LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[Bletchleyite]

More flexible tickets by removing flexible tickets.

We’ve truly gone through the looking glass!

I note it's not clear who "their" are in that - clearly the operator!

 

[TheManOnThe172]

... they believe they can get quite substantially higher fares out of people for busy but traditionally off-peak times (i.e. Friday/Sunday PM ...

So anyone in the NE considering the chance to progress their careers by moving to London will be deterred by the prospect that weekend trips home (to keep in touch with family and friends) will be unaffordably expensive. That will be particularly tough on the young (think Billy Elliott).

As I understand it, age is a "protected characteristic" that needs to be addressed in the Impact Assessment on each proposed government change. Would the LNER fares "experiment" be within the scope of this requirement, and if so, would it be something one could unearth with a FOI request?.

 

[Haywain]

So anyone in the NE considering the chance to progress their careers by moving to London will be deterred by the prospect that weekend trips home (to keep in touch with family and friends) will be unaffordably expensive.

Just wait until they find out how much it costs to live in a shoe box sized flat in London.

As I understand it, age is a "protected characteristic" that needs to be addressed in the Impact Assessment on each proposed government change. Would the LNER fares "experiment" be within the scope of this requirement, and if so, would it be something one could unearth with a FOI request?.

In what way do you believe that there is discrimination on the basis of age in these changes?

 

[bakerstreet]

I note it's not clear who "their" are in that - clearly the operator!

Yes good point. Perhaps ‘with simpler and more flexible tickets that better suit their our needs’ would be a better end to that quote.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Just wait until they find out how much it costs to live in a shoe box sized flat in London.

Much easier to live with Grandparents

 

[modernrail]

Just wait until they find out how much it costs to live in a shoe box sized flat in London.


In what way do you believe that there is discrimination on the basis of age in these changes?

As a northerner of modest background that made the move down about 15 years ago and now enjoys a hideous mortgage for a tiny flat, no bank of Mum and Dad and increasingly expensive rail fares to visit the clan, I can assure you this Government will not have thought for a second about social mobility in any of this.

Sad, as it was going the right way, then it wasn’t, now it definitely isn’t. I feel really sorry for any young people without parental assistance trying to make it into London these days. It is just too hard, too expensive for most, perpetuating the cycle of only those with family means being able to access the opportunities. Not the direction of travel a civilised country should be heading in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would appear, shockingly, that the Campaign for Better Transport advocates all this!

A fare future for rail: a blueprint for fares and ticketing reform

With the urgent need to drive economic growth, tackle the cost-of-living crisis, reduce congestion on our roads, drive down carbon emissions and improve air quality, it is more vital than ever that people find it easy, affordable and appealing to use the railway.

bettertransport.org.uk

p28:

Recommendation:
Government and industry should make
advance fares with demand-based
pricing the default on inter-city routes
and undertake a root-and-branch review
to remove unnecessary fare types

This despite the previous paragraphs include:

High walk-up fares not only make it difficult to
travel at short notice but also mean that seats on
quieter services can go unsold. Operators and the
DfT have been looking to implement demand-
based pricing, meaning that busier train services
would cost more and quieter ones less. Setting a
price ceiling on demand-based fares would prevent
extreme price fluctuations, making them more
predictable for passengers

...which is exactly what the Super Off Peak provided!

They also advocate removal of even the Anytime, the effect of which would be no ceiling!

Consequently, anytime fares should be abolished
on inter-city lines while advance fares with
demand-based pricing should be the default and
available up until the point of departure.

They seem to be in cloud cuckoo land as to what the inevitable effects of this are likely to be. How utterly bizarre.

 

[modernrail]

It would appear, shockingly, that the Campaign for Better Transport advocates all this!

A fare future for rail: a blueprint for fares and ticketing reform

With the urgent need to drive economic growth, tackle the cost-of-living crisis, reduce congestion on our roads, drive down carbon emissions and improve air quality, it is more vital than ever that people find it easy, affordable and appealing to use the railway.

bettertransport.org.uk

p28:



This despite the previous paragraphs include:



...which is exactly what the Super Off Peak provided!

They also advocate removal of even the Anytime, the effect of which would be no ceiling!



They seem to be in cloud cuckoo land as to what the inevitable effects of this are likely to be. How utterly bizarre.

I see they have at least had the good grace to insert a graphic of a human punching their brain out of the side of their head next to the offending paragraph.

It is also good to see that they provide the evidence of what a marginal ticket an off peak ticket is by stating the fact it has become more popular.

Looks like it was out together by somebody on work experience.

 

[yorksrob]

I genuinely think the government have been seduced by some of the positive feedback to single leg pricing.

This is very different. Raising the flexible fare creates headroom for Advance pricing which inevitably means they will go up further.

70 minute flex is another complicated and additional proposition - not a simplification.

And this new structure cannot be applied on markets where Off Peak remain popular without doing serious damage to the flexible travel market. Flexibility is valued and rail fares are not exactly cheap as it is.

Indeed. One would have thought that they might have learned from believing their own publicity after the ticket office closure debacle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looks like it was out together by somebody on work experience.

It's certainly bizarre how they conclude that that is a good idea following several paragraphs that read to me as if they are saying it isn't!

Yes, the whole thing is pretty amateur, to be honest, citing stuff like the German cheap regional tickets with no indication about how they might be funded here.

It's also wrong or at least out of date in saying that LNER cut off Advance sales at midnight - they do nothing of the sort, it's a few minutes before departure.

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly bizarre how they conclude that that is a good idea following several paragraphs that read to me as if they are saying it isn't!

Yes, the whole thing is pretty amateur, to be honest, citing stuff like the German cheap regional tickets with no indication about how they might be funded here.

It's also wrong or at least out of date in saying that LNER cut off Advance sales at midnight - they do nothing of the sort, it's a few minutes before departure.

Cheap German regional tickets are worth citing (it's for the Government to work out how to pay for such things) but completely irrelevant in this context, given cheap flexible tickets offer a very high degree of flexibility, whereas this and every other proposal in this country is aimed at reducing flexibility as much as possible.

Perhaps someone at CfBT has fixated at the slightly more flexible AP and missed the broader significance of this move.

 

[AdamWW]

It would appear, shockingly, that the Campaign for Better Transport advocates all this!

Does anyone know of an organisation that doesn't support this change?

I suspect this is an example of how differently people see things when the train is just a potential alternative to their car rather than a necessity.

No cheap fares, or even trains all booked up for the next few days? Not sure when I'll want to head back? Want to stop off on the way? Oh well it would have been nice to catch the train but I'll just have to drive.

They say they want to reduce congestion and CO2 emissions. How about replacing fuel tax with road pricing, and an eye-watering rate per mile for those who aren't able to book one of the cheap time slots in advance? I don't think that would go down very well, but somehow it's OK to put this sort of restriction on people who don't drive.

 

[yorksrob]

Does anyone know of an organisation that doesn't support this change?

I suspect this is an example of how differently people see things when the train is just a potential alternative to their car rather than a necessity.

No cheap fares, or even trains all booked up for the next few days? Not sure when I'll want to head back? Want to stop off on the way? Oh well it would have been nice to catch the train but I'll just have to drive.

They say they want to reduce congestion and CO2 emissions. How about replacing fuel tax with road pricing, and an eye-watering rate per mile for those who aren't able to book one of the cheap time slots in advance? I don't think that would go down very well, but somehow it's OK to put this sort of restriction on people who don't drive.

Yes, one can guarantee the upper echelons in Whitehall and Westminster all drive.

 

[Haywain]

Yes, one can guarantee the upper echelons in Whitehall and Westminster all drive.

Can one?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is interesting advance booking for cars is mentioned - if you don't have a black box this is exactly how Germany's lorry toll (LGV Maut) works!

 

[yorksrob]

Can one?

Ok then, "strongly suspect".

 

[AdamWW]

Ok then, "strongly suspect".

I think we can be pretty confident that the number of policy makers in this country without easy access to a car is extremely small.

 

[MTR380A]

A more fundamental question is whether demand management is really necessary.

Can we not just implement a flat fare and at the same time:
1. Remove seats (e.g. metro style) so that peak trains can accommodate more people; and
2. Reduce the frequency for periods during which the demand is weak?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A more fundamental question is whether demand management is really necessary.

Can we not just implement a flat fare and at the same time:
1. Remove seats (e.g. metro style) so that peak trains can accommodate more people; and
2. Reduce the frequency for periods during which the demand is weak?

I don't think many people would consider a "standee train" for a 4 hour intercity journey even remotely acceptable.

 

[AdamWW]

...which is exactly what the Super Off Peak provided!

They also advocate removal of even the Anytime, the effect of which would be no ceiling!

I don't want to defened them, but it would be of course possible to set a ceiling directly, rather than indirectly via the existance of flexible tickets. They presumably want this ceiling to be higher than current off peak fares though.

I do conclude from this that they are campaigning for better transport for the benefit of people who can always drive if necessary and that they think that the needs of the minority without access to a car shouldn't impact transport policy.

 

[MTR380A]

I don't think many people would consider a "standee train" for a 4 hour intercity journey even remotely acceptable.

Most trains stop like every half an hour, with passengers getting off and on. Those who really need a seat may reserve one in the first class, maybe free of additional charge for senior and disabled.

I once stood all the way from Newport to Manchester for 3 hours. It was tough, but the ticket was on GB rail sales and I'd do it again.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I don't think many people would consider a "standee train" for a 4 hour intercity journey even remotely acceptable.

Though there might be other ways to optimise the number of seats. I'd be perfectly happy with being sat in a longitudinal seat from Newcastle to London (which is significantly less than four hours) if that meant I was getting a cheaper and/or more flexible ticket. Obviously it wouldn't be my first choice, but if I had to be in London on relatively short notice (or during a time of the week with high demand) I'd rather a slightly less comfortable journey than having to pay well over £100 each way...

Certainly during disruption I have stood from Doncaster to London (on a fairly slow ex-Leeds service, so for nearly two hours). It wasn't a great experience but it got me there in one piece.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't want to defened them, but it would be of course possible to set a ceiling directly, rather than indirectly via the existance of flexible tickets. They presumably want this ceiling to be higher than current off peak fares though.

No use to us unless they publish it though.

I do conclude from this that they are campaigning for better transport for the benefit of people who can always drive if necessary and that they think that the needs of the minority without access to a car shouldn't impact transport policy.

Does seem like.

 

[Haywain]

I think we can be pretty confident that the number of policy makers in this country without easy access to a car is extremely small.

That is likely to apply to a high percentage of rail passengers too, so is quite meaningless.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is likely to apply to a high percentage of rail passengers too, so is quite meaningless.

Though there's not a complete lack of competition. The airlines compete from Scotland, and the coaches much more so on the shorter journeys. If the railway gets this one very wrong, the coach market will grow considerably, as could the air market.

 

[andy1571]

Though there might be other ways to optimise the number of seats. I'd be perfectly happy with being sat in a longitudinal seat from Newcastle to London (which is significantly less than four hours) if that meant I was getting a cheaper and/or more flexible ticket. Obviously it wouldn't be my first choice, but if I had to be in London on relatively short notice (or during a time of the week with high demand) I'd rather a slightly less comfortable journey than having to pay well over £100 each way...

Certainly during disruption I have stood from Doncaster to London (on a fairly slow ex-Leeds service, so for nearly two hours). It wasn't a great experience but it got me there in one piece.

I'm not sure why, especially if the ticketing scheme is extended to other flows, LNER should continue to be allowed to hold such a dominant position on ECML medium/long distance traffic, especially out of London.

It would be interesting instead if paths were opened up to greater competition. Perhaps a sort of equivalent to LNRs offering on the WCML would wash its face - along the lines of London - York semi-fast with 12-car 379s (or whatever)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be interesting instead if paths were opened up to greater competition. Perhaps a sort of equivalent to LNRs offering on the WCML would wash its face - along the lines of London - York semi-fast with 12-car 379s (or whatever)?

That train sort of equivalent to the WMT Crewe does exist, it's just, unlike on the WCML, operated by LNER.

 

[AdamWW]

That is likely to apply to a high percentage of rail passengers too, so is quite meaningless.

I don't agree.

I think we are seeing policy based on the principle that the needs of those who rely on public transport should not be considered. I would argue that this is much more likely to be the case when those making the decisions are not themselves in that position.

A vanishingly small number (and likely zero) of those in a position to end off peak flexible fares will themselves be reliant on them.

If someone has no practical alternative to the train, the fact that the majority of passengers could just choose to drive instead doesn't make their needs any different.

I find it most curious that the Campaign For Better Transport appear to believe that pushing more people into car ownership aligns with their goals.

Though there's not a complete lack of competition. The airlines compete from Scotland, and the coaches much more so on the shorter journeys.

That's true but given the much larger spread of the rail network compared to air and coaches there are many journeys where driving and catching the train are the only real options.

 

[takno]

I'm not sure why, especially if the ticketing scheme is extended to other flows, LNER should continue to be allowed to hold such a dominant position on ECML medium/long distance traffic, especially out of London.

It would be interesting instead if paths were opened up to greater competition. Perhaps a sort of equivalent to LNRs offering on the WCML would wash its face - along the lines of London - York semi-fast with 12-car 379s (or whatever)?

The east coast has more real competition from open access operators than any other route. You _could_ let Thameslink run up to York in place of the LNER stoppers which would be roughly equivalent to LNR, but given how much 2-track railway there is you would definitely mandate 125mph stock. Either way it's unclear how it would help with the current situation

 

[yorksrob]

That is likely to apply to a high percentage of rail passengers too, so is quite meaningless.

Not at all.

There are a substantial number of people who don't drive and rely on rail for their main form of longer distance transport where the service is effectively controlled by wealthy individuals who will mainly have access to a car.