LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[yorksrob]

Do you, or do you not, envisage the trains will be emptier under the new regime?

The whole point of the trial is to remove the revenue cap implemented by having a flexible and refundable fare sitting on top of quota controlled inflexible ones. it is not designed to make the trains emptier.

I will eat my hat if next year I find the Edinburgh trains are empty.

I honestly don't know.

VTWC used to run trains with empty first class carriages because the one business passenger paying £300 made more revenue than lots of cheap AP.

There must be a similar effect (to a lesser extent) with long distance off-peaks which are still quite expensive.

Either way, the move is anti-passenger and a political choice by this Government.

 

[CyrusWuff]

And I come back to my policy that rails main competitor is motor transport.

A previous Manager of mine would tell you that rail's main competitor is simply not travelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A previous Manager of mine would tell you that rail's main competitor is simply not travelling.

The huge amount of traffic on the M1 begs to differ.

 

[Wallsendmag]

The huge amount of traffic on the M1 begs to differ.

You can’t think that way as not everyone would fit in the number of seats available.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The aforementioned Manager used to use it as a learning point at interviews, when asking candidates what our competition was.

Most people would guess other TOCs, Coaches and Cars, but very few would think that not travelling is an option as well.

 

[RichardJ]

Take Bank Holidays where there's pictures of packed long distance trains, and the usual howls of "The train company has sold too many tickets" etc. This would deal with that..

I'm don't think it will deal with this, and in fact having a quota that is limited to the capacity of the train won't be good for the TOC. If I aimed to travel on one train but the semiflex fare on the next train was cheaper, then I'd be inclined to buy the cheaper fare, but travel on the earlier train, and effectively have a longer period of insurance in case I was late. If people generally do this then the later train (the less appealing train) would have spare seats that couldn't be bought using a semiflex or advance ticket, and presumably no one would pay for an anytime fare for that train when they could use them on a more attractive (earlier/faster) train. This would particularly be the case when there are fast non-stop trains followed by slower stopping services: I think the faster trains will be more crowded and the slower ones will become emptier.

From a passenger's point of view i quite like the idea of the 70 minute flex (because off peak is so inconsistently defined), but not at the expense of having the fare only capped by the anytime fare level.

 

[trei2k]

The aforementioned Manager used to use it as a learning point at interviews, when asking candidates what our competition was.

Most people would guess other TOCs, Coaches and Cars, but very few would think that not travelling is an option as well.

But surely this only applies to discretionary travel?

Many HAVE to travel for work, appointments, major events etc. If I can't take the train, I will drive/take bus or coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can’t think that way as not everyone would fit in the number of seats available.

Time to fix that, then. The railway would be highly profitable if it was moving that many people.

That manager is breathtakingly arrogant and is part of the problem. The only place that might be close to true is London commuter routes, and even then many people can drive to a different one if they don't like their local one.

 

[Bikeman78]

Totally agree on this - from a customer experience point. Take Bank Holidays where there's pictures of packed long distance trains, and the usual howls of "The train company has sold too many tickets" etc. This would deal with that..

Even if you've a seat, a train that's full and standing is not a pleasant experience. For example fighting your way through to reach the toilet or buffet etc.

We are one of the few rail networks in the western world that allow unrestricted / "walk up" tickets on long distance trains.


Totally agree 100% how many passengers are really going to be affected by this

The reason the trains are so full around Bank Holidays is because that is when lots of people want to travel. Are you proposing that the excess should drive or take the coach instead?

 

[Krokodil]

Neither. The point is, they are not an effective method of generating revenue and managing capacity, two key aims of the Treasury when it comes to rail policy. The point is to get more money out of each train.

If the Treasury is so interested in generating revenue then why has APD been cut and Fuel Duty been frozen for a decade? This doesn't seem to be a level playing field.

But surely this only applies to discretionary travel?

Many HAVE to travel for work, appointments, major events etc. If I can't take the train, I will drive/take bus or coach.

Some people don't have those options so if the train becomes unaffordable/unusable then their only choice is to find a new job.

That manager is breathtakingly arrogant and is part of the problem. The only place that might be close to true is London commuter routes, and even then many people can drive to a different one if they don't like their local one.

It depends upon what point you think he was making. If it was "we've got a captive market here, we can do what we like" then that would indeed be breathtakingly arrogant.

If on the other hand he means "we've got a monopoly on this route but don't take the passengers for granted because they may just choose not to travel" then I don't see the issue.

The Treasury would do well to remember that if people decide that travelling to see a show in the West End is too expensive then it's not just the railway who has lost out, it's everywhere else that people were spending their money - theatres, restaurants, bars, hotels etc. The railway is a catalyst for the wider economy.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I think I’m done with this for now. In summary the trial is an abomination which is all about

• Huge stealth price increases
• REDUCED and not increased flexibility of travel times
• REDUCED and not improved simplicity
• REDUCED protection for refunds and amendments if something goes wrong
• Single operator only ticketing to reduced flexibility
• REMOVAL of price cap protection, unlocking the door to uncontrolled fare increases
• A realisation that 1x passenger paying £200 each way is more lucrative than 4 paying £45 each way shows there is no desire to encourage greater use of rail
• Car is king and bugger anyone who doesn’t have one

The list is a useful test but assumes the worst possible outcome in all cases. A more measured view might be:

• Price increases for some and price reductions for others to even out the cliff-edges in fares between peak and off peak services
• REDUCED and not increased flexibility of travel times - yes because narrower flexibility allows for better load management
• REDUCED and not improved simplicity - subjective; for the specific journeys in the trial the ticket choice is very simple; however all the time it it sits within surrounding unaltered fare structures there are all sorts of potential workarounds. Short of making the change to the whole fares structure in one go there's no way around this
• REDUCED protection for refunds and amendments if something goes wrong - yes, these areas will need some more attention before any expansion.
• Single operator only ticketing to reduced flexibility - there is no fundamental reason why the semi-flexible option can't at some point be expanded to be inter-available, this is one of the key things to look at as a result of the trial.
• REMOVAL of price cap protection, unlocking the door to uncontrolled fare increases - the 'price cap' has always been at the whim of the Government. It has never been statutory or protected, and has latterly been agreed on a year by year basis by Government at the last minute. All that has happened is that the imposition of a rigid formula has been eased.
• '1x passenger paying £200 each way is more lucrative than 4 paying £45 each way shows there is no desire to encourage greater use of rail' - until we have experience of how fares are actually being priced, this can only be speculation. Politically, this trial is too high profile for such an approach to be palatable.
• 'Car is king and bugger anyone who doesn’t have one' - there is no doubt that the recent actions of the Government have been anti-rail. But a successful reform of fare policy that drives up revenue, improves load spread and does not impose large fare increases on passengers is one way in which the industry can start to move on from Treasury micro-management, and any significant decisions following this trial are going to end up being made by the next Government.

 

[Watershed]

REDUCED and not improved simplicity - subjective; for the specific journeys in the trial the ticket choice is very simple; however all the time it it sits within surrounding unaltered fare structures there are all sorts of potential workarounds. Short of making the change to the whole fares structure in one go there's no way around this

It cannot in any way be said to be simple that the cheapest fare to travel on the 16:30 is a ticket for the 15:30!

Of course there are then also trains for which the three-fare structure is actually a two-fare structure as no Flex ticket is offered. But this is simple, remember!

Single operator only ticketing to reduced flexibility - there is no fundamental reason why the semi-flexible option can't at some point be expanded to be inter-available, this is one of the key things to look at as a result of the trial.

No reason - except that none of the TOCs want revenue to be divided through ORCATS. So it won't happen, regardless of the fact that it would be the bare minimum in terms of flexibility and protecting passenger rights during disruption.

 

[yorksrob]

A previous Manager of mine would tell you that rail's main competitor is simply not travelling.

That is also true.

Your previous manager was on the money.

The aforementioned Manager used to use it as a learning point at interviews, when asking candidates what our competition was.

Most people would guess other TOCs, Coaches and Cars, but very few would think that not travelling is an option as well.

It is. People don't have to go somewhere. They can go to the Cinema, Garden Centre etc.

 

[Krokodil]

none of the TOCs want revenue to be divided through ORCATS

Which is ridiculous when apart from a handful of OAOs all of the money ends up in the same place anyway.

 

[modernrail]

On 2, the Railways Act only requires that through interavailable ticketing is maintained. As the Anytime fare is still available the statutory requirement is met. As noted previously re 1, there is no statutory requirement regarding price regulation. I believe that the trial involves alternative monitoring of prices paid to ensure that average fare levels don't exceed what would have been charged with the off-peaks in place.
You're right to note that they have changed their own rules, but then again if you re-read any of the guff they wrote in 1992 about the benefits of privatisation, none of it reads like what actually happened.

Interesting, thank you.

You can't have it both ways.

Either off-peak fares are so popular they're causing overcrowding, or they're so unpopular that not many passengers will be affected.

Which is it ?

Yeah quite

 

[Watershed]

Which is ridiculous when apart from a handful of OAOs all of the money ends up in the same place anyway.

To be fair, on the ECML there are three OAOs who no doubt take a fair chunk out of LNER's bottom line. That being said, from a passenger perspective this is irrelevant.

Naturally, comparisons will be made with the airlines ("you can't use a Ryanair ticket on easyJet" and suchlike) but though LNER may pretend otherwise, they are not an airline and they still form part of what the public (rightly) sees as one entity - the railway. To have a situation where a "flexible" ticket is not actually valid on all train services within the stated period of flexibility is ludicrous; it contradicts the very simplicity that this change purports to bring.

I think this change would be much more palatable if LNER and the DfT were straightforward about what is really happening. But of course it is all about spinning it as a positive change for passengers when in fact it's nothing of the sort.

 

[Russel]

Seeing quite a lot of backlash towards this on various social media platforms, not that LNER will take much notice...

 

[modernrail]

Long and the short of it for me is this. I made a commitment 15 or so years ago to sell my car and use a combination of bike and public transport.

I travel a lot for both work and to see friends and family and have generally been willing to show patience with the bloody awful state of the service in the hope it will improve, even through it generally just keeps going south.

The availability of fixed price off peak returns has been absolutely critical in making this choice. I simply cannot risk ‘relying’ on trains if I might find I can’t get a train all day because they are ‘full’ or find I am priced at Anytime which neither I, my clients or my business can afford. Ever. I need to be able to get a refund if plans change and I need to be able to be reasonably clever on routing and breaks in journey.

Without these features, which as I understand it predate privatisation by a long long long time, the equation just doesn’t work anymore.

If the worst case scenario was the same as the worst case scenario in European countries, I could live with that risk. It isn’t. It is an insane laughable Anytime fare invented by people who smoke strong drugs for people who are totally ransomed to pay that fare. It is actually not civilised behaviour for any public system to entrap people into those fares.

I spend thousands every year on trains. I reckon at least £5-8k per annum. That has always been my commitment to avoiding generating air pollution, not adding to climate change and backing our communal options.

If this is rolled out generally I just can’t make it work, because I just cannot take the risk of being shafted by even a single Anytime fare, never mind many of them.

So whoever dreamt this up - well done. You have decided to subside a railway to prioritise people going to see Lion King over those trying to make a really serious considered decision to use the railway as a form of day to day transport.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I find that if I search single fares in the middle of the day on a date after 5 February from London Kings Cross to Edinburgh Waverley the only flexible fare that appears is the anytime single for £193.90 but if I change the destination to Haymarket a short walk from Edinburgh Waverley the super off peak single for £87.00 appears. It appears that the "simplification" of the ticketing system announced by LNER which I expect really comes from the DafT is really adding yet another ticket the "70 Minute Flex Single" and creating yet another case where to get a fare they want rail passengers have to specify a different destination to the station they really want to travel to. I assume that North of Edinburgh Waverley fares are set by ScotRail and follow the current Government of Scotland policy of one flexible fare valid at all times. From Edinburgh Waverley to Aberdeen I find there is an anytime return fare of £60.90 available for all trains including ScotRail, LNER and Cross Country all day.

 

[Watershed]

I find that if I search single fares in the middle of the day on a date after 5 February from London Kings Cross to Edinburgh Waverley the only flexible fare that appears is the anytime single for £193.90 but if I change the destination to Haymarket a short walk from Edinburgh Waverley the super off peak single for £87.00 appears. It appears that the "simplification" of the ticketing system announced by LNER which I expect really comes from the DafT is really adding yet another ticket the "70 Minute Flex Single" and creating yet another case where to get a fare they want rail passengers have to specify a different destination to the station they really want to travel to. I assume that North of Edinburgh Waverley fares are set by ScotRail and follow the current Government of Scotland policy of one flexible fare valid at all times. From Edinburgh Waverley to Aberdeen I find there is an anytime return fare of £60.90 available for all trains including ScotRail, LNER and Cross Country all day.

It is only the London Terminals <> Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh (Waverley) flows that are affected - for now, at least. All other flows remain unchanged and as you say, you currently still have the option of buying a ticket to another nearby station to circumvent the trial. But ticket offices are under strict instructions not to proactively offer such alternatives; LNER are even claiming that this could constitute a breach of impartial retailing requirements (funny how they get this argument out when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't!).

 

[wilbers]

It cannot in any way be said to be simple that the cheapest fare to travel on the 16:30 is a ticket for the 15:30!

Of course there are then also trains for which the three-fare structure is actually a two-fare structure as no Flex ticket is offered. But this is simple, remember!

and more than that its possible its even simpler for some trains just before departure - anytime or nothing so would have to try and book a later train and wave at the [almost certainly not full] train leaving to get a vaguely affordable ticket; even more unlucky if its the last train of the day and risk getting stranded.

 

[sheff1]

How many people here decrying the withdrawal of the LNER off-peak tickets know that when they were introduced by Intercity as 'Savers', they were hated by many enthusiasts because they replaced - at higher cost - the cheap day returns that previously offered the lowest cost fares for journeys over 50 miles, and had been available in both 2nd and 1st class?

I have no idea what enthusiasts (assume you mean railway enthusiasts) thought, but certainly know that many people such as myself who used day returns to travel from various places in England to Scotland using day returns on Saturdays to watch football were less than happy when they were replaced by higher priced Savers. A day return from Birmingham to Aberdeen for example would usually be bought once a season, with day returns to Glasgow used much more frequently.
If LNER were reintroducing long distance day returns I would be in full support .. of course they are not.

Many European countries we point to and say “god their trains are so much better aren’t they?” have compulsory reservations and strong yield management.

Not sure which countries you believe get such praise, but the European railway whch seems to get the highest praise from people who have been there is Switzerland where compulsory reservations are not a thing (unless smething has changed recently).

 

[Starmill]

Perversely, there is clamour about delivering a “walk on railway”. Why does Britain seem to demand this all the time? Many European countries we point to and say “god their trains are so much better aren’t they?” have compulsory reservations and strong yield management. The idea of a long distance mega flexible off peak return is a totally foreign concept to many railways which deliver better value than ours.

I don't think this has any truth to it. Compulsory reservations are pretty rare on trains that carry lots and lots of local traffic.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think this has any truth to it. Compulsory reservations are pretty rare on trains that carry lots and lots of local traffic.

There are already trials afoot to stop local passengers taking premium IC trains with XC; another mad, crazy thing you don't tend to get in countries which manage their demand properly. That's been a boiling frog for decades.

 

[Bikeman78]

There are already trials afoot to stop local passengers taking premium IC trains with XC; another mad, crazy thing you don't tend to get in countries which manage their demand properly. That's been a boiling frog for decades.

Where do you draw the line? Should passengers from Cardiff to Newport not be allowed to board a GWR Intercity? Ironically they have far more seats available than trains to Manchester or Portsmouth. If you don't want passengers making local journeys on Swansea to Paddington trains then the alternatives along the various sections need improving.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you don't want passengers making local journeys on Swansea to Paddington trains then the alternatives along the various sections need improving.

Of course they do, but that is unlikely to happen in the current climate unless the railway becomes more revenue-positive.

 

[Starmill]

There are already trials afoot to stop local passengers taking premium IC trains with XC; another mad, crazy thing you don't tend to get in countries which manage their demand properly. That's been a boiling frog for decades.

You think it's crazy that's fine. But to me it sounds like efficiency. Sure I'd love to four track more routes and build metros for the short journeys but that's certainly not happening any time soon.

 

[modernrail]

Of course they do, but that is unlikely to happen in the current climate unless the railway becomes more revenue-positive.

There is quite a lot of gibberish in this thread pretending that this change has the potential to balance the books. It doesn’t.

The increase in the subsidy to the railways since privatisation is insane. There are about 100 areas that should be tackled before making the railway unworkable for the majority of revenue generating ticket purchasing passengers.

The brains and the attention to detail don’t exist.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is quite a lot of gibberish in this thread pretending that this change has the potential to balance the books.

Nobody has mentioned balancing books at all; the railway will continue to be very heavily subsidised for the foreseeable future and will therefore occupy a political position where - now de facto nationalised - it is subject to pip-squeaking on both cost and revenue.

Nobody has to like that; I certainly don't. I would prefer the railways to be run as a social concern for the public good.

However I do choose to stare reality in the face; this has been a long time coming.

 

[modernrail]

Nobody has mentioned balancing books at all; the railway will continue to be very heavily subsidised for the foreseeable future and will therefore occupy a political position where - now de facto nationalised - it is subject to pip-squeaking on both cost and revenue.

Nobody has to like that; I certainly don't. I would prefer the railways to be run as a social concern for the public good.

However I do choose to stare reality in the face; this has been a long time coming.

I think I am genuinely being thick here, or at least am very confused by the mixed messaging on the thread.

Assuming a train will now be max 611 passengers (all seated) compared to say max 650 (611 seated and a few standing) now, how does this change bring about more revenue (with lower costs)

- because each seat will on average cost more than now (because LNER will raise the average price of advance and flex fares), or
- another reason

And, if raising revenue is the real objective (not simplifying fares) why can the same result not be achieved by leaving the current system intact but either offering less advance fares (so more passengers are required to pay the current regulated off peak fare) or by raising the average cost of the advance fares.

Or to put it another way, how does reducing flexibility = more revenue?