• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
1,878
Location
Bath
indeed, i was broadly happy with the level of subsidy I was paying to the rail industry pre-pandemic from my tax. I'm not happy with the level of subsidy being paid for primarlily leisure travel since. I would prefer my tax being transferred to health, education and even defence. So I support LNERs changes and hope that they will be rolled out nationwide. I acknowledge that my preferences may not align with yours.
It's worth remembering that in general leisure travel contributes more revenue per journey than commuting, by a fair margin. We have seen service levels drop across the country, with varying recovery, but I can count on my hands the number of places services have increased for leisure travelers. So if we have the same amount of services, more leisure travelled and less commuters, that means that you are actually paying less for leisure services, and instead just paying more to subsidise commuter services that once paid for themselves with Anytime fares. Obviously this is a very simplified model, not least there isn't a clear cut split of commuter vs leisure services. But I would very much suggest the services causing extra subsidy are not those used by leisure travellers.

There isn't an easy solution here, this argument works with both commuter and leisure services, but more so commuters, in that you need to start considering more than just a profit margin. Both types of travel have significant benefits for the economy, not least through taxes on activities that wouldn't happen without it, as there would be no opportunity. We are in a situation where those commuting by train are more likely to be those working jobs paying less, and who cannot afford a car. Post brexit it is undeniable we have a shortage of workers, and making trains unaffordable or cutting them will only worsen this gap. That will in itself cause damage to the economy. There are of course other benefits to rail travel, in climate emissions, less wear on roads, and therefore expenditure on that, less traffic, etc, etc.

As a related note, something which I believe is brewing, and to be clear this is second hand information, having come from someone I was recently on holiday with that manages a fairly large employer with significant remote working, and the view form other large primarily remote working companies they work with, is that they are starting to realise remote working is causing a significant drop in productivity, and many are at least considering dropping it, even for longer distance meetings. I personally wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of remote working disappeared over the next few years, and I think that will be reflected in rail travel, albeit perhaps slower, as the roads return to being as congested as before Covid.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
2,681
Location
Wales
If Anytime tickets were the only ones available it would result is massive fares increases for many people.

For example London to Manchester is £369.30 Anytime or £109.00 Off-Peak. What would the proposed new Anytime fare be and how many people would face a massive increase.
How would you manage capacity on the busiest trains?
I wasn't suggesting that the Anytime prices were anything short of extortionate on many flows. I simply said that the simplest system would be a completely flexible one, not one where every ticket was an Advance.

The public want Anytime conditions at Advance prices. As for managing capacity it wasn't me who was responsible for starving XC of rolling stock over the last 20 years, forcing them to hike fares rather than provide adequate capacity. I certainly don't believe in pricing off demand, I believe in making reasonable efforts to meet it. But we're drifting.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,708
Location
Redcar
It the end of Easter holidays and the day before a strike, I would expect the trains to be very very full.
Sure, so use the reservations recommended flag and put a warning out that if you do not have a seat reservation you may need to stand. Don't misuse the reservations compulsory flag to prevent people buying tickets for trains that they'd be entitled to use.
 

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
960
I'm not sure, however I view the network as a whole as a service, whether one bit or another of it happens to be in surplus at any given time.
From a public perspective that's understandable, but for an overall operation point of view it's critical to properly understand where your costs are and where your revenue is being generated. The lack of effective cost accounting in the 1960s was one of the reasons for the wholesale closures of the Beeching era.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the franchising era was the lack of an overall view of costs and revenues. TOCs could be very profitable off the back of schedule 4/schedule 8 payments from Railtrack/Network Rail even if their train operations made a loss. This came to a head during during the post-Hatfield network meltdown when some TOCs made more money from being unable to run trains on Railtrack infrastructure than they would have done if the trains had run.

Some of what we are seeing now is the painful unravelling of 'hidden' subsidies that Governments and the Treasury were happy to ignore all the time the money was off the books but which are now causing real issues because the Government is on the hook for directly funding them. One of these has been the effect of fares regulation on compressing off-peak fares whilst Anytime fares have risen disproportionately to compensate. Another is the cost of Delay Repay regardless of the cause, which has led to knee-jerk (and badly though out) reactions such as 'Published Timetable of the Day'.

Even with a new Government, there will still be the pressure to cut the railways' subsidy bill. The long list of demands - higher staff wages; no productivity changes; keep all ticket offices open; keep subsidising 'regulated' fares; finish HS2; build EWR stage 3 etc etc will require some difficult decisions and as a starting point, understanding which things generate the biggest 'bangs per buck' is vital.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,066
Location
Yorks
From a public perspective that's understandable, but for an overall operation point of view it's critical to properly understand where your costs are and where your revenue is being generated. The lack of effective cost accounting in the 1960s was one of the reasons for the wholesale closures of the Beeching era.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the franchising era was the lack of an overall view of costs and revenues. TOCs could be very profitable off the back of schedule 4/schedule 8 payments from Railtrack/Network Rail even if their train operations made a loss. This came to a head during during the post-Hatfield network meltdown when some TOCs made more money from being unable to run trains on Railtrack infrastructure than they would have done if the trains had run.

Some of what we are seeing now is the painful unravelling of 'hidden' subsidies that Governments and the Treasury were happy to ignore all the time the money was off the books but which are now causing real issues because the Government is on the hook for directly funding them. One of these has been the effect of fares regulation on compressing off-peak fares whilst Anytime fares have risen disproportionately to compensate. Another is the cost of Delay Repay regardless of the cause, which has led to knee-jerk (and badly though out) reactions such as 'Published Timetable of the Day'.

Even with a new Government, there will still be the pressure to cut the railways' subsidy bill. The long list of demands - higher staff wages; no productivity changes; keep all ticket offices open; keep subsidising 'regulated' fares; finish HS2; build EWR stage 3 etc etc will require some difficult decisions and as a starting point, understanding which things generate the biggest 'bangs per buck' is vital.

As I understand it, sectorisation was an attempt to better understand costs.

Ultimately while you subsidise, you need to ensure that the railway remains affordable. Without regulated fares, it will become harder to justify keeping the whole thing open.

The best thing for the time bring would be to enable the industry to use revenue to grow the business, rather than the treasury taking it.

This has been called for by industry leaders and even the Minister has said it would be a good idea. Unfortunately the treasury junta doesn't agree.
 
Last edited:

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,641
indeed, i was broadly happy with the level of subsidy I was paying to the rail industry pre-pandemic from my tax. I'm not happy with the level of subsidy being paid for primarlily leisure travel since. I would prefer my tax being transferred to health, education and even defence. So I support LNERs changes and hope that they will be rolled out nationwide. I acknowledge that my preferences may not align with yours.
It would be more accurate to say "interests" than "preferences".
 

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
1,774
Location
Warks
As a related note, something which I believe is brewing, and to be clear this is second hand information, having come from someone I was recently on holiday with that manages a fairly large employer with significant remote working, and the view form other large primarily remote working companies they work with, is that they are starting to realise remote working is causing a significant drop in productivity, and many are at least considering dropping it, even for longer distance meetings. I personally wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of remote working disappeared over the next few years, and I think that will be reflected in rail travel, albeit perhaps slower, as the roads return to being as congested as before Covid.

Cognisant of not wanting to derail the thread too much here, but I really do think productivity depends on the domain, the company in question and how they're set-up for distributed, remote work. Some organisations get it, some don't. It does really require some work in terms of documentation, on-boarding and a commitment to fostering asynchronous communication. Some leaders just don't genuinely don't get how to achieve that, they're like a fish out of water without synchronous F2F meetings every day.

I think the pandemic opened up pandora's box here for many workers, and there are a not-insignificant number of folks who won't put up with complete RTO mandates. Work/life balance and flexibility matters to them. As an organisation, I would argue that if you don't at least offer hybrid working, you will simply lose talent - particularly in domains where there's a shortage of skilled workers - I think some govt departments have started to realise this recently.

I'd like to see more business travel by rail because it'd be good for the industry (and retailers, of course!) .. but I'm not convinced it's going to go back to the way it used to be, and on a personal level I'm pretty happy with the idea of dialling into a meeting w/ Rail Delivery Group via Microsoft Teams vs the 5h trek to get all the way to Blackfriars and back in a day.

What I think you might see are more orgs enthusiastically adopting the idea of supplementing remote work with perhaps slightly longer focussed get-togethers in-person where there's a clear agenda and a chance to spend time with colleagues in more of a social setting. There's a clear benefit here to the hospitality industry - and perhaps rail can play a role too.

Appreciate I'm coming at this with my tech hat on, where remote work is much, much more common than in some other sectors. There's a fairly good chance you've got a phone in your pocket that's running a kernel that's been developed in a completely distributed, remote fashion by people working from their home offices.
 
Last edited:

Mechy

Member
Joined
19 Jan 2011
Messages
27
I’ve been trying to buy a ticket on the LNER route today and they have totally complicated the ticketing system. I was hoping the absolutely crazy discontinuation of return fares would be quickly dropped, but it seems like they are now doubling down with this ridiculous “70 minute flex” nonsense.

Ticketing was already simple. It was just the pricing that needed sorting out to prevent ticket splitting working out cheaper. I sincerely hope no other operators follow LNER’s lead here.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,954
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I’ve been trying to buy a ticket on the LNER route today and they have totally complicated the ticketing system. I was hoping the absolutely crazy discontinuation of return fares would be quickly dropped, but it seems like they are now doubling down with this ridiculous “70 minute flex” nonsense.

Ticketing was already simple. It was just the pricing that needed sorting out to prevent ticket splitting working out cheaper. I sincerely hope no other operators follow LNER’s lead here.

Don't forget that Manors, Haymarket and Reston are far better places to go! :D
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,452
Location
London
I would prefer my tax being transferred to health, education and even defence.

But that isn’t what’s being offered by anybody, is it?! It’s no coincidence the other sectors you’ve mentioned are also on their knees, as rail has deteriorated. Broadly speaking the choice is between a government that funds public services properly, or a government they runs them into the ground and makes tax cuts that mostly benefit high earners.

Polling shows that most people would like to see better funding of public services than tax cuts, and the current opinion polls speak for themselves, which suggests your view is the minority one.

The last thing we want is for the railway to become "a rich man's toy" even if its a money spinner

It isn’t necessarily a bad use of subsidy to support rail travel that benefits wealthier tourists and business people who will contribute to economic activity.

However the current government has no interest in expansion and is focussed purely on reducing subsidy in the short term for ideological reasons, regardless of wider economic consequences, and even where this prevents revenue growth, as we have seen with the strikes. The end result of this strategy is a smaller more expensive (to users) railway, that still requires subsidy, yet generates fewer economic benefits.

The “simplification” approach on LNER is very obviously another strategy to achieve this.
 
Last edited:

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,246
Location
Wittersham Kent
But that isn’t what’s being offered by anybody, is it?! It’s no coincidence the other sectors you’ve mentioned are also on their knees, as rail has deteriorated. Broadly speaking the choice is between a government that funds public services properly, or a government they runs them into the ground and makes tax cuts that mostly benefit high earners.

Polling shows that most people would like to see better funding of public services than tax cuts, and the current opinion polls speak for themselves, which suggests your view is the minority one.
I think that this has gone way too off topic, but as your post has gone unchallenged, where did I say that I wanted tax cuts? I wanted rail subsidy cuts so more money could be spent on health, education and defence. Prioritising public spending is what any government after the next election has to do. Im afraid the rail industry is in for an unpleasent shock if it is expecting a reopening of the blank cheque book approach it has enjoyed under the Conservatives.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,066
Location
Yorks
I think that this has gone way too off topic, but as your post has gone unchallenged, where did I say that I wanted tax cuts? I wanted rail subsidy cuts so more money could be spent on health, education and defence. Prioritising public spending is what any government after the next election has to do. Im afraid the rail industry is in for an unpleasent shock if it is expecting a reopening of the blank cheque book approach it has enjoyed under the Conservatives.

Health and education already get a large slice of the pie, and whilst they are both obviously vital, services such as rail, which enable the economically active to go about their business, whilst less aesthetically popular are also vital.

At the moment we have a railway passenger service that doesn't manage to be a commercial outfit and doesn't manage very well at being a public service. The next Government should go decisively down the public service route.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,269
Location
No longer here
Apologies for the thread bump, but I know some of you must be subscribed to this thread and interested in the development of the fares trial.

I’m going to make a YouTube video where the buried lede is the price rises and failed simplification on LNER, and would really appreciate if you have any personal perspectives or examples to contribute to my new thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/request-for-help-lner-fare-trial-ripoff.266280/#post-6730909

I know many of you feel strongly about the fares trial and I’d be grateful if you could distil your opinions, as well as any examples of you having to pay more, in the thread! Thanks.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,066
Location
Yorks
Apologies for the thread bump, but I know some of you must be subscribed to this thread and interested in the development of the fares trial.

I’m going to make a YouTube video where the buried lede is the price rises and failed simplification on LNER, and would really appreciate if you have any personal perspectives or examples to contribute to my new thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/request-for-help-lner-fare-trial-ripoff.266280/#post-6730909

I know many of you feel strongly about the fares trial and I’d be grateful if you could distil your opinions, as well as any examples of you having to pay more, in the thread! Thanks.

Best of luck in this endeavour which sounds very worth while.

I don't have any examples myself as I fortunately don't live in the pilot area, however my fear is that this will be rolled out nationwide and destroy the ability for most people to travel at short notice.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,675
Best of luck in this endeavour which sounds very worth while.

I don't have any examples myself as I fortunately don't live in the pilot area, however my fear is that this will be rolled out nationwide and destroy the ability for most people to travel at short notice.

I'm sure that is the fear of many people.

What really frustrates me is that eliminating ticket offices (which I think overall is much less serious, though I know it's very important for some people) had to go to consultation and there was enough adverse publicity that the government had to back down, but so far this has pretty much flown under the radar thanks to LNER being misleading about what it's all about and the government pretending that abandoning fares regulation has nothing to do with them.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,641
Screenshot (from LNER website) below is for tomorrow.

The 11.27 > 16.06 connection is Grand Central to York then change to Crosscountry to Edinburgh.

Previously an off-peak would have been valid on this. It's not now because LNER prices that flow and they have withdrawn off-peak tickets.

LNER tell us that the off peak has been replaced by their "semi flex" but the "semi flex" only applies to their own services.

The result of this is that if you want to travel on that GC/CC connection, now the only option (if you don't do split tickets) is the anytime, and this situation is out of the other train companies' hands ... have I got that right?

If this pricing were rolled out more widely on the network then this kind of situation would pop up everywhere, wouldn't it? There would potentially be loads of journeys where your only choices would be an anytime or split tickets.



Screenshot 2024-04-18 at 11.43.54.jpg
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,286
this situation is out of the other train companies' hands ... have I got that right?
Not entirely right, the other companies* are entirely at liberty to set fares for their specific services, but they probably choose not to as they prefer their share of the higher fare set by LNER.

*in the example you give, both Grand Central and CrossCountry are both Arriva Trains UK subsidiaries, so a bit of co-operation might not be that difficult.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,066
Location
Yorks
I'm sure that is the fear of many people.

What really frustrates me is that eliminating ticket offices (which I think overall is much less serious, though I know it's very important for some people) had to go to consultation and there was enough adverse publicity that the government had to back down, but so far this has pretty much flown under the radar thanks to LNER being misleading about what it's all about and the government pretending that abandoning fares regulation has nothing to do with them.

Yes, the line needs to be that if they don't nip it in the bud, the Establishment will impose this everywhere.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,675
Yes, the line needs to be that if they don't nip it in the bud, the Establishment will impose this everywhere.

Indeed.

But who can nip it in the bud? And how?

Offered a way of significantly cutting rail financial support with little political fallout, what major party wouldn't take it?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,066
Location
Yorks
Indeed.

But who can nip it in the bud? And how?

Offered a way of significantly cutting rail financial support with little political fallout, what major party wouldn't take it?

That's why people need to have it explained what a price gouge this is.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,452
Location
London
I think that this has gone way too off topic, but as your post has gone unchallenged, where did I say that I wanted tax cuts? I wanted rail subsidy cuts so more money could be spent on health, education and defence.

But, as I’ve pointed out, that isn’t the choice you’re being offered! Even if you closed rail completely, you’d save a fraction of the annual NHS budget, and you wouldn’t get much in the way of meaningful improvement. It’s also clear that the current government dislikes public services generally, so there’s no reason to suppose a cut in rail subsidy will result in further spending in other areas.

It should be possible, in what is still one of the richest countries in the world by most measures, to fund healthcare/defence/education, and a functioning railway system.


Prioritising public spending is what any government after the next election has to do. Im afraid the rail industry is in for an unpleasent shock if it is expecting a reopening of the blank cheque book approach it has enjoyed under the Conservatives.

So you want public spending prioritised, but you want the railway excluded from that due to your personal preferences. I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that! That also seems an odd view for someone on a railway forum but, given how many posters on here seem to positively loathe the railway, I suppose I shouldn’t find that surprising.

As a tax payer I hope the next government adopt a more grown up approach and allow the railway to grow passenger numbers and revenue, rather than making cost reductions that don’t save much for the tax payer, but knacker reliability and make it less attractive to users.

Applying that to this thread, I’d much rather see the LNER approach matched with an increase in capacity, or other improvements longer term, rather than price gouging to reduce net costs.
 
Last edited:

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
2,681
Location
Wales
Not entirely right, the other companies* are entirely at liberty to set fares for their specific services, but they probably choose not to as they prefer their share of the higher fare set by LNER.

*in the example you give, both Grand Central and CrossCountry are both Arriva Trains UK subsidiaries, so a bit of co-operation might not be that difficult.
The fact that there are two operators involved complicates matters where non-splitting booking engines are concerned. Even if each operator sets their own lower fare (whether walk-up or Advance) it won't be shown for a multi-leg journey.

But who can nip it in the bud? And how?
The Opposition. It's their job to hold the government's feet to the fire.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,286
The fact that there are two operators involved complicates matters where non-splitting booking engines are concerned. Even if each operator sets their own lower fare (whether walk-up or Advance) it won't be shown for a multi-leg journey.
Not at all, there's nothing to stop them setting a through walk-up fare routed something like 'GC & XC only'.
 

Wallsendmag

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2014
Messages
5,214
Location
Wallsend or somewhere in GB
The fact that there are two operators involved complicates matters where non-splitting booking engines are concerned. Even if each operator sets their own lower fare (whether walk-up or Advance) it won't be shown for a multi-leg journey.
Not really, you have to ask why these fares aren't available

1713477857588.png

Not at all, there's nothing to stop them setting a through fare routed something like 'GC & XC only'.
As above
 

Top