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

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Unless you're going to put Merseyrail style hit squads on board to move people who sit in someone else's reserved seat, they absolutely are. People don't respect reservations and often won't move when asked, and sometimes reservations aren't even placed or working (then you get arguments about what the rule is/should be as the railway never provides signage to say what it is, which wouldn't be hard at all). It's a significant stressor for particularly older people and those travelling with young children and the likes.

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?

The Flex fares encourage you to change your ticket on the app to get a reserved seat, and set the expectation that if you don't you'll be standing. I can see an outcome of the trial being that the flexibility is ONLY offered via the app to be honest, then that problem is removed. You'd have to slightly modify the conditions to be "70 minutes, or the next/previous train if there isn't one within 70 minutes or it's fully booked" I suppose.

I suspect if one was to survey, the overriding preference from those travelling London<->Edinburgh or further would be for full compulsory reservation. Hardly anybody makes that sort of journey on a whim. London to Birmingham or Manchester would obviously be quite different.

 

[takno]

I suspect if one was to survey, the overriding preference from those travelling London<->Edinburgh or further would be for full compulsory reservation. Hardly anybody makes that sort of journey on a whim. London to Birmingham or Manchester would obviously be quite different.

People don't make the journey on a whim, but if you live at either end then it's entirely possible for your plans to change - needing to be home a few hours sooner, needing to stay a few hours longer, suddenly needing to make the journey at fairly short notice because of an unexpected family or work situation.

In any case, it's not a plane - the train stops on the way, and people get on and off. At the very least this means that there's a good chance that if you're standing it will only be as far as Peterborough or York. Also, partly as a result of providing the oh-so-handy seat pickers, a lot of seats are blocked out for people making the entire journey by somebody travelling a fairly short distance. It's entirely possible that you could have the same seat for most of the journey and just make way for somebody travelling between York and Darlington.

Full compulsory seat reservation and seat pickers are ideas which work in the air industry because of specific features of air travel which don't apply to train travel. Importing them without thinking about how they might fail in train travel, or what unique features of train travel are lost, is plain idiocy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Full compulsory seat reservation and seat pickers are ideas which work in the air industry because of specific features of air travel which don't apply to train travel. Importing them without thinking about how they might fail in train travel, or what unique features of train travel are lost, is plain idiocy.

It's not hard to see what the implications of CR is by looking around the world - more long distance railways are CR in some form (be that specific seats or counted places but not overselling) than are not. Optional reservations on long distance services are a Germanic thing (UK included).

It's a slightly separate debate than the LNER thing, but one thing the LNER scheme does do is significantly reduce the number of people likely to be travelling without a reservation and thus significantly reduce the issue of people occupying other peoples' reserved seats, even if it doesn't actually eliminate it.

 

[AdamWW]

I suspect if one was to survey, the overriding preference from those travelling London<->Edinburgh or further would be for full compulsory reservation. Hardly anybody makes that sort of journey on a whim. London to Birmingham or Manchester would obviously be quite different.

Of course not all travel at short notice is because someone just feels like it, and it does annoy me when people in favour of an inflexible railway try to justify it by suggesting that all travel can be planned months ahead if people just got themselves organised.

 

[robbeech]

You'd have to slightly modify the conditions to be "70 minutes, or the next/previous train if there isn't one within 70 minutes or it's fully booked" I suppose.

But on busier days most are already fully booked. You’d end up with someone wanting the 1300 to end up only being able to move onto the 1700 which would ordinarily demand a premium (or more likely not have advanced available forcing SOS tickets to every passenger). In short, this approach might reduce revenue which is not an option that even goes into the hat.

 

[miklcct]

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.

70 minutes either side is completely useless for me. If I want flexibility, I need it on the scale of "I don't know if I am travelling at 16:00 or 22:00", i.e. Super Off-Peak. In the past I actually used a Super Off-Peak ticket from somewhere north of Edinburgh to London, in order to break my journey at Edinburgh, and have a beach trip because "the weather was good". Of course you can't plan any beach trips until it is close enough for the weather forecast to show that it is good.

Unless you're going to put Merseyrail style hit squads on board to move people who sit in someone else's reserved seat, they absolutely are. People don't respect reservations and often won't move when asked, and sometimes reservations aren't even placed or working (then you get arguments about what the rule is/should be as the railway never provides signage to say what it is, which wouldn't be hard at all). It's a significant stressor for particularly older people and those travelling with young children and the likes.



The Flex fares encourage you to change your ticket on the app to get a reserved seat, and set the expectation that if you don't you'll be standing. I can see an outcome of the trial being that the flexibility is ONLY offered via the app to be honest, then that problem is removed. You'd have to slightly modify the conditions to be "70 minutes, or the next/previous train if there isn't one within 70 minutes or it's fully booked" I suppose.

I suspect if one was to survey, the overriding preference from those travelling London<->Edinburgh or further would be for full compulsory reservation. Hardly anybody makes that sort of journey on a whim. London to Birmingham or Manchester would obviously be quite different.

If the train becomes an airline-on-rails, my only response will be travelling by air despite the sin associated with it (because it is much cheaper), buying a car (because the flexible fare becomes non-existent and the journey is made on a whim), or stop travelling altogether (most likely).

The fact that Eurostar is an airline-on-rails has already stopped me travelling to Netherlands last year because I couldn't budget my trip and justify the cost.

It's not hard to see what the implications of CR is by looking around the world - more long distance railways are CR in some form (be that specific seats or counted places but not overselling) than are not. Optional reservations on long distance services are a Germanic thing (UK included).

It's a slightly separate debate than the LNER thing, but one thing the LNER scheme does do is significantly reduce the number of people likely to be travelling without a reservation.

The UK does not separate the long-distance network from the regional network. Both kinds of passengers travel on the same trains.

In other countries, you can stick to regional trains with cheaper fares if you want to make such journeys on a whim.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course not all travel at short notice is because someone just feels like it, and it does annoy me when people in favour of an inflexible railway try to justify it by suggesting that all travel can be planned months ahead if people just got themselves organised.

Months ahead no, but I bet (would love to actually know) even before this scheme that the number of London-Edinburgh tickets sold on the day of travel was well below 1%. People very rarely take long journeys on a whim. It occasionally happens for cases like bereavement (hence why US airlines have dedicated bereavement fares which are heavily discounted but only issued with proof of bereavement or severe illness) but realistically if I have to pay even £500 for a ticket to get to each of my parents when their time comes up that's only a grand across my whole life. And London-Edinburgh Anytimes are £200, not £500.

Do lots of us on here love taking advantage of flexible tickets to replan on a whim? Yes, of course we do - I almost exclusively buy walk-up tickets so I can do this. But I am not most people. Most people want to book a fixed train at a reasonable price with a guaranteed seat that they are sure nobody is going to need booting out of, and they don't want to have to pay £200 if their bus to the station is late (hence the hour and a bit* flexibility being the happy balance for them). I can completely see why the average man in the street might overall like this for this sort of very long journey.

I don't think London-Leeds or London-Manchester would be seen the same way, hence why I think LNER didn't pick Leeds for this trial as they did for the single-fare walk-up pricing.

* The reason for 70 minutes is that not all trains are on a perfect clockface pattern, but almost all are going to be within +/- 10 mins of it on LNER's routes.

 

[Watershed]

I suspect if one was to survey, the overriding preference from those travelling London<->Edinburgh or further would be for full compulsory reservation

And I'm sure those travelling from Plymouth or Leeds to Birmingham would say much the same. The problem, of course, is that those trains often serve as the only option, or provide a substantial proportion of the capacity and/frequency, for short-distance 'day trip' type flows (e.g. Doncaster to York, Cheltenham to Birmingham).

Of course one approach is to copy Spain (and to a lesser extent France) and simply tell those daytrippers to get lost if there are no reservations left. But that is obviously a highly unsatisfactory outcome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I'm sure those travelling from Plymouth or Leeds to Birmingham would say much the same. The problem, of course, is that those trains often serve as the only option, or provide a substantial proportion of the capacity and/frequency, for short-distance 'day trip' type flows (e.g. Doncaster to York, Cheltenham to Birmingham).

This obviously won't be the case once the Edinburghs are both fast.

XC would be far more of a challenge because it's not a solely long distance operator, despite the fact that with their limited capacity this would have its attractions for those travelling long distance.

Of course one approach is to copy Spain (and to a lesser extent France) and simply tell those daytrippers to get lost if there are no reservations left. But that is obviously a highly unsatisfactory outcome.

Realistically there will always be seats available at the north end of routes from London because not everyone travels the full route. And to be honest I'd say that considering MKC<->Euston when planning anything at all regarding Avanti's fares or reservation policy (as another example), or Stevenage<->Kings X for LNER, is the tail wagging the dog. For that journey the primary operators are WMT and GTR.

The UK does not separate the long-distance network from the regional network. Both kinds of passengers travel on the same trains.

This isn't universally true. The LNER Edinburghs (post Dec 2025) will be both fast, meaning the scope for local journeys is much reduced. While on the WCML south of Crewe there are, aside from the Birmingham semifast services, clearly separate IC and local operators. North of Crewe it's less clear, but north of Crewe there is always capacity because people don't all travel the full route.

 

[Krokodil]

Enthusiasts understand the complexity of restriction times and permitted routes.

With a fully-flexible fare (which should be reasonably priced, unlike the current situation) you shouldn't even need to worry about those things. You go to Edinburgh but your meeting gets cancelled. You want to return three hours earlier as a result, but you can't now.

Heck, some of the backpackers from around the world I've met recently are not rail enthusiasts in the slightest, but they certainly enjoy travelling flexibly, often booking travel and accommodation on the day. Most of them weren't using Interrail passes either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Heck, some of the backpackers from around the world I've met recently are not rail enthusiasts in the slightest, but they certainly enjoy travelling flexibly, often booking travel and accommodation on the day. Most of them weren't using Interrail passes either.

Perhaps they should then!

I bet said backpackers still knock around France, Spain, Italy and the likes where when it's full it's full, there isn't even an Anytime walk-up that guarantees travel.

 

[BRX]

We keep seeing the argument that very few people actually want or use the full flexibility offered by walk-up off-peak tickets. That it's mostly a minority of enthusiast types who understand the complexity of the fares structure etc.

If that is the case, then why is there a problem in the first place? The suggestion is that overcrowding is caused by too many people travelling on tickets without seat reservations. So, presumably they are travelling on walk-up tickets. Which is it - hardly anyone uses these tickets (so the changes only impact a tiny minority of travellers), or too many people use these tickets (so the changes cause large numbers of people to switch to more restrictive tickets or put them off travelling at all)?

 

[Krokodil]

Perhaps they should then!

I bet said backpackers still knock around France, Spain, Italy and the likes where when it's full it's full, there isn't even an Anytime walk-up that guarantees travel.

They often ended up using the likes of Flixbus or short-haul flights, booked on a whim. Yes, those are essentially compulsory reservation but at least you do generally get reasonable fares right up until departure for any seats which do remain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We keep seeing the argument that very few people actually want or use the full flexibility offered by walk-up off-peak tickets. That it's mostly a minority of enthusiast types who understand the complexity of the fares structure etc.

If that is the case, then why is there a problem in the first place? The suggestion is that overcrowding is caused by too many people travelling on tickets without seat reservations. So, presumably they are travelling on walk-up tickets. Which is it - hardly anyone uses these tickets (so the changes only impact a tiny minority of travellers), or too many people use these tickets (so the changes cause large numbers of people to switch to more restrictive tickets or put them off travelling at all)?

The main purpose of the scheme is to increase fares. That much is clear.

Secondarily, most fares being Advances hides the annual fares round which brings so much adverse publicity. No need to shove the Anytime up each year if hardly anyone buys it, just knock it up a massive amount once, take the hit and it can be left the same for ages with the Advance quotas adjusted on the quiet.

Thirdly, in terms of passenger preference, if say 5% of the people on a train use walk up fares and don't reserve that minority is going to cause a bit of hassle. On an end doored IC train say 4-5 per coach standing starts to get in the way, and if they take your seat it's stress about whether they'll move when asked.

Fourthly, you can reduce ticket office hours/staffing on the quiet if people aren't buying tickets there, and reduce the number of TVMs too. The cinema industry jumped on this maybe 20 years ago - offer seat selection rather than a free for all and people will switch to advance booking, as a result almost no cinema now even has a ticket desk - the tiny number of walk-ups can use a machine or buy from the same place you get the popcorn, but most people do it before they set out. I was actually surprised they went for this because it means people time their arrival so they don't have to sit through the adverts and so that advertising reduces in value, but it seems to have worked.

They often ended up using the likes of Flixbus or short-haul flights, booked on a whim. Yes, those are essentially compulsory reservation but at least you do generally get reasonable fares right up until departure for any seats which do remain.

Yes, true. I'd be less opposed to this if the on the day Advances weren't priced so punitively (and ideally there wasn't an admin fee for changing the booking on the day if wanting to travel earlier/later).

 

[Krokodil]

Yes, true. I'd be less opposed to this if the on the day Advances weren't priced so punitively (and ideally there wasn't an admin fee for changing the booking on the day if wanting to travel earlier/later).

That reminds me. A few weeks ago I finished work promptly and had a quick run south with Avanti (they do sometimes have good days). So I simply switched my Eurostar booking to the one 90 minutes earlier. It was very easy to do, Eurostar didn't charge any admin fees for doing so.

Granted, their fares are pretty punitive (in this case there was no difference to pay though) but I can't fault their flexibility.

 

[yorkie]

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. ....

Yeah; last time I had disruption on LNER, everyone was told to take Northern/TPE. However, I was able to take the next train, which was XC, because I had an inter-available ticket. To suggest the average passenger doesn't care about that is absurd. Later on, I followed staff instructions, however a staff member further down the line said I shouldn't have followed that instruction, and they should have instructed me differently.

It's so easy for you to come out with this sort of stuff, in a strange attempt to justify restrictive practices by LNER, but the reality is very different.

The idea that everyone only ever travels from their home to their final destination, with no other deviations, and the only people who do that are rail enthusiasts (or perhaps you'd concede that people who do this in cars are "car enthusiasts") is absurd.

And the idea that no extra flexibility is useful because you can just follow staff instructions is also absurd.

 

[Trainbike46]

This isn't universally true. The LNER Edinburghs (post Dec 2025) will be both fast, meaning the scope for local journeys is much reduced. While on the WCML south of Crewe there are, aside from the Birmingham semifast services, clearly separate IC and local operators. North of Crewe it's less clear, but north of Crewe there is always capacity because people don't all travel the full route.

Wow, someone clearly hasn't travelled north of Crewe in a while! Lots of trains are absolutely rammed north of Crewe.

Similarly, when I lived in Edinburgh (mostly pre and during covid, so commenting on pre-covid only), Edinburgh-London trains were often busy the whole way, or at least until Peterborough/Stevenage coming from the North (I rarely travelled on LNER south of those stations, so can't comment on how busy they were there).

I would also suggest the following: LNER is clearly only doing this to up fares, so all your other points aren't LNER actual position, but instead at best excuses they came up with. Have you actually encountered passenger who without prompting have said they believe LNER's current fare system is better than it was either when they had introduced single leg pricing but retained the super-off-peak, or before the single leg pricing trial started?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow, someone clearly hasn't travelled north of Crewe in a while! Lots of trains are absolutely rammed north of Crewe.

Some are busy but the last time I failed to get a seat on one (going to the Lakes is probably the most likely use case for me) was BR days. The one exception is TPE's 5 car sets which are grossly inadequate.

I would also suggest the following: LNER is clearly only doing this to up fares, so all your other points aren't LNER actual position, but instead at best excuses they came up with. Have you actually encountered passenger who without prompting have said they believe LNER's current fare system is better than it was either when they had introduced single leg pricing but retained the super-off-peak, or before the single leg pricing trial started?

It is possible for there to be more than one reason. LNER claim it is improving passenger satisfaction - they are unlikely to be outright lying, but they may well have used very loaded questions or limited who was asked - it would be interesting to know the exact basis, but suspect they won't tell us.

 

[Trainbike46]

Some are busy but the last time I failed to get a seat on one (going to the Lakes is probably the most likely use case for me) was BR days.

Clearly we travel at different times! I've been standing from Glasgow to Preston, travelling south, multiple times.

It is possible for there to be more than one reason. LNER claim it is improving passenger satisfaction - they are unlikely to be outright lying, but they may well have used very loaded questions - it would be interesting to know the exact basis, but suspect they won't tell us.

The fact they're being unclear about it to me suggests to me that they are using very loaded questions. Quality surveys always come with a report including the exact questions asked.

I find it quite impressive how much my opinion of LNER has sunk since 2019, and this fare nonsense is the driving reason for it.

 

[Kite159]

Such questions include "Do you like the option of paying a small fee to have flexibility on your advance ticket so you can book that cheaper advance on the stopper and switch to the fast train 10 minutes earlier which would have cost more to book?". Sadly the rail industry seems to be wanting to move towards more "Advances for everything" even for shorter journeys so they can punish those whom don't understand the tickets they are getting sold by the likes of TrainLine (see also split tickets without telling them they need to travel on trains which call at station X and not the fast trains)

The only reason LNER included the Flex fare and got rid of the super off-peak tickets is to charge more money, just look at the prices when Newcastle got to the cup final compared to someone buying a flexible single for somewhere like London - Blaydon. Or even Easter Sunday/Monday when the WCML was effectively closed (for hardly anybody travelling Scotland - London would have done the replacement bus to Carlisle for a train to Milton Keynes for another replacement bus to Bedford for a bargain-basement 3+2 seated 360)

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I think the idea that off peak fares are too expensive for normal passengers is something that LNER have pulled out of their backside to justify this price hike.

Off peak fares have been around for donkeys years and most regular passengers are well used to the concept.

 

[BRX]

LNER claim it is improving passenger satisfaction - they are unlikely to be outright lying, but they may well have used very loaded questions or limited who was asked - it would be interesting to know the exact basis, but suspect they won't tell us.

If they've used loaded/selective questioning, then they are outright lying. And if they aren't transparent about their methods I think it's reasonable to assume they are outright lying - especially taking into consideration all of the demonstrably misleading stuff they've put out so far.

 

[yorksrob]

Months ahead no, but I bet (would love to actually know) even before this scheme that the number of London-Edinburgh tickets sold on the day of travel was well below 1%. People very rarely take long journeys on a whim. It occasionally happens for cases like bereavement (hence why US airlines have dedicated bereavement fares which are heavily discounted but only issued with proof of bereavement or severe illness) but realistically if I have to pay even £500 for a ticket to get to each of my parents when their time comes up that's only a grand across my whole life. And London-Edinburgh Anytimes are £200, not £500.

If it's only one percent, then they should be able to accommodate it.

Turning a single rail journey into a £500 distress purchase is regressive and elitist. Working people pay for the railway too, and they should have the option of flexible off-peak travel if and when they need it.

This whole price gouge is just a suck up to the wealthy

 

[miklcct]

They often ended up using the likes of Flixbus or short-haul flights, booked on a whim. Yes, those are essentially compulsory reservation but at least you do generally get reasonable fares right up until departure for any seats which do remain.

In this case, if LNER does not have an advantage of guaranteed walk up travel, I will switch to flying / FlixBus, or even stop travelling completely.

The main purpose of the scheme is to increase fares. That much is clear.

Secondarily, most fares being Advances hides the annual fares round which brings so much adverse publicity. No need to shove the Anytime up each year if hardly anyone buys it, just knock it up a massive amount once, take the hit and it can be left the same for ages with the Advance quotas adjusted on the quiet.

Thirdly, in terms of passenger preference, if say 5% of the people on a train use walk up fares and don't reserve that minority is going to cause a bit of hassle. On an end doored IC train say 4-5 per coach standing starts to get in the way, and if they take your seat it's stress about whether they'll move when asked.

Fourthly, you can reduce ticket office hours/staffing on the quiet if people aren't buying tickets there, and reduce the number of TVMs too. The cinema industry jumped on this maybe 20 years ago - offer seat selection rather than a free for all and people will switch to advance booking, as a result almost no cinema now even has a ticket desk - the tiny number of walk-ups can use a machine or buy from the same place you get the popcorn, but most people do it before they set out. I was actually surprised they went for this because it means people time their arrival so they don't have to sit through the adverts and so that advertising reduces in value, but it seems to have worked.



Yes, true. I'd be less opposed to this if the on the day Advances weren't priced so punitively (and ideally there wasn't an admin fee for changing the booking on the day if wanting to travel earlier/later).

Yes. The main purpose of the scheme is to increase fares of crowded trains. It is crystal clear. By doing that, it removes the safeguard of off-peak fares which means walk-up travel is "affordable" no matter how crowded the train is.

This "safeguard" is important for me to plan my travel, which acts as an "insurance" if my plan changes, or if something wrong happens on my journey.

Clearly we travel at different times! I've been standing from Glasgow to Preston, travelling south, multiple times.

The fact they're being unclear about it to me suggests to me that they are using very loaded questions. Quality surveys always come with a report including the exact questions asked.

I find it quite impressive how much my opinion of LNER has sunk since 2019, and this fare nonsense is the driving reason for it.

I praised LNER for its single-leg fare trial, which helped massively for walk-up travel that I didn't need to consider how I would return before buying my tickets, but unfortunately my opinion has now reversed because they abolished off-peak fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this case, if LNER does not have an advantage of guaranteed walk up travel, I will switch to flying / FlixBus

Neither of which offer guaranteed walk up travel (though Flix is cheap anyway, so even elevated prices close to departure are still cheap).

or even stop travelling completely.

I still think for the nature of your travel as you posted before you'd be better off learning to drive (if you haven't already) and getting a car. Even if LNER were to declare the trial a failure and reinstate the flexible fares, not that that's likely, sadly.

Yes, I supported the single-leg pricing (and still do, I like it on the south WCML, certainly, though like the south WCML they could have kept the returns too for those who wanted them) but I don't support this. I'm just seeking to delve into why they seem to be seeing it as a success and who might actually benefit from it, as there are people who might.

 

[AdamWW]

I still think for the nature of your travel as you posted before you'd be better off learning to drive (if you haven't already) and getting a car. Even if LNER were to declare the trial a failure and reinstate the flexible fares, not that that's likely, sadly.

There are, of course, people for whom no matter how hostile we make this country to non drivers that isn't an option.

 

[yorkie]

I still think for the nature of your travel as you posted before you'd be better off learning to drive (if you haven't already) and getting a car. Even if LNER were to declare the trial a failure and reinstate the flexible fares, not that that's likely, sadly.

Anyone who travels to two or more places in a day should drive a car? Really?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who travels to two or more places in a day should drive a car? Really?

That's not to be fair what I said. @miklcct has elaborated extensively on their complex and time-pressured journeys for their sporting engagements here in the past, and to me a car would definitely be most suitable for their needs, just as it is for many of mine.

There are, of course, people for whom no matter how hostile we make this country to non drivers that isn't an option.

There is that, but I'm fairly sure from previous discussions that for that poster it's a choice.

 

[Trainbike46]

That's not to be fair what I said. @miklcct has elaborated extensively on their complex and time-pressured journeys for their sporting engagements here in the past, and to me a car would definitely be most suitable for their needs, just as it is for many of mine.

To add to the above, @miklcct has stated many times across the forum how highly they value flexibility. This is a fair request, but driving's biggest strenght is the flexibility. And I say that as a person who does not, and never will drive.

There are, of course, people for whom no matter how hostile we make this country to non drivers that isn't an option.

Exactly true.

I would add that as for many trips the main competition to rail is driving, it is essential for rail to be as flexible as possible to help attract drivers to rail. In that sense, LNER's trial seems highly counterproductive. Then again, the aim of the trial clearly isn't to get as many people to switch to rail as possible, but instead to maximise the amount charged per passenger and reduce the number of passengers to avoid overcrowding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would add that as for many trips the main competition to rail is driving, it is essential for rail to be as flexible as possible to help attract drivers to rail. In that sense, LNER's trial seems highly counterproductive.

Indeed. I think what's quite notable is that the journeys on which the trial is taking place are some of the few journeys within the UK where the car is *not* the main competitor, as it's a bit far for most to drive - it's air. Lumo have also made this point.

The effect of a similar trial run on say London to Manchester or Birmingham would not necessarily be the same. Indeed one suspects that is why they didn't pick Leeds (which was used for the single fare pricing trial).

Then again, the aim of the trial clearly isn't to get as many people to switch to rail as possible, but instead to maximise the amount charged per passenger and reduce the number of passengers to avoid overcrowding.

Indeed. Given that the service is going to be increased by 1tph in December (OK, still only two to Edinburgh but the slower one will be sped up and an additional Newcastle semi fast be added, if I recall) it will be interesting to see the effect on fares.