Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 18,227
Based on ticket sales I would suggest that it is far more than you think.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")
- Thread starter LW84
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I can't find the source right now, but I think either ⅔ or ¾ of GB rail journeys start or finish in London. According to the ORR, King's Cross is by a fairly large margin the most common destination from Newcastle (~50% higher than Durham and 100% higher than Edinburgh), Leeds (almost as many as York and Sheffield combined), York (slightly ahead of Leeds) and only slightly behind Glasgow Queen Street as a destination from Edinburgh. It's not limited to the ECML. Liverpool has one (direct) train per hour to Euston and six trains per hour to Manchester; passenger numbers to Euston are still four-fifths of what they are to Manchester Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria.
My point remains. Essentially blowing up other TOCs' quota management across southeast England to enforce Advance-only or Anytime tickets on LNER would be very difficult, given Great British Railways for all practical intents and purposes doesn't exist. There's no guiding mind at work here, just people pursuing their own limited ambitions at the expense of the greater good. Network, what network? These railway people and civil servants couldn't care less about a network.
The only way this can work is to take LNER's operations out of the rail network altogether, so they just run trains non-stop to Newcastle and Edinburgh - a true airline on rails. Another operator/GBR would have to pick up the pieces to serve York, Doncaster, Durham, etc.
The ticket sales merely show the tickets that people buy. They do not show the journeys that people make, which can often be different.
Many people are under the false impression you 'have' to pay separately for the Underground or any 'local' train journey at the London end. Or they may simply decide to use PAYG for that section because it's cheaper.
So I wouldn't be reading very much at all into Kings Cross being the official top destination. Clearly most people are continuing onwards using the Underground, bus or alternative trains; whilst the Kings Cross area is now more of a destination than it used to be, it still doesn't have the draw that the West End or City does.
I daresay that Whitehall are wary of screwing up the fares system in the great capital, whereas they see the distant provinces as fair game.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 18,227
miklcct
On Moderation
The reality is that using PAYG for your local London bit is usually cheaper than buying a through ticket, especially if the tube is involved. For example, if I pick a few places in all directions around Central London within the Oyster area and compare the same Advance price level (the below use ticket code BUS as an example):
NCL - KGX (Kings Cross): £84.50
NCL - Underground Zone 1: £87.50
NCL - IFD (Ilford): £91.30
NCL - HKC (Hackney Central): £87.10
NCL - AAP (Alexandra Palace): £87.10
NCL - WHP (West Hampstead Thameslink): £84.50
NCL - EAL (Ealing Broadway): £91.30
NCL - WIM (Wimbledon): £91.30
NCL - ECR (East Croydon): £91.30
NCL - LEW (Lewisham): £91.30
with the off-peak Oyster / contactless fare from Kings Cross / St Pancras (NR or LU as appropriate to the journey) as follows:
to Underground Zone 1: £2.70
to IFD: £3.20
to HKC: £2.80
to AAP: £3.50
to WHP: £2.80
to WIM: £3.00
to EAL: £3.00
to ECR: £4.20
to LEW: £3.10
Among the above, most of the places I listed are cheaper by paying separately using Oyster or contactless for the local leg, apart from the stations close to Kings Cross.
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 3,912
I continue in an exchange of emails/letters via my MP.
Here is an extract from the latest one from the Minister of State for Rail (Peter Hendy)'s office.
Here is an extract from the latest one from the Minister of State for Rail (Peter Hendy)'s office.
I think I will ask how we can fact-check this claim. But of course it ignores the issue that even if fixed/semi-flex fares are the same price as the former off-peak - they are lower value because of the heavy restrictions on their use!
This verges on being a lie, I'd say. Advance fares *might* be available up to five minutes from departure. Not if they've sold out though. And we seem to have plenty of evidence of them being sold out long before departure. Does the writer of this letter actually understand this, I wonder? Have LNER told them that "advance fares are available up to five minutes before departure" without mentioning the "subject to availability" bit?
Sigh.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The constant lying and dishonesty on this project seriously, seriously riles me. Why's it hard just to be honest and say that due to pressure on the public purse fares must be increased? I won't like it, but I do appreciate honesty.
redreni
Established Member
So let me get this straight, the Minister's comparison of a flexible ticket with an inflexible one is a valid comparison, but BRX's comparison of the cheapest flexible tickets before and after the fares trial is not a valid comparison?
What planet is the Minister of State on?
What planet is the Minister of State on?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
We can't compare the anytime ticket with the super off-peak ticket because they're different, but we can compare the flex ticket with the super off-peak ticket because they're different.
Right-o.
My only curiosity about this is the origin of this guff. Is it coming from the brains trust at DfT or it is spouting directly from the source at LNER.
As @Bletchleyite says, it is the lying that grinds my gears.
Right-o.
My only curiosity about this is the origin of this guff. Is it coming from the brains trust at DfT or it is spouting directly from the source at LNER.
As @Bletchleyite says, it is the lying that grinds my gears.
I get the impression that the person writing the letter sort of suspects that what he's being told by LNER is specious nonsense, but can't quite work out how.
I suspect that In a couple of years, when LNER ridership has capped out with the operation not making the expected profits and not taking market share from the airlines, these people will start to understand how they're being conned. Obviously by then it will be too late and they'll have permanently messed up the rest of the Intercity network.
I've now had a response from LNER Customer Services to my complaint about this change (splitting the former Enfield cluster in two, with Enfield Chase in one and Enfield Town in the other.)
Incredibly, they're blaming Rail Delivery Group for it and saying it won't be reverted!
I expected the latter, but not the former.
Pretty disgraceful really but to be expected.
A few years back walk-up tickets from Hertford Stations to London Terminals were removed in favour of tickets specifically to East or North. There were many complaints with GTR and Greater Anglia blaming each other. Hertford Stations tickets were reinstated. I doubt anything will budge them this time, sadly.
Was that pre-Oyster at Hertford? As they're both in Zone 11 / B now, I don't think removing the more flexible tickets would have much effect.
Yes it was in preparation for Oyster. Here's the original thread - GA blamed GTR and GTR blamed GA. After several complaints from members of this forum the tickets were reinstated.
Greater anglia zone boundary 6 to Hertford East not available
30th Sept was quite some time ago! Seems Epsom, Luton and Welwyn are still some way off...
www.railforums.co.uk
This post I made in that thread demonstrates complication that occurs from simplification:
Kite159
Veteran Member
Just had a survey come through from LNER asking for feedback on the 'simpler' fare trial. My feedback was mostly negative with 'used to increase the cost of travel at weekends and other periods when super off-peak was previously offered by getting rid of the price cap'
The difference is clear to see even comparing London to Newcastle with Clapham Junction to Newcastle or London to Blaydon. A couple weeks ago when LNER was mostly hourly between London & Newcastle due to the cancellation of the engineering works at York, I would dread to think how much they were asking for London to Newcastle as arsenal were away to Newcastle that day.
The difference is clear to see even comparing London to Newcastle with Clapham Junction to Newcastle or London to Blaydon. A couple weeks ago when LNER was mostly hourly between London & Newcastle due to the cancellation of the engineering works at York, I would dread to think how much they were asking for London to Newcastle as arsenal were away to Newcastle that day.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Only had a quick glance (and I don't have electronic access to copy-paste a quote, I'm afraid, that costs extra over a simple paper subscription), but the new edition of LNER's fanzine, sorry, Modern Railways, has an article suggesting that this scheme has actually only been revenue neutral. However apparently business travellers like the 70 minute flex, presumably because it fits into "Advance only" policies but lets them return a bit early. However isn't the future a leisure railway?
In essence, that means we've seen huge fare increases to benefit a minority market.
This scheme should therefore be even more discredited than it was, surely. I could cope with the idea that LNER have to do it to raise revenue, but if it hasn't even done that it's surely just now Horne's pet "ground level airline" project?
In essence, that means we've seen huge fare increases to benefit a minority market.
This scheme should therefore be even more discredited than it was, surely. I could cope with the idea that LNER have to do it to raise revenue, but if it hasn't even done that it's surely just now Horne's pet "ground level airline" project?
If they can't even get any revenue out of it, its an absolute travesty that they're continuing with it.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Agreed. If the 70 Minute Flex is a popular ticket, just add that to the offering and don't remove the Super Off Peaks. Or offer the electronic rebooking for those (and Anytimes) too if that's what people like about it.
I'm actually surprised it's not revenue positive, but if it isn't it's definitely the wrong way to go. The increased fares are clearly putting people off. I wonder if easyJet's loadings are up?
Has it reduced overcrowding? LNER could unfortunately still point to a higher yield per passenger and a better distribution of loadings as justification even if revenue isn't up.
OhNoAPacer
Member
It will be spun. Revenue neutral so no harm done to passengers and simplified as the 'confusing' off peak tickets have been removed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It may well have done for now, but if we take into account that there's going to be an extra Newcastle service per hour then they're going to struggle to fill all three without cutting fares I reckon. At which point you argue - why bother?
I don't doubt Horne will spin, he always does, that's how he works. All spin, no substance.
Yes, a bit like the old "but half of the formerly off-peak tickets are still less than the old off-peak fare" line that's always trotted out (and no one in the press ever seems to challenge them about the other half).
redreni
Established Member
No harm done to passengers? The fares have gone up significantly. If it's not revenue positive that means fewer people are travelling.
If they'd been honest about the aims, this wouldn't be a problem for them. I'm sure Treasury won't see it as a problem. As long as they're getting more revenue per passenger and they don't have to deal with the railway's capacity problem, they'll be happy.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One can't help but wonder if it's essentially aimed at being compulsory reservations by the back door, i.e. by making the only (official) option for a walk up ticket unaffordable, after LNER tried actual compulsory reservations (it was enforced during COVID) and got knocked back for it. It does make things easier for a TOC because a 5-car doesn't end up as a meat market if it's easier to diagram one in the peak.
To be fair, I'd still be against it. A bad policy doesn't become a good one just because its honestly presented.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think it's less bad. I'd accept, but still not like, the idea that this had to be done to increase revenue in preference to the Government foisting other cuts on the railway such as closures. If it hasn't in fact increased revenue, then it's a really, really bad policy, not just a bad one, because there was no need to do it.
Depends on your needs I think.
If you can always just jump in the car if you don't like the train fares, that's one thing.
If you don't have that choice, bustituting some branch lines in return for keeping a walk-up railway on the bulk of the network might seem like a better option.
redreni
Established Member
Well, quite.
All I meant was the trial is probably going well by their lights even if it hasn't generated any additional revenue and patronage is down. But it is a PR problem for them if patronage is down given they said they were aiming to increase patronage. Which it would be if they'd told the truth at the outset.
I agree whether they have a PR problem or not is irrelevant to whether this is a good idea. It's a terrible idea no matter how well or badly it is presented.
I also readily admit that if they'd told the truth about their objectives, while the outcome of the trial wouldn't be as embarrassing, they would have had a different problem: almost everybody in the country apart from the Treasury, DfT and a few business travellers who don't pay their own fares would have been opposed to the trial and to it's stated objectives.
They'd have had negative headlines and severe criticism from environmentalists (and who knows, possibly a Judicial Review claim under climate legislation) if they admitted to having a policy of deliberately driving modal shift from rail to road.