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

[Kite159]

You'd think there would be a lot more people visiting Finsbury Park now!

Or Blaydon or one of the Scottish stations like Uphall which isn't part of the trail.

Those methods are good for those in the know whom can get cheaper tickets, but for the "man on the street" they will see London - Edinburgh is £150 and won't use the train.

 

[yorksrob]

Or Blaydon or one of the Scottish stations like Uphall which isn't part of the trail.

Those methods are good for those in the know whom can get cheaper tickets, but for the "man on the street" they will see London - Edinburgh is £150 and won't use the train.

Indeed. The off peak was a decent fall-back for the everyday person who needed to travel at short notice.

Removing it is making the railway a "rich man's toy" as a former transport secretary once said.

 

[wilbers]

You'd think there would be a lot more people visiting Finsbury Park now!

Slightly off topic, but this is the first time I heard Finsbury Park - took me years to find out it was a place!

media linked to is youtube clip of Harry Hill with "Finsbury Park" catchphrase.

 

[yorksrob]

This bit of the section you quoted is strange:


This is something the previous off-peak returns offered, but with even more flexibility.

Yes, you'd have expected them to have congregated to the off-peak.

My conclusion is that these were former AP travellers enjoying a bit of extra freedom over what they were used to.

 

[modernrail]

Unfortunately, more whitewash in Modern Railways' otherwise very interesting update on ECML affairs:



Interesting to note no mention of revenue.

In terms of this alleged increase in customer satisfaction, I can imagine some established users of AP tickets liking the flex option. Great, have them alongside the off-peak option.

As for business travellers, LNER is a largely leisure focused service anyway, according to the article. Some of us leisure passengers appreciate real flexibility on occasions. They need to have an option for this, rather than the ludicrous "anytime" fares.

That conflation on

Unfortunately, more whitewash in Modern Railways' otherwise very interesting update on ECML affairs:



Interesting to note no mention of revenue.

In terms of this alleged increase in customer satisfaction, I can imagine some established users of AP tickets liking the flex option. Great, have them alongside the off-peak option.

As for business travellers, LNER is a largely leisure focused service anyway, according to the article. Some of us leisure passengers appreciate real flexibility on occasions. They need to have an option for this, rather than the ludicrous "anytime" fares.

That conflation of passenger satisfaction being higher being due to the flex fare is hilarious.

Which routes are you comparing passenger satisfaction to my marketing spin friend. Did you for instance chose Northern, TP? Could it possibly be down to less cancellations, or a host of other reasons.

Also, what is the change in passenger satisfaction that you are directly attributing to your flex fares?? Did you separately survey those flows?

Modern Railways isn’t very good at journalism is it. Shouldn’t have allowed that to be printed without it being checked.

 

[BRX]

Does Modern Railways have a letters page?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Modern Railways isn’t very good at journalism is it. Shouldn’t have allowed that to be printed without it being checked.

I think it is generally good, but for a very long time it has been strongly biased in favour of whoever operates the ECML while being more critical of other TOCs.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Does Modern Railways have a letters page?

Yes it does. However like all publications the editor will decide which letters get published.

 

[yorksrob]

Modern Railways isn’t very good at journalism is it. Shouldn’t have allowed that to be printed without it being checked.

I'd say it's generally very good, but it has a bit of a blind spot with fares - particularly in this case.

 

[takno]

I'd say it's generally very good, but it has a bit of a blind spot with fares - particularly in this case.

In the case of the feature articles they are usually written as an entirely uncritical piece about one of the operators. Very little of the article even deals with fares, so it's not surprising that they have blindly accepted LNER's line. Journalism was much more like that generally 20 years ago, and I'm not sure the rush towards journalists trying to find failures and scandals everywhere is very good for the readers. It's arguably more civilised to print an obviously-uncritical piece and invite people to use their own brains to decide whether they trust it or not.

That said, I do skip quite quickly through the feature pages now, because it can be a bit wearing reading them.

 

[yorksrob]

In the case of the feature articles they are usually written as an entirely uncritical piece about one of the operators. Very little of the article even deals with fares, so it's not surprising that they have blindly accepted LNER's line. Journalism was much more like that generally 20 years ago, and I'm not sure the rush towards journalists trying to find failures and scandals everywhere is very good for the readers. It's arguably more civilised to print an obviously-uncritical piece and invite people to use their own brains to decide whether they trust it or not.

That said, I do skip quite quickly through the feature pages now, because it can be a bit wearing reading them.

I'd say one of the main functions of journalism is to question what's being said, and to be fair MR is quite capable of questioning bad policy in other areas of the railway.

This change, if allowed to spread to the rest of the railway would be truly scandalous, and the press shouldn't be giving LNER or the wider authorities who are consenting to it, a free ride.

 

[takno]

I'd say one of the main functions of journalism is to question what's being said, and to be fair MR is quite capable of questioning bad policy in other areas of the railway.

This change, if allowed to spread to the rest of the railway would be truly scandalous, and the press shouldn't be giving LNER or the wider authorities who are consenting to it, a free ride.

Their coverage of it in other areas of the magazine, particularly Informed Sources, has been much more disappointing. I just don't expect any different from the feature articles because I don't think that's what they're there for.

 

[Kite159]

The issue is those journalists praising the scheme are probably the sort of customer who doesn't care what the price is as they either claim it back as expenses or earn enough money that they travel 1st class. And probably prefer to get rid of flexible tickets all together so to enjoy a quieter train.

 

[takno]

The issue is those journalists praising the scheme are probably the sort of customer who doesn't care what the price is as they either claim it back as expenses or earn enough money that they travel 1st class. And probably prefer to get rid of flexible tickets all together so to enjoy a quieter train.

Removal of flexible tickets and higher prices in standard don't improve the price or experience in first class. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[87015]

The issue is those journalists praising the scheme are probably the sort of customer who doesn't care what the price is as they either claim it back as expenses or earn enough money that they travel 1st class. And probably prefer to get rid of flexible tickets all together so to enjoy a quieter train.

On TOC provided free passes largely (allegedly, of course)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Their coverage of it in other areas of the magazine, particularly Informed Sources, has been much more disappointing. I just don't expect any different from the feature articles because I don't think that's what they're there for.

Roger Ford appears from his writing in that column to be in favour of it (in summary he can afford to pay more/mostly travels on business, doesn't require flexibility, and prefers the lower loadings it causes - that is, the outcome, which is of fewer passengers each paying more resulting in revenue neutrality, is to his personal preference). As Informed Sources is written by him, this is not surprising.

This is probably also what LNER is seeing in their surveys. Those who use Advances booked well in advance will prefer it because they aren't having to squash past standees to get to the loo/argue about reserved seats and aren't themselves seeing big fare increases, for instance. I've not read the surveys, but I suspect they're strongly weighted towards this sort of aspect of it.

If there's indeed proposed to be a similar trial on a shorter route on TransPennine Express, which seems to be rumoured upthread, I can see things being quite different. People generally value flexibility a lot more on shorter journeys. London to Edinburgh is one where almost nobody will randomly decide to travel on the day. Having said that, lots of people do use Northern Advances, which are different from LNER's in that they're still offered at very attractive prices right up to 15 minutes before departure in basically unlimited numbers.

One thing I'm disappointed not to see in the magazines is how even within the constraints of it it could be made less unpleasant - e.g. how about no change fee and refundability on the 70 minute tickets? How about getting rid of break of journey restrictions on Advances, which only really serve to annoy people by being told they can't pass through gatelines to pick up a sandwich between trains and don't serve any real purpose, because most people don't have time to go around working out which longer journeys will be cheaper than the shorter one they want to make and any site that offered this would fail accreditation anyway?

 

[takno]

Roger Ford appears from his writing in that column to be in favour of it (in summary he can afford to pay more/mostly travels on business, doesn't require flexibility, and prefers the lower loadings it causes - that is, the outcome, which is of fewer passengers each paying more resulting in revenue neutrality, is to his personal preference). As Informed Sources is written by him, this is not surprising.

This is probably also what LNER is seeing in their surveys. Those who use Advances booked well in advance will prefer it because they aren't having to squash past standees to get to the loo/argue about reserved seats and aren't themselves seeing big fare increases, for instance.

If there's indeed proposed to be a similar trial on a shorter route on TransPennine Express, which seems to be rumoured upthread, I can see things being quite different. People generally value flexibility a lot more on shorter journeys. London to Edinburgh is one where almost nobody will randomly decide to travel on the day.

Roger Ford is very focused on maximising revenue, since he sees that as the best way to deliver stability to the railway. That does make some sense, but to me completely disregards the environmental value of maximising market share and the social value of having an affordable walk-up railway. Since the railway clearly can't operate entirely without subsidy, I'd argue that the latter two points have primacy.

It was disappointing that Informed Sources chose to present the whole thing in a black-and-white matter, with some smug anecdata about how his daughter uses Trainline. Ultimately though it's not a column or columnist who deals very much with the political principles or passenger experience side of things. Unfortunately I think the current mix in the magazine means that perhaps nobody is covering those things. Maybe the new editor in a couple of months will shake things up.

I agree that reference to passenger surveys is completely useless from LNER, since they immediately fail to capture sentiment from the massive segment of the market which doesn't use their services, including those who are using another form of transport because of the new pricing. They also fail to capture people who aren't travelling as a result of the new fares.

Worse than that, as far as I'm aware they recruit their survey participants from people who book their tickets in advance on the website, so they also entirely miss people who buy at the ticket office. Having eliminated feedback from the groups who are most negatively impacted it's hardly surprising to get positive results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Roger Ford is very focused on maximising revenue, since he sees that as the best way to deliver stability to the railway. That does make some sense, but to me completely disregards the environmental value of maximising market share and the social value of having an affordable walk-up railway. Since the railway clearly can't operate entirely without subsidy, I'd argue that the latter two points have primacy.

It was disappointing that Informed Sources chose to present the whole thing in a black-and-white matter, with some smug anecdata about how his daughter uses Trainline. Ultimately though it's not a column or columnist who deals very much with the political principles or passenger experience side of things. Unfortunately I think the current mix in the magazine means that perhaps nobody is covering those things. Maybe the new editor in a couple of months will shake things up.

I think that's fair. While the old adage about the accuracy of some of their articles probably does hold true, I find RAIL to perhaps be more genuinely analytical these days.

I agree that reference to passenger surveys is completely useless from LNER, since they immediately fail to capture sentiment from the massive segment of the market which doesn't use their services, including those who are using another form of transport because of the new pricing. They also fail to capture people who aren't travelling as a result of the new fares.

Bingo. One of the biggest errors made throughout the entire public transport industry is to conduct only passenger surveys. Of more interest would be surveying people to find out why they DON'T travel by rail and bus - for instance, surveying at motorway service areas on the M1 to find people driving to Edinburgh/Newcastle and ask them why - I don't doubt "too expensive" or "we want to stop off at York and wander round the market on the way" will be the sort of stuff that will come up.

 

[yorksrob]

If there's indeed proposed to be a similar trial on a shorter route on TransPennine Express, which seems to be rumoured upthread, I can see things being quite different. People generally value flexibility a lot more on shorter journeys. London to Edinburgh is one where almost nobody will randomly decide to travel on the day. Having said that, lots of people do use Northern Advances, which are different from LNER's in that they're still offered at very attractive prices right up to 15 minutes before departure in basically unlimited numbers.

I think TPE are already pushing it in their attempts to pretend that they're an InterCity TOC. The fact that they don't have a day return on a flow such as Leeds to Manchester (which is clearly a day trip distance) is already ludicrous. Getting rid of their off-peak would be utterly disastrous.

If it does spread to them it will demonstrate beyond doubt that this is a DfT/Treasury assault, as opposed to just an LNER hobby horse.

 

[Trainbike46]

Bingo. One of the biggest errors made throughout the entire public transport industry is to conduct only passenger surveys. Of more interest would be surveying people to find out why they DON'T travel by rail and bus - for instance, surveying at motorway service areas on the M1 to find people driving to Edinburgh/Newcastle and ask them why - I don't doubt "too expensive" or "we want to stop off at York and wander round the market on the way" will be the sort of stuff that will come up.

That would be really useful, I think.

One thing I do see is that a lot of people I speak to who rarely use trains in England, is that they are all convinced English trains are way more expensive than they actually are. Whenever I've mentioned this on the forum before, any replies have usually either been dismissive, or accurately pointing out that it isn't that expensive. However, this perceived price is very important, because it causes people to not even consider the train.

Similar things happen with reliability, where not just the real reliability matters, but also the reliability as perceived by people who don't use the train.

 

[3RDGEN]

Roger Ford appears from his writing in that column to be in favour of it (in summary he can afford to pay more/mostly travels on business, doesn't require flexibility, and prefers the lower loadings it causes - that is, the outcome, which is of fewer passengers each paying more resulting in revenue neutrality, is to his personal preference). As Informed Sources is written by him, this is not surprising.

Is there any evidence to suggest lower loadings on LNER during the trial?

Earlier in the Modern Railways article under the heading "Booming Leisure Traffic" it's reported in 2023 LNER was running at 14% above preCOVID levels but in the six months from April 2024 they are at plus 16%. That six months is within the 70-min flex trial period so suggest passenger numbers are holding up fine, maybe they would have been even higher without a trial but there is no evidence the trial is lowering loadings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there any evidence to suggest lower loadings on LNER during the trial?

Earlier in the Modern Railways article under the heading "Booming Leisure Traffic" it's reported in 2023 LNER was running at 14% above preCOVID levels but in the six months from April 2024 they are at plus 16%. That six months is within the 70-min flex trial period so suggest passenger numbers are holding up fine, maybe they would have been even higher without a trial but there is no evidence the trial is lowering loadings.

There's an allusion in that same article that it's been revenue neutral. As fares are higher that can't be other than via lower loadings, unless it's because a significant proportion of people who were just buying Super Off Peaks by default have switched to lower Advance fares and are thus paying less than they would have been, even if unhappy to do so?

Overall LNER loadings aren't much use in telling us, anyway, as this applies only to specific journeys during the "trial". It could easily be that Leeds, York etc have gone up enough to counter reduced Edinburgh/Morpeth/Newcastle traffic.

 

[Krokodil]

However, this perceived price is very important, because it causes people to not even consider the train.

I get irritated when someone goes "but cheap advances" when the steep cost of walk-up fares is criticised. When Joe Bloggs turns up at the station for a day out, it's the walk-up fare he'll be quoted - especially as he doesn't want to tie himself down to a particular return train. After which "never again" will be muttered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get irritated when someone goes "but cheap advances" when the steep cost of walk-up fares is criticised. When Joe Bloggs turns up at the station for a day out, it's the walk-up fare he'll be quoted - especially as he doesn't want to tie himself down to a particular return train. After which "never again" will be muttered.

If Advances don't go up massively as the time of travel nears and have large availability, as Northern's ones do, people probably don't mind that much - they just buy their ticket home when they know what time they're travelling.

However LNER's scheme seems to be more traditional and the prices DO go right up - or even just show the Anytime fare. It's one thing I think they're managing really badly about it - I had expected them to be doing stuff like using differential Advance pricing on the day to push people from busy to less busy trains, but they don't seem to be doing that - almost every fare is £130+, the only savings are from splitting on the slow trains.

 

[AdamWW]

If Advances don't go up massively as the time of travel nears and have large availability, as Northern's ones do, people probably don't mind that much - they just buy their ticket home when they know what time they're travelling.

I'd be very wary of doing that for a long distance service.

Too much risk of disruption and them just turning off all advances stranding people with no obligation to do anything about it because even though they had firm plans to travel they didn't have a ticket.

If we really have to go along this route it needs tickets that can be amended right up to the time of travel and also refunded if required.

Anyway the plan seems to be to force people even more than previously into booking well in advance. So presumably we become entirely a nation of car owners with rail as a convenience for those journeys where you don't fancy driving and can plan well enough ahead. Apart from those who can't drive. But they don't seem to matter, even though a lot of money is spent on accessibility for people who can afford to get on a train.

 

[Sonic1234]

I get irritated when someone goes "but cheap advances" when the steep cost of walk-up fares is criticised

Or "cheap advances" simply aren't available. See GWR.

Yes, you can get advance tickets and they are marginally cheaper than the walk up fare, but the era of advances being a bargain price ticket seems to be over, even if you book months in advance. But you'll still see phrases like "heavily discounted" used to describe Advance tickets.

 

[Krokodil]

If Advances don't go up massively as the time of travel nears and have large availability, as Northern's ones do

Northern's ones of course merely being an ORCATS dodge and many people treat them as "Anytime, Any Permitted" resulting in more aggro for the guards and inspectors who end up enforcing them. Completely inappropriate for services within urban areas - you don't see this rubbish on Thameslink. Should just be able to buy reasonably priced single and return tickets (*cough* TPE Leeds to Manchester), if contactless is considered too new and revolutionary.

 

[nwales58]

We're a bit away from the LNER 'trial', however the fare system seems evolving chaotically towards:

1) Advances on cheaper short distance journeys. Not just Northern raiding other operators' revenue. Ludicrous example: Llanrwst-North Llanrwst advance 1.00 right up to departure, SDS 2.20. Seems general TfW now. Objectives? Evidence that they are being achieved?

2) Advances on inter-city where the open single/return was pushed up over the years to 50p-1.00 per mile for inflexible business traffic which has largely evaporated. Flavours of off-peak return were the most commonly used fare so LNER removed it. Clearly this can maximise revenue.

3) Journeys involving more than one operator or route, e.g. Shotton-Hooton costs twice Shotton-Helsby if someone looks online for the fare just before departure. Why are arbitrary structural decisions from 30 years ago inflicted on the public like that?

Is there anything public on what DfT+GBR are trying to achieve now they have all the levers? Revenue maximisation alone? Reducing externalities (CO2) through modal shift, trip shortening or suppression? Making travel choices clearer to the traveller? Or just plain confused?

I don't see how the LNER bottom-up changes can be taken much further without a wider view, and can only 'work' in combination with optimal split ticketing becoming the norm, available to everyone through every sales channel (so no retailer has a competitive advantage so no incentive to come up with better splits). Inconsistency piled on top of complexity without end.

Fundamental questions for DfT and politicians: when you drive your car somewhere, are you forced to book the precise time you reach the main road in advance? If you decide on the way home to stop at the supermarket, do you have to pay for the fuel for the entire journey all over again? If not, stop the push to all-advance rail in GB until you have worked out what we are trying to achieve.

 

[Llandudno]

We're a bit away from the LNER 'trial', however the fare system seems evolving chaotically towards:

1) Advances on cheaper short distance journeys. Not just Northern raiding other operators' revenue. Ludicrous example: Llanrwst-North Llanrwst advance 1.00 right up to departure, SDS 2.20. Seems general TfW now. Objectives? Evidence that they are being achieved?

2) Advances on inter-city where the open single/return was pushed up over the years to 50p-1.00 per mile for inflexible business traffic which has largely evaporated. Flavours of off-peak return were the most commonly used fare so LNER removed it. Clearly this can maximise revenue.

3) Journeys involving more than one operator or route, e.g. Shotton-Hooton costs twice Shotton-Helsby if someone looks online for the fare just before departure. Why are arbitrary structural decisions from 30 years ago inflicted on the public like that?

Is there anything public on what DfT+GBR are trying to achieve now they have all the levers? Revenue maximisation alone? Reducing externalities (CO2) through modal shift, trip shortening or suppression? Making travel choices clearer to the traveller? Or just plain confused?

I don't see how the LNER bottom-up changes can be taken much further without a wider view, and can only 'work' in combination with optimal split ticketing becoming the norm, available to everyone through every sales channel (so no retailer has a competitive advantage so no incentive to come up with better splits). Inconsistency piled on top of complexity without end.

Fundamental questions for DfT and politicians: when you drive your car somewhere, are you forced to book the precise time you reach the main road in advance? If you decide on the way home to stop at the supermarket, do you have to pay for the fuel for the entire journey all over again? If not, stop the push to all-advance rail in GB until you have worked out what we are trying to achieve.

I wonder how many people buy tickets from Llanrwst (Central!!!) to North Llanrwst!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Advances probably aren't a great issue for a route like that. I'm making a journey on the Highland Mainline later in December, and I used Advances for that because quite simply there was only one train each way that suited my purposes - very common when you've only got a train every three hours or so!

It's Advances on things like the frequent Manchester and Leeds local services that are a bit silly - it's only slightly less silly than Advances on London Underground.