LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[Bletchleyite]

If a policy is bad for passengers and bad for the railways reputation, that will surely impact the industry's revenue.

The thing about Edinburgh specifically is that there's not enough capacity so the only way to make more money is to charge existing passengers more. Most LNER trains to Edinburgh are full or near full bar those at extremes of the day (when few want to travel anyway even were it free).

This isn't really true of most other InterCity flows in the same way.

Arguably the only solution to this is more capacity...HS2.

 

[JonathanH]

Chris Green didn't grow the industry by closing things and jacking up fares.

Are you sure he didn't increase fares?

Plenty of fare hikes around 1990 and 1991.

 

[yorksrob]

Are you sure he didn't increase fares?

When he did, it would have been without doubling them in one go, and he was more about introducing genuinely innovative fares (such as railcards) to generate revenue.

I wouldn't presume to assume what he thinks, but I'd be surprised if he thought this trial was a good idea.

He certainly didn't come up with an anti-passenger scam like this when he was managing.

 

[Richardr]

It should not be forgotten that this change is bad for passengers, and arguably bad for the industry's reputation, but potentially good for the industry's revenue. The whole purpose is for the industry to make more money.

To be fair, not lose so much money ...

 

[weeklycommuter]

It should not be forgotten that this change is bad for passengers, and arguably bad for the industry's reputation, but potentially good for the industry's revenue. The whole purpose is for the industry to make more money.

It is bad for passengers so LNER will lose passengers. LNER will fail to notice this because they do not know who has decided not to travel on their trains. LNER's service is clearly hopelessly unreliable with endless cancellations of timetabled trains and that does not encourage anyone to travel on their trains. LNER's industrial relations are clearly worse than other train operators with a strike on 1 March only on LNER. It is clearly impossible to rely on a specific LNER train actually running. LNER should not even be allowed to sell tickets only valid on a specific train when they cancel so many trains. People can travel by other means above all by car or flying London to Edinburgh and they can also choose not to travel. Leisure travel is always discretionary and business meetings and work can be done online. People looking at travelling for the first time by train from London to Newcastle will see the fare now £195.70 which is 80 pence a mile at all times and they will decide that it is a rip off and never consider travelling by train again. I have made clear to LNER that I will not travel on any of their trains unless and until the off peak fares London to Newcastle Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh are reinstated.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I thought Northern drivers were also on strike on the 1st March

 

[Haywain]

I have made clear to LNER that I will not travel on any of their trains unless and until the off peak fares London to Newcastle Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh are reinstated.

Im sure you'll be missed.

 

[Bikeman78]

That, to be fair, is why Ford supports it. But he is clearly a planner, and is a strong compulsory reservations supporter - indeed he would rather pay more to have a quieter train. (I'm not an anti-zealot - I can be sold on CR provided there's enough flexibility to change and refund tickets - but there isn't on these).

Plenty of posts from him on Xitter on this sort of subject if you look at his posting history.

I've always had a lot of time for Roger Ford but he lost me when he mentioned on Twitter that he didn't want people clogging up the gangways and stopping the refreshment trolley getting to his seat. First world problems!

 

[modernrail]

Im sure you'll be missed.

The thing about Edinburgh specifically is that there's not enough capacity so the only way to make more money is to charge existing passengers more. Most LNER trains to Edinburgh are full or near full bar those at extremes of the day (when few want to travel anyway even were it free).

This isn't really true of most other InterCity flows in the same way.

Arguably the only solution to this is more capacity...HS2.

It’s an awful shame we have half length trains on the route then. There is one immediate potential gain.

Also, can none of the Newcastle’s be extended to Edinburgh?

In general if space is at that much of a premium then I would rather see a mandate for full length services only over this stretch (other than locals) even if that means favouring LNER over TPE/Lumo etc.

Also are we sure nobody wants to travel at the extremes of the day? If not, but the service is running then get the advances knocked down so the most price sensitive will move onto these trains to free up space elsewhere. I don’t personally perceive that much of a dropping off in the extremes on this particular route though.

 

[Fermiboson]

I've always had a lot of time for Roger Ford but he lost me when he mentioned on Twitter that he didn't want people clogging up the gangways and stopping the refreshment trolley getting to his seat. First world problems!

We could bring back the third class cattle cars.

 

[yorksrob]

Im sure you'll be missed.

It doesn't behove any train company to have a cavalier attitude towards its customers. Particularly those who habitually cough up for long distance walk-on fares.

 

[Wallsendmag]

It’s an awful shame we have half length trains on the route then. There is one immediate potential gain.

Also, can none of the Newcastle’s be extended to Edinburgh?

In general if space is at that much of a premium then I would rather see a mandate for full length services only over this stretch (other than locals) even if that means favouring LNER over TPE/Lumo etc.

Also are we sure nobody wants to travel at the extremes of the day? If not, but the service is running then get the advances knocked down so the most price sensitive will move onto these trains to free up space elsewhere. I don’t personally perceive that much of a dropping off in the extremes on this particular route though.

There are very few Newcastle starters/terminators

 

[AdamWW]

It should not be forgotten that this change is bad for passengers, and arguably bad for the industry's reputation, but potentially good for the industry's revenue.

I think that's the danger - that this increases revenue at the expense of making life unpleasant for passengers, but not so bad that they turn away from rail in large enough quantities.

If you make the railways unusable for short notice travel but can still make more money from those who are able to plan in advance, from an industry point you could argue that's a win, though maybe not if you start asking whether in return for taxpayer funding the railways ought to be providing that ability.

That, to be fair, is why Ford supports it. But he is clearly a planner, and is a strong compulsory reservations supporter

And presumably if he needs to get somewhere at short notice and all the trains are full, he'll just drive.

Which is fine for him.

 

[RT4038]

Perhaps a coach company could undercut the ticket prices of the railway while having fairly competitive journey times and flexibility with an every 15 minute non-stop service between for example Stevenage station and each of the major ECML destinations, so a separate non-stop route to each destination.

The flaw being that this is highly unlikely, if not actually impossible!

 

[Haywain]

It doesn't behove any train company to have a cavalier attitude towards its customers. Particularly those who habitually cough up for long distance walk-on fares.

I’m not a train company.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Controversial opinion - the railway should not be subsiding those who want to travel long distances at short notice, particularly on routes which are at capacity.

These are much more likely to be wealthy or business travellers. If there is spare money to go around, it should go towards increasing rail capacity or directly targeting poorer people (via increased benefits or railcards for those on a low income)

I realize that in some cases, people will have to travel at short notice, e.g. going to a funeral, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of cases, and we shouldn't be basing fare policy on the extreme cases

 

[yorksrob]

I’m not a train company.

LNER is.

Controversial opinion - the railway should not be subsiding those who want to travel long distances at short notice, particularly on routes which are at capacity.

These are much more likely to be wealthy or business travellers. If there is spare money to go around, it should go towards increasing rail capacity or directly targeting poorer people (via increased benefits or railcards for those on a low income)

I realize that in some cases, people will have to travel at short notice, e.g. going to a funeral, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of cases, and we shouldn't be basing fare policy on the extreme cases

Walk-on travellers pay a lot more than advanced purchase travellers, so if anything, they're subsidising other low fare paying passengers.

 

[AdamWW]

I realize that in some cases, people will have to travel at short notice, e.g. going to a funeral, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of cases, and we shouldn't be basing fare policy on the extreme cases

It is comments like this that make me realise some people must live very different lives to me.

I find it fascinating that for some people the only time they would find it difficult or impossible to have to buy non refundable tickets ahead of time and commit to exact (or nearly exact) travel times would be going to a funeral. Particularly since funerals do normally involve a few days notice and are at predictable times.

And the issue is not just travelling at short notice, it's being able to commit to that travel and at particular times.

And of courses businesses won't just pay whatever the railway asks, so if you don't drive it's going to make life difficult if you have a job that sometimes requires flexible travel.

Controversial opinion - the railway should not be subsiding those who want to travel long distances at short notice, particularly on routes which are at capacity.

Also, while LNER are currently applying their "simpler fares" to their longer routes, the intention appears to be that once they've declared the "trial" (which appears to have no predetermined success criteria) a success, to extend it to all the flows that they control.

I don't think the justifications they have given for why we are all better off without walk-on tickets involved the length of journeys.

 

[modernrail]

Controversial opinion - the railway should not be subsiding those who want to travel long distances at short notice, particularly on routes which are at capacity.

These are much more likely to be wealthy or business travellers. If there is spare money to go around, it should go towards increasing rail capacity or directly targeting poorer people (via increased benefits or railcards for those on a low income)

I realize that in some cases, people will have to travel at short notice, e.g. going to a funeral, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of cases, and we shouldn't be basing fare policy on the extreme cases

Whilst long distance is more likely to be more planned in advance it is not the case that all long distance travel can be planned on advance and it is certainly isn’t the case that all return legs might not be subject to a need to change in timing for a whole host of reasons.

A system where advances are all a fixed price and you can change your ticket to another service for a reasonable additional fee up to the time of departure might have something going for it.

That is not what is proposed/being inflicted with this trial.

- The off peak price cap has been removed and so fares can be much higher that they were previously. This is commonly known as a massive price rise. In this case it is a hidden price rise as LNER lied about the purpose of the trial.
- If you miss your train, for whatever reason, and you didn’t buy the flex, or you did buy the flex but you have still not managed to make the next train, you will not be able to pay an additional fee to upgrade your ticket. LNER will pretend it never existed. You will need to buy a new ticket. Let’s say you paid £90 for the original ticket. You might have then to. Pay an additional £190. That is more money than some people have to live on for a week or even a month.
- if your travel plans were uncertain you will not be able to obtain a refund for your ticket if you don’t need to travel any more.

In every case the person affected by this change would, if they had bought an off peak ticket, have paid more in the first place than their fellow passengers travelling on advance and so they were usually the highest paying passengers on the service.

You can believe in an subsidised yet exploitative railway that implements disingenuous cliff edge traps and a weird mix of comparatively low cost advances and totally over the top pricing for the same seats. Alternatively you can believe in a subsidised and fair railway that seeks to maximise revenue in a manner that leaves the service as usable for those who need to use it as a method of transport for business, personal use and leisure.

LNER have opted for the former.

 

[Haywain]

LNER is.

What's that got to do with me? I don't work for LNER. I was just making the point that a company that isn't struggling to fill trains isn't going to miss that person who wants to make a stand.

 

[AdamWW]

- The off peak price cap has been removed and so fares can be much higher that they were previously. This is commonly known as a massive price rise. In this case it is a hidden price rise as LNER lied about the purpose of the trial.
- If you miss your train, for whatever reason, and you didn’t buy the flex, or you did buy the flex but you have still not managed to make the next train, you will not be able to pay an additional fee to upgrade your ticket. LNER will pretend it never existed. You will need to buy a new ticket. Let’s say you paid £90 for the original ticket. You might have then to. Pay an additional £190. That is more money than some people have to live on for a week or even a month.
- if your travel plans were uncertain you will not be able to obtain a refund for your ticket if you don’t need to travel any more.

And this is one of the nasty elements of this scheme, aside from the attempt to present it as an improvement for passengers.

They have taken advance tickets with rules that perhaps make sense when they are cheap alternatives to regulated off peak fares and made them the only practical ticket for most people, yet the only concession is that for a mere £40 return (or more if they fancy) you can add a tiny bit of extra flexibility.

Still non refundable.

Still £10 to change (justifiable perhaps as a deliberate way of making them less attractive than off peak tickets - but a lot of money for the admin costs involved in changing something on-line*)

Still have no value if you miss your train. And now instead of having to pay for an off peak ticket as a replacement it's an anytime unless there happen to be any advances still available on the day.

* I've seen arguments that actually as ticket changes are processed as a refund and re-issue then ticket selling companies do incur significant charges. But in principle it doesn't have to be structured like that and it's not the passenger's fault it works this way.

 

[modernrail]

What's that got to do with me? I don't work for LNER. I was just making the point that a company that isn't struggling to fill trains isn't going to miss that person who wants to make a stand.

I suppose there is always the option of joining in the debate in a reasonable manner.

And this is one of the nasty elements of this scheme, aside from the attempt to present it as an improvement for passengers.

They have taken advance tickets with rules that perhaps make sense when they are cheap alternatives to regulated off peak fares and made them the only practical ticket for most people, yet the only concession is that for a mere £40 return (or more if they fancy) you can add a tiny bit of extra flexibility.

Still non refundable.

Still £10 to change (justifiable perhaps as a deliberate way of making them less attractive than off peak tickets - but a lot of money for the admin costs involved in changing something on-line*)

Still have no value if you miss your train. And now instead of having to pay for an off peak ticket as a replacement it's an anytime unless there happen to be any advances still available on the day.

* I've seen arguments that actually as ticket changes are processed as a refund and re-issue then ticket selling companies do incur significant charges. But in principle it doesn't have to be structured like that and it's not the passenger's fault it works this way.

That’s a really good point actually. The Advance terms and conditions were never intended to be fit for purpose as a general use ticket, the opposite in face, they are the flip side to it being a none standard ticket. This is severe mission creep.

I have never agreed with the cliff edge penalty of pretending your ticket never existed and the train company hasn’t had a penny out of you already. The option of paying the difference between the advance and the off peak is the fair way to do it. Even easyJet offers this sort of arrangement. I used it yesterday when my travel plans changed last minute. I was able to do that 10 minutes before check in closed on the new flight.

Of course if that was allowed now, you would be paying the difference between an advance and an anytime. But it isn’t so you are just paying the whole of an anytime. The absolute worst scenario and likely to cause genuinely hideous immediate financial impact on those less able to pay. That will probably include a reaction that includes breaking down on being told the news, maybe with your children in tow who get to see the mother- who was just trying to give them a nice day out, being utterly shafted in a completely disproportionate way by an increasingly uncivilised yet subsided railway.

An extreme situation? No of course not. I have seen it happen multiple times even with the current system.

 

[AlterEgo]

Alternatively you can believe in a subsidised and fair railway that seeks to maximise revenue in a manner that leaves the service as usable for those who need to use it as a method of transport for business, personal use and leisure.

A railway which is deliberately operating as a social good is not maximising revenue whatsoever; as you point out it requires heavy subsidy.

Britain needs a serious conversation about what, exactly, the railway is for and whether or not taxpayers want a method of transport which accounts for only 1 in 50 trips - and is heavily London-centric at that - to be subsidised at enormous cost. If you want to advocate for that then you need to figure out exactly what social justice the railway is doing and why it makes more sense for this to be prioritised over, say, the ability of railways to grease the wheels of business and help generate wealth.

I find much of the discussion incoherent around this and advocacy for rail suffers badly as a result.

 

[AdamWW]

I have never agreed with the cliff edge penalty of pretending your ticket never existed and the train company hasn’t had a penny out of you already. The option of paying the difference between the advance and the off peak is the fair way to do it.

I believe the argument for that has been that if you could just upgrade to what you would have paid for an off peak ticket in the first place, too many people would buy them instead of off peak tickets.

A harder argument when they have become the main ticket type.

But that's OK because none of this is being justified by reasonable or rational arguments, just concepts like it being "more modern".

Britain needs a serious conversation about what, exactly, the railway is for and whether or not taxpayers want a method of transport which accounts for only 1 in 50 trips - and is heavily London-centric at that - to be subsidised at enormous cost. If you want to advocate for that then you need to figure out exactly what social justice the railway is doing

Yes.

The more the railway moves to pure revenue maximisation, the harder it seems to me to justify its support from the taxpayer.

Of course the reality is, I presume, that what we have is what's politically acceptable rather than the result of much serious consideration as to what the railways are actually for.

- The off peak price cap has been removed and so fares can be much higher that they were previously. This is commonly known as a massive price rise. In this case it is a hidden price rise as LNER lied about the purpose of the trial.

It's not just the price rise, it's also a massive change to how fare pricing operates.

We currently have a railway with regulated fares, and in addition to that advance tickets which cost whatever the railway says they do with a pricing policy which can be changed whenever they wish, and with any attempt to understand their policy being refused on the grounds of commerical confidentiality.

It is a huge change to make these fares the default ones.

 

[yorksrob]

What's that got to do with me? I don't work for LNER. I was just making the point that a company that isn't struggling to fill trains isn't going to miss that person who wants to make a stand.

This:

Im sure you'll be missed.

No train company should be putting off high paying customers.

A railway which is deliberately operating as a social good is not maximising revenue whatsoever; as you point out it requires heavy subsidy.

Britain needs a serious conversation about what, exactly, the railway is for and whether or not taxpayers want a method of transport which accounts for only 1 in 50 trips - and is heavily London-centric at that - to be subsidised at enormous cost. If you want to advocate for that then you need to figure out exactly what social justice the railway is doing and why it makes more sense for this to be prioritised over, say, the ability of railways to grease the wheels of business and help generate wealth.

I find much of the discussion incoherent around this and advocacy for rail suffers badly as a result.

We already pay the subsidy anyway, so we might as well run it as a social good. Paying a heavy subsidy to be fleeced at every opportunity is the worst of all worlds.

Passengers using the railway have no difficulty in knowing what the railway is for. To get them from A to B at a reasonable cost.

It's the political class who are fixated on presenting a veneer of commercialism at all costs.

 

[AlterEgo]

No train company should be putting off high paying customers.

The highest paying customers of the railway per journey are businesses. Individuals who purchase Off Peak Returns are not the most lucrative revenue source, and make up about a sixth of LNER's customer base.

We already pay the subsidy anyway, so we might as well run it as a social good.

How about paying lots more? It isn't being run as a social good now, anywhere in the country outside a few PTE areas, so how much tax should everyone pay to give a cheap railway? And, how much more should the vast majority of non-rail users pay to subsidise occasional or discretionary travel on such a niche transport mode?

Passengers using the railway have no difficulty in knowing what the railway is for. To get them from A to B at a reasonable cost.

This is just a way of avoiding the crux of the debate - actually, what sort of journeys should we be prioritising given we have limited and finite capacity? What is the best use of the assets?

It's the political class who are fixated on presenting a veneer of commercialism at all costs.

What do you mean by that?

 

[absolutelymilk]

It is comments like this that make me realise some people must live very different lives to me.

I find it fascinating that for some people the only time they would find it difficult or impossible to have to buy non refundable tickets ahead of time and commit to exact (or nearly exact) travel times would be going to a funeral. Particularly since funerals do normally involve a few days notice and are at predictable times.

And the issue is not just travelling at short notice, it's being able to commit to that travel and at particular times.

Interesting, for me going on a four-hour reasonably expensive train journey would be the same as getting on a flight - i.e. I would sort accommodation and the flight times first, and then arrange everything else around that to make sure I would definitely be able to make the outward and return times, even if that meant getting to the vicinity of the station significantly earlier than I needed to be.

Obviously if it's a quicker & cheaper train then I might decide to book an open return and not decide when to come home until the day I was returning, but I don't think that would apply to a trip to Edinburgh!

I have never agreed with the cliff edge penalty of pretending your ticket never existed and the train company hasn’t had a penny out of you already. The option of paying the difference between the advance and the off peak is the fair way to do it. Even easyJet offers this sort of arrangement. I used it yesterday when my travel plans changed last minute. I was able to do that 10 minutes before check in closed on the new flight.

Yes, this would definitely be very attractive to people and seems a lot fairer.

 

[Krokodil]

The highest paying customers of the railway per journey are businesses.

But we're told that those businesses are not as willing to fork out for expensive tickets as they once were. Is the railway in danger of killing the goose?

This is just a way of avoiding the crux of the debate - actually, what sort of journeys should we be prioritising given we have limited and finite capacity?

Capacity wouldn't be quite as finite as it is if the government wasn't pulling the plug on infrastructure spending.

 

[AdamWW]

Interesting, for me going on a four-hour reasonably expensive train journey would be the same as getting on a flight - i.e. I would sort accommodation and the flight times first, and then arrange everything else around that to make sure I would definitely be able to make the outward and return times, even if that meant getting to the vicinity of the station significantly earlier than I needed to be.

Quite. Different people use the railway in different ways.

I've done plenty of journeys that length and longer on off peak tickets to avoid having to commit to particular trains and indeed to making the journey at all.

Added: And probably I'm unusual in this. But if you extend this pricing scheme to one and two hour journeys I suspect this changes.

But we're told that those businesses are not as willing to fork out for expensive tickets as they once were. Is the railway in danger of killing the goose?

When the civil service stopped defaulting to first class rail travel, that must have made a difference in income (and perhaps didn't save the taxpayer much if railway financial support had to go up to compensate).

 

[AlterEgo]

But we're told that those businesses are not as willing to fork out for expensive tickets as they once were. Is the railway in danger of killing the goose?

Possibly, and the trial will probably be instructive as to where the pips will squeak.

Capacity wouldn't be quite as finite as it is if the government wasn't pulling the plug on infrastructure spending.

We can agree on this!