LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[yorksrob]

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.

They pay a darn sight more than many on advanced purchase. I would hazard a guess that they bring in more than six percent of revenue as well.

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?

It's funny isn't it when it comes to the need for public transport. PTE areas get it, Scotland obviously gets it, several countries in Europe get it.

The only people who don't get it are the Republican party wannabes in Westminster and Whitehall.

I'm not going to pluck a figure out of my backside as to what we should be paying to subsidise rail, however I would support a benchmarking exercise to see what those countries who run public transport for reasonable fares are paying and I would support us paying something similar.

Oh, and rail isn't a niche transport mode. It's the primary public transport mode for intermediate and long distance travel.

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?

Ah yes, the lesser spotted "anytime return" business traveller who somehow manages to be both the biggest revenue stream whilst also being completely absent.

Clearly since we have finite capacity, the best use of assets is to get bums on seats, not running around empty peak time carriages waiting for someone foolish enough to pay £300 for an anytime return.

Yet we never get that debate, we just get the same over commercialised railway designed to fleece passengers. Perhaps if expense account man never comes back the railway will be forced to serve its actual passengers for a change.

 

[Typhoon]

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?

I will shortly be attending a national conference covering one-and-a-half days as a delegate representing a group of retired members. This meeting will involve three rail journeys each way. My journey there is fairly predictable (provided no cancellations), journey back less so, the meeting has a target finish time, sometimes it finishes late, sometimes early. I want to get home, I am tired, I cannot exactly predict which trains I will be on. I have a grid identifying which trains I should aim for depending on what time I am at the station. Ok, I get travel expenses but I am conscious that members are paying so use off-peak where I can. I cannot justify buying a ticket that I can't use because one of my later rail journeys is 75 minutes later than expected.

If other rail companies go down that route, I will propose we start holding meetings on Zoom and the railway will get nothing from the about thirty delegates that travel by rail. I will certainly oppose any proposal to hold the meeting in the North East. Businesses may not be willing to fork out - voluntary (and other) organisations certainly are not and lockdown has shown us that we have a choice.

 

[Mainline421]

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

People who can commit to non-refundable tickets for discretionary travel in advance are probably more likely to be wealthier on average. People like shift workers won't know when they'll be free without using up their holiday, and might not even have the money months earlier.

And of course when you need to travel, you need to travel. Not everything is a jolly.

 

[Bikeman78]

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?

I think part of the problem is that no one knows what timetable the railway wants to operate. Lots of money has been spent on infrastructure on the ECML and yet there is no sign of a new timetable that works coming to fruition. If you look at the Dutch railways, the objective appears to be to run a quarter hourly fast and stopping service on all main routes. They have been busy over the last 30 years putting in numerous flyovers and diveunders, along with four tracking key routes, to achieve that goal.

 

[absolutelymilk]

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.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who travel in the same way as you do - but they probably tend to be wealthier if they can afford to be spending extra in order to have the choice of coming back when they like.

People who can commit to non-refundable tickets for discretionary travel in advance are probably more likely to be wealthier on average. People like shift workers won't know when they'll be free without using up their holiday, and might not even have the money months earlier.

Of course people might not know their shifts until a couple of weeks before, but if they're going on a trip to Edinburgh (i.e. going on a holiday for at least a weekend) then they can probably get that booked off in advance. In general I would be shocked if the people getting the cheaper advances were wealthier than those buying the more expensive off-peaks.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm sure there are a lot of people who travel in the same way as you do - but they probably tend to be wealthier if they can afford to be spending extra in order to have the choice of coming back when they like.

Quite possibly. It doesn't mean they can afford to pay anytime fares though.

And of course the timing of a return trip isn't always a matter of choice so the alternative is then picking the latest train you think you could need and quite likely hanging around for hours waiting for it. (And, if you got it wrong and aren't available for that train, paying again for the same journey).

It probably also includes people who have a bit more to spend on rail travel because they don't have a car and aren't paying for insurance, MOTs, repairs and buying the thing in the first place.

It looks as if the plan is to make living without a car in the UK even harder than it currently is.

 

[miklcct]

It looks as if the plan is to make living without a car in the UK even harder than it currently is.

Sorry, if that's the case I'd rather live in a country where I can rely on public transport as a public service instead.

Relying on a car isn't freedom. What if your car breaks down?

 

[AlterEgo]

They pay a darn sight more than many on advanced purchase. I would hazard a guess that they bring in more than six percent of revenue as well.

A sixth, not six percent. It doesn’t matter what percentage of revenue they bring in if that is still underselling capacity in the current environment, and resulting in higher subsidies.

It's funny isn't it when it comes to the need for public transport. PTE areas get it, Scotland obviously gets it, several countries in Europe get it.

The only people who don't get it are the Republican party wannabes in Westminster and Whitehall.

I'm not going to pluck a figure out of my backside as to what we should be paying to subsidise rail, however I would support a benchmarking exercise to see what those countries who run public transport for reasonable fares are paying and I would support us paying something similar.

Many of LNER’s European comparators receive no subsidy at all for long distance intercity trips; subsidy is only part of the solution. In Spain and Italy market liberalisation (which is possible when you have the capacity) has been the key to a cheaper and more attractive rail proposition.

Long distance intercity journeys shouldn’t be heavily subsidised; they should ideally pay for themselves. UK rail has a very high cost base and a staff productivity issue which nobody really wants to address. In Italy you don’t even need a ticket - the booking code is sufficient. You couldn’t imagine that happening here. In Britain we want the most expensive way of doing everything. And yet our trains are miserable and poorly specified and rail travel is less pleasant than it generally is abroad.

There is so much wishful thinking in this thread yet so little realism or any appreciation of just how far away we are, or how much we’d need to change to get cheaper rail travel.

Oh, and rail isn't a niche transport mode. It's the primary public transport mode for intermediate and long distance travel.

No, it is not. The car is. 2% of journeys are made by rail. This makes it a niche transport mode and accepting this reality is key to trying to advocate for it.

Ah yes, the lesser spotted "anytime return" business traveller who somehow manages to be both the biggest revenue stream whilst also being completely absent.

The vast majority of LNER’s revenue is from Advances, many of which (for a return journey) are priced above the level of the Off Peak Return and which LNER get to retain 100% of the revenue from.

Nobody’s talking about Anytimes. Want to travel Edinburgh to London tomorrow? None of the trains other than the Flying Scotsman have Anytimes as the cheapest option; they’re chock full of advances half the price of the Anytime.

In any case the flexibility Anytimes offer is also not something the long distance railway cares much for, at least from LNER’s perspective.

Clearly since we have finite capacity, the best use of assets is to get bums on seats, not running around empty peak time carriages waiting for someone foolish enough to pay £300 for an anytime return.

That’s not what is happening. The best use of assets is to have as many people travelling for socially or economically beneficial reasons - and in the government’s view, to ensure that passengers are not paying for that in lieu of excessive subsidy.

The reality of this thread is that LNER reckon that there are passengers out there who are going to pay more than many posters for the same journey. And, indeed, that if many of us were asked to personally justify the taxpayer subsidy for our rail journeys we might struggle to do so.

 

[Watershed]

Many of LNER’s European comparators receive no subsidy at all for long distance intercity trips; subsidy is only part of the solution. In Spain and Italy market liberalisation (which is possible when you have the capacity) has been the key to a cheaper and more attractive rail proposition.

Long distance intercity journeys shouldn’t be heavily subsidised; they should ideally pay for themselves. UK rail has a very high cost base and a staff productivity issue which nobody really wants to address. In Italy you don’t even need a ticket - the booking code is sufficient. You couldn’t imagine that happening here. In Britain we want the most expensive way of doing everything. And yet our trains are miserable and poorly specified and rail travel is less pleasant than it generally is abroad.

BR used to be in a similar position, with Intercity being profitable in most of its latter years (at least on paper). But we have seen an explosion of costs since privatisation - not least thanks to the ridiculously expensive Hitachi IEP contracts. Of course the blame for that lies squarely at the DfT's door.

Nobody’s talking about Anytimes. Want to travel Edinburgh to London tomorrow? None of the trains other than the Flying Scotsman have Anytimes as the cheapest option; they’re chock full of advances half the price of the Anytime.

There can be little comparison between a rainy Monday in term time (often the quietest day of the week anyway) and busy weekends and Friday evenings. I dread to think what the pricing will be like in August during the Edinburgh Fringe festival.

In any case the flexibility Anytimes offer is also not something the long distance railway cares much for, at least from LNER’s perspective.

LNER have the same production-led mindset that the wider UK rail industry has. Combine that with being under pressure to increase revenue and it's no surprise this is the wheeze they've come up with.

 

[AlterEgo]

BR used to be in a similar position, with Intercity being profitable in most of its latter years (at least on paper). But we have seen an explosion of costs since privatisation - not least thanks to the ridiculously expensive Hitachi IEP contracts. Of course the blame for that lies squarely at the DfT's door.

It certainly does. And yet we continue to see people advocate for even more centralised control of the industry!

There can be little comparison between a rainy Monday in term time (often the quietest day of the week anyway) and busy weekends and Friday evenings. I dread to think what the pricing will be like in August during the Edinburgh Fringe festival.

I’m sure we will see Anytime-only trains in the festival. But Friday evenings haven’t been at that level yet, I’ve been keeping tabs on it since the trial started.

LNER have the same production-led mindset that the wider UK rail industry has. Combine that with being under pressure to increase revenue and it's no surprise this is the wheeze they've come up with.

I think it’s entirely predictable, yes.

 

[AdamWW]

Many of LNER’s European comparators receive no subsidy at all for long distance intercity trips; subsidy is only part of the solution. In Spain and Italy market liberalisation (which is possible when you have the capacity) has been the key to a cheaper and more attractive rail proposition.

The Spanish rail system doesn't seem very attractive to me. Aside from rather sparse services on many lines, there is the delight of reservation compulsory regional trains that sell out, and an overall system designed for point to point journeys with a limited ability to purchase tickets that involve a change of trains even for rather obvious journeys. (Third party sellers will offer them, but it's not made clear what happens if you miss a connection).

The reality of this thread is that LNER reckon that there are passengers out there who are going to pay more than many posters for the same journey. And, indeed, that if many of us were asked to personally justify the taxpayer subsidy for our rail journeys we might struggle to do so.

And perhaps the reality is that the new LNER system is here to stay. But in that case I don't think it's unreasonable to argue for it to be introduced in an honest way (instead of the pretence that passengers are better off for it) and for there to be changes to the terms and conditions of advance tickets to reflect the fact that they have become the standard ticket, not a cheap alternative.

A huge difference would be allowing refunds, even if only as credit to be used for later tickets.

And perhaps "rescue" fares at a reasonable price if you miss the train you're booked on rather than saying tough luck we'll just keep the money and you can pay a lot more for a new ticket.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not sure that to raise more money and address capacity issues requires such strict and stressful ticket conditions. I think in return for taxpayer support there's an argument for a small potential loss of revenue in return for making life less unpleasant for those who don't have an alternative.

But there seems to be no interest in a rational discussion.

Nobody’s talking about Anytimes. Want to travel Edinburgh to London tomorrow? None of the trains other than the Flying Scotsman have Anytimes as the cheapest option; they’re chock full of advances half the price of the Anytime.

But there's no longer any guarantee as to what advances will be available. If they decide they'll make more money by only selling anytimes on the day, they can and presumably will.

 

[Haywain]

And yet we continue to see people advocate for even more centralised control of the industry!

DfT certainly landed the railway with an awful deal for the IET trains, but centralised control could produce far better results if the right people are specifying and negotiating.

 

[yorksrob]

A sixth, not six percent. It doesn’t matter what percentage of revenue they bring in if that is still underselling capacity in the current environment, and resulting in higher subsidies.

This is clearly a political choice. Fares regulation was an expression of this in that it was designed not to leave passengers at the mercy of entirely commercial pricing. Removing fares regulation is a political choice and a poor one at that.

Many of LNER’s European comparators receive no subsidy at all for long distance intercity trips; subsidy is only part of the solution. In Spain and Italy market liberalisation (which is possible when you have the capacity) has been the key to a cheaper and more attractive rail proposition.

Long distance intercity journeys shouldn’t be heavily subsidised; they should ideally pay for themselves. UK rail has a very high cost base and a staff productivity issue which nobody really wants to address. In Italy you don’t even need a ticket - the booking code is sufficient. You couldn’t imagine that happening here. In Britain we want the most expensive way of doing everything. And yet our trains are miserable and poorly specified and rail travel is less pleasant than it generally is abroad.

Traditionally the East Coast Main line services haven't been heavily subsidised, in fact they've tended to pay premiums to the Government. There's nothing to suggest that this situation won't return on InterCity services at some stage, howeve the current blip is no reason to destry all vestage of an affordable walk-up railway. Market liberalisation can lead to a more attractive rail proposition (GC, TPE, Hull trains etc have done this to an extent at times). Fares regulation can also lead to that as well, which is why it needs to return in the form of off-peak fares.

There is so much wishful thinking in this thread yet so little realism or any appreciation of just how far away we are, or how much we’d need to change to get cheaper rail travel.

You've clearly swallowed the DfT line, hook, line and sinker.

No, it is not. The car is. 2% of journeys are made by rail. This makes it a niche transport mode and accepting this reality is key to trying to advocate for it.

Firstly, the car isn't public transport.

Secondly, that 2% figure so beloved of the motor lobby includes ahort distance hops and school runs. For intermediate and longer distance journeys, rail is the main public transport option.

The vast majority of LNER’s revenue is from Advances, many of which (for a return journey) are priced above the level of the Off Peak Return and which LNER get to retain 100% of the revenue from.

Nobody’s talking about Anytimes. Want to travel Edinburgh to London tomorrow? None of the trains other than the Flying Scotsman have Anytimes as the cheapest option; they’re chock full of advances half the price of the Anytime

In any case the flexibility Anytimes offer is also not something the long distance railway cares much for, at least from LNER’s perspective.

I'm sure most of LNER's revenue does come from advances. It needs to sell a lot of them. If they're selling them higher than the off-peak fare they must be selling them in peak periods, which is their perogative.

it's not their perogative to get rid of off-peak fares. So LNER doesn't like walk-on fares or the flexibility they offer. Tough. If these people want to run things like an airline they shold go away and work for an airline.

That’s not what is happening. The best use of assets is to have as many people travelling for socially or economically beneficial reasons - and in the government’s view, to ensure that passengers are not paying for that in lieu of excessive subsidy.

The reality of this thread is that LNER reckon that there are passengers out there who are going to pay more than many posters for the same journey. And, indeed, that if many of us were asked to personally justify the taxpayer subsidy for our rail journeys we might struggle to do so.

I have no difficulty justifying taxpayer subsidy of the rail service. Good public transport is an essential. However this isn't really even an argument in this context as East Coast Main line services have traditionally returned a premium. There's no need to destroy the walk on service for this to be the case again.

 

[modernrail]

This is how good the railways are at managing demand. I bought a ticket for this train 20 mins ago because there was an advance priced at a very decent price. Significantly lower than the off peak fare. I went for it rather than the Oxford Tube because I thought well I will easily get a seat if there is a super cheap advance available just before it is due to depart.

So, why was this advance available? At every turn the railway seems to be doing stupid things at the moment.

Edit: the guard has just come on to say sorry for the overcrowding it is because the train is short formed and there is track work going on today. We are now at Oxford where most passengers on the platform can’t get on.

Yet I bought an advance ticket 20 mins ago for half the off peak fare.

It certainly does. And yet we continue to see people advocate for even more centralised control of the industry!


I’m sure we will see Anytime-only trains in the festival. But Friday evenings haven’t been at that level yet, I’ve been keeping tabs on it since the trial started.

I think it’s entirely predictable, yes.

There is a massive difference between a sensible Government oversight of the railways and centralised command and control through officials in a Government Department. It is obviously ludicrous to let Government officials choose trains and even train seats. It is way less ludicrous to have a special purpose Government body that manages a public asset. Surely everybody sees the difference in those two things?

And on the sixth of tickets being off peaks. That’s the exact point. It is a sixth of passengers that are paying more than ALL advance fares on that train so they are the highest paying customers on the train. Yet a sixth is small enough in number so as not to cause big problems in terms of seat utilisation, bearing in mind that the vast majority of that sixth will keep to their booked train.

So you are talking about a small percentage of the sixth who end up changing their train but the availability of that option means that the whole of that sixth are happy to buy a ticket that is priced higher than all the other advances on that train.

So the only possible justification for the trial is if you want not just the off peak passengers but all the advance passengers on the same train to pay more than they are currently paying. That is a revenue justification, DfT facing, not a simplification justification, passenger facing.

That is not what is happening though is it. They are still selling advances at below the off peak fare and then trying to pick a few later bookers off with snipers aimed straight at their head.

It is gibberish and it is wrong.

 

[87electric]

Clearly since we have finite capacity, the best use of assets is to get bums on seats, not running around empty peak time carriages waiting for someone foolish enough to pay £300 for an anytime return.

Once this scheme is up and running I will guarantee that at some point down the road that someone, somewhere will say "Hey, I have an idea for those empty £300 seats".

 

[AlterEgo]

That is not what is happening though is it. They are still selling advances at below the off peak fare and then trying to pick a few later bookers off with snipers aimed straight at their head.

It is gibberish and it is wrong.

I think certainly at this early stage LNER are seeing exactly what the price point is, something which has been hitherto unknown because of the Off Peak Cap.

I doubt the scheme will go nationwide as-is, but the future of long distance intercity travel will probably be much less inclined to cater to walk up flexible travel. All schemes like this need to over-egg the pudding so political concessions can be made later.

 

[modernrail]

I think certainly at this early stage LNER are seeing exactly what the price point is, something which has been hitherto unknown because of the Off Peak Cap.

I doubt the scheme will go nationwide as-is, but the future of long distance intercity travel will probably be much less inclined to cater to walk up flexible travel. All schemes like this need to over-egg the pudding so political concessions can be made later.

So we are agreed this is about trying to raise prices beyond where they were to as much as they can get away with (and adding restrictions to tickets).

Good. We are agreed LNER has lied to the very people that pay its wages, either as passengers or as taxpayers.

It is not acceptable for the NHS to lie. Why is it acceptable for LNER to do so?

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Yep. It is a very "motornormative" line - if the train doesn't deliver just drive. That isn't however an option open to everyone.

I think certainly at this early stage LNER are seeing exactly what the price point is, something which has been hitherto unknown because of the Off Peak Cap.

I doubt the scheme will go nationwide as-is, but the future of long distance intercity travel will probably be much less inclined to cater to walk up flexible travel. All schemes like this need to over-egg the pudding so political concessions can be made later.

What I would like to see it do is trial things like removing the admin fee for changes and potentially even allowing Advances to be refunded to e-vouchers, plus removing the BoJ restriction as it's really pointless (crikey, the king of yield management/CR, SNCF, doesn't even have such a nonsensical policy - most people* won't go searching for "buying long" to see if they can save a couple of quid).

This sort of thing makes sense when Advances are price dumped low fare tickets, but when they're the only tickets friendlier T&Cs are necessary.

However, I doubt they will.

* It would be educational to know how many people are buying to Manors/Haymarket but not actually going there - I doubt it's many despite it being very widely publicised.

 

[ModernRailways]

What I would like to see it do is trial things like removing the admin fee for changes and potentially even allowing Advances to be refunded to e-vouchers

This was trialled during Covid under the 'Book with Confidence' scheme but went no further.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This was trialled during Covid under the 'Book with Confidence' scheme but went no further.

The latter was, yes. DaFT dropped it as it was costing money, but LNER is now in a different context - it was abolished in the context of walk up off peak fares existing so there is a reasonably priced alternative.

A key issue with "Advances for everything" is the T&Cs of those tickets which were designed for price dumped discount tickets, not "normal" ones.

 

[AdamWW]

What I would like to see it do is trial things like removing the admin fee for changes and potentially even allowing Advances to be refunded to e-vouchers, plus removing the BoJ restriction as it's really pointless (crikey, the king of yield management/CR, SNCF, doesn't even have such a nonsensical policy - most people* won't go searching for "buying long" to see if they can save a couple of quid).

This sort of thing makes sense when Advances are price dumped low fare tickets, but when they're the only tickets friendlier T&Cs are necessary.

Plus more flexibility when there's disruption, including removing the operator-only restriction.

And changing the NRCoT so that being on the wrong train with an advance is penalisable but not a criminal offence.

Well I can dream...

 

[modernrail]

Yep. It is a very "motornormative" line - if the train doesn't deliver just drive. That isn't however an option open to everyone.



What I would like to see it do is trial things like removing the admin fee for changes and potentially even allowing Advances to be refunded to e-vouchers, plus removing the BoJ restriction as it's really pointless (crikey, the king of yield management/CR, SNCF, doesn't even have such a nonsensical policy - most people* won't go searching for "buying long" to see if they can save a couple of quid).

This sort of thing makes sense when Advances are price dumped low fare tickets, but when they're the only tickets friendlier T&Cs are necessary.

However, I doubt they will.

* It would be educational to know how many people are buying to Manors/Haymarket but not actually going there - I doubt it's many despite it being very widely publicised.

And let’s not forget that on many continental services that go for compulsory bookings etc, that relates to a true high speed service. There is often a classic alternative at a much lower cost and with fully flexible terms.

Here the LNER service is effectively the only option, other than a very few very short Lumo trains.

 

[AdamWW]

And let’s not forget that on many continental services that go for compulsory bookings etc, that relates to a true high speed service. There is often a classic alternative at a much lower cost and with fully flexible terms.

That's interesting because in my experience generally there hasn't been.

 

[sheff1]

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.

Interesting. Before the post-covid meltdown in service reliability I would often take day trips of much longer than 4 hours each way to the Scottish Central Belt and as far north as Dundee. Tickets virtually always bought on the day of travel. I still would if I could rely on getting back in the evening .... but obviously not paying the new LNER rip off fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's interesting because in my experience generally there hasn't been.

Germany (which doesn't really do CR bar Thalys and the SNCF collaborations) almost always has parallel regional services, France much less so now - but it traditionally did. Italy mostly does.

Spain, well, I think it suffices to say RENFE is better than Amtrak but I'd not put it ahead of much else, it's a 12" to the foot train set that doesn't do anything to consider passenger needs, rather it just operates what it feels like.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In my experience TER walk-on fares in France are higher than faster book-ahead TGV ones.
TERs have a different business plan though, aiming at regional commuters and season tickets, whereas TGV/IC are focussed on one-off long-distance journeys.
The discount structure of the two offers is quite different, though there are still some national schemes (eg senior fares)
In Germany you can't easily mix and match ICE/IC services and local/regional services, perpetuated by the D-ticket rules.
Any country with a high-speed option (ie most of them) segregates its services, so the UK is an outlier (bar HS1 domestic services, which have a supplement).

We are still wedded to the BR notion of one national ticketing system, covering all local, regional and long-distance services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my experience TER walk-on fares in France are higher than faster book-ahead TGV ones.
TERs have a different business plan though, aiming at regional commuters and season tickets, whereas TGV/IC are focussed on one-off long-distance journeys.
The discount structure of the two offers is quite different, though there are still some national schemes (eg senior fares)
In Germany you can't easily mix and match ICE/IC services and local/regional services, perpetuated by the D-ticket rules.
Any country with a high-speed option (ie most of them) segregates its services, so the UK is an outlier (bar HS1 domestic services, which have a supplement).

True.

What is worth noting is that aside from "Eurostar Red" (if we can call it that) which has prices that make LNER look cheap, typically TGVs, Le Frecce and even RENFE are fairly reasonably priced, with prices in the sort of league of Lumo rather than LNER. As such some trains being a bit pricier than others isn't that much of an issue.

The fundamental issue with the LNER thing, thus, isn't fare structure changes (as I said I can handle the idea of CR provided the fares are reasonable and you don't have stupid restrictions like telling people they can't pop out to the Greggs just outside the station between trains or that they can't be dropped at a station nearer their destination than booked). The fundamental issue with it is that its purpose is to increase fares.

We are still wedded to the BR notion of one national ticketing system, covering all local, regional and long-distance services.

Part of which is because our services are much more mixed (and by European approaches we only have regional and regional express services plus open access, we don't have any commercial IC services at all). However I can see us going that way - contactless for local, CR for IC. However, that's been partly frustrated by Project Oval which effectively removes any possibility of a single national regional contactless payment system by tying a fairly large part of the regional railway to TfL's IT systems.

 

[yorksrob]

We are still wedded to the BR notion of one national ticketing system, covering all local, regional and long-distance services.

Quite right too. It would be nonsensical to have a different ticketing system for York to Doncaster (for example) as an InterCity Journey and Leeds to Carlisle (not IC).

You can get away with it on genuinely segregated bits of line such as HS1 (people seem to cough up for it for some reason).

 

[Bikeman78]

And let’s not forget that on many continental services that go for compulsory bookings etc, that relates to a true high speed service. There is often a classic alternative at a much lower cost and with fully flexible terms.

Here the LNER service is effectively the only option, other than a very few very short Lumo trains.

There is clearly demand for such services. For example, the hourly Brussels to Amsterdam loco hauled train is usually busy, often full and standing. Elsewhere there is talk of bringing back a Brussels to Paris service via the old route. No doubt the tickets will be cheaper than the TGV.

Germany (which doesn't really do CR bar Thalys and the SNCF collaborations) almost always has parallel regional services, France much less so now - but it traditionally did. Italy mostly does.

I've been on full and standing ICE. Usually for short 15-20 minute hops but people just pile on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is clearly demand for such services. For example, the hourly Brussels to Amsterdam loco hauled train is usually busy, often full and standing.

Thalys prices make LNER look cheap at times so this isn't surprising.

I've been on full and standing ICE. Usually for short 15-20 minute hops but people just pile on.

Most ICEs aren't CR, but there are parallel regional services in most cases. Germany's setup is basically the same as LNER's trial, aside from the Anytime being a bit more sensibly priced, not having the 70 minute thing, and the Bahncards which make it more reasonable still.