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

[trebor79]

If this nonsense spreads to Great Western in future, I will do the same. My car is sitting on the drive, ready to depart whenever I want. The half hourly service to Paddington broadly offers the same. If they force me to pick a time or pay anytime, then it's game over.

Exactly what I've done. Greater Anglia have managed to just about remove every workaround for a reasonably priced flexible ticket to London. So basically it's over £100 for a 90 minute journey from my local station.
Result: I no longer use the train. I drive to Stratford and get the Jubilee line to central London. Costs me £4 in electricity and £8.50 parking. I'd prefer the train but it's not £85 of value. I do this journey several timess a week on occasion, they've lost a tonne of revenue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2024 ==

More likely GBR will adopt it nationally. Effectively compulsory reservations and market pricing for IC, contactless for regional within specified zones.

How would that work for a journey like I've made this weekend? Lincoln to Trefforest and returning on Monday evening. Used Northern, XC, GWR and TfW. 2 regional services and 2 intercity.
Going back will be reverse but I may end up on a Cardiff to Birmingham to avoid the trundle via Lichfield. Not sure who's train that is.
Would I be expected to hop out and tap a card?

 

[Hadders]

In most cases there's just one obvious route from A to B.

I have to take issue with this. I wouldn't say there's just one obvious route on a long distance journey.

What's the obvious route from Stevenage to Manchester, or York to Bristol, or Edinburgh to Birmingham. I could go on.....

 

[YorkRailFan]

York to Bristol,

To be fair, there is a direct XC service between the two which is sort of obvious. The only other sort of obvious routes are changing in Birmingham, Manchester or London.

 

[Krokodil]

I have to take issue with this. I wouldn't say there's just one obvious route on a long distance journey.

What's the obvious route from Stevenage to Manchester, or York to Bristol, or Edinburgh to Birmingham. I could go on.....

Did you miss the words "in most cases"? Even where there are multiple routes, usually it's an even split between those which are obviously fine and those which are obviously not. There really aren't that many edge cases where a circuitous alternative is valid or a direct route is invalid.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Exactly what I've done. Greater Anglia have managed to just about remove every workaround for a reasonably priced flexible ticket to London. So basically it's over £100 for a 90 minute journey from my local station.
Result: I no longer use the train. I drive to Stratford and get the Jubilee line to central London. Costs me £4 in electricity and £8.50 parking. I'd prefer the train but it's not £85 of value. I do this journey several timess a week on occasion, they've lost a tonne of revenue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2024 ==


How would that work for a journey like I've made this weekend? Lincoln to Trefforest and returning on Monday evening. Used Northern, XC, GWR and TfW. 2 regional services and 2 intercity.
Going back will be reverse but I may end up on a Cardiff to Birmingham to avoid the trundle via Lichfield. Not sure who's train that is.
Would I be expected to hop out and tap a card?

There will still be through ticketing. In your example you'll likely end up with compulsory reservations on the XC and GWR services, and TfW if it's one of their longer distance services. Or you could purchase an Anytime fare and have complete flexibility.

Just bear in mind that very few (if any) people would ever purchase a Lincoln to Trefforest flexible ticket as it stands - that is the sort of journey that Advance fares dominate.

Very few are paying for the flexible £125-£400 fares, except perhaps with a PRIV discount or being stung for using an invalid ticket/travelling without one.

 

[bakerstreet]

Did you miss the words "in most cases"? Even where there are multiple routes, usually it's an even split between those which are obviously fine and those which are obviously not. There really aren't that many edge cases where a circuitous alternative is valid or a direct route is invalid.

There is one route which I used to take which is the fastest route and it was the journey that ‘timetable only’ look up websites suggested.

Yet whilst it was always accepted as a ‘reasonable route’ until 1994, it lost its permitted status a decade or more after privatisation.

I was challenged once about this, and showed the RPI the journey times and they were happy with my explanation.

I imagine there must be more of those situations than just that one where the fastest route is not a permitted route.

A strange state of affairs.

Sometimes this is due to the way the routeing guide has been hacked and appended over the years, far in excess of the product it was upon first publication.

That first publication was purported to the document which preserved historical passenger rights on routeing.

Don’t forget that there are also circuitous routes which - by design - attract a lower fare, and where the mileage is significantly greater and journey times significantly longer than the fastest / shortest route.

 

[wilbers]

Don’t forget that there are also circuitous routes which - by design - attract a lower fare, and where the mileage is significantly greater and journey times significantly longer than the fastest / shortest route.

For one around here, Carlisle to Lancaster is the obvious example of that. Direct along the WCML is what 99.9%+ of people will do, but the Anytime return is also valid to go round the Cumbrian coast line, or down the Settle-Carlisle line, just that it takes 3(+) hours rather than less than 1 hour.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

For one around here, Carlisle to Lancaster is the obvious example of that. Direct along the WCML is what 99.9%+ of people will do, but the Anytime return is also valid to go round the Cumbrian coast line, or down the Settle-Carlisle line, just that it takes 3(+) hours rather than less than 1 hour.

Hardly anyone (nobody) is ever going to buy the Carlisle to Lancaster ANY PERMITTED ticket that is valid via Workington.

The VIA PENRITH fares are cheaper and trains are much faster, which aren't valid on the Northern service.

You could get rid of the Any Permitted fare and nobody would mind.

 

[A S Leib]

You could get rid of the Any Permitted fare and nobody would mind.

I sometimes come back via Penrith from locations on the Cumbrian Coast line to Newcastle, but as the Cumbrian Coast's only hourly I generally plan in advance and use (~short-distance) advance tickets for most of the journey instead.

The difference between the Any Permitted (anytime return only) and a Cumbria Day Ranger's ~£6, and I think there's a Cumbria Round Robin for Carlisle – Barrow – Lancaster – Penrith – Carlisle for less, so for a day out, good alternatives exist anyway.

 

[takno]

Hardly anyone (nobody) is ever going to buy the Carlisle to Lancaster ANY PERMITTED ticket that is valid via Workington.

The VIA PENRITH fares are cheaper and trains are much faster, which aren't valid on the Northern service.

You could get rid of the Any Permitted fare and nobody would mind.

The counter to that is people who want to go out one way and come back the other.

If you got rid of period returns across the network and made the singles half the current price of the returns you'd probably be able to get rid of more than 90% of the issues the routeing guide causes is designed to solve.

Obviously some people on the forum didn't like that change when LNER did it. It seems like LNER didn't like it much eitherpossibly including, since it clearly created a lower ceiling for their advance fares than they liked. It was a positive change for most consumers though in that it got rid of the eye-watering headline fares, and allowed people to mix and match routes, flexibility and modes of transport for different legs of the journey.

 

[Hadders]

The counter to that is people who want to go out one way and come back the other.

If you got rid of period returns across the network and made the singles half the current price of the returns you'd probably be able to get rid of more than 90% of the issues the routeing guide causes is designed to solve.

Obviously some people on the forum didn't like that change when LNER did it. It seems like LNER didn't like it much eitherpossibly including, since it clearly created a lower ceiling for their advance fares than they liked. It was a positive change for most consumers though in that it got rid of the eye-watering headline fares, and allowed people to mix and match routes, flexibility and modes of transport for different legs of the journey.

In theory you're right. I'm all for single leg pricing if the single legs are half the price of the previous return fare.

The problem is what we got with LNER was:

- A move from an Anytime/Off Peak/Super Off Peak structure to Anytime/Super Off Peak.
- Arguably this made things simpler but there were no changes to the validity times of Super Off Peak ticket to compensate.
- This meant that anyone who travelled at Off Peak times was forced to buy an Anytime ticket, resulting in a massive increse in fares for anyone who previously travelled when the Off Peak was the appropriate ticket.
- Then, to add insult to injury, LNER increased the price of the fares (in addition to the annual fares increase) so they were never half the price of the previous return.

This was hailed as a simplification, 'what passengers want' etc while conveniently ignoring the inconvenient truth.

 

[trebor79]

There will still be through ticketing. In your example you'll likely end up with compulsory reservations on the XC and GWR services, and TfW if it's one of their longer distance services. Or you could purchase an Anytime fare and have complete flexibility.

Just bear in mind that very few (if any) people would ever purchase a Lincoln to Trefforest flexible ticket as it stands - that is the sort of journey that Advance fares dominate.

I bought a flexible ticket as there were no advances offered and in any case I needed flexibility around times. As it was I left Lincoln way earlier than I'd planned so got here at 2130 rather than nearly midnight.

Compulsory reservations should be banned IMV, or at least pared back. It's got to the stage where many websites will say "no journeys available" instead of just offering a flexible ticket, purely because the system thinks trains are "full".

 

[yorksrob]

I bought a flexible ticket as there were no advances offered and in any case I needed flexibility around times. As it was I left Lincoln way earlier than I'd planned so got here at 2130 rather than nearly midnight.

Compulsory reservations should be banned IMV, or at least pared back. It's got to the stage where many websites will say "no journeys available" instead of just offering a flexible ticket, purely because the system thinks trains are "full".

The railway being managed for the industries convenience, as usual.

 

[trebor79]

The railway being managed for the industries convenience, as usual.

Indeed. Trying to plan route and time back tomorrow and "no journeys available" which I know is complete and utter nonsense.

Why is the industry so obsessed with compulsory-but-not-really reservations? It's nothing but a pain in the neck.

 

[A S Leib]

Compulsory reservations should be banned IMV, or at least pared back. It's got to the stage where many websites will say "no journeys available" instead of just offering a flexible ticket, purely because the system thinks trains are "full".

Agreed, with the exceptions of Eurostar and sleeper trains.

I can understand the reasoning behind compulsory reservations for HS2 once it's open, as long as classic services aren't cut. On the other hand, the pre-2021 plan would have had capacity for around three times as many passengers on HS2 as there are for intercity passengers now at Euston, which is enough that everybody should be able to get a seat without compulsory reservations needed (even taking into account that that quadrupling included absorbing destinations from St. Pancras and King's Cross).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Compulsory reservations are a absolutely necessary, and I can see a time in the very near future where they are actually enforced, (this is already happening at certain times, especially Lumo).

As long as they're available and easily accessible right up to departure, I'm not sure there's really a case against them. You can currently make free reservations online and with several apps.

Those arguing against them ignore the realities of the 2024 leisure railway. East Coast operators are already running virtually at or in excess of their capacity for most of the day. The times that capacity exists in any quantity are simply undesirable times of day that even with cheap advance fares, you'd never fill them. The ECML is seeing dramatically more travel than it did even before COVID. The fares "trial" is doing absolutely nothing to deter demand - nor was it supposed to - it's intention is to be largely revenue neutral, some pay more, others less - it balances out.

The other important consideration is that the demographic that dominates our long distance railway now is focused on the leisure market. This demographic largely expects, if not demands, a guaranteed seat. They do not want, and will not risk, travelling on a long distance service with no guaranteed seat. It's as simple as that. Research shows that customers are actually deterred from travelling when they can't get a reservation, and they probably didn't need an expensive consultant to tell you that. This demographic also hates a train being perceived as crowded or in excess of seated capacity, which means no standees down the aisles etc.

Even at operators not currently part of the fares trial, there has been a serious reduction in the number of flexible fares being purchased. Advance, time specific trains dominate to an extent not seen before in the UK.

There has been some adverse press about the fares trial, but it's seen as a niche issue. For the most part, people aren't buying workarounds. People aren't complaining or shifting to other routes/operators. This is why it can continually be expanded - the leisure demographic that dominates is having their needs met - just in a way that this forum disapproves.

 

[yorksrob]

Compulsory reservations are a absolutely necessary, and I can see a time in the very near future where they are actually enforced, (this is already happening at certain times, especially Lumo).

As long as they're available and easily accessible right up to departure, I'm not sure there's really a case against them. You can currently make free reservations online and with several apps.

Those arguing against them ignore the realities of the 2024 leisure railway. East Coast operators are already running virtually at or in excess of their capacity for most of the day. The times that capacity exists in any quantity are simply undesirable times of day that even with cheap advance fares, you'd never fill them. The ECML is seeing dramatically more travel than it did even before COVID. The fares "trial" is doing absolutely nothing to deter demand - nor was it supposed to - it's intention is to be largely revenue neutral, some pay more, others less - it balances out.

The other important consideration is that the demographic that dominates our long distance railway now is focused on the leisure market. This demographic largely expects, if not demands, a guaranteed seat. They do not want, and will not risk, travelling on a long distance service with no guaranteed seat. It's as simple as that. Research shows that customers are actually deterred from travelling when they can't get a reservation, and they probably didn't need an expensive consultant to tell you that. This demographic also hates a train being perceived as crowded or in excess of seated capacity, which means no standees down the aisles etc.

Even at operators not currently part of the fares trial, there has been a serious reduction in the number of flexible fares being purchased. Advance, time specific trains dominate to an extent not seen before in the UK.

There has been some adverse press about the fares trial, but it's seen as a niche issue. For the most part, people aren't buying workarounds. People aren't complaining or shifting to other routes/operators. This is why it can continually be expanded - the leisure demographic that dominates is having their needs met - just in a way that this forum disapproves.

What's wrong with people asking for a reservation when they want one ?

 

[Hadders]

Compulsory reservations are a absolutely necessary, and I can see a time in the very near future where they are actually enforced, (this is already happening at certain times, especially Lumo).

You could enforce compulsory reservations on certain trains, this happened even in BR days but CRs across the board are unenforceable.

- They can't realistically be enforced at intermediate stations without a large increase in staffing (which isn't going to happen)
- What happens when there's disruption - I miss my connection but can't get a reservation on the next train as there's none available? I don't necessarily mean major disruption - a train being 5 minutes late can cause a missed connection.
- What happens where trains with compulsory reservations are also the local train service? Are you seriously suggesting that complusory reservations will be needed to travel between Swindon and Didcot, Wigan and Warrington, Newark and Retford etc.

Those arguing against them ignore the realities of the 2024 leisure railway.

The lisure market is very important but it's not the only consideration.

it's intention is to be largely revenue neutral

Given some of the fares increases we're seeing, I cannot believe this for one moment.

There has been some adverse press about the fares trial, but it's seen as a niche issue.

Niche issue isn't what I'd call it. There's a lot of spin on LNER's part in how they've communicated the trial.

 

[yorksrob]

I use the ECML regularly and can't remember ever having to stand.

 

[trebor79]

Compulsory reservations are a absolutely necessary, and I can see a time in the very near future where they are actually enforced, (this is already happening at certain times, especially Lumo).

As long as they're available and easily accessible right up to departure, I'm not sure there's really a case against them. You can currently make free reservations online and with several apps.

Those arguing against them ignore the realities of the 2024 leisure railway. East Coast operators are already running virtually at or in excess of their capacity for most of the day. The times that capacity exists in any quantity are simply undesirable times of day that even with cheap advance fares, you'd never fill them. The ECML is seeing dramatically more travel than it did even before COVID. The fares "trial" is doing absolutely nothing to deter demand - nor was it supposed to - it's intention is to be largely revenue neutral, some pay more, others less - it balances out.

The other important consideration is that the demographic that dominates our long distance railway now is focused on the leisure market. This demographic largely expects, if not demands, a guaranteed seat. They do not want, and will not risk, travelling on a long distance service with no guaranteed seat. It's as simple as that. Research shows that customers are actually deterred from travelling when they can't get a reservation, and they probably didn't need an expensive consultant to tell you that. This demographic also hates a train being perceived as crowded or in excess of seated capacity, which means no standees down the aisles etc.

Even at operators not currently part of the fares trial, there has been a serious reduction in the number of flexible fares being purchased. Advance, time specific trains dominate to an extent not seen before in the UK.

There has been some adverse press about the fares trial, but it's seen as a niche issue. For the most part, people aren't buying workarounds. People aren't complaining or shifting to other routes/operators. This is why it can continually be expanded - the leisure demographic that dominates is having their needs met - just in a way that this forum disapproves.

Except many times I get on a train with an open ticket, the various websites telling me it's "not available" presumably because it's booked out and find loads of seats.

I can't be bothered with farting about on various apps to book a seat. If I can book 5 minutes before boarding what's the point of booking it anyway? It'll either be available to book or it won't and I'll be standing. Either way I'm getting on that train.
I did try to book a seat just before boarding Peterborough to Edinburgh but the thing crashed or whatever and I have up and just sat in an empty seat.

None of this stops people who want to book a seat from booking a seat. Why should I not be afforded the flexibility I e bought just because some other people like to book a seat?
Perfectly happy taking the risk of standing. Usually when people are standing there's seats anyway as people don't bother to look, or are afraid of telling some twerp to shift their bag or or coat off the seat next to them.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

You could enforce compulsory reservations on certain trains, this happened even in BR days but CRs across the board are unenforceable.

- They can't realistically be enforced at intermediate stations without a large increase in staffing (which isn't going to happen)
- What happens when there's disruption - I miss my connection but can't get a reservation on the next train as there's none available? I don't necessarily mean major disruption - a train being 5 minutes late can cause a missed connection.
- What happens where trains with compulsory reservations are also the local train service? Are you seriously suggesting that complusory reservations will be needed to travel between Swindon and Didcot, Wigan and Warrington, Newark and Retford etc.


The lisure market is very important but it's not the only consideration.


Given some of the fares increases we're seeing, I cannot believe this for one moment.


Niche issue isn't what I'd call it. There's a lot of spin on LNER's part in how they've communicated the trial.

You can enforce at pretty much any station by simply creating a penalty or charge for boarding a train without a seat reservation like some railways in Europe.

 

[jamiearmley]

Even at operators not currently part of the fares trial, there has been a serious reduction in the number of flexible fares being purchased. Advance, time specific trains dominate to an extent not seen before in the UK.

Whilst this information is not in dispute, I would point out that advance, time specific tickets are forced on passengers as a default.

They are the first, and often the only, option shown on many apps, (Trainline!) - and finding flexible tickets requires clicking through to other screens . This 'click through' passes many people by(I see this every day with pax who want flexible but can't see how to buy it).

Passengers don't want to save 50p and yet lose all flexibility. They really really don't. They don't want to be penalty fared for 'being on the wrong train'.

They don't understand why train specific tickets even exist for journeys such as burley park to Leeds (6 min) or Saundersfoot to Kilgetty (2 min).

Many crew have given up enforcing Advance ticket restrictions - they see the current fares structure as both a source of unnecessary conflict, and a standing joke. This leads pax to think that they can use an Advance on any train - and then at some point they encounter revenue and get 'fined'. It also results in the proclaimed objective of Advance tickets not being met - demand management - as pax are just using the fixed time ticket as if it were flexible without much pushback.

It's time the industry admitted the real purpose behind Advance tickets - that they aren't refundable - and the push towards them is an attempt to close the Pandora's box of mobile ticket refund fraud which they themselves opened and which was resulting in losses at unprecedented levels.

I know you will argue these points - and that's fine - but the above is what's actually happening on the ground, and it's a world away from the corporate rubbish which is spouted internally in an ever more desperate attempt to justify a system which has passed 'sublime' and now borders on the ridiculous.

 

[JamesT]

I use the ECML regularly and can't remember ever having to stand.

And every time I use the ECML I’m very glad of my reservation as it’s full and standing out of King’s Cross.

 

[Hadders]

You can enforce at pretty much any station by simply creating a penalty or charge for boarding a train without a seat reservation like some railways in Europe.

Bit if the train’s full and standing then no-one’s going to be getting through it to penalise anyone.

If the train’s not full and standing then what problem are you trying to solve?

 

[miklcct]

Whilst this information is not in dispute, I would point out that advance, time specific tickets are forced on passengers as a default.

They are the first, and often the only, option shown on many apps, (Trainline!) - and finding flexible tickets requires clicking through to other screens . This 'click through' passes many people by(I see this every day with pax who want flexible but can't see how to buy it).

Passengers don't want to save 50p and yet lose all flexibility. They really really don't. They don't want to be penalty fared for 'being on the wrong train'.

They don't understand why train specific tickets even exist for journeys such as burley park to Leeds (6 min) or Saundersfoot to Kilgetty (2 min).

Many crew have given up enforcing Advance ticket restrictions - they see the current fares structure as both a source of unnecessary conflict, and a standing joke. This leads pax to think that they can use an Advance on any train - and then at some point they encounter revenue and get 'fined'. It also results in the proclaimed objective of Advance tickets not being met - demand management - as pax are just using the fixed time ticket as if it were flexible without much pushback.

It's time the industry admitted the real purpose behind Advance tickets - that they aren't refundable - and the push towards them is an attempt to close the Pandora's box of mobile ticket refund fraud which they themselves opened and which was resulting in losses at unprecedented levels.

I know you will argue these points - and that's fine - but the above is what's actually happening on the ground, and it's a world away from the corporate rubbish which is spouted internally in an ever more desperate attempt to justify a system which has passed 'sublime' and now borders on the ridiculous.

I would love to see a modern app which behaves like MixingDeck - letting you choose a fare first before showing the itineraries valid on that fare, without forcing a journey planner.

 

[Krokodil]

This was hailed as a simplification, 'what passengers want' etc while conveniently ignoring the inconvenient truth.

The truth is that passengers want Anytime/Any Permitted tickets at Advance prices. While that might be a little unrealistic, in this age of traffic congestion and environmental concerns the government really ought to be moving some way in that direction.

Compulsory reservations are a absolutely necessary, and I can see a time in the very near future where they are actually enforced, (this is already happening at certain times, especially Lumo).

As long as they're available and easily accessible right up to departure, I'm not sure there's really a case against them.

If "compulsory reservations are absolutely necessary" that would imply that trains are routinely oversubscribed. In which case "available and easily accessible right up to departure" really isn't going to work.

You can enforce at pretty much any station by simply creating a penalty or charge for boarding a train without a seat reservation like some railways in Europe.

Great, make the railway even more hostile to passengers.

Frontline staff are absolutely fed up of having endless arguments about stupid rules dreamt up by pen-pushers. Having to charge someone again because the TOC-specific ticket they've got (which happens to be more expensive than the correct TOC-specific ticket) is invalid.

Look at Avanti where TMs were regularly being pulled in by management to account for every occasion on which they'd used their discretion. A work-to-rule has resulted. I would have far more time for dealing with non-paying scumbags if my time wasn't being wasted with arguments over trivia.

While we're on the subject, I'm also fed up of having to mumble a price because many walk-up single tickets are embarrassingly extortionate.

And every time I use the ECML I’m very glad of my reservation as it’s full and standing out of King’s Cross.

Then by all means book a reservation. You're completely free to. Just as I should be free to buy a walk-up ticket without being lied to ("no journeys available") and take my chances on whether I can get a seat or not.

 

[trebor79]

If "compulsory reservations are absolutely necessary" that would imply that trains are routinely oversubscribed. In which case "available and easily accessible right up to departure" really isn't going to work.
...
Then by all means book a reservation. You're completely free to. Just as I should be free to buy a walk-up ticket without being lied to ("no journeys available") and take my chances on whether I can get a seat or not.

100%. I'm not sure what problem the industry is trying to solve through this nonsense. Whatever the problem is, mandatory reservations aren't the answer.

 

[Hadders]

Another thing on compulsory reservations. What happens when there is disruption? Will CRs still apply? If they do the railway had better get its act together because there’ll be mass stranding of passengers and the cost of dealing with it will be astronomical.

Alternatively if, as I suspect will happen, CRs get suspended then it will become a free for all and there’ll be little point in having compulsory reservations at all.

What happens when a service is short formed (it happens 5 car vice 9 or 10). Are half the passengers going to be denied boarding and have to rebook (and hope genre’s seats available on later trains)? Or will CRs get suspended on that service and everyone gets onboard, with some passengers standing?

I suspect all of this compulsory reservation nonsense is being pushed by people from an airline background who have found themselves working on railway ticketing either in GBR, DfT or RDG. These people need to quickly learn that the railway cannot be compared to an airline.

 

[jamiearmley]

Frontline staff are absolutely fed up of having endless arguments about stupid rules dreamt up by pen-pushers.

Absolutely this.

If you don't enforce, pax think it's generally ok, then shortly after come a cropper with revenue enforcement - at an excessive cost.

If you do enforce, you face a barrage of abuse and conflict. Only last night I mentioned to a passenger that because their cracked screen, which meant their ticket could not be scanned, rendered it invalid, and that I myself had no issue but cautioned that they may face issue with others - and got an earful for my trouble.

So from now on : cracked screen? New ticket. If I'm going to get abuse for offering well meant guidance, I may as well get the same abuse for doing my job to the letter.

 

[Haywain]

These people need to quickly learn that the railway cannot be compared to an airline.

I take it you mean the railway in Great Britain, because there are plenty of places where long distance rail works like that.