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

[Failed Unit]

Unfortunately LNER have already abolished return fares for nearly all of the journeys they price. Broadly speaking, they only kept the previous structure for short journeys such as Leeds to Doncaster, where it would have caused more split ticket "anomalies" (as they would view them) to arise. Ain't it funny how keeping a weird and wonderful assortment of fares is "simple" there but "too complicated" for long journeys - cakeism once again.

So for a longer journey like Leeds to London you'll have to buy an "overdistance" ticket like Burnley Manchester Road to London, where all (walk-up) fares are set by Avanti, to buy a return fare. Incidentally this is cheaper, by a fair margin, than buying two Super Off-Peak Singles from Leeds to London...

The time differences also help, as LNER changed their super off peak restrictions to stop as many people as possible using them (and force people into some strange splits). For example if you are on a connecting service departing at 0929 you need to split to a point your depart after 0930, even if it is the same trian.

 

[redreni]

I highly doubt Horne is doing this off his own bat, and even if he is the government doesn't have to let him withdraw previously regulated fares.

Actual civil servants will be implementing government policy, which elected politicians are responsible for.

 

[Failed Unit]

You can't vote the civil service out. They are who is behind this, not Labour themselves.

(I class Horne as a civil servant now LNER is nationalised).

I suspect that this one hasn't really hit the inbox. But certainly anyone in the impacted areas should write to thier MPs. Even from the rail point of view I would suggest Labour have bigger fish to fry. The appalling performance of Avanti and XC spring to mind, LNER industrial disputes and HS2 are probably other things the ministers are looking at ahead of this trail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I highly doubt Horne is doing this off his own bat, and even if he is the government doesn't have to let him withdraw previously regulated fares.

This has been discussed before and the conclusion is that it was essentially:

DfT: Oi LNER, make more money
LNER: How about this idea?
DfT: Fine by us, do that.

 

[DanNCL]

I highly doubt Horne is doing this off his own bat, and even if he is the government doesn't have to let him withdraw previously regulated fares.

Actual civil servants will be implementing government policy, which elected politicians are responsible for.

No, it’ll be Horne. The giveaway is that there’s been zero change in direction despite the change of government. The same cannot be said about just about anything else that the civil service handles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it’ll be Horne. The giveaway is that there’s been zero change in direction despite the change of government. The same cannot be said about just about anything else that the civil service handles.

Horne certainly has form for wanting a ground-level airline.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect that this one hasn't really hit the inbox. But certainly anyone in the impacted areas should write to thier MPs. Even from the rail point of view I would suggest Labour have bigger fish to fry. The appalling performance of Avanti and XC spring to mind, LNER industrial disputes and HS2 are probably other things the ministers are looking at ahead of this trail.

The LNER industrial dispute and this fares debacle could be said to be a result of the same problem.

 

[Failed Unit]

It is interesting that the fares are always cheapest around the times Lumo operates, although that could be because a significant number of passengers are booking onto Lumo as reducing the load on the LNER anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is interesting that the fares are always cheapest around the times Lumo operates, although that could be because a significant number of passengers are booking onto Lumo as reducing the load on the LNER anyway.

It's probably a bit of both.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I highly doubt Horne is doing this off his own bat, and even if he is the government doesn't have to let him withdraw previously regulated fares.

I’m fairly certain this will have come from him, it’s not the first hare-brained idea to come out of LNER under his watch. All have a common theme: (incompetently) trying to run LNER like an airline.

And the other nationalised TOCs aren’t doing anything remotely like this.

It is interesting that the fares are always cheapest around the times Lumo operates

“Market based pricing”

 

[Failed Unit]

The issue we have is that in many cases the ‘inter-city’ operator is also the local service. Eg Newark to Retford, Didcot to Swindon, Wigan to Warrington. If this gets rolled out across the inter-city operators, which I fear it will, I dread to think what will happen to fares and flexibility on some short distance journeys.

This is an interesting point, Newark - Grantham and Newark - Retford won't really get many passengers because of the high cost of LNER car parks. LNER have introduced an LNER only fare from Lincoln - Newark, but Newark Castle has more favourable car-parking options so EMR does have the advantage here. But LNER has never really had any interest in the local journeys where in the past you can have long gaps between services. (Before the Lincoln / York stopping services were introduced often more then 4 hours)

If they made reservations compulsory, I am not sure all the Peterborough - London flow would all go to GTR (although they have thier challenges when the core dies). But Lincoln - Peterborough traffic which there probably isn't much to get exicted about would be heading to EMR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

51% in fact, with Stagey being 49%, thus what Virgin said went. Of course Virgin did preside over some pretty whacking walk up fare rises too, but as they mostly only affected business travellers the impact wasn't the same.

The 2019 Virgin/Stagecoach/SNCF bid for ICWC was only 10% Virgin - it would have been a Stagecoach operation.
Although he was undoubtedly upset at the time for being booted out of the bidding and the VT termination, I expect SRB is quietly content with leaving what turned out to be a complete shambles (Covid + Avanti + nationalisation + HS2 debacle).
Though he was a Labour supporter when it suited him.

I highly doubt Horne is doing this off his own bat, and even if he is the government doesn't have to let him withdraw previously regulated fares.
Actual civil servants will be implementing government policy, which elected politicians are responsible for.

There's such a thing as the GBR Transition Team, who have been planning the changes for when GBR starts up properly.
The LNER fares thing is part of that.
So while there will be civil service involvement, much of it will be by professional rail people (the ones everybody says should be in charge).

Yes, government policy comes into it and that might change, or not.
I seem to remember it was a Labour government which gave us RPI+x as a fares formula, and wanted passenger to pay a higher proportion of the industry costs.

 

[yorksrob]

(Covid + Avanti + nationalisation + HS2 debacle).
Though he was a Labour supporter when it suited him.

Only one of those was as a result of Labour policy.

 

[3RDGEN]

The article in Sept Modern Railways is reporting of the "Transport for the North, Rail North Committee" meeting 15th July, you can access the minutes and watch the webcast of the meeting at;

"https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=1546&Ver=4"

Its item 6, the fare comments are item 6.10 "He outlined their fares and ticketing work, highlighting the introduction of single leg pricing and simpler fares which is currently on trial with initial signs being positive and thousands of people choosing the "Flex” option. He recognised that more work needs to be done with those who use third party websites to buy tickets."

 

[yorksrob]

The article in Sept Modern Railways is reporting of the "Transport for the North, Rail North Committee" meeting 15th July, you can access the minutes and watch the webcast of the meeting at;



Its item 6, the fare comments are item 6.10 "He outlined their fares and ticketing work, highlighting the introduction of single leg pricing and simpler fares which is currently on trial with initial signs being positive and thousands of people choosing the "Flex” option. He recognised that more work needs to be done with those who use third party websites to buy tickets."

Well, no one asked anything remotely searching there anyway.

Whitewash and Hogwash.

 

[Haywain]

The LNER fares thing is part of that.

These ideas were being discussed within LNER long before GBRTT was a twinkle in Grant Shapps's eye.

 

[redreni]

No, it’ll be Horne. The giveaway is that there’s been zero change in direction despite the change of government. The same cannot be said about just about anything else that the civil service handles.

Oh, has there been a change of government? I hadn't noticed.

In all seriousness, if it wouldn't be wildly off-topic I could reel off a list as long as your arm of policies that haven't changed despite the change of government. This tells us very little about the civil service and lots about the Labour party, imho.

There may be some inertia but the civil service has to implement government policy. It can advise ministers of the benefits of existing policies, of course, and I've no doubt DfT officials who make use, or expect to make use, of the rail industry revolving door will have done so, but ministers decide and are responsible.

 

[Haywain]

This tells us very little about the civil service and lots about the Labour party, imho.

The new government has been in power for 6 weeks. Change takes much more time than that.

 

[Krokodil]

You can't vote the civil service out. They are who is behind this, not Labour themselves.

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" has quite a lot of truth to it.

 

[redreni]

The new government has been in power for 6 weeks. Change takes much more time than that.

I speak of cases where Ministers have stated publicly they don't intend to change course.

 

[yorksrob]

I speak of cases where Ministers have stated publicly they don't intend to change course.

Have they said it in this case though.

I seem to recall the Minister saying that fares "probably wouldn't go down" at one point, however that's a long way from endorsing an active price gouge.

 

[Bishopstone]

‘Politicians and civil servants are the problem. They should stand back and let experienced railway professionals manage the railway!’

<Railway MD takes a big decision>

’Outrageous - everyone, write to your MP!’

 

[redreni]

Have they said it in this case though.

I seem to recall the Minister saying that fares "probably wouldn't go down" at one point, however that's a long way from endorsing an active price gouge.

No, they haven't.

Does anyone know if Ministerial sign-off is required each time they torch a new tranche of previously regulated off-peak fares? If so, that would be a clear indication.

Even if not, it seems difficult to imagine today's announcement could have gone ahead without Ministers at the very least being briefed. They could have said "I would like further briefing, please, before any expansion of this trial takes place."

 

[Failed Unit]

‘Politicians and civil servants are the problem. They should stand back and let experienced railway professionals manage the railway!’

<Railway MD takes a big decision>

’Outrageous - everyone, write to your MP!’

Back in the past they would huff and puff and nothing would change, such as the service cuts in the early 1990s to prepare BR for privatisation. They did a consultation on withdrawing the Cleethorpes - London HST. All MPs wrote to the BR chairman. BR had public meetings. Nothing changed. They probably expected the noise from a few MPs.

This fare trail will impact more MPs, including mr Kier Stamer. But I don't expect things to change just with MP noise.

 

[Haywain]

Does anyone know if Ministerial sign-off is required each time they torch a new tranche of previously regulated off-peak fares? If so, that would be a clear indication.

If it needed sign off it would have been months ago.

 

[FaresGuru22]

LNER, the only operator trying to bring in real fares reform, slated for getting it wrong in the eyes of those who think they could do things better.. I'm yet to see an idea that would actually work better and have fewer issues.

It's interesting how many think a pilot extension is a cover up for just closing certain loopholes. The loopholes could've been closed 6 months ago. It really is quite clear that this is an extension, not a plaster over a wound.

Doh..! It seems very cynical here.. How much longer can we really cling on to an outdated fare structure? Maybe the real loophole in all of this is the off-peak fare, the thing that gives far too much flexibility and far too many other benefits for the super cheap rate it is. It's no wonder it's a problem when it's gone..

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Maybe the real loophole in all of this is the off-peak fare, the thing that gives far too much flexibility and far too many other benefits for the super cheap rate it is. It's no wonder it's a problem when it's gone..

Yes, Britain's rail fares are too cheap. That's definitely the problem. I'm amazed no one else has come up with this startling insight before.

 

[miklcct]

Yes, Britain's rail fares are too cheap. That's definitely the problem. I'm amazed no one else has come up with this startling insight before.

Abolish Advance tickets and the problem of fare too cheap will be gone. Just leave the Anytime and Off-Peak such that everyone pays at least the off-peak fare, and as all tickets are now flexible, charge for seat reservations as well please.

This is what I want to truly create a 100% walk up railway.

 

[bakerstreet]

LNER, the only operator trying to bring in real fares reform, slated for getting it wrong in the eyes of those who think they could do things better.. I'm yet to see an idea that would actually work better and have fewer issues.

It's interesting how many think a pilot extension is a cover up for just closing certain loopholes. The loopholes could've been closed 6 months ago. It really is quite clear that this is an extension, not a plaster over a wound.

Doh..! It seems very cynical here.. How much longer can we really cling on to an outdated fare structure? Maybe the real loophole in all of this is the off-peak fare, the thing that gives far too much flexibility and far too many other benefits for the super cheap rate it is. It's no wonder it's a problem when it's gone..

What an interesting debut post around an hour into your membership of this forum.

Yes Britain’s low cost of rail travel is indeed a crisis which needs to be resolved by increasing some leisure fares by around 100%.

 

[Kite159]

I guess for the likes of Newcastle someone can avoid the premium with a super off-peak to Blaydon (or Sunderland), for Edinburgh buying to Dalmeny, Uphall or Newcraighall will work from London. Or buying from somewhere which isn't London Kings Cross.

Just a way for LNER to make more money by removing the fare cap offered by the flexible super off-peak single so they can charge a lot more for advances. I wonder how many LNER users for Edinburgh have switched to using the WCML for a cheaper ride, especially if they don't want to be tied down to a particular train for whatever reason