LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[johncrossley]

Are any long distance trains running around empty?

I was the only person in my carriage on the Avanti train from London to Manchester early Friday morning a couple of months ago.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The more I read this thread and arguments the less I can work out why on earth you would introduce this change, even if you were trying to maximise revenue. It just looks like somebody who hasn’t done enough sums has come up with a lazy solution that is neither a simplification or a way of the railway fairly maximising its opportunity to generate revenue.

From my work in the industry I am aware that the revenue modelling and calculations must have been audited by many hands (the DfT are cautious to the extreme at approving anything without having it checked) so it's neither a quick nor lazy solution. That's not expressing an opinion on whether it is the right things to do but it won't be a hasty decision.

As I've said before, I don't think it stands a chance of being successful if it cannot deliver enough tickets to people at prices they are willing to pay, and that includes on the day. Whilst some people have no choice about travelling, there aren't enough of them to sustain current revenue let alone grow it - the service has to be capable of attracting people.

 

[megabusser]

I think the amount of potentially ORCATS raiding Open Access on the ECML must be at least part of the motivation for wanting "TOC specific" fares. (TPE is largely irrelevant to London to Edinburgh services).

Classically Open Access services didn't get much ORCATS money as they were slower than the incumbent, but Lumo has changed all that.

It's long surprised me that Open Access isn't required to stand fully alone as it does in pretty much every European country.

Especially when Lumo have a far more restrictive luggage policy that most/all other operators. Having them listed alongside LNER services is not great.

Incidentally, I’ve written to my local (Edinburgh North) MP about this change, which will affect me both directly occasionally (wanting to buy a flexible tickets) and indirectly frequently (losing the fare cap they provide).

I also wonder if £20 per person each way is too much for the 70-min flex upgrade? If my partner and I travel to London, that’s £80 return (£52.80 with two-together) just for that insurance. It doesn’t buy the flexibility that I’d really want (eg come home from a weekend trip early if the weather is miserable or late if we want to make the most of the day) and would pay a bit extra for. Sure, if we turn up to the station in good time we can jump on the earlier train, but I’d rather keep my £52.80 and spend an hour in a cafe.

I wonder what split between vanilla advance and 70-min flex LNER are expecting/aiming for.

 

[takno]

Especially when Lumo have a far more restrictive luggage policy that most/all other operators. Having them listed alongside LNER services is not great.

Incidentally, I’ve written to my local (Edinburgh North) MP about this change, which will affect me both directly occasionally (wanting to buy a flexible tickets) and indirectly frequently (losing the fare cap they provide).

I also wonder if £20 per person each way is too much for the 70-min flex upgrade? If my partner and I travel to London, that’s £80 return (£52.80 with two-together) just for that insurance. It doesn’t buy the flexibility that I’d really want (eg come home from a weekend trip early if the weather is miserable or late if we want to make the most of the day) and would pay a bit extra for. Sure, if we turn up to the station in good time we can jump on the earlier train, but I’d rather keep my £52.80 and spend an hour in a cafe.

I wonder what split between vanilla advance and 70-min flex LNER are expecting/aiming for.

I tend to agree with that - I'm not sure full-day flexibility and a low cost refund is worth a full 20 quid extra, so an hour either way doesn't come close.

 

[modernrail]

I was the only person in my carriage on the Avanti train from London to Manchester early Friday morning a couple of months ago.

That could have been solved by more advance fares being available for that service?

 

[johncrossley]

That could have been solved by more advance fares being available for that service?

Off Peak Returns (which are cheaper than Super Off Peaks on LNER) were valid because it was Friday, so there was no need to pay silly money for Anytime or be unnecessarily restricted by an Advance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Off Peak Returns (which are cheaper than Super Off Peaks on LNER) were valid because it was Friday, so there was no need to pay silly money for Anytime or be unnecessarily restricted by an Advance.

Indeed. The reason for it being quiet is that there's little demand for business travel on Friday mornings and leisure travel tends to start in the afternoon. There won't be a huge amount of road traffic either.

The effect of a load of cheap Advances would probably be some of the people who were already there paying less, so less income overall.

 

[modernrail]

Indeed. The reason for it being quiet is that there's little demand for business travel on Friday mornings and leisure travel tends to start in the afternoon. There won't be a huge amount of road traffic either.

The effect of a load of cheap Advances would probably be some of the people who were already there paying less, so less income overall.

I am not convinced that would be the case. Now that Anytime travel is less certain and surely quite severely overall, the Railway might be better off offering a load more advance fares on peak services.

Anytime travel tends to be paid for my somebody other than the passenger, or be a ransom purchase. That is very simply because of the extraordinarily high level of the fare. Therefore it is less likely to be used by those planning in advance.

The way to do it might be to offer advances on these often lightly loaded trains well but stop offering them say 5 days before the date of the service. Then you pick up the early planners but can still screw the non Lion King/retired passenger royally as is the tradition now.

It used to be that off peak fares were available on trains out of London in the morning peak. I used that a lot to see clients and contacts (I am an SME and so can’t afford any Anytime fares). Since that changed a few years ago I don’t use those services or the railway at all for those meetings. I either way until they come to London or catch up on Teams. Not as good but better than being fleeced.

I don’t believe for a second that the Railway is using the current tools available to it with the existing fare structure to best effect to drive revenue up. If it is, it is performing better than any other branch of Government at a time when every Department is in the doo doo in one way or another - it just isn’t plausible.

I have learned from direct experience that it is far easier for somebody to get one of these seemingly small scale innovations through a Gov Dept (something you personally and those around you can mutually back slap about) rather than making something that already exists work better (harder but real work).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not convinced that would be the case. Now that Anytime travel is less certain and surely quite severely overall, the Railway might be better off offering a load more advance fares on peak services.

Friday morning is not a peak service on Avanti, it is now treated the same as a Saturday recognising that there's almost no Friday business travel any more. Off Peaks (which are 20% or so cheaper on a mileage basis than LNER ones) were valid, and I'm sure there were also Advances a bit below too given that TOCs like keeping all their revenue.

I think (before this) LNER had made Friday afternoon off peak, but I don't think they did it for the morning?

 

[modernrail]

Friday morning is not a peak service on Avanti, it is now treated the same as a Saturday recognising that there's almost no Friday business travel any more. Off Peaks (which are 20% or so cheaper on a mileage basis than LNER ones) were valid, and I'm sure there were also Advances a bit below too given that TOCs like keeping all their revenue.

I think (before this) LNER had made Friday afternoon off peak, but I don't think they did it for the morning?

Well I certainly didn’t know that and I use trains pretty much everyday!

This is one of the problems. It feels like the railway is all over the place in terms of selling its proposition to the user. I used to think, come into London in the morning = shafted. Going out of London in the morning = doable. Then it became = shafted both ways. Now it sounds like it is = pot luck and different between operators.

None of this equals consistent price signals. Anytime fares have been a feature for so long that people just presume you should avoid these times like the plague and so I am not surprised we are, very ironically, carrying fresh air around at the most convenient time for many to travel.

More work needs doing on all of this before taking a good, flexible ticket class out of play is considered. If Monday and Friday mornings are going to be off-peak - tell us that! Or at least tell us that it’s worth checking for well priced Advance tickets.

It feels like they don’t want to market these things in case Anytime loads go back up. It is bloody hard to keep up!

 

[MTR380A]

I also wonder if £20 per person each way is too much for the 70-min flex upgrade? If my partner and I travel to London, that’s £80 return (£52.80 with two-together) just for that insurance. It doesn’t buy the flexibility that I’d really want (eg come home from a weekend trip early if the weather is miserable or late if we want to make the most of the day) and would pay a bit extra for. Sure, if we turn up to the station in good time we can jump on the earlier train, but I’d rather keep my £52.80 and spend an hour in a cafe.

I agree that £20 is too high and it would only work for me if it were £10.

Another question is, why is it a fixed amount but not a fixed percent of the fare? For shorter journeys, £20 has a poorer value for money. Why not make it 10% of the fare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that £20 is too high and it would only work for me if it were £10.

Another question is, why is it a fixed amount but not a fixed percent of the fare? For shorter journeys, £20 has a poorer value for money. Why not make it 10% of the fare?

The trial is likely to look at this later and try different amounts.

 

[MTR380A]

Also, why not brand Flex70/Semi-flexible as an add-on to the Advance/Fixed? It's essentially an insurance anyway. The effect would be the same, but the number of fare types would have been reduced from 7 to 2, not 3.

 

[takno]

Also, why not brand Flex70/Semi-flexible as an add-on to the Advance/Fixed? It's essentially an insurance anyway. The effect would be the same, but the number of fare types would have been reduced from 7 to 2, not 3.

Short answer is that a ten quid insurance policy wouldn't give them the flexibility they want with the shoulder peaks. It's almost like the new product has even more problems with controlling the numbers of people on individual trains than the off-peak fare does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Short answer is that a ten quid insurance policy wouldn't give them the flexibility they want with the shoulder peaks. It's almost like the new product has even more problems with controlling the numbers of people on individual trains than the off-peak fare does.

It's almost like the outcome of the trial could be that Anytime and Advance is the way to go and this botched 70 minute thing isn't worth it!

(Remember: the purpose of this is to increase fares!)

 

[Wallsendmag]

I agree that £20 is too high and it would only work for me if it were £10.

Another question is, why is it a fixed amount but not a fixed percent of the fare? For shorter journeys, £20 has a poorer value for money. Why not make it 10% of the fare?

The shortest journey is Newcastle to London

 

[Starmill]

I tend to agree with that - I'm not sure full-day flexibility and a low cost refund is worth a full 20 quid extra, so an hour either way doesn't come close.

At the absolute minimum it should be 70 minutes after booked time or the following service, whichever is longer. This allows for the next LNER service being exactly two hours later, as is common e.g. London to Lincoln, Retford, Harrogate, Northallerton.

 

[modernrail]

Also, why not brand Flex70/Semi-flexible as an add-on to the Advance/Fixed? It's essentially an insurance anyway. The effect would be the same, but the number of fare types would have been reduced from 7 to 2, not 3.

This, and keep off-peaks as they are!

 

[Haywain]

why is it a fixed amount but not a fixed percent of the fare? For shorter journeys, £20 has a poorer value for money. Why not make it 10% of the fare?

The trial is only for London to Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh - which of them is the shorter journey you refer to?

Remember: the purpose of this is to increase fares!

Revenue, not fares. Although average fares might increase to achieve that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Revenue, not fares. Although average fares might increase to achieve that.

What I recall reading in Modern Railways (as I said above I really wish I'd kept it!) is that they believe they can get quite substantially higher fares out of people for busy but traditionally off-peak times (i.e. Friday/Sunday PM and school holidays), but may be able to grow usage at genuinely quiet times by offering lower fares at those times which they can't really do now as they can't offset them by charging more at other times. The two together mean (as you say) more revenue.

Fares at these times don't seem to have rocketed yet - but I think it's very much "yet" and will be drip-dripped in to avoid adverse publicity.

It's probably true, though highly unpalatable. For very long journeys like Edinburgh it's not about getting to London for 10am* then going home at 4, it's much more like air travel, and if you look when air travel is expensive it's not 7am on a Wednesday in February.

* I still maintain the 9am all day meeting is largely a fiction; an all day workshop is more likely to start at 10 to allow the host time to arrive and get everything in order with the room, refreshments etc before welcoming their guests.

 

[Haywain]

What I recall reading in Modern Railways (as I said above I really wish I'd kept it!) is that they believe they can get quite substantially higher fares out of people for busy but traditionally off-peak times (i.e. Friday/Sunday PM and school holidays), but may be able to grow usage at genuinely quiet times by offering lower fares at those times which they can't really do now as they can't offset them by charging more at other times. The two together mean (as you say) more revenue.

It's important to look at all aspects of this change. I suspect that there will be an increase in revenue without any fare increases due to the non-refundable status of the new tickets and removal of ORCATS sharing. Higher fares at peak travel times will be an added bonus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's important to look at all aspects of this change. I suspect that there will be an increase in revenue without any fare increases due to the non-refundable status of the new tickets and removal of ORCATS sharing. Higher fares at peak travel times will be an added bonus.

An interesting question (which probably isn't public) would be how much ORCATS money Lumo (in particular) actually gets. Could it also damage their viability if it's a fair bit?

Also (looking at Anytimes) how many of those actually get used on Lumo. If I had one and decided to use Lumo I'd be buying a Lumo ticket and refunding it, getting over a hundred quid back* - thus is the share of those excessive too?

* Unless a work trip, but my employer would be reluctant to buy such an expensive ticket when it's easily avoided.

 

[Haywain]

An interesting question (which probably isn't public) would be how much ORCATS money Lumo (in particular) actually gets.

I don't have answers to that, and it does cause me to wonder whether the move to single leg pricing had any impact. However, they are going to get some of their revenue from interavailable tickets and will continue to do so, albeit from a smaller number of them.

Could it also damage their viability if it's a fair bit?

Time will tell. I suppose the first indicator would be efforts to market their services more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't have answers to that, and it does cause me to wonder whether the move to single leg pricing had any impact.

That could actually have been revenue positive for them, as all their fares are less than the LNER Super Off Peak Single (as that's the level of their Anytime), so people will likely be buying more of their dedicated tickets if going one way with LNER and one way with them.

 

[takno]

I don't have answers to that, and it does cause me to wonder whether the move to single leg pricing had any impact. However, they are going to get some of their revenue from interavailable tickets and will continue to do so, albeit from a smaller number of them.

Time will tell. I suppose the first indicator would be efforts to market their services more.

I haven't been on a Lumo with any spaces free on it yet. Personally I'd expect them to either do nothing, or remove their own equivalent ticket and enjoy the opportunity to price advances up towards the interavailable anytime fare.

 

[Haywain]

I haven't been on a Lumo with any spaces free on it yet. Personally I'd expect them to either do nothing, or remove their own equivalent ticket and enjoy the opportunity to price advances up towards the interavailable anytime fare.

You make a very good and valid point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I haven't been on a Lumo with any spaces free on it yet. Personally I'd expect them to either do nothing, or remove their own equivalent ticket and enjoy the opportunity to price advances up towards the interavailable anytime fare.

With their lower capacity Lumo are known to very much want proper compulsory reservations - being able to do them "de facto" by pricing the Anytime out of the market may well be something they'd like.

Of course they could just bump it up by 50 quid.

 

[jayah]

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.

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.

 

[weeklycommuter]

According to the following article in 2019 LNER trains had an average load of 250 passengers

LNER modernisation GATHERS PACE

Arrival of Azumas is a prominent landmark, LNER Managing ...

www.modernrailways.com

21st March 2019
with LNER having an average load factor of 250 passengers across the day

The following table shows LNER had 22.3 million passenger journeys in the year to March 2019 and 23.4 million passenger journeys in the year to March 2023 only slightly more than in the year to March 2019

Table 1223 - Passenger journeys by operator | ORR Data Portal

Looking at RealTime trains LNER are mostly using nine coach Azumas or pairs of five coach Azumas so there are about 600 seats on each LNER train of which about 500 are standard class and 100 are first class. 250 passengers is slightly under half the total number of seats and about half the total number of standard class seats. Yet LNER state they are happy to lose the 11 percent of passengers who make the journeys for which off peak tickets are being removed.

LNER Launches Pioneering Pilot To Further Simplify Fares

LNER is proud to launch a new Simpler Fares pilot scheme for selected journeys along the East Coast route, further enhancing its customer experience.

www.lner.co.uk

Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak fares, which now only represent 11 per cent of journeys included in the pilot, will be removed from 5 February 2024.

Obviously the following claim in this article is ridiculous, this change removes the affordable and flexible off peak tickets and clearly does not suit the needs of the 11 percent of passengers who have been choosing these tickets for these journeys. The whole article is ridiculous in claiming this change simplifies fares.

Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, said: “We are delivering on our commitment to reform the railways, working with operators to provide passengers with simpler and more flexible tickets that better suit their needs.”

 

[bakerstreet]

Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, said: “We are delivering on our commitment to reform the railways, working with operators to provide passengers with simpler and more flexible tickets that better suit their needs.”

More flexible tickets by removing flexible tickets.

We’ve truly gone through the looking glass!