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

[thedbdiboy]

I struggle to believe that there was no fares regulation in the BR era. It may not have been public information. It may not even have been formal. I agree it wouldn't have been regulated in the sense of the minister setting limits pursuant to Regulations. But I can't believe BR had carte blanche to do whatever it liked to fare levels and the fare structure. The government was accountable to the public through Parliament for rail fares, and that continued to be the case after privatisation (formally for regulated fares and in political terms for other fares as well).

The problem in accountability terms with dynamic pricing is no journalist can report with any certainty what's happening to rail fares, how much they've gone up or down over time, etc. They're reduced to citing examples, but of course being journalists they try to find the most preposterously high fares they can and they are vulnerable to the industry and government coming back with counter-examples of good value fares, and the reader is left none the wiser.

In an ideal world I would prefer all fares to be distance-based and regulated. You could have certain trains that required payment of a demand-based supplement, but the level of the supplement as a percentage of the basic fare should be transparent, as should the basis on which the decision to charge the supplement on specific trains is made.

We don't live in an ideal world, though. We have regulated fares that constrain, in practice, operators' ability to increase Advance fares and I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and accept we can't have that in the future.

You're absolutely correct that they couldn't do what they liked - but they were far freeer to make major changes to the fares structure and withdraw fares that were undermining the revenue base - for example the restructures of 1985 and 1993. The main thing was that annual fares rises were consistently above inflation because the Treasury sought to minimise the subsidy for BR.
However there was absolutely no indexation of any specific fares and no fare type was protected - the product structure was a matter for BR. In this sense it is much more likely that in future Government will pay attention to the maximum fares chargeable - the equivalent of anytime interavailable fares, with intervention elsewhere only if something looks to be politically unpalatable.
I would expect that in future there will be more transparency of data in terms of what fares are charged - e.g. average fares across the day, and at specific times, given the much greater use of yield managed fares where there isn't a clear published price. But that's not the same as formally regulating them.

 

[CyrusWuff]

This is the problem (benefit, if you want to price gouge?) with Advances. They're inherently opaque with no transparency or open data in the public domain around availability.

A lack of transparency is nothing new. The old Computer Reservation System would only tell you if there were at least 9 seats available in a given quota, with individual quantities when it dropped below that.

Eurostar was slightly more transparent, as their old reservation system told you how many multiples of 10 seats were available in a given bucket.

 

[nwales58]

A lack of transparency is nothing new. The old Computer Reservation System would only tell you if there were at least 9 seats available in a given quota, with individual quantities when it dropped below that.

9 = 9 or more was standard airline/GDS in the days when teletypes or dialup VDUs were normal.
I don't know about BR CRS but SNCF's sales and yield system was derived from Sabre at that time, from (untrustworthy) memory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Talking of which, I believe LNER made vague suggestions that on the "trial" flows they wouldn't be charging people the full anytime fare for being on the wrong train with an advance - did that happen?)

There is a fare on brfares.com set at the old Super Off Peak level for that purpose. I'm not sure if it is actually sold or not, though.

 

[AdamWW]

This doesn't mean unfettered fare rises because economic growth is reliant on enabling rather than supressing travel.

Can someone tell LNER that?

Whatever the debate about fare levels, people are going to need to get used to the idea that 'regulation' won't exist in a nationalised, state operated industry. It doesn't on TfL, Tyne & Wear Metro etc, it didn't under British Rail - it was needed for privatisation when private companies set 'monopoly' fares. Fare levels will depend on the public finances and the political appetite to balance difficult decisions.

Surely that depends on the extent to which the intercity TOCs are absorbed into some directly controlled organisation or left quasi-independent with their own management?

I've not really kept up with it all but I thought I'd seen hints that they might continue with independent management much as they are at present even though owned by the government rather than shareholders.

Besides which, though the operators you mention don't have regulated fares, they do at least publish fixed fares, rather than you turning up at a station and being told a fare that varies based on how much they think they can get out of you and which without warning could suddenly be twice what it was when you decided to buy a house and commute from there.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Surely that depends on the extent to which the intercity TOCs are absorbed into some directly controlled organisation or left quasi-independent with their own management?

Given that the legislation signed into law means that GBR operations must all be directly managed, it really is only a matter of time before TOC quasi-independence ends. The only reason we have it for now is that there is neither the legal structure nor the management capacity to yet make that move.
It's worth remembering that the nucleus of the 'TOCs' were BR operating divisions. They ran the services and managed the stations and staff but did not set fares - BR had fares offices which liaised directly with the business sectors and the divisions' only role was in managing local promotions.

 

[Kite159]

I dread to think how much passengers are overpaying* on those weekends when London KC - Newcastle/Edinburgh is reduced to hourly due to the Durham Coast diverts.

(*Overpaying when advance tickets are more than the old super off-peak single fare & is more than a flexible ticket from Finsbury Park to Newcastle/Edinburgh etc)

 

[BRX]

Good to see a focus on walk up fares in this report from Campaign for Better Transport:

In a year of unprecedented change for the railways, we cannot afford to miss the opportunity to fix fares. In this policy paper, we examine what fare reforms are needed to make rail fares affordable, clear and fair to help keep passengers on board and increase ridership in the longer term

Fix Fares for Good: A policy position paper from Campaign for Better Transport

In a year of unprecedented change for the railways, we cannot afford to miss the opportunity to fix fares. In this policy paper, we examine what fare reforms are needed to make rail fares affordable, clear and fair to help keep passengers on board and increase ridership in the longer term.

bettertransport.org.uk

 

[rheingold103]

LNER makes this claim about Advance tickets compared with a walk-up purchased/ flexible ticket. It might be presumed that this 48% cheaper four weeks out claim (but for no flexibility) is the best they can offer, but how do such average savings compare with their previous 'pre-simplification' Anytime offering?

Book Advance Tickets

www.lner.co.uk

Book Advance Tickets​

Save 48%* when you book in advance
...
*Saving average based on all Standard Advance tickets bought on the LNER website and App at least four weeks before you travel vs buying any Standard ticket on the day you travel.

 

[alistairlees]

9 = 9 or more was standard airline/GDS in the days when teletypes or dialup VDUs were normal.
I don't know about BR CRS but SNCF's sales and yield system was derived from Sabre at that time, from (untrustworthy) memory.

The BR reservation system was not derived from sabre as far as I know. I’ve got the operating manual for ticket offices somewhere still.

 

[redreni]

LNER makes this claim about Advance tickets compared with a walk-up purchased/ flexible ticket. It might be presumed that this 48% cheaper four weeks out claim (but for no flexibility) is the best they can offer, but how do such average savings compare with their previous 'pre-simplification' Anytime offering?

Book Advance Tickets

www.lner.co.uk

"Book Advance Tickets​

Save 48%* when you book in advance
...
*Saving average based on all Standard Advance tickets bought on the LNER website and App at least four weeks before you travel vs buying any Standard ticket on the day you travel."

They're stretching a point with their use of the word "any" here, aren't they?

Bearing in mind the loophole fares to other destinations they have created as a result of scrapping the off-peak fares on certain flows would surely come under the broad category of "any Standard ticket"?

Given their habit of charging more during the extended booking horizon vs nearer the time of travel, it would be interesting to see their working here, too. Were they always looking at fares 4 weeks before the date of travel? "At least 4 weeks" seems to suggest some of the journeys they cherry-picked selected for what I'm sure was a highly scientific study were looking further ahead than that?

 

[jayah]

LNER makes this claim about Advance tickets compared with a walk-up purchased/ flexible ticket. It might be presumed that this 48% cheaper four weeks out claim (but for no flexibility) is the best they can offer, but how do such average savings compare with their previous 'pre-simplification' Anytime offering?

Book Advance Tickets

www.lner.co.uk

"Book Advance Tickets​

Save 48%* when you book in advance
...
*Saving average based on all Standard Advance tickets bought on the LNER website and App at least four weeks before you travel vs buying any Standard ticket on the day you travel."

We've fares made simpler, but to get comparable prices you now have to book at least 4 weeks in advance, the tickets are non-refundable.

It's a pattern of behaviour across the economy that companies claim to be 'doing what their customers want' when in fact doing the opposite.

 

[MrJeeves]

The BR reservation system was not derived from sabre as far as I know. I’ve got the operating manual for ticket offices somewhere still.

Sounds like a worthy contribution to the Internet Archive?

 

[BRX]

LNER makes this claim about Advance tickets compared with a walk-up purchased/ flexible ticket. It might be presumed that this 48% cheaper four weeks out claim (but for no flexibility) is the best they can offer, but how do such average savings compare with their previous 'pre-simplification' Anytime offering?

Book Advance Tickets

www.lner.co.uk

"Book Advance Tickets​

Save 48%* when you book in advance
...
*Saving average based on all Standard Advance tickets bought on the LNER website and App at least four weeks before you travel vs buying any Standard ticket on the day you travel."

Aka "pay a 92% surcharge if you want to inconvenience us by planning your life less than a month in advance"

 

[crablab]

Sounds like a worthy contribution to the Internet Archive?

I'd also be very interested too @alistairlees

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aka "pay a 92% surcharge if you want to inconvenience us by planning your life less than a month in advance"

Based on my monitoring of Edinburgh/Newcastle fares it's about a 30-50% increase for on the day Advances over the previous Super Off Peak fares. For Edinburgh £130 is a very common figure, the Super Off Peak was about £100.

 

[crablab]

Based on my monitoring of Edinburgh/Newcastle fares it's about a 30-50% increase for on the day Advances over the previous Super Off Peak fares.

Personally, the issue for me isn't the increase in price (whilst still disingenuous) - it's the significant loss of route & time flexibility. That's completely uncompetitive compared to the car, especially when my bus could turn up to the station a little late and render my tickets worthless.

I understand the "flex" product, but that still only allows 70 minutes either side. If I'm visiting family (the only reason I'd be using LNER), I want maximum flexibility and the Super Off-Peak was perfect for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, the issue for me isn't the increase in price (whilst still disingenuous) - it's the significant loss of route & time flexibility. That's completely uncompetitive compared to the car, especially when my bus could turn up to the station a little late and render my tickets worthless.

I understand the "flex" product, but that still only allows 70 minutes either side. If I'm visiting family (the only reason I'd be using LNER), I want maximum flexibility and the Super Off-Peak was perfect for that.

I think that's true of shorter journeys, but I doubt the vast majority of passengers need flexibility on a very long journey like Edinburgh to London. This will be why they chose those routes instead of shorter ones to ensure they got good feedback.

Caring about route flexibility is very much an enthusiast thing. No member of the general public gives a monkey's about that.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think that's true of shorter journeys, but I doubt the vast majority of passengers need flexibility on a very long journey like Edinburgh to London. This will be why they chose those routes instead of shorter ones to ensure they got good feedback.

Caring about route flexibility is very much an enthusiast thing. No member of the general public gives a monkey's about that.

Well the flexibility come in handy in times of disruption
Being able to travel earlier or on a different route like the MML etc

 

[crablab]

This will be why they chose those routes instead of shorter ones to ensure they got good feedback.

The journey in my mind is around 2hr total, so not particularly short.

I think you missattribute interest in route flexibility. Normies I know are worried about getting it wrong; they don't know if their ticket is valid to go via a different "colour train" and don't have an easy way to find out. They think the itinerary is gospel.

I'm sure if as many resources went into genuinely improving the ticketing model & publicity campaigns to raise awareness of the features, as went into (eg) 61016 then the public would have a better understanding & make use of the flexibility.

Instead of doing a better job explaining, LNER/DfT are doing away with it in the name of "simplification" and then having the gall to charge more for the privilege.

But we're just rehashing this thread again!

 

[yorksrob]

I think that's true of shorter journeys, but I doubt the vast majority of passengers need flexibility on a very long journey like Edinburgh to London. This will be why they chose those routes instead of shorter ones to ensure they got good feedback.

Caring about route flexibility is very much an enthusiast thing. No member of the general public gives a monkey's about that.

It can be quite useful in avoiding the replacement bus.

I suppose the other way to look at it is, if the vast majority of the public don't require route flexibility, it won't be having much effect on loadings, so why are they so keen to get rid of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It can be quite useful in avoiding the replacement bus.

I suppose the other way to look at it is, if the vast majority of the public don't require route flexibility, it won't be having much effect on loadings, so why are they so keen to get rid of it.

Because it provides a price cap.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think that's true of shorter journeys, but I doubt the vast majority of passengers need flexibility on a very long journey like Edinburgh to London. This will be why they chose those routes instead of shorter ones to ensure they got good feedback.

Caring about route flexibility is very much an enthusiast thing. No member of the general public gives a monkey's about that.

I started caring about route flexibility after missing a train at Euston once, and I use it fairly regularly to avoid rail replacement buses, or to travel earlier if it looks like there are issues on the line that might cause delays, so I still arrive at my destination in good time. I also use it to change between "Via Liverpool" and "Via Chester" routings if there are issues on one or the other.

None of those situations are enthusiast-only, though I agree not many people are aware of those options.

It can be quite useful in avoiding the replacement bus.

I suppose the other way to look at it is, if the vast majority of the public don't require route flexibility, it won't be having much effect on loadings, so why are they so keen to get rid of it.

I agree, however it is clear they want it to go because it limits what they can charge for advances. The anytime is price so high that it isn't a meaningful price cap.

 

[yorksrob]

Because it provides a price cap.

I started caring about route flexibility after missing a train at Euston once, and I use it fairly regularly to avoid rail replacement buses, or to travel earlier if it looks like there are issues on the line that might cause delays, so I still arrive at my destination in good time. I also use it to change between "Via Liverpool" and "Via Chester" routings if there are issues on one or the other.

None of those situations are enthusiast-only, though I agree not many people are aware of those options.


I agree, however it is clear they want it to go because it limits what they can charge for advances. The anytime is price so high that it isn't a meaningful price cap.

Yes, this is true. It is completely anti-passenger, enthusiast or not.

 

[crablab]

None of those situations are enthusiast-only, though I agree not many people are aware of those options.

Yes, I'm not sure what's considered "enthusiast only"?
I have never engaged in "track bashing" or trainspotting, personally..

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I'm not sure what's considered "enthusiast only"?
I have never engaged in "track bashing" or trainspotting, personally..

Enthusiasts understand the complexity of restriction times and permitted routes. The average customer neither understands them nor cares about them, and in a cancellation will just want to use the next train typically via the same route (the ECML). When things go really bad there is generally acceptance and they do what staff tell them. The 70 Minute Flex is genuinely good for them as it's simple (no reason of course that couldn't just have been added to the offering to see who bought what).

What they probably do care about is the fare increase, though.

 

[BRX]

Based on my monitoring of Edinburgh/Newcastle fares it's about a 30-50% increase for on the day Advances over the previous Super Off Peak fares. For Edinburgh £130 is a very common figure, the Super Off Peak was about £100.

Is that £130 the maximum you commonly see across the "off peak" period, or more like an average of the spread of prices?

 

[AdamWW]

Enthusiasts understand the complexity of restriction times and permitted routes. The average customer neither understands them nor cares about them, and in a cancellation will just want to use the next train typically via the same route (the ECML). When things go really bad there is generally acceptance and they do what staff tell them. The 70 Minute Flex is genuinely good for them as it's simple (no reason of course that couldn't just have been added to the offering to see who bought what).

What they probably do care about is the fare increase, though.

But when they do what the friendly staff member on the platform tells them then end up in court because the one on the train didn't agree they might mind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that £130 the maximum you commonly see across the "off peak" period, or more like an average of the spread of prices?

If you look on the day most formerly super off peak trains seem to cost the same and it's almost always a figure somewhere around that.

FWIW the other thing "normals" care about is someone not sitting in your seat (a lot less likely if it's prohibitively expensive to get a ticket that doesn't have a compulsory seat reservation) and a lack of overcrowding (same). I don't like this scheme personally, but I can totally see why on those very long journeys it might actually be quite popular, particularly among people who book in advance and thus aren't being hit by the price rises in the same way.

Similarly for LNER themselves if they want to diagram a 5 car at a busy time they can more easily just price people off it and the overcrowding is avoided.

I think (speaking generally, not to you specifically) arguing against these things is disingenuous - there are clearly large numbers of passengers who agree with them. We may not agree with the overall matter ourselves (I don't, certainly, though I think there are other half-way type options like reducing the Anytime a bit or having the Super Off Peak more expensive but less restricted, e.g. a standard "after 0930" like XC do) but the most important thing in debate is understanding the views of the opposing side, not just naysaying them without trying to do that.

 

[BRX]

Having a train where those who want to be sure they have a reserved seat get one, and having a train where those who want to buy at the last minute can do as long as they are willing to take the risk that they won't get a seat, are not mutually exclusive options, though.

Also - how do you reconcile the aim of reducing to a minimum the chance of someone sitting in your reserved seat, with offering the "flex" fares which allow people to travel on services other than the one they've booked onto?