LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[AdamWW]

Most ICEs aren't CR, but there are parallel regional services in most cases. Germany's setup is basically the same as LNER's trial, aside from the Anytime being a bit more sensibly priced, not having the 70 minute thing, and the Bahncards which make it more reasonable still.

Aren't DB "advance" tickets also refundable as credit before departure?

If so that makes quite a difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren't DB "advance" tickets also refundable as credit before departure?

If so that makes quite a difference.

There are two types - one type (Sparpreis) is refundable as credit, the other type (Supersparpreis) is completely fixed - no changes or refunds. Our Advances sort of sit half way between the two, but there's a sort of analogy to LNER there.

A worthwhile thing to trial would be having the 70 minute tickets refundable, so you're getting more benefit for that 20 quid "insurance fee".

 

[AdamWW]

There are two types - one type (Sparpreis) is refundable as credit, the other type (Supersparpreis) is completely fixed - no changes or refunds. Our Advances sort of sit half way between the two, but there's a sort of analogy to LNER there.

A worthwhile thing to trial would be having the 70 minute tickets refundable, so you're getting more benefit for that 20 quid "insurance fee".

When I've looked, the price difference between Sparpreis and Supersparpreis hasn't seemed anywhere near large enough to justify the downsides.

Germany (which doesn't really do CR bar Thalys and the SNCF collaborations) almost always has parallel regional services, France much less so now - but it traditionally did. Italy mostly does.

Spain, well, I think it suffices to say RENFE is better than Amtrak but I'd not put it ahead of much else, it's a 12" to the foot train set that doesn't do anything to consider passenger needs, rather it just operates what it feels like.

Oh OK. I took that to mean parallel classic intercity services (i.e. what would have run before the high speed line), rather than being able to use a series of regional trains as a generally much slower alternative.

 

[modernrail]

When I've looked, the price difference between Sparpreis and Supersparpreis hasn't seemed anywhere near large enough to justify the downsides.



Oh OK. I took that to mean parallel classic intercity services (i.e. what would have run before the high speed line), rather than being able to use a series of regional trains as a generally much slower alternative.

Don’t forget those regional trains are slower than the alternative high speed trains but we don’t have any high speed trains in the same terms. We just have slower trains, other than HS1.

It may already have been covered and forgive me if so, but are LNER management able to claim a bonus if customer satisfaction scores are higher? I am wondering how much of this is quite specific management behaviour seeking higher bonuses, with the conclusion being drawn by management that this trial is worth a punt because those who do actually get on the train might complain less if there is less standing etc etc.

I just feels like there is something going on here in terms of distorted management priorities.

 

[AdamWW]

Don’t forget those regional trains are slower than the alternative high speed trains but we don’t have any high speed trains in the same terms. We just have slower trains, other than HS1.

Sure but they also, in my experience, generally require several changes and are a lot slower than the intercity services that were replaced by the high speed trains.

I just feels like there is something going on here in terms of distorted management priorities.

I think what is going on is an attempt to get the railways to make more money, and in particular by abolishing fare regulation in a way that they hope the media won't pick up on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think what is going on is an attempt to get the railways to make more money, and in particular by abolishing fare regulation in a way that they hope the media won't pick up on.

Agreed. It's to put fares up now (I thought they'd creep them up but oh no!) but also to allow them to be crept up in future without the adverse publicity of the annual fares round.

 

[yorksrob]

Really we need to spread the word about tickets to Haymarket etc so that this experiment fails.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really we need to spread the word about tickets to Haymarket etc so that this experiment fails.

Don't know if I'd do that because if it becomes too widely known they'll just slap a break of journey restriction on it.

 

[AdamWW]

Don't know if I'd do that because if it becomes too widely known they'll just slap a break of journey restriction on it.

And of course if you do then break your journey they are entitled to charge you the difference to the full anytime fare.

It also looks as if they intend the scheme during the "trial period" to extend to connections anyway.

 

[modernrail]

And of course if you do then break your journey they are entitled to charge you the difference to the full anytime fare.

It also looks as if they intend the scheme during the "trial period" to extend to connections anyway.

It could really do with another media push. Maybe normally off-peak Easter is a good time to do that.

The headline really is ‘Government abandons ticket regulation and forces train companies to impose up to 100% rise in ticket prices.’

The Government has used its control over train companies to undo one of the key passenger safeguards of privatisation. The regulated fare cap. As a result, the Conservative Party is forcing through fare increases of up to 100%, rather than the [x]% annual inflation. At the same time it is forcing much more restrictive terms and conditions on passengers, potentially exposing them to further significant additional cost. To make matters worse, it is doing this under a false pretext of ‘fares simplification’. Horrified passengers are now finding that a ticket between London and Edinburgh that cost [x] before the change, is now costing up to [x] since the change. At the same time, train companies have been forced to state that some services are ‘sold out’ on online platforms when tickets are still available at ticket machines and ticket offices, causing further confusion within an already complicated environment.

A spokesperson for LNER said ‘gibberish, lies, can’t be honest because the Government has told us not to be, but honestly it’s a lot simpler, like paying double the cost for your car or your house is. It is just really simple now’

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also looks as if they intend the scheme during the "trial period" to extend to connections anyway.

Based on what they did last time I think it's likely they'll extend it to Haymarket/Manors but it's likely there'll be other options to avoid it like buying from a non-ECML origin with a cross London transfer, e.g. South Kenton or something. But I wouldn't want to make it too easy for them

What's quite interesting is that the adverse publicity seems to be extending past routes it actually applies to. I've seen a few times on Xitter now people complaining about high fares on Kings Cross-Leeds where the trial doesn't apply - what they are seeing is trains where only First Class is available due to the fake compulsory reservations but believing it to be due to the trial (the discussion on that 2330ish train due to the football was one such example). I can't say I'm too sad about them being slated for that too

(Though I'll stick with my caveat that I wouldn't mind *that* much if the fares were actually reasonable - but then if they were they wouldn't have needed to do it to start with! )

 

[BRX]

I think certainly at this early stage LNER are seeing exactly what the price point is, something which has been hitherto unknown because of the Off Peak Cap.

It's not really as straightforward as that, because if anything's being revealed it's the true price point of Advance tickets.

It doesn't reveal so much about the "price point" of flexible tickets.

They are in effect testing a different "market" from the one that rail subsidies are intended to serve. So it's not really a valid test of whether services are over-subsidised (whatever anyone might consider that to mean).

Reminds me a bit about arguments about the Caledonian Sleeper where the decision was made to go for a higher-paying market in order to increase revenue. Well, that may have been successful but now you have a still heavily subsidised service that largely caters for the relatively well-off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not really as straightforward as that, because if anything's being revealed it's the true price point of Advance tickets.

It doesn't reveal so much about the "price point" of flexible tickets.

Other than that it's higher than it was, because if people will pay £120 for an Advance at a nominally "off peak" time then they'll pay at least that for a flexible ticket.

I do wonder if one possible outcome of it may be the reinstatement of the Super Off Peak Single but at a rather higher price than it was, say about £120-150. (Or a third option - Off Peak at about that, Super Off Peak at the old price, but make the latter much more restricted, a bit more like the WMT ones, i.e. having weekend restrictions on it too). I've said before that if they reduced the Anytime a bit, say to about £120, I would have much less of an issue with it - that's still a hellish rise but can be mitigated by going Advance out, flexible back - it's pretty much unknown that I don't know the intended outward train for a long trip, it's the return where flexibility is important, and I suspect I'm not the only one - indeed I suspect that applies to a very large proportion of business travellers at least.

(I'd be interested to know how many Anytime Returns from London to Manchester are sold at £350 - I suspect somewhere not above double figures per day or maybe very low three figures, with most people doing a slightly overpriced Advance out and waiting for the off peak to return).

Reminds me a bit about arguments about the Caledonian Sleeper where the decision was made to go for a higher-paying market in order to increase revenue. Well, that may have been successful but now you have a still heavily subsidised service that largely caters for the relatively well-off.

I sort of get that for the Cally, because it's a case of "make it haemorrhage less money or lose it". But there's really no prospect at all of the ECML being closed or even threatened, so this is a pure revenue grab, not an attempt to keep something that might otherwise have to be got rid of entirely.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not really as straightforward as that, because if anything's being revealed it's the true price point of Advance tickets.

It doesn't reveal so much about the "price point" of flexible tickets.

They are in effect testing a different "market" from the one that rail subsidies are intended to serve. So it's not really a valid test of whether services are over-subsidised (whatever anyone might consider that to mean).

Reminds me a bit about arguments about the Caledonian Sleeper where the decision was made to go for a higher-paying market in order to increase revenue. Well, that may have been successful but now you have a still heavily subsidised service that largely caters for the relatively well-off.

Interesting point, but the ECML is the primary public transport route on that corridor. CS is pretty much a niche product - most people requiring public transport will get a train with another company.

 

[takno]

Interesting point, but the ECML is the primary public transport route on that corridor. CS is pretty much a niche product - most people requiring public transport will get a train with another company.

I can see the parallels. Now that neither I nor anybody I know can afford to take it I'm increasingly irritated that I'm paying super-high and ever-increasing Scottish tax to subsidize it to the hilt. If they can't turn that into an at-least-bearably affordable service then they'd be better off flogging the stock to Nightjet. If they insist on still taking the money and not spending it on the NHS then they could pay for something more affordable that goes somewhere more difficult-to-reach, like getting DFDS to extend the Amsterdam ferry to Edinburgh.

The situation with LNER is slightly worse of course - we are getting punished on that line for our willingness to use railways over a prolonged period, meaning that the stock and infrastructure has been put in place to run a less loss-making operation, and so operations make a paper profit (ignoring the NR block grant).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see the parallels. Now that neither I nor anybody I know can afford to take it I'm increasingly irritated that I'm paying super-high and ever-increasing Scottish tax to subsidize it to the hilt. If they can't turn that into an at-least-bearably affordable service then they'd be better off flogging the stock to Nightjet. If they insist on still taking the money and not spending it on the NHS then they could pay for something more affordable that goes somewhere more difficult-to-reach, like getting DFDS to extend the Amsterdam ferry to Edinburgh.

Replying to this in the CS thread.

 

[yorksrob]

I can see the parallels. Now that neither I nor anybody I know can afford to take it I'm increasingly irritated that I'm paying super-high and ever-increasing Scottish tax to subsidize it to the hilt. If they can't turn that into an at-least-bearably affordable service then they'd be better off flogging the stock to Nightjet. If they insist on still taking the money and not spending it on the NHS then they could pay for something more affordable that goes somewhere more difficult-to-reach, like getting DFDS to extend the Amsterdam ferry to Edinburgh.

The situation with LNER is slightly worse of course - we are getting punished on that line for our willingness to use railways over a prolonged period, meaning that the stock and infrastructure has been put in place to run a less loss-making operation, and so operations make a paper profit (ignoring the NR block grant).

Indeed. If LNER succeeds in turning the ECML into "a rich man's toy", taxpayers will be less inclined to fund it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. If LNER succeeds in turning the ECML into "a rich man's toy", taxpayers will be less inclined to fund it.

Though one of the objectives may well be to make it profitable. It really should be possible to achieve that, though it's annoying that there are ECML capacity limitations because if demand is that high running 4tph from KX to Edinburgh and filling the lot (which at a reasonable price seems feasible) would be the ideal.

 

[Krokodil]

I've just checked sleeper fares from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow. Most dates in the next few weeks sold out of course, but those "Classic Solo" tickets which remain are either £240 or £225. In the context of LNER charging £199.60 just for a seat in an IET the sleeper fare seems almost reasonable. Seated accommodation is between £50 and £90 - bargain, if you're prepared to rough it.

For comparison, if you want a berth on NightJet you can expect to pay €300, and for a private compartment (such as is now default on CS) €500.

 

[yorksrob]

Though one of the objectives may well be to make it profitable. It really should be possible to achieve that, though it's annoying that there are ECML capacity limitations because if demand is that high running 4tph from KX to Edinburgh and filling the lot (which at a reasonable price seems feasible) would be the ideal.

As I've said up-thread, the ECML has been (as far as TOC's can be) profitable very recently. It's probably already one of those nearest to profitability now.

It's not worth destroying one of rail's USP's for.

 

[BRX]

Interesting point, but the ECML is the primary public transport route on that corridor. CS is pretty much a niche product - most people requiring public transport will get a train with another company.

I agree - the CS is a special case and not entirely comparable.

And agree the ECML should be considered as public transport infrastructure. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that testing the price point for a certain market (those willing to book in advance, and who will pay based on the desire to get somewhere at a certain time and on a comparison with alternatives such as driving or the air fares on a particular day) is very different from testing the "affordability point" for those who rely on the service as public transport that lets them get places flexibly and without planning their entire life 3 weeks ahead (and for whose benefit I'd say we should be subsidising rail travel).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just checked sleeper fares from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow. Most dates in the next few weeks sold out of course, but those "Classic Solo" tickets which remain are either £240 or £225. In the context of LNER charging £199.60 just for a seat in an IET the sleeper fare seems almost reasonable.

It isn't necessarily that terrible. Those figures aren't far off the price of a Super Off Peak Single (as was) plus a night in a Premier Inn, and if you're headed to London possibly considerably cheaper than that pairing. And that's in effect the market for Classic rooms.

As for the seats they're up against the coaches so have to be cheap.

 

[takno]

Though one of the objectives may well be to make it profitable. It really should be possible to achieve that, though it's annoying that there are ECML capacity limitations because if demand is that high running 4tph from KX to Edinburgh and filling the lot (which at a reasonable price seems feasible) would be the ideal.

I believe there was a plan for some kind of relief line which would have provided this kind of capacity, but apparently a rather sulky self-important man who claims to be (checks notes) the prime minister said that it wasn't required. If that's the case then there clearly isn't any overcrowding and there's no need to simplify the pricing by making it simply unaffordable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe there was a plan for some kind of relief line which would have provided this kind of capacity, but apparently a rather sulky self-important man who claims to be (checks notes) the prime minister said that it wasn't required. If that's the case then there clearly isn't any overcrowding and there's no need to simplify the pricing by making it simply unaffordable.

Very true, that certainly did spring to mind. Could be a fair whack cheaper if it was getting another 400m worth per hour!

 

[modernrail]

It isn't necessarily that terrible. Those figures aren't far off the price of a Super Off Peak Single (as was) plus a night in a Premier Inn, and if you're headed to London possibly considerably cheaper than that pairing. And that's in effect the market for Classic rooms.

As for the seats they're up against the coaches so have to be cheap.

The forums equivalent of Godwin’s law - as the discussion grown longer the probability of the CS coming up approaches

Maybe they can start running the sleeper during the day then at least I can relax properly as opposed to LNER gouging my eyes out to travel on their pretty average trains at a pretty average speed.

 

[Haywain]

at a pretty average speed.

Whatever else they might be doing wrong, they are not running at "pretty average speed". They run at up to 125mph, which is the fastest that domestic trains run in the UK. It is therefore somewhat above the UK average.

 

[modernrail]

Whatever else they might be doing wrong, they are not running at "pretty average speed". They run at up to 125mph, which is the fastest that domestic trains run in the UK. It is therefore somewhat above the UK average.

Domestic HS1 trains run at 140mph.

125mph is slower than almost any high speed line in Europe. Therefore the average of those lines will be above 125mph. So it is somewhat below the (usually cheaper) European average. So they shouldn’t pretend it is some sort of super-premium high speed train. It isn’t. It is a reasonably fast, now often achingly expensive yet subsidised train.

 

[Krokodil]

Whatever else they might be doing wrong, they are not running at "pretty average speed". They run at up to 125mph, which is the fastest that domestic trains run in the UK. It is therefore somewhat above the UK average.

Point of pedantry, there are some 140mph domestic trains in the UK.

Among Intercity services, 125mph isn't exceptional in the UK, there are multiple routes cleared for it. By European standards it definitely is "pretty average"

 

[RailWonderer]

Though one of the objectives may well be to make it profitable. It really should be possible to achieve that, though it's annoying that there are ECML capacity limitations because if demand is that high running 4tph from KX to Edinburgh and filling the lot (which at a reasonable price seems feasible) would be the ideal.

I think 3tph with capacity improvements would be more realistic. The railways should be economically inclusive not exclusive and the stigma behind subsidy should not be seen as failure of the route but rather as a means to make the railway more accessible. Otherwise many people don't get to expereince nice things and the only people that use it would be the ones contemplating whether or not to take the Bentley up to Edinburgh instead.

Travel is already exclusive in the UK. We pay the world's highest APD (Air passenger duty by far) and it seems like rail is next to follow.

 

[Haywain]

Domestic HS1 trains run at 140mph.

Point of pedantry, there are some 140mph domestic trains in the UK.

140mph capable, but do not normally run faster then 125mph in service.

By European standards it definitely is "pretty average"

By any standards it will be above average and, by UK standards, quite some way above. Just because there are faster trains on the continent doesn't mean that the average is higher.