liked to fare levels and the fare structure. The government was accountable to the public through Parliament for rail fares, and that continued to be the case after privatisation (formally for regulated fares and in political terms for other fares as well).

The problem in accountability terms with dynamic pricing is no journalist can report with any certainty what's happening to rail fares, how much they've gone up or down over time, etc. They're reduced to citing examples, but of course being journalists they try to find the most preposterously high fares they can and they are vulnerable to the industry and government coming back with counter-examples of good value fares, and the reader is left none the wiser.

In an ideal world I would prefer all fares to be distance-based and regulated. You could have certain trains that required payment of a demand-based supplement, but the level of the supplement as a percentage of the basic fare should be transparent, as should the basis on which the decision to charge the supplement on specific trains is made.

We don't live in an ideal world, though. We have regulated fares that constrain, in practice, operators' ability to increase Advance fares and I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and accept we can't have that in the future.

 

[Adam Williams]

The problem in accountability terms with dynamic pricing is no journalist can report with any certainty what's happening to rail fares, how much they've gone up or down over time, etc

This is the problem (benefit, if you want to price gouge?) with Advances. They're inherently opaque with no transparency or open data in the public domain around availability.

At the moment the individual tiers are at least visible in the fares data but you have no idea if any particular tier will have been offered on a service or not. Even retailers don't know, aside from the tickets they've sold or offered up in search results (and there's an ongoing crack down on the extent to which they're allowed to "look" to build up search results).

 

[LUYMun]

We could call them Anytime and Off Peak

But then you'll have young people trying to purchase Anytime tickets priced less than £13 before 10am with their 16-25 Railcards only to find they cannot do so - resulting in folks arguing that 'Anytime' tickets are not 'any time'.