LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[CyrusWuff]

Looking at London - Edinburgh for Easter weekend we get the following:

• Maundy Thursday:
  • Lumo: Availability on all five of their services, priced at £46.90 (05:48), £62.90 (12:18 and 14:48) or £64.90 (10:45 and 20:27)
  • LNER:
    • Advance: £63.30 (08:30) to £101.70 (16:00 and 18:00) with no availability on the 16:30 and 18:30
    • Semi-Flex: £83.30 (08:30) to £121.70 (16:00 and 18:00) with no availability on the 06:15, 16:30, 18:30 or 19:00
    • First Class Advance: £122.50 (06:15) to £176.90 (07:00, 07:30, 10:00, 16:00, 16:30, 17:00 and 17:30)
    • First Class Semi-Flex: £152.40 (09:30) to £196.90 (07:00, 07:30, 16:00, 16:30, 17:00 and 17:30) with no availability on the 06:15 or 19:00
• Good Friday:
  • Lumo: 05:48, 10:45 and 12:18 are sold out. £62.90 on the 14:48, £42.90 on the 20:27
  • LNER:
    • Advance: £59.50 (17:30) to £128.70 (10:00)
    • Semi-Flex: £79.50 (17:30) to £148.70 (10:00) with no availability on the 06:15
    • First Class Advance: £107.90 (06:15) to £190 (10:00)
    • First Class Semi-Flex: £133.90 (18:30) to £210 (10:00) with no availability on the 06:15

Booking to Haymarket instead makes no difference to the Advance fares, but does introduce the £87.00 Super Off-Peak Single, which is valid for departures from 09:06 on the Thursday, and all day on Friday, due to Easter.

 

[Kite159]

.

Looking at London - Edinburgh for Easter weekend we get the following:

• Maundy Thursday:
  • Lumo: Availability on all five of their services, priced at £46.90 (05:48), £62.90 (12:18 and 14:48) or £64.90 (10:45 and 20:27)
  • LNER:
    • Advance: £63.30 (08:30) to £101.70 (16:00 and 18:00) with no availability on the 16:30 and 18:30
    • Semi-Flex: £83.30 (08:30) to £121.70 (16:00 and 18:00) with no availability on the 06:15, 16:30, 18:30 or 19:00
    • First Class Advance: £122.50 (06:15) to £176.90 (07:00, 07:30, 10:00, 16:00, 16:30, 17:00 and 17:30)
    • First Class Semi-Flex: £152.40 (09:30) to £196.90 (07:00, 07:30, 16:00, 16:30, 17:00 and 17:30) with no availability on the 06:15 or 19:00
• Good Friday:
  • Lumo: 05:48, 10:45 and 12:18 are sold out. £62.90 on the 14:48, £42.90 on the 20:27
  • LNER:
    • Advance: £59.50 (17:30) to £128.70 (10:00)
    • Semi-Flex: £79.50 (17:30) to £148.70 (10:00) with no availability on the 06:15
    • First Class Advance: £107.90 (06:15) to £190 (10:00)
    • First Class Semi-Flex: £133.90 (18:30) to £210 (10:00) with no availability on the 06:15

Booking to Haymarket instead makes no difference to the Advance fares, but does introduce the £87.00 Super Off-Peak Single, which is valid for departures from 09:06 on the Thursday, and all day on Friday, due to Easter.

Just shows that it's all about getting rid of the price cap offered by the super off-peak single fare to charge more money at busy times, such as Easter.

It's a shame that the "Rail Future" people who put together that image didn't also do a comparison from Edinburgh to London being these prices, but booking from Haymarket to London brings the cost down to £89 or "not available" for those trains which are genuinely sold out.

 

[D6700]

The day after a rugby international when all the trains were full does somewhat skew the figures, they should have mentioned that somewhere.

In that case, what "somewhat skewed the figures" for the opposite direction, which was similarly priced to that throughout the day?

 

[Wallsendmag]

In that case, what "somewhat skewed the figures" for the opposite direction, which was similarly priced to that throughout the day?

Newcastle fans returning from the Arsenal match including me.

 

[WAB]

It's the ECML - there are always going to be events going on somewhere to surge prices, so I don't think we should be surge-pricing people off the trains to such a degree.

 

[absolutelymilk]

It's the ECML - there are always going to be events going on somewhere to surge prices, so I don't think we should be surge-pricing people off the trains to such a degree.

Sounds more like they have a set number of tickets to sell at each price point, rather than actively increasing tickets on days they think are going to be busy

 

[Wallsendmag]

It's the ECML - there are always going to be events going on somewhere to surge prices, so I don't think we should be surge-pricing people off the trains to such a degree.

Trains were full and standing leaving Kings Cross as you say the ECML is always busy

 

[WAB]

Sounds more like they have a set number of tickets to sell at each price point, rather than actively increasing tickets on days they think are going to be busy

I don't think we should be filling busy trains up on cheap advances, but the cap of the Super Off-Peak fare prevented fares from getting silly.

 

[A S Leib]

I don't think we should be filling busy trains up on cheap advances,

Unless it's a last-minute sale when selling an advance ticket probably makes more money than nobody deciding to travel because of the last-minute cost; I've bought a ticket from Newcastle to Tweedbank for £10 today under an hour before leaving (with a railcard and splitting at Berwick; I suspect last-minute advance fares for journeys like that are also more available for trains starting at Newcastle than at Leeds, York, King's Cross etc.).

 

[JonathanH]

I don't think we should be filling busy trains up on cheap advances, but the cap of the Super Off-Peak fare prevented fares from getting silly.

The railway appears to be getting closer to the point where it realises it doesn't need to offer cheap advance purchase tickets, but it also recognises that some people will pay more than current off-peak fares as well. Clearly that isn't a great position for passengers, but it should help with the funding of a viable railway.

 

[AlterEgo]

The railway appears to be getting closer to the point where it realises it doesn't need to offer cheap advance purchase tickets, but it also recognises that some people will pay more than current off-peak fares as well. Clearly that isn't a great position for passengers, but it should help with the funding of a viable railway.

Well quite.

LNER’s trains aren’t empty at all, so if anything this experiment merely shows the presence of the Super Off Peak/Off Peak was a consumer protection measure.

Many passengers are willing to pay much more for their travel over the alternatives - a reality which we must all face up to.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Indeed..... er ... the Super Off Peak/Off Peak was a 'consumer protection measure' by the Conservative Government that pushed through privatisation in the early 1990s. The protection was to ensure that there would be at least one fare on each flow (normally a leisure orientated flow on InterCity routes) that the TOC couldn't increase faster than the the level set by Ministers (RPI + 1 for the last decade until the Coronavirus period). Now that LNER is a state-run operator, is there still a need for this protection? In other words, are you as happy being charged whatever fare the operator likes if they are 'public sector' as you would be if there were 'private sector'? Once TOCs in England are all back in government control, so the Treasury will in effect be directly setting fares policy...

 

[yorksrob]

The railway appears to be getting closer to the point where it realises it doesn't need to offer cheap advance purchase tickets, but it also recognises that some people will pay more than current off-peak fares as well. Clearly that isn't a great position for passengers, but it should help with the funding of a viable railway.

"Viability" or otherwise of the railway is entirely a political choice. Destroying the product will not alter this.

Well quite.

LNER’s trains aren’t empty at all, so if anything this experiment merely shows the presence of the Super Off Peak/Off Peak was a consumer protection measure.

Many passengers are willing to pay much more for their travel over the alternatives - a reality which we must all face up to.

On the contrary, I've no intention of facing up to this "reality". I intend to punish this anti-passenger government at the election.

 

[JamesRowden]

Well quite.

LNER’s trains aren’t empty at all, so if anything this experiment merely shows the presence of the Super Off Peak/Off Peak was a consumer protection measure.

Many passengers are willing to pay much more for their travel over the alternatives - a reality which we must all face up to.

Perhaps a coach company could undercut the ticket prices of the railway while having fairly competitive journey times and flexibility with an every 15 minute non-stop service between for example Stevenage station and each of the major ECML destinations, so a separate non-stop route to each destination. The railway may then find a significant amount of the ECML revenue dry up while still needing to invest in infrastructure at the London end for capacity reasons.

Making the railway a significantly worse value for money product might lead to alternative forms of public transport improving and becoming a much greater competitor for that revenue.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps a coach company could undercut the ticket prices of the railway while having fairly competitive journey times and flexibility with an every 15 minute non-stop service between for example Stevenage station and each of the major ECML destinations, so a separate non-stop route to each destination. The railway may then find a significant amount of the ECML revenue dry up while still needing to invest in infrastructure at the London end for capacity reasons.

Do you think anyone paying £100+ for 200-300 miles in Standard Class is in the market to take a coach? (Stevenage isn’t part of the trial, anyway)

Making the railway a significantly worse value for money product might lead to alternative forms of public transport improving and becoming a much greater competitor for that revenue.

On long distance I reckon is almost no chance at all.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Perhaps a coach company could undercut the ticket prices of the railway while having fairly competitive journey times and flexibility with an every 15 minute non-stop service between for example Stevenage station and each of the major ECML destinations, so a separate non-stop route to each destination. The railway may then find a significant amount of the ECML revenue dry up while still needing to invest in infrastructure at the London end for capacity reasons.

Making the railway a significantly worse value for money product might lead to alternative forms of public transport improving and becoming a much greater competitor for that revenue.

Obviously if this is the case the trial will fail and something else will take it's place

 

[JamesRowden]

Do you think anyone paying £100+ for 200-300 miles in Standard Class is in the market to take a coach? (Stevenage isn’t part of the trial, anyway)


On long distance I reckon is almost no chance at all.

This is a trial. I am considering the scenario of this trial being applied to all LNER services.

If one could save £17 for an hour longer journey, which is also more frequent than the intercity rail services, the return on investment of time would be more than most people get for spending time at work when tax deductions are included. So a coach company could offer a superior value for money product for most passengers if they could make money while making Thameslink+Coach split ticket option £17 cheaper than the railway through ticket for a journey that takes 1 hour longer on the Thameslink+Coach option than the LNER option.

The higher the LNER rail fares become, the more viable such a form of coach competition becomes. This opportunity does exist during this trial because many people using the LNER trains haven't been affected by the trial, or have ways around the high prices.

 

[cactustwirly]

Do you think anyone paying £100+ for 200-300 miles in Standard Class is in the market to take a coach? (Stevenage isn’t part of the trial, anyway)


On long distance I reckon is almost no chance at all.

They'll be flying instead of the coach

 

[D6700]

Trains were full and standing leaving Kings Cross as you say the ECML is always busy

LNER's "planned" cancellation of 7 Kings Cross Sunday departures the night before will have contributed to the excess numbers on remaining services.

 

[modernrail]

I was very nearly ‘done’ by this the other day. Kings Cross to Newcastle return. For some stupid reason I forgot to get the return from Manors rather than Newcastle and so had an advance (as no off-peak and don’t remember seeing any flex available). I had been walking with a friend in Teesdale and we took a wrong turn in the hills so we were running late. I made the train, by 1 minute, by running like a crazy person from his car.

If I hadn’t have made that train I would have had to buy a new ticket at whatever the price available happened to be.

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly nice to see Rail magazine come out against this perfidy.

They come in for some criticism on this forum, however they are right in issue 1002 to point out that "LNER is charging more for a less flexible fare".

Will other railway publications smell the coffee I wonder.

 

[AdamWW]

It's certainly nice to see Rail magazine come out against this perfidy.

They come in for some criticism on this forum, however they are right in issue 1002 to point out that "LNER is charging more for a less flexible fare".

Will other railway publications smell the coffee I wonder.

Ah but it's a more "modern" flexibility. Which makes it all right. Apparently.

But more seriously - yes, very good to see this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah but it's a more "modern" flexibility. Which makes it all right. Apparently.

But more seriously - yes, very good to see this.

Unlikely that Roger Ford will oppose it, LNER can do nothing wrong in his eyes (nor any previous ECML operator in my observation!)

 

[yorksrob]

Unlikely that Roger Ford will oppose it, LNER can do nothing wrong in his eyes (nor any previous ECML operator in my observation!)

It will be interesting to see Modern Railway's coverage next edition.

I certainly think it will have more critical letters in the post box and its editorial may possibly reflect that.

I don't remember Roger having much to say about it in the last one, so won't mention it beyond that.

 

[800001]

It's certainly nice to see Rail magazine come out against this perfidy.

They come in for some criticism on this forum, however they are right in issue 1002 to point out that "LNER is charging more for a less flexible fare".

Will other railway publications smell the coffee I wonder.

Depends how in the pocket of LNER they are.

Unlikely that Roger Ford will oppose it, LNER can do nothing wrong in his eyes (nor any previous ECML operator in my observation!)

he probably has a free pass like ex rail editor did! Hence LNER can do no wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

Depends how in the pocket of LNER they are.

he probably has a free pass like ex rail editor did! Hence LNER can do no wrong.

I think the rail publications in this country are very good. I like to think that they'll shout out something that's bad for the industry eventually.

They might need a bit of prodding from concerned citizens though

 

[JonathanH]

I think the rail publications in this country are very good. I like to think that they'll shout out something that's bad for the industry eventually.

It should not be forgotten that this change is bad for passengers, and arguably bad for the industry's reputation, but potentially good for the industry's revenue. The whole purpose is for the industry to make more money.

 

[800001]

I think the rail publications in this country are very good. I like to think that they'll shout out something that's bad for the industry eventually.

They might need a bit of prodding from concerned citizens though

When they have free route wide passes they might need more prodding than normal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It should not be forgotten that this change is bad for passengers, and arguably bad for the industry's reputation, but potentially good for the industry's revenue. The whole purpose is for the industry to make more money.

That, to be fair, is why Ford supports it. But he is clearly a planner, and is a strong compulsory reservations supporter - indeed he would rather pay more to have a quieter train. (I'm not an anti-zealot - I can be sold on CR provided there's enough flexibility to change and refund tickets - but there isn't on these).

Plenty of posts from him on Xitter on this sort of subject if you look at his posting history.

 

[yorksrob]

It should not be forgotten that this change is bad for passengers, and arguably bad for the industry's reputation, but potentially good for the industry's revenue. The whole purpose is for the industry to make more money.

If a policy is bad for passengers and bad for the railways reputation, that will surely impact the industry's revenue.

Chris Green didn't grow the industry by closing things and jacking up fares.