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

[Bletchleyite]

Quite.

We seem to be sleepwalking into the world of compulsory reservations and airline style pricing that some other European countries have already moved to, but with the awful terms and conditions that made (some) sense for advances as an option for an otherwise walk-up railway.

For the record, what I would consider reasonable for those things are:

1. Break of journey (including starting/ending short) permitted. Few people will look for longer journeys being cheaper, if they do just let them get away with it as otherwise it just looks stupid. Obviously if you do use a train you need to be on the booked one, but the idea of fining me because I went to Milton Keynes Central instead of Bletchley (which I only tend to do if disruption is likely) is plain silly. I'm not aware of any other railway that has this ludicrous policy, though some airlines don't like you doing stuff like that where it is possible.

2. The 70 Minute Flex tickets should be fully refundable up to the end of the 70 minute window. Lumo get this right with their middle tier ticket.

3. Change fees should not be charged (Premier Inn don't), and consideration should be given to a voucher refund if the ticket you are changing to is cheaper (Premier Inn do - money in fact!).

4. If your train is cancelled, shows as more than an hour late before the journey commences or a connection is missed, a change should be permitted at no cost to any time on any day in the booking horizon (as easyJet allow), or alternatively should be able to be used at any time on the booked day on any TOC without any changes being made, i.e. become an Anytime ticket automatically, or alternatively a full refund should be paid if the journey is abandoned entirely. This is DB's policy.

If the railway still wants to have a super bargain bucket ticket that doesn't offer those things, fine, but the normal Advance should follow reasonable policies if it is to be the normal fare. None of these would cost the railway a fortune. It's notable that on some grounds even low-cost hotel and air operators are more reasonable than the railway, yet the railway is a premium thing in terms of the price.

(This is also in this speculative thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...t-policies-in-a-post-lner-trial-world.277617/ if anyone would like to discuss them further or suggest alternative policies - but I think it's worth having them duplicated here as well)

 

[Kite159]

The big issue with CR is what happens when the train is cancelled (afterall LNER are not 100%). Or more likely you are making a trip from A to C changing at station B when A-B either is cancelled or gets delayed long enough that you miss the connection.

"Sorry for your delay, sadly there are no more seats available from B to C today so please go away"

 

[kkong]

I can't think of any way LNER is improved by third party websites.

Here's one: LNER don't allow you to select a ScotRail Club 50 railcard, despite Club 50 discounted tickets being valid on LNER services.

Other retailers (both TOC and third party) do allow this.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I can't think of any way LNER is improved by third party websites. In terms of the retailing process the only real problem with their website is that it respects their stupid mandatory reservations flags, and all the third party websites seem to do that as well. It's not even a route where split-ticketing regularly saves money. The actual tickets they sell are awful, but that's the same range of tickets you get via 3rd parties.

Can you list the TPRs that dont respect the reservation flag and I’ll pass them onto the accreditation team

 

[Krokodil]

Can you list the TPRs that dont respect the reservation flag and I’ll pass them onto the accreditation team

Pretty sure that he covered that with "and all the third party websites seem to do that as well".

The sole advantage that I can see of third party retailers vs LNER is that they will proactively split tickets at York.

 

[AdamWW]

Pretty sure that he covered that with "and all the third party websites seem to do that as well".

The sole advantage that I can see of third party retailers vs LNER is that they will proactively split tickets at York.

There's another advantage if you're feeling unhappy with the way LNER are acting - it means a (small bit of) the price you pay goes to someone else.

 

[BRX]

Can you list the TPRs that dont respect the reservation flag and I’ll pass them onto the accreditation team

Isn't it LNER that needs to be passed on to the accreditation team and told to stop using mandatory reservations in a way that results in people being given false information about ticket validity?

 

[Krokodil]

There's another advantage if you're feeling unhappy with the way LNER are acting - it means a (small bit of) the price you pay goes to someone else.

I don't think that this figures in the thought process of the average consumer.

 

[yorksrob]

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

"So far we're pleased with the results" says the LNER MD of the flex trial. "We've found a lot of people taking advantage of the 70-min window to return before the booked time - we're offering modern flexibility at a cheaper price".

Market research suggests the new ticket has had little influence on traffic trends but what it has done is to increase customer satisfaction, which is rated higher than on routes with conventional tickets. "The feedback we've had from business customers has been fantastic"

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.

 

[miklcct]

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 them. Great, have them alongside the off-peak option.

As for business travellers, LNER is a largely leisure focused service anyway, according to the article.

A week ago I used a off-peak tickets on an intercity journey between London and Cardiff. It was not cheap, but it was necessary because I was going there to meet friends, and not for an event, so there was no fixed time for me.

However, if I have to pay £294.20 for an Anytime ticket it will be a no go for me, and all my similar kinds of leisure travel on intercity trains in GB will end as a result.

 

[BRX]

"modern flexibility at a cheaper price"

This is a straight up lie, isn't it? Cheaper than what?

 

[yorksrob]

A week ago I used a off-peak tickets on an intercity journey between London and Cardiff. It was not cheap, but it was necessary because I was going there to meet friends, and not for an event, so there was no fixed time for me.

However, if I have to pay £294.20 for an Anytime ticket it will be a no go for me, and all my similar kinds of leisure travel on intercity trains in GB will end as a result.

Indeed. Long distance off-peak fares often provide the right balance between flexibility and cost, particularly when in a spot.

The anytime fare is frankly pointless.

"modern flexibility at a cheaper price"

This is a straight up lie, isn't it? Cheaper than what?

I also laughed at the concept of "modern" flexibility - i.e. not as flexible then.

The phrase could have been coined by George Orwell.

 

[AdamWW]

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.Wh

When making a change which may drive some types of passenger away from the railway completely, I'm not sure that surveying the satisfaction of the remaining passengers is the best metric for success.

"modern flexibility at a cheaper price"

Most people drive everywhere these days.

So isn't "modern flexibility" being able to travel when you like, not having to committ to a 70 minute window weeks or months in advance?

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

Looking at the quote regarding customer satisfaction, what they actually say is that the routes within the trial have higher customer satisfaction compared to unspecified other routes - this may well be true, but is meaningless, as it could be caused by a myriad of unrelated things:
- It is possible that the trial routes had higher customer satisfaction before the trial, and there has been no change in either
- It is possible that satisfaction on the trial routes has increased for unrelated reasons, e.g. perceived or actual increased reliability
- It is possible that satisfaction on the comparison routes has gone down for unrelated reasons, e.g. perceived or actual decreased reliability, overcrowding, etc.
- It is possible that questions have been asked in a leading manner, attempting to give the desired conclusion
- Finally, it is possible that LNER has managed to convince passengers that these changes are in their interest, while hiding the real negative effects on them

I would agree with others that off-peak / Super off-peak tickets are essential - connecting into or out of other forms of transport, forming a price ceiling on advance tickets, etc.

As soon as I realised how small the price differential between advance and off-peak tickets on Avanti really was, I stopped buying advance and fully switched to off-peak returns

 

[Tetchytyke]

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

"Modern flexibility (less flexibility) at a cheaper price (than the anytime fare)".

The flex idea as a bolt-on to an AP isn't a bad one. The issue is the disingenuity in removing the off-peak tickets at the same time.

As for customer satisfaction, it always depends what question you ask. "Are you satisfied at being able to pay an extra £15-£20 to get flexibility on your advance ticket?" would be a resounding yes from me, especially in the high peak. "Are you satisfied that we've abolished the off-peak fare?" would be a resounding no.

 

[AdamWW]

"Modern flexibility (less flexibility) at a cheaper price (than the anytime fare)".

The flex idea as a bolt-on to an AP isn't a bad one. The issue is the disingenuity in removing the off-peak tickets at the same time.

As for customer satisfaction, it always depends what question you ask. "Are you satisfied at being able to pay an extra £15-£20 to get flexibility on your advance ticket?" would be a resounding yes from me, especially in the high peak. "Are you satisfied that we've abolished the off-peak fare?" would be a resounding no.

And - I think for many weekend passengers at least if buying at short notice - are you aware that prior to this trial you could have had a ticket at a lower price and with far greater flexibility than the one you just bought?

 

[Tetchytyke]

And - I think for many weekend passengers at least if buying at short notice - are you aware that prior to this trial you could have had a ticket at a lower price and with far greater flexibility than the one you just bought?

Indeed.

And that's the bit that people don't seem to have twigged. I was arguing with someone on Threads who was adamant that LNER are amazing now they're nationalised and that I was lying when I said off-peak tickets were abolished. They demonstrated I was lying by showing a screenshot of a 70-min flex ticket. There's no saving some people.

 

[AdamWW]

Indeed.

And that's the bit that people don't seem to have twigged. I was arguing with someone on Threads who was adamant that LNER are amazing now they're nationalised and that I was lying when I said off-peak tickets were abolished. They demonstrated I was lying by showing a screenshot of a 70-min flex ticket. There's no saving some people.

I expect I've said this before, but somehow I doubt that people would be as impressed if fuel duty was replaced with a road charging scheme offering "modern flexibility", no matter how it was spun.

 

[yorksrob]

When making a change which may drive some types of passenger away from the railway completely, I'm not sure that surveying the satisfaction of the remaining passengers is the best metric for success.

Looking at the quote regarding customer satisfaction, what they actually say is that the routes within the trial have higher customer satisfaction compared to unspecified other routes - this may well be true, but is meaningless, as it could be caused by a myriad of unrelated things:
- It is possible that the trial routes had higher customer satisfaction before the trial, and there has been no change in either
- It is possible that satisfaction on the trial routes has increased for unrelated reasons, e.g. perceived or actual increased reliability
- It is possible that satisfaction on the comparison routes has gone down for unrelated reasons, e.g. perceived or actual decreased reliability, overcrowding, etc.
- It is possible that questions have been asked in a leading manner, attempting to give the desired conclusion
- Finally, it is possible that LNER has managed to convince passengers that these changes are in their interest, while hiding the real negative effects on them

I would agree with others that off-peak / Super off-peak tickets are essential - connecting into or out of other forms of transport, forming a price ceiling on advance tickets, etc.

As soon as I realised how small the price differential between advance and off-peak tickets on Avanti really was, I stopped buying advance and fully switched to off-peak returns

Who was it who coined the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics" ?

"Modern flexibility (less flexibility) at a cheaper price (than the anytime fare)".

The flex idea as a bolt-on to an AP isn't a bad one. The issue is the disingenuity in removing the off-peak tickets at the same time.

As for customer satisfaction, it always depends what question you ask. "Are you satisfied at being able to pay an extra £15-£20 to get flexibility on your advance ticket?" would be a resounding yes from me, especially in the high peak. "Are you satisfied that we've abolished the off-peak fare?" would be a resounding no.

Yes. I'd go so far as to say that it might be worth rolling out the flex AP option to all long distance operations. Just without ditching the OP option.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Yes. I'd go so far as to say that it might be worth rolling out the flex AP option to all long distance operations. Just without ditching the OP option.

Enhancing Advance tickets by making them available during a time window rather than a specific service would be a customer friendly way to go.

 

[YorkRailFan]

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

This bit of the section you quoted is strange:

We've found a lot of people taking advantage of the 70-min window to return before the booked time

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

 

[Kite159]

Are those the passengers who will buy a "Flex" ticket for (say) the 09:30 service which is cheaper than the cheapest advance available on the 08:30/09:00 service knowing full well they are going to be travelling on one of those earlier trains.

Unless LNER have fixed that bug

 

[yorksrob]

Are those the passengers who will buy a "Flex" ticket for (say) the 09:30 service which is cheaper than the cheapest advance available on the 08:30/09:00 service knowing full well they are going to be travelling on one of those earlier trains.

Unless LNER have fixed that bug

That could well be a factor, now you mention it !

 

[redreni]

Are those the passengers who will buy a "Flex" ticket for (say) the 09:30 service which is cheaper than the cheapest advance available on the 08:30/09:00 service knowing full well they are going to be travelling on one of those earlier trains.

Unless LNER have fixed that bug

How would they even do that? The price for each train would need to take account of the prices on the other trains within plus or minus 70 minutes. Some prices would need to either be held down by the others or, more likely, artificially inflated.

 

[Trainbike46]

How would they even do that? The price for each train would need to take account of the prices on the other trains within plus or minus 70 minutes. Some prices would need to either be held down by the others or, more likely, artificially inflated.

Didn't they simply set the availability of 70 minute flex tickets to zero on some trains that had this "issue" very strongly? I'm sure I heard something about this

 

[JonathanH]

How would they even do that? The price for each train would need to take account of the prices on the other trains within plus or minus 70 minutes

It will be even more interesting what the terms and conditions are when it starts to include reservations on connecting trains. How does the flex work then?

 

[takno]

Are those the passengers who will buy a "Flex" ticket for (say) the 09:30 service which is cheaper than the cheapest advance available on the 08:30/09:00 service knowing full well they are going to be travelling on one of those earlier trains.

Unless LNER have fixed that bug

I think it's also possible that people actually want 2 hours flexibility after the time they expect to go, rather than an hour either side, so they are booking onto the train after the one they actually expect to get just to be on the safe side.

 

[redreni]

I think it's also possible that people actually want 2 hours flexibility after the time they expect to go, rather than an hour either side, so they are booking onto the train after the one they actually expect to get just to be on the safe side.

Yeah that's exactly how it works out if you're going to an event such as a football match, isn't it?

You want your window to include the earliest train you might be able to catch and as many as possible of the subsequent trains. You don't need it to include trains you won't want to catch because the event won't have finished yet.

 

[BRX]

"Market research suggests the new ticket has had little influence on traffic trends"

This is kind of interesting because wasn't part of the justification that the new system would smooth out demand and reduce crowding?

 

[Sonic1234]

"Market research suggests the new ticket has had little influence on traffic trends"

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