LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[Krokodil]

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.

Indeed, before electrification Reading commuters were actively discouraged from using the local services to get to Paddington (those services were listed on departure boards as Ealing Broadway services) and encouraged to pack out the HSTs.

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

By fleecing more passengers for £200 Anytime Singles.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

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?

1. Why are you assuming no standing passengers? The change here is that the walk-up-and-go standing passengers on a full train will have to pay the Anytime rate rather than the Off Peak rate.

2. If you generally offer fewer Advances or make them more expensive then you won't shift as much demand to quieter trains. But then there are some trains at off peak times that are always very busy and operators/DfT feel entitled to charge some of those passengers much more than the off peak fare.

 

[modernrail]

1. Why are you assuming no standing passengers? The change here is that the walk-up-and-go standing passengers on a full train will have to pay the Anytime rate rather than the Off Peak rate.

2. If you generally offer fewer Advances or make them more expensive then you won't shift as much demand to quieter trains. But then there are some trains at off peak times that are always very busy and operators/DfT feel entitled to charge some of those passengers much more than the off peak fare.

1. Because hardly anybody can afford to pay Anytime fares. I don’t know anybody that has ever bought one unless it is being paid by their company. I have never done so and I travel a huge amount by train. I will just buy a car if faced with lots of exposure to Anytime fares.

2. There are plenty of advance fares offered on those busier off peak trains. Make those advance fares more expensive or remove them altogether and so you can only use the off peak fare on that service. That way to send more of the discretionary travel to the very quietest trains but maintain the flexibility.

If your train is not filling up by few days before (leaving aside a decent unreserved allocation) then put some advances that are cheaper than the off peak fare into the system to draw passengers to that train.

 

[Wallsendmag]

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?

You're concentrating on the new fares and not looking at where everyone on the train is going. Not every passenger on the 1200 from Kings Cross is going to Newcastle Berwick or Edinburgh. So you have the maximum number of seats to sell, then you have counted places.

 

[AlterEgo]

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

There is no proposal at present to introduce compulsory reservations; in my view this proposal is a poor compromise because of political hesitancy to make IC services reservation only.

People will still be able to stand. Off Peaks on other flows, Anytimes, and 70 min Flex tickets mean you can board alternative LNER
services without reservation.

, 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?

The key change is the removal of the unofficial fare cap by obliterating Off Peaks on the trial flows.

At present, if an Off Peak Single is, say, £100, this effectively limits fixed Advances to less than £100. Nobody buys Advances priced at £105 when the always-available, always-flexible and always-refundable Off Peak is a fiver cheaper.

if you remove that Off Peak and have the only fully flexible walk on fare as an Anytime at £200, say, then the theoretical cap is now £200 on Advances.

1. Because hardly anybody can afford to pay Anytime fares. I don’t know anybody that has ever bought one unless it is being paid by their company. I have never done so and I travel a huge amount by train. I will just buy a car if faced with lots of exposure to Anytime fares.

It's much more likely you will be exposed more to the 70 minute flex, or Advance fares.

 

[Krokodil]

There is no proposal at present to introduce compulsory reservations

Yet LNER have marked their trains with fake "Reservations Compulsory" flags which makes it appear to the passenger that the train is "sold out", even though you and I know that it's not enforceable.

 

[mad_rich]

Yet LNER have marked their trains with fake "Reservations Compulsory" flags which makes it appear to the passenger that the train is "sold out", even though you and I know that it's not enforceable.

This crops up frequently on the Interrail/ Eurail forum. (Avanti and LNER appear in their timetable as 'reservation compulsory', which leads people to unnecessarily pay Eurail €6 per train journey for a reservation they don't need, and could get for free anyway.)

If a TOC marks a train as reservation compulsory, does that make it true? I keep telling people to ignore it, but I can understand their reluctance.

If it's not enforced, might it be enforced in the future? And what would that look like?

If somebody prevents me from boarding a train marked reservation compulsory, do I still get Delay Repay compensation?

 

[Starmill]

There is no proposal at present to introduce compulsory reservations; in my view this proposal is a poor compromise because of political hesitancy to make IC services reservation only.

Again this isn't entirely true and you're well aware of that fact. They pretend they are compulsory to put people off.

That doesn't mean no standing, just it means any possible standees will probably be people with season tickets or who've booked in person.

 

[Haywain]

That doesn't mean no standing, just it means any possible standees will probably be people with season tickets or who've booked in person.

There is nothing preventing either of those groups from reserving seats.

 

[AlterEgo]

Again this isn't entirely true and you're well aware of that fact.

There are no actual compulsory reservation services on LNER though. The fact they pretend is entirely because of what I said - political hesitancy to actually do it.

That doesn't mean no standing, just it means any possible standees will probably be people with season tickets or who've booked in person.

Or people with 70 minute Flex tickets taking an alternative service.

 

[Starmill]

There is nothing preventing either of those groups from reserving seats.

Of course not all of them would be standing / unreserved.

There are no actual compulsory reservation services on LNER though. The fact they pretend is entirely because of what I said - political hesitancy to actually do it.

Sure but for practical effects it's already doing the thing the post you were replying to was saying. This really isn't difficult to understand...

 

[AlterEgo]

Sure but for practical effects it's already doing the thing the post you were replying to was saying. This really isn't difficult to understand...

LNER have had the "fake" reservations compulsory marker nonsense for some time now; there is no material change to how that works going forward with the pilot. The poster was talking about how the pilot would change things in that regard. It won't.

There is no proposal to actually introduce compulsory reservations so that poster's example of having a few standees before the pilot and then no standees at all after was an incorrect assumption. As we both agree, there will still be standees; in fact, LNER are introducing a ticket type which is going to encourage people to book for one train and then use a different train they couldn't get the same price for/get a reservation on.

 

[Starmill]

LNER have had the "fake" reservations compulsory marker nonsense for some time now; there is no material change to how that works going forward with the pilot. The poster was talking about how the pilot would change things in that regard. It won't.

There is no proposal to actually introduce compulsory reservations so that poster's example of having a few standees before the pilot and then no standees at all after was an incorrect assumption. As we both agree, there will still be standees; in fact, LNER are introducing a ticket type which is going to encourage people to book for one train and then use a different train they couldn't get the same price for/get a reservation on.

But of course it will shift things in that regard, because you won't be able to get the Advance or 70 minute tickets without a seat booked, even if there's appropriate quota.

 

[AlterEgo]

But of course it will shift things in that regard, because you won't be able to get the Advance or 70 minute tickets without a seat booked, even if there's appropriate quota.

I agree it'll shift the dynamic, yes - perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes.

 

[Starmill]

I agree it'll shift the dynamic, yes - perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes.

I suppose it does open the question of whether LNER will increase the number of counted places available on trains to account for increased no-showing on 70 Min Advance. This would of course mitigate slightly if they did. Even if there were double the number of counted places available as there are unreserved seats on that service, that still wouldn't account for people who want to travel choosing not to sit down, in preference to being stuck and unable to travel.

 

[Haywain]

I suppose it does open the question of whether LNER will increase the number of counted places available on trains to account for increased no-showing on 70 Min Advance.

I'm not sure the number of no shows will be higher for the 70 min Advance than it is now for Super Off Peak tickets. If anything, I would think that it might be lower due to the restricted flexibility.

 

[185143]

I was starting to warm to the single leg pricing, or at least, see some of the benefits of it. That said, I do think the Super off peak" should have been renamed "off peak" and kept at the same price.

For someone making a walk up single journey from Aberdeen to Penzance holding a railcard, the super off peak single is £104.85. The Anytime is £203.60. The previous super off peak single was presumably around the £160 mark?

But this, if rolled out nationally, would mean paying £203.60 or not going at all. And in what is probably a RailUK first, I'm not just imagining a hypothetical passenger; I've actually done that journey and had to purchase the ticket on the day from Aberdeen's ticket office. And yes, I genuinely only needed a single.

LNER/GWR got £104.85 out of me that day they weren't getting otherwise. I felt that to be very good value in fairness. Had they wanted £203.60 I'd have either flown down to Bristol or something, which I could have done for about £80 IIRC, or more likely just bought a single to Edinburgh and hopped on a train back home. So all the money to ScotRail. Would've meant being £80 out of pocket for the hotel I'd booked, but that'd have been more palatable than £203.

That's another issue too, the "70 mins flex" thing will need looking at for Aberdeen if it ever gets rolled out that far North, with a minimum 2 hour gap between services it's somewhat useless!

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. The single leg pricing has had its advantages if you need a ticket quickly.

We always warned that the benefit of paying half the price of the old return would be inflated away. I wasn't expecting it to be done so quickly and so blatantly !

 

[Bikeman78]

Indeed, before electrification Reading commuters were actively discouraged from using the local services to get to Paddington (those services were listed on departure boards as Ealing Broadway services) and encouraged to pack out the HSTs.

I really don't see how this would work between Newport and Swansea/Carmarthen. Frequent stops and two or three TOCs. Same applies to Paddington-Reading-Didcot.

 

[Starmill]

I really don't see how this would work between Newport and Swansea/Carmarthen. Frequent stops and two or three TOCs. Same applies to Paddington-Reading-Didcot.

Same applies to almost all CrossCountry services around the whole area they serve.

 

[thedbdiboy]

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.

As others have noted, there will still be some standing on the busiest services. in answer to your question about how does reducing flexibility = more revenue, flexibility comes at a cost, because certain trains get overfull, others run with empty seats and there are no 'price signals' to nudge people between services. There is a reason why pretty much every single modern day service that requires matching capacity to demand - flights, coaches, ferries, Eurotunnel, hotels - uses yield management i.e. booking with variable prices.

The whole point is not that everyone pays more, but that people are incentivised to choose based on factors that are more important to them. So if extreme flexibility is most important, the Anytime - at great cost - provides that. Otherwise, 'some' flexibility - which suits many people - costs a bit extra but nowhere near the Anytime price. And if you want the cheapest fares you either book in advance, or turn up on the day but are willing to shift your journey to a cheaper train, even if it means waiting a bit or getting a slower service.

 

[Bikeman78]

Same applies to almost all CrossCountry services around the whole area they serve.

That is true. Trying to persuade people to use local stoppers is going to be a hard sell, especially if they are also full. For example, from Leeds to Wakefield, the LNER trains are generally less overcrowded than the stoppers to Knottingley or Doncaster. I expect the stoppers on the Wolverhampton-Birmingham-Coventry section are similar.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But of course it will shift things in that regard, because you won't be able to get the Advance or 70 minute tickets without a seat booked, even if there's appropriate quota.

Absolutely no reason they couldn't be issued against counted places, indeed if they don't some trains will have very quiet unreserved coaches.

 

[Starmill]

Absolutely no reason they couldn't be issued against counted places, indeed if they don't some trains will have very quiet unreserved coaches.

If you see the other posts below it you'll see this is dealt with - the point is that LNER's counted place allocation is too small.

 

[Class83]

The Super Off Peak restrictions currently are not arriving London before 1117 and not departing London 1459-1859, with additional easements on Fridays and around Christmas and Easter. Code 1K https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=EDB&dest=KGX&grpd=1072&rte=95&tkt=SSS

Now, is the discussion that the peak is no longer Mon-Thurs traditional commuter times. Generally trains between London and Edinburgh load well on weekends, particularly around public holidays and in August.

So an off-peak which had the current restrictions Mon-Thurs, but also had a Friday afternoon, Sunday and Bank Holiday Monday restriction could be reasonable in that it allows a good portion of the week for flexible travel at less busy times, while preventing overcrowding on the busiest services.

Given LNER haven't gone for reservation only, I'm struggling to come to the conclusion this is about much more than removing the cap on advance fares, as there will be probably more cases where people book a 70 min ticket with no intention of travelling on the booked train resulting in overcrowding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given LNER haven't gone for reservation only, I'm struggling to come to the conclusion this is about much more than removing the cap on advance fares

That's exactly what it's about. I'm almost certain I read an article in Modern Railways a while back where Horne said as much, wish I had kept the back issues.

If you see the other posts below it you'll see this is dealt with - the point is that LNER's counted place allocation is too small.

Presumably it'll be increased if Super Off Peaks are going away, otherwise we'll end up in the silly situation Avanti does half the time with the three unreserved coaches on 11 car Pendolinos nearly empty but the others packed. And TBH whatever I think of all this, LNER are definitely more competent at such things than Avanti.

 

[Starmill]

Presumably it'll be increased if Super Off Peaks are going away, otherwise we'll end up in the silly situation Avanti does half the time with the three unreserved coaches on 11 car Pendolinos nearly empty but the others packed. And TBH whatever I think of all this, LNER are definitely more competent at such things than Avanti.

I agree with all that and I did ponder if LNER would increase it, but Haywain sensibly suggested why LNER's management may well see it the other way around.

 

[Krokodil]

I really don't see how this would work between Newport and Swansea/Carmarthen. Frequent stops and two or three TOCs. Same applies to Paddington-Reading-Didcot.

If TfW had longer trains there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[modernrail]

As others have noted, there will still be some standing on the busiest services. in answer to your question about how does reducing flexibility = more revenue, flexibility comes at a cost, because certain trains get overfull, others run with empty seats and there are no 'price signals' to nudge people between services. There is a reason why pretty much every single modern day service that requires matching capacity to demand - flights, coaches, ferries, Eurotunnel, hotels - uses yield management i.e. booking with variable prices.

The whole point is not that everyone pays more, but that people are incentivised to choose based on factors that are more important to them. So if extreme flexibility is most important, the Anytime - at great cost - provides that. Otherwise, 'some' flexibility - which suits many people - costs a bit extra but nowhere near the Anytime price. And if you want the cheapest fares you either book in advance, or turn up on the day but are willing to shift your journey to a cheaper train, even if it means waiting a bit or getting a slower service.

I appreciate the response but I really do not agree there are no price signals in the current system. There are loads of them. Advance fares are of course variably priced and so there is one huge signal. Anytime only services (other than any advance fares that might be available) are another massive price signal.

Off-peak tickets signal that if you are willing to use an off peak train and want some flexibility you can pay more than the advance fare and get that. The generally busy nature of the trains (in contrast the the concern about 7 seconds ago where nobody was ever going to use the train again) signals you should plan if you can and book a seat because there is a risk you will be standing if the unreserved carriage is full.

Are any long distance trains running around empty? I haven’t seen one for ages and if they are, doing away with off-peak tickets doesn’t fill them. Better availability of better priced advances would.

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.

This is all before you start to add in to the mix that there is an AWFUL LOT of medium distance travel and changing between services. The ability to get a through ticket really is important and makes this trial illogical on one single point. If you happen to have the misfortune to be travelling from LNER A to LNER B you are going to have choice taken away from you. If you are going to travel from LNER A to EMT B or any other variation, you will have the same choice as now unless we are also about the throw through ticketing away. The idea that effective nationalisation could result in TOC only ticketing makes my head implode. Somebody needs to get their crayons back out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.