LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[modernrail]

It's this that gives me the main issue with it - it's deliberately obfuscatory and dishonest.

There is a problem on the long distance railway that has been bubbling for a long time, namely that business is moving away from travel entirely, so the "peaks" are no longer peaks and there aren't very many people willing to be fleeced for things like £350 Manchester-London Anytime Returns (I genuinely wonder how many of those they sell?). The actual "peaks" are Friday evening and Sunday afternoon plus school holidays, as can be seen from prices on easyJet and the likes.

However, if you made weekday mornings off peak and Friday/Sunday PM Anytime level, that would bring uproar.

What also brings uproar is the annual fares round.

The thing about moving to an all Advances policy is that it avoids both of those issues - you can easily tweak fares to increase income without it really being noticeable, and you get to avoid that discussion.

But maybe we actually should be having a discussion on the railway's new purpose as a primarily-leisure facility, and what that railway should look like. Which I suspect, if you did have that honest discussion, would be more about cheap capacity and tables for 4 aligned to windows for the family to sit in (e.g. LNR and Chiltern) than about fast pointy-nosed crack expresses* at high prices. There's also (as an aside) a need for that discussion about the purpose of First Class and what that should look like if it exists at all.

* HS2 is of course about fast pointy-nosed crack expresses, but doesn't have the same issue as the classic lines of those conflicting with more local services and freight.

I agree with all of that except to say that I think we need to move away from this idea that travel splits into commuter, business, leisure. There is a rather important 4th category. General transport. Getting from A to B to carry out a multitude of life’s functions that do not necessarily constitute leisure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a rather important 4th category. General transport. Getting from A to B to carry out a multitude of life’s functions that do not necessarily constitute leisure.

That category is far less applicable to long distance rail. It pretty much only constitutes weddings and funerals, which might as well fit under leisure even if only the former may feel that way. You might include things like going to an embassy to get a visa, but that's really leisure/business depending on the purpose of the trip the visa is being obtained for. An odd person may travel long distance by rail to collect a car, but that's a very small use-case because most people would buy one more locally or have one delivered, and car enthusiasm is definitely leisure.

Local rail has far wider use cases, e.g. using Merseyrail or London Underground to reach your nearest accessible supermarket if you don't drive, or going to school (which is a form of commuting, in any case).

 

[Failed Unit]

If LNER are really doing this to take a bit of the airline market, booking tomorrow.

Lazy Jet from Luton
£50 - dept 0845
£98.59 - Dept 1745
£107.49 - Dept 2000

Granted you need to get to Luton, but the £87 off-peak single competed with these. Some of the £69.50 advances do compete, but these existed anyway, but considering that the cheapest flexible advance is £89.50 with much less flexibility - I think this change will make easy jet very happy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Granted you need to get to Luton, but the £87 off-peak single competed with these. Some of the £69.50 advances do compete, but these existed anyway, but considering that the cheapest flexible advance is £89.50 with much more flexibility - I think this change will make easy jet very happy.

I think they'll make Lumo the happiest - I do wonder though when they'll start upping their fares, as they appear not to have done so so far. As long as they're still cheapest they'll still sell.

 

[ainsworth74]

I was at Edinburgh Waverley shortly before 1400 today and thought I might have a look and see what the LNER TVM would offer me for immediate travel to London just out of idle curiosity. It was, to say the least, an illuminating proposition!


(Image shows an LNER TVM screen showing two journeys both costing £193.90 for an Anytime Single)

Just out of idle curiosity I thought I might ask the same machine how much it would cost if I was going from Haymarket and the result was quite different:


(Image shows five journeys all costing £90)

Now the engineering work is obviously having an effect (that second bunch of journeys all go via the WCML) but good grief it's plain as day how much this is just about rinsing the maximum amount of money out of people as possible. Hopefully the media keep going on this outrageous proposal as well as highlighting the importance of buying to/from Haymarket/Manors to avoid getting ripped off.

I'll be in Newcastle before too long, I might repeat the experiment and see what that looks like there.

 

[yorksrob]

I very commonly do something different than my booked journey on the return. On the ECML I suppose there's little variety though one might stop off for food and drop back. On the WCML there's lots of options - via Manchester and/or Birmingham for instance.

Indeed. There are often good reasons to vary one's journey.

Yorksrob I was more making the point that it is rare standing has been so bad that I have chosen to do that. Usually I bank on some of the train getting off at the next stop so I can shuffle in somewhere better.

That's a point - and I can't really think of many occasions on the ECML I've been unable to get a seat.

Why can’t they just stop issuing cut price advances then and price everything and not lower than the off-peak fare?

I just cannot get my head around this mentality of cheap advance…. Then Russian roulette as to whether late comers get a travelling option at all and if they do, welcome to the most extreme version of cliff edge pricing in the world.

If they were remotely honest with the intention rather than lying, then perhaps an honest debate could be had about how best to achieve the aim.

The easiest way to manage congestion on a motorway would be to close the slip roads completely when it is too full.

The easiest way to increase revenues from motorways would be impose tolls.

The easiest way to stop motorways being a useful part of the transport system would be to make you pre-book a slot to use the motorway 3 months in advance or alternatively pay 10x that price if you have the audacity to think up a bloody travel plan a couple of days before you travel.

That's the problem really. There's no guarantee that they'll offer any advances on a given train at all. The off-peak was a useful insurance that there was always something at a sensiblish price.

 

[AdamWW]

That's the problem really. There's no guarantee that they'll offer any advances on a given train at all. The off-peak was a useful insurance that there was always something at a sensiblish price.

Quite. This is a fundamental change to how the railways can be used.

The ironic thing is that single leg ticketing made off peak tickets more useful. And now stage 2 appears to be to build on that success by removing them.

 

[yorksrob]

Quite. This is a fundamental change to how the railways can be used.

The ironic thing is that single leg ticketing made off peak tickets more useful. And now stage 2 appears to be to build on that success by removing them.

Yes, it's fishy that they were promoting the off-peak single as a great new product only to scrap it five minutes later.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, it's fishy that they were promoting the off-peak single as a great new product only to scrap it five minutes later.

Not just that but claiming that simpler tickets are somehow the next phase in their "improvements".

 

[ainsworth74]

Continuing my adventures in LNER TVMs for immediate travel to London I have now had a look at a TVM at Newcastle. Were one to ask for a ticket to London you would be presented with the following:


(LNER TVM showing the only available ticket as being £192.80 Anytime Single)

Of course if you ask the same TVM for a ticket from Manors to Kings Cross:


(Same TVM showing a Super Off-Peak Single at £83.80)

I particularly like on this example that you can arrive at 2139 and if you asked for Manors it cost you £83.80 and if you asked for Newcastle it was £192.80. Same trains but the cool £110 difference.

Best of luck to anyone who wants to go to London and doesn't realise the trick to not getting rinsed by LNER. As well as wanting to avoid a bus. Due to the Via Peterborough restriction on the Anytime Single it forces you onto the bus whilst the cheaper ticket is Any Permitted so finds journeys via the MML. Of course the Anytime could be excessed (for £0) to the any permitted but journey planners won't find that.

What a crock of the proverbial this "trial" is. Just be honest. It's to raise revenue. Nothing else. At least do us the courtesy of telling us to our faces that you want to be able to charge far more to travel than now. Rather than this insulting and ludicrous pretence its about making fares simpler or to avoid overcrowding.

 

[bakerstreet]

Continuing my adventures in LNER TVMs for immediate travel to London I have now had a look at a TVM at Newcastle. Were one to ask for a ticket to London you would be presented with the following:

View attachment 152807
(LNER TVM showing the only available ticket as being £192.80 Anytime Single)

Of course if you ask the same TVM for a ticket from Manors to Kings Cross:

View attachment 152808
(Same TVM showing a Super Off-Peak Single at £83.80)

I particularly like on this example that you can arrive at 2139 and if you asked for Manors it cost you £83.80 and if you asked for Newcastle it was £192.80. Same trains but the cool £110 difference.

Best of luck to anyone who wants to go to London and doesn't realise the trick to not getting rinsed by LNER. As well as wanting to avoid a bus. Due to the Via Peterborough restriction on the Anytime Single it forces you onto the bus whilst the cheaper ticket is Any Permitted so finds journeys via the MML. Of course the Anytime could be excessed (for £0) to the any permitted but journey planners won't find that.

What a crock of the proverbial this "trial" is. Just be honest. It's to raise revenue. Nothing else. At least do us the courtesy of telling us to our faces that you want to be able to charge far more to travel than now. Rather than this insulting and ludicrous pretence its about making fares simpler or to avoid overcrowding.

Great research with thoroughly disappointing results showing a significant degree of distain for passengers from LNER.

One wonders whether any of this would be happening if those at LNER actually had to buy tickets for train journeys on their TOC.

Imagine being the architect of this misery and being faced with such a TVM screen.

Of course if the architects did have to purchase their own tickets, no doubt they would buy to Manors or Haymarket instead.

 

[modernrail]

That category is far less applicable to long distance rail. It pretty much only constitutes weddings and funerals, which might as well fit under leisure even if only the former may feel that way. You might include things like going to an embassy to get a visa, but that's really leisure/business depending on the purpose of the trip the visa is being obtained for. An odd person may travel long distance by rail to collect a car, but that's a very small use-case because most people would buy one more locally or have one delivered, and car enthusiasm is definitely leisure.

Local rail has far wider use cases, e.g. using Merseyrail or London Underground to reach your nearest accessible supermarket if you don't drive, or going to school (which is a form of commuting, in any case).

I am not sure that is correct to be honest.

Families are very split up these days. Students often live far from home. There are lots of non ‘leisure’ reasons to need to travel that are general.

As an example, and honestly not seeking to cause the violins to come out, my Mum was in a hospice in Liverpool for a year. She was given 2 months but put in a significant rear guard defence.

I was living and working in London and sometimes working in Leeds and Newcastle during that time.

We needed to arrange daily family care of Mum during that time. It was highly dependent on Mum’s day to day condition and the parts of our lives we had to keep going (work, children etc). That meant travel decisions sometimes happened within an hour of needing to catch the train and many many times I needed to shift the return journey because my Mum had an acute need for a family member to be present.

Is that situation that unusual? No of course it isn’t. Millions of people live remotely from their parents and need to manage all sorts of situations. That is not leisure travel.

Had this evil little trial been in play during that period, I would have been in a complete hole in terms of how I managed that situation.

 

[Mikw]

Continuing my adventures in LNER TVMs for immediate travel to London I have now had a look at a TVM at Newcastle. Were one to ask for a ticket to London you would be presented with the following:

View attachment 152807
(LNER TVM showing the only available ticket as being £192.80 Anytime Single)

Of course if you ask the same TVM for a ticket from Manors to Kings Cross:

View attachment 152808
(Same TVM showing a Super Off-Peak Single at £83.80)

I particularly like on this example that you can arrive at 2139 and if you asked for Manors it cost you £83.80 and if you asked for Newcastle it was £192.80. Same trains but the cool £110 difference.

Best of luck to anyone who wants to go to London and doesn't realise the trick to not getting rinsed by LNER. As well as wanting to avoid a bus. Due to the Via Peterborough restriction on the Anytime Single it forces you onto the bus whilst the cheaper ticket is Any Permitted so finds journeys via the MML. Of course the Anytime could be excessed (for £0) to the any permitted but journey planners won't find that.

What a crock of the proverbial this "trial" is. Just be honest. It's to raise revenue. Nothing else. At least do us the courtesy of telling us to our faces that you want to be able to charge far more to travel than now. Rather than this insulting and ludicrous pretence its about making fares simpler or to avoid overcrowding.

Of course they should be open and honest but that's not the way these days.
If you keep repeating "Simplified" over and over again it will stick with many people. Even though it's camoflauge for stonking price increase.

 

[takno]

Had this evil little trial been in play during that period, I would have been in a complete hole in terms of how I managed that situation.

I'm in this kind of position at the moment - very regular trips from one end of the country to the other to care for a sick parent. I've just switched to flying everywhere - I don't have money to burn.

It's interesting if their aim really is to compete with air travel just how comprehensively they are failing at that.

 

[modernrail]

I'm in this kind of position at the moment - very regular trips from one end of the country to the other to care for a sick parent. I've just switched to flying everywhere - I don't have money to burn.

It's interesting if their aim really is to compete with air travel just how comprehensively they are failing at that.

I am sorry to hear that takno and best wishes in managing the situation.

I was just working out what I spent on the London to Liverpool line in that year. It was around £3500. If I remember correctly every single ticket except 1 advance was an off-peak. I couldn’t afford the anytime and I couldn’t risk the advance fares as I would constantly have been wasting them and then needing to buy a new ticket. The advance was towards the beginning of it all but my Mum had an enormous seizure whilst I was in the hospital and I ended up staying for an extra 2 days and having to buy a new ticket. That sort of situation is the reality of life, not anything particularly unusual.

There are 70 million people in the UK. The railway is really odd in trying to say anything not commuter or business is leisure. Those 70 million people have a vast number of reasons why they just need to travel.

I think part of it is the because the rail industry is a literal bubble, on wheels. Those that decide, often many of the discussions on here forget the railway is fundamentally a human business. There are 70 million sets of needs behind those 70 million potential passengers. This trial by LNER breaks the consensus on why railways are worth having (and subsiding) at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm in this kind of position at the moment - very regular trips from one end of the country to the other to care for a sick parent. I've just switched to flying everywhere - I don't have money to burn.

You might find, if it's LNER involved, that a trip to Manors or Haymarket is quite convenient.

 

[modernrail]

Also, I have been thinking about the comparison that has been brought up on here and by some in the industry about reservation only trains on the continent.

There is already the extremely valid response that there is no cliff edge on pricing as the highest fares are not as insane as ours.

But there is another point. Many high speed lines on the continent have adjacent classic lines. Whilst the high speed line might be reservation only the adjacent classic line is not. It is also often pretty cheap, even in first class.

So it is a false comparison on a number of fronts. If the railway industry and Government wants to use that comparison it needs to build a national network of high speed lines first rather than apply high speed line concept to a set of 200 year old classic lines.

 

[Benjwri]

Of note to this the government today published the draft rail reform bill, although the bill itself only serves to create Great British Railways, the second aim stated is to create simpler fares, given the same name, and references to the pilot under that name in the article, this suggests they are aiming to expand this to more of the country. We can only hope they are not in power long enough.

The draft Rail Reform Bill sets in motion the plan to deliver a bold vision for future rail customers – of punctual and reliable services, simpler tickets and a modern and innovative railway that meets the needs of passengers and freight users.

 

[Haywain]

Of note to this the government today published the draft rail reform bill, although the bill itself only serves to create Great British Railways, the second aim stated is to create simpler fares, given the same name, and references to the pilot under that name in the article, this suggests they are aiming to expand this to more of the country. We can only hope they are not in power long enough.

At least putting it all into the hands of GBR would mean there would be some accountability, which the current regime lacks completely.

 

[Benjwri]

At least putting it all into the hands of GBR would mean there would be some accountability, which the current regime lacks completely.

Some would say an unelected faceless (for now) entity is less accountable than an elected government and ministers

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some would say an unelected faceless (for now) entity is less accountable than an elected government and ministers

Particularly given that we now know from this month's Modern Railways that the idea came from LNER and a member of the GBR Transition Team, not from the DfT or Treasury.

It would be interesting to know in a parallel universe what BR would have done if it had continued in the form it was in in the early 90s. I'm kind of inclined to think something like this but with less extortionate Anytimes (which is roughly where Deutsche Bahn is now*, though the BahnCard makes it rather more affordable). The APT was certainly operated as compulsory reservation** and there was I think very much a look to what France was doing.

* Hamburg-Munich Flexpreis today (vaguely similar journey to London-Edinburgh, made slightly confusing by the fact it varies a bit, but not hugely, by day) is EUR172 which by today's rate is about £150, but probably more like £120 as a rate based on earnings/cost of living, which is about where I'd suggest LNER's fare should be!

** Curiously stated to be because passengers couldn't pass through the power cars in the middle, but that's no different to e.g. a pair of 5 car 80x. I suspect it was more because they wanted to be like France.

 

[AdamWW]

The APT was certainly operated as compulsory reservation and there was I think very much a look to what France was doing.

I thought (happy as ever to be proved wrong) that the plan was for actual reservations or "boarding cards" picked up from the ticket office just before departure, and this was thought necessary in order to ensure people were properly spread between the two halves given the lack of access between them.

 

[Adam Williams]

the idea came from LNER and a member of the GBR Transition Team

Was this member someone also employed by LNER, "on secondment" to GBR?

I've long questioned the ability of some of those working for GBRTT to do their jobs impartially when they're still employed by the very entities that their decisions impact.

 

[AdamWW]

I thought (happy as ever to be proved wrong) that the plan was for actual reservations or "boarding cards" picked up from the ticket office just before departure, and this was thought necessary in order to ensure people were properly spread between the two halves given the lack of access between them.

I see you've added to your post to argue against this idea. You may be right, but I don't follow the logic that because decades later we've decided it isn't a problem, it's not likely to have been their reasoning then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought (happy as ever to be proved wrong) that the plan was for actual reservations or "boarding cards" picked up from the ticket office just before departure, and this was thought necessary in order to ensure people were properly spread between the two halves given the lack of access between them.

That's what they said, but today we have all manner of EMUs and DMUs without corridor connections and people manage. I genuinely think it was more of a nod to the French and that explanation was come up with later.

I see you've added to your post to argue against this idea. You may be right, but I don't follow the logic that because decades later we've decided it isn't a problem, it's not likely to have been their reasoning then.

The book Two Miles a Minute did talk of there being a lot of nods to the French in it. But I guess we can't prove either way.

Was this member someone also employed by LNER, "on secondment" to GBR?

I've long questioned the ability of some of those working for GBRTT to do their jobs impartially when they're still employed by the very entities that their decisions impact.

Could well be. No name was given in the MR article.

 

[Haywain]

Particularly given that we now know from this month's Modern Railways that the idea came from LNER and a member of the GBR Transition Team,

Well, that's a surprise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, that's a surprise.

As noted upthread I suspected I'd read this before but couldn't find evidence, but now we have it (also quoted upthread).

 

[Haywain]

As noted upthread I suspected I'd read this before but couldn't find evidence, but now we have it (also quoted upthread).

I believe I've mentioned it a number of times.

 

[Dr Day]

Nobody likes fares rises, and the veil of ‘simplicity’ can be considered underhand, but what else should have been done instead with better potential to fill the ‘black hole’ in the industry finances? Or at least LNERs contribution to filling it from a net revenue perspective (ie incremental revenue less incremental cost) ?

 

[AdamWW]

Nobody likes fares rises, and the veil of ‘simplicity’ can be considered underhand, but what else should have been done instead with better potential to fill the ‘black hole’ in the industry finances? Or at least LNERs contribution to filling it from a net revenue perspective (ie incremental revenue less incremental cost) ?

Ah: the politician's syllogism: We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this.

To address your question, it's hard to know because instead of an honest discussion of the possibilities we've been presented with a rather nasty scheme as a fait accompli.

Maybe the only way the railway can survive is to turn into an airline style system which can no longer cater for those who need more than the most minimal flexibility.

Or perhaps it would be possible to increase revenue without completely abandoning fare regulation, and without forcing people into playing a lottery as to how far ahead they should risk buying an unrefundable ticket in case fares move out of their reach if they leave it too long - something I personally hate. Meanwhile if you choose to drive you just go.

Certainly most of the supposed justifications for this scheme make little sense to me. Is the only way to prevent trains from being overcrowded really to force almost everyone into inflexible, unrefundable tickets? Are LNER trains really overcrowded because, despite bookings being reservation compulsory, they fill up with people using off peak tickets on trains they don't have a reservation for? (Even though only 11% of passengers are using off peak tickets?)

I can certainly think of ways that fares could be increased in ways that gave passengers more certainty over what they'd pay and without having to plan their lives weeks or months ahead for the priviledge of using a train. Maybe they're impractical but it doesn't mean that I have to accept that this is the only possible action that could be taken.