LNER fare rises and single leg pricing on many flows, from 11 June

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wasn't part of the advantage of having a return only priced marginally higher than a single that it encourages passengers to make the return journey by train?

It was the other way round: the BR Saver was initially only a return ticket.
When a single Saver fare was added (because the Saver return could be less than the price of an Anytime single), it was priced just under the return.
That's the anomaly that is being rectified - though we'll have to see if the new single is truly half the return.
Avanti's singles are 70% of the equivalent return.

 

[yorkie]

It’s a 4% rise for some people. However it’s a 45% cut for some other people. Swings and roundabouts.

It's a 4% rise for most walk-up journeys, but if you travel at shoulder peak times it's a 48% rise.

So for it to be revenue-neutral then there will need to be a rise in the base fares.

Indeed and this is why so-called "revenue neutral" schemes should be opposed as they mean the majority paying more.

The majority of people on LNER now use Advances....

The holders of the East Coast franchise have been making walk-up travel less and less affordable over the years in an attempt to maximise the proportion of passengers on Advance fares; this latest change is consistent with that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's a 4% rise for most, but if you travel at shoulder peak times it's a 48% rise.

If you travel at shoulder peak in both directions it is a significant rise.

Indeed and this is why so-called "revenue neutral" schemes should be opposed as they mean the majority paying more.

Now that depends if you’re a winner or a loser from the change.

 

[yorkie]

If you travel at shoulder peak in both directions it is a significant rise.

Even if you only need an Anytime one way, the cost of Super Off Peak in the other direction is a singificant increase overall e.g. York to London £215 Off Peak Return, now £160 Anytime Single / £68 Super Off Peak Single. So it's less convenience and higher cost.

Now that depends if you’re a winner or a loser from the change.

Most people make return journeys, so would not be winners.

 

[Dave91131]

Out of interest, how does this affect journeys which are not wholly on LNER, and / or journeys where part of the journey is possible on LNER but other options are available?

E.g a friend needed to make a sudden day trip from Whittlesea to Mansfield recently to see a sick relative. They figured they could arrive an hour earlier by using LNER Peterborough to Grantham, EMR (ex Skeg train) Grantham to Nottingham, then EMR to Mansfield.. As opposed to using EMR throughout from Peterborough as that train just missed the Mansfield train at Nottingham.

Will such a trip in the future be barred from LNER between Peterborough and Grantham?

 

[yorkie]

Out of interest, how does this affect journeys which are not wholly on LNER, and / or journeys where part of the journey is possible on LNER but other options are available?

The changes affect many (not all) journeys priced b LNER

E.g a friend needed to make a sudden day trip from Whittlesea to Mansfield recently to see a sick relative. They figured they could arrive an hour earlier by using LNER Peterborough to Grantham, EMR (ex Skeg train) Grantham to Nottingham, then EMR to Mansfield.. As opposed to using EMR throughout from Peterborough as that train just missed the Mansfield train at Nottingham.

Will such a trip in the future be barred from LNER between Peterborough and Grantham?

No change to permitted routes.

An Off Peak Day return for that journey costs £29.80 and is unaffected by the changes. It's not priced by LNER.

However if LNER had their way, such a journey would probably cost about £19 each way* under a single leg pricing regime (and there'd be an army of people on hand to tell you that it was for the greater good )

(* The Off Peak Return is currently £36.40, so would be about £38 for 2 x singles, given the 4% increase)

 

[ricoblade]

LNER aren't an airline on rails, much as their arrogant management might like to think so.

I had a business meeting with GNER in probably the early 2000s where they said it was their intention to move to "airline pricing", plus ca change.

 

[Dave91131]

The changes affect many (not all) journeys priced b LNER

No change to permitted routes.

An Off Peak Day return for that journey costs £29.80 and is unaffected by the changes. It's not priced by LNER.

However if LNER had their way, such a journey would probably cost about £19 each way* under a single leg pricing regime (and there'd be an army of people on hand to tell you that it was for the greater good )

(* The Off Peak Return is currently £36.40, so would be about £38 for 2 x singles, given the 4% increase)

Many thanks for the info.

The £29.80 ticket was indeed the ticket they used (from Peterborough).

My friend doesn't drive so wouldn't have this choice, but for myself (who does drive) the £29.80 would just about keep me on the train for that journey vs the car, albeit the train is slower.

At circa £38 it would be car every time and bye bye train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most people make return journeys, so would not be winners.

It wouldn’t be revenue-neutral if the winners and losers are not balanced, in value if not in numbers.

Most people make return journeys, so would not be winners.

Back in the day I used to regularly travel Newcastle-Hemel to see my (now) wife. It suited me to fly down on a Friday and be collected at Heathrow, and to get the train home on a Sunday. I’m quite content to admit that’s definitely a less-common situation, but mixed-mode travel overall isn’t.

And for business trips from Newcastle I often needed to be in London by 9am but it suited me to get the 8pm or 9pm train home. I’d go and have an early dinner or drinks with a friend. I’m not sure that’s such an unusual edge case.

In both cases I’d be a winner, by a quite significant wedge.

Losers are those who specifically need to arrive in London after 10am but before 11.15am, and those who specifically need to depart London after 5.45pm but before 7pm (6.15pm on Fridays). Winners are those who need to travel in the high peak in one direction only. I’d say it seems, on the face of it, to be swings and roundabouts.

Now what does bother me is that the route has gone from “Any Permitted” to “Via Peterborough”, with no “Any Permitted” ticket available. Not that many would want to go Newcastle-London via the slow and overcrowded MML, but still.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Interesting to see this being used as a way to increase prices....

As expected no single leg pricing between Stevenae and London or Peterborough and London.

Au contraire. Looking on Worldline WebTIS shows the "LNER Only" Off-Peak Day Single between Stevenage and Kings Cross dropping to £9.40 (currently £15.60) and the Anytime Day Single dropping to £12.20 (currently £16.60), though the weekend and bank holiday version (ticket types GDS and GDR) is withdrawn. The Any Permitted Anytime Day Single (priced by GTR) remains at £17.50.

Peterborough to Kings Cross appears to be unchanged, however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am unhappy, but unsurprised, by the added route restrictions. They can be worked around by splitting, but it's a pain. Really single fare pricing should have been implemented on a "big bang" basis across the whole network, then this (which has clearly been done to avoid anomalies) would not have been necessary.

 

[Gaelan]

I am unhappy, but unsurprised, by the added route restrictions. They can be worked around by splitting, but it's a pain. Really single fare pricing should have been implemented on a "big bang" basis across the whole network, then this (which has clearly been done to avoid anomalies) would not have been necessary.

I read somewhere - I believe an FOI’d internal ticketing update - that LNER is trying to eliminate (or reduce? not clear) “any permitted” tickets, as part of a “jargon reduction” effort.

That makes enough sense in some cases - notably to exclude a route that seems obvious but isn’t permitted (eg the “not via London” fares on Sheffield-Cambridge) or on flows where a higher fare permits a route not in the routing guide (in which case “any permitted” is highly misleading!) but certainly not if it entails actually restricting route options.

 

[Haywain]

The majority of people on LNER now use Advances. I forget the figure, but perhaps one of our resident (ex-)LNER bods could tell us what it is?

I haven't the faintest idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another use case where this works well is where someone can use an Advance on the outward and a walk-up on the return (or vice versa, but knowing the precise outward time is probably more likely than the precise return time). Sure, this can be done with the online only SSU, but it removes the annoying complexities surrounding those tickets (and Avanti's former SVHs) such as that to change the day of the flexible part you'd need to pay an admin fee *plus* almost as much again for a replacement SSS/SVS.

 

[miklcct]

It's a shame that Peterborough - London isn't included as it will make using Thameslink one way, LNER the other way more affordable.

 

[185143]

They could have offered returns at double the singles, yes, but then the re-use problem would have remained, which is part of how this fare cut on single fares (don't forget that part!) is to be funded.

But it's not hard to just buy two singles instead of a return. That's what you do when you fly with any budget airline. If you don't know when you're returning, just hang fire buying it until you do know. If you want a "speculative" seat reservation before you've bought the ticket as you think a particular train will fill up, the LNER site lets you do that.

LNER isn't a budget airline. Nor is it a budget train company, that's what Lumo is for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNER isn't a budget airline. Nor is it a budget train company, that's what Lumo is for.

It indeed isn't, but there's no reason the benefits of that simplicity can't be applied to a "full service" rail operator, just as "full service" airlines like British Airways are increasingly doing (not usually for long haul, but very often for European short haul).

 

[TUC]

LNER isn't a budget airline. Nor is it a budget train company, that's what Lumo is for.

For linger distance journeys, budget airlines are competitors. What else do most passengers want except the cheapest fares possible?

 

[Watershed]

Another use case where this works well is where someone can use an Advance on the outward and a walk-up on the return (or vice versa, but knowing the precise outward time is probably more likely than the precise return time). Sure, this can be done with the online only SSU, but it removes the annoying complexities surrounding those tickets (and Avanti's former SVHs) such as that to change the day of the flexible part you'd need to pay an admin fee *plus* almost as much again for a replacement SSS/SVS.

Perhaps, yet it introduces more problems along the same lines at the same time.

Buy tickets as part of a return journey search as most people would do (since they want the 'security' of a seat reservation on a long journey) and then if you want to change the date you return, you'll have to pay a £10 admin fee. Currently you pay nothing at all.

Every single passenger is also paying extra by virtue of the sly 4% fare rise.

Overall, it's become very clear why the Treasury was happy to sign off on this. They are going to be earning a lot more overall, and the DfT can get away with selling that as being beneficial to passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buy tickets as part of a return journey search as most people would do (since they want the 'security' of a seat reservation on a long journey) and then if you want to change the date you return, you'll have to pay a £10 admin fee. Currently you pay nothing at all.

This is a fair point, though if I think back the number of times when I've made a long distance trip and changed my return day is tiny. I suspect I'd save more with this change than I'd lose.

On the other hand I would like to see the admin fee abolished for e-tickets as there's no actual admin to do as such! If it was (or just reduced to say a nominal £1 to put people off repeatedly changing tickets), that problem would be removed.

Every single passenger is also paying extra by virtue of the sly 4% fare rise.

Overall, it's become very clear why the Treasury was happy to sign off on this. They are going to be earning a lot more overall, and the DfT can get away with selling that as being beneficial to passengers.

I don't think they are going to be earning a lot more overall. I suspect the 4% is just to make it revenue neutral (they'll have figures from the Edinburgh trial). And I also suspect the number of people who will up to an Anytime due to the loss of the Off Peak is probably similarly small, most will change the time they travel, use an Advance one way or do something else so they don't pay hugely more.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think they are going to be earning a lot more overall. I suspect the 4% is just to make it revenue neutral

I’d agree.

Switching to Anytime out Super Off Peak back would save someone in the region of £50 for a Newcastle-London return compared to an Anytime return. So fares will need to go up to make it revenue neutral. And simple maths means for every big winner there will be either a small number of big losers and/or a big number of small losers.

 

[Watershed]

I’d agree.

Switching to Anytime out Super Off Peak back would save someone in the region of £50 for a Newcastle-London return compared to an Anytime return. So fares will need to go up to make it revenue neutral. And simple maths means for every big winner there will be either a small number of big losers and/or a big number of small losers.

That requires waiting until the first valid Super Off-Peak service (or travelling considerably earlier to avoid the evening peak), which won't be feasible or desirable for most people.

The key point that a lot of people seem to be overlooking is that scrapping the Off-Peak fare means there's no longer a cap on the fare that can be charged for these shoulder-peak fares (other than the eyewatering Anytime fare). So we can expect Advance fares to increase substantially on these services.

 

[yorkie]

Switching to Anytime out Super Off Peak back would save someone in the region of £50 for a Newcastle-London return compared to an Anytime return.

That's a niche example of someone who needs to leave Newcastle really early for a pre-10am arrival, but is happy to depart at a highly restrictive time (by 1459 or from 1900)

For £5 less than the price of that combination, under the current fare structure, an Off Peak Return would allow travel on the 0655 from Newcastle to London and get you back at a very civilised time, with a wide choice of trains back (except in the very high peak)

So fares will need to go up to make it revenue neutral. And simple maths means for every big winner there will be either a small number of big losers and/or a big number of small losers.

There will be some big winners, and they will generally be business users of Anytime Returns; each one of those needs a lot of cheaper fares to rise to subsidise that. Cheaper fares tend to be more likely to be purchased by people on a budget.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==

That requires waiting until the first valid Super Off-Peak service (or travelling considerably earlier to avoid the evening peak), which won't be feasible or desirable for most people.

The key point that a lot of people seem to be overlooking is that scrapping the Off-Peak fare means there's no longer a cap on the fare that can be charged for these shoulder-peak fares (other than the eyewatering Anytime fare). So we can expect Advance fares to increase substantially on these services.

Indeed; I generated screenshots to prove it back in February:

End of the line for return rail tickets

What I expect that will happen is that almost everywhere will gain evening peak restrictions. For some this will mean a significant increase in fares. On the other hand there will be ever more split ticketing opportunities.

www.railforums.co.uk

Off Peak Return Leeds to West Hampstead was £203.70; the equivalent price for walk-up travel for just Leeds to King's Cross was £291, while Advances for Leeds to King's Cross totalled £217. And that was at the old prices!

(Of course, the forum's site offered a combination of tickets for £139.74 - a saving of over £77 - but that's a whole new topic!)

 

[johncrossley]

Yes it benefits people who only travel one way. But do you think most rail passengers don't return? As for other countries, their prices are generally much lower than ours to begin with, so the comparison is null and void in my opinion; feel free to create a thread if you'd like to discuss this further.

Non-Advance single fares are outrageously priced so someone needing three or more of them for their journey will use alternative means of transport unless they have no choice. These people are not traveling one-way. To make their journeys reasonably affordable by train they need to be creative with return fares. For example travelling from A to B to C to B to A instead of going from A to B to C to A, incurring unnecessary additional journey time.

Car travel is incredibly flexible by contrast and you are not obliged to return the same way as you came. It seems sensible not to unnecessarily force people into driving when there is a rail alternative because of the lack of sensibly priced single fares.

 

[yorkie]

Non-Advance single fares are outrageously priced so someone needing three or more of them for their journey will use alternative means of transport unless they have no choice. These people are not traveling one-way. To make their journeys reasonably affordable by train they need to be creative with return fares. For example travelling from A to B to C to B to A instead of going from A to B to C to A, incurring unnecessary additional journey time.

That's all well and good but does this justify putting up the cost of return journeys (which is what most rail passengers do!) or reducing the range of fares to create a cliff edge, meaning no affordable walk-up option to depart King's Cross on departures such as 1500 or 1850 (which really don't justify Anytime pricing)?

Car travel is incredibly flexible by contrast and you are not obliged to return the same way as you came. It seems sensible not to unnecessarily force people into driving when there is a rail alternative because of the lack of sensibly priced single fares.

Car journeys usually involve returning to the origin; if rail is to have any chance of competing, rail needs to offer cheap return fares, but is failing to do so.

As a general rule (there will always be exceptions), singles are competing with non-car journeys, for which passengers are generally more likely to be prepared to pay a bit more (proportionally); by all means discount these too, but using this as an excuse to increase the fare for return journeys is nonsensical and is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

 

[johncrossley]

That's all well and good but does this justify putting up the cost of return journeys (which is what most rail passengers do!) or reducing the range of fares to create a cliff edge, meaning no affordable walk-up option to depart King's Cross on departures such as 1500 or 1850 (which really don't justify Anytime pricing)?

Changing the range of tickets needs to be treated as a separate issue.

Car journeys usually involve returning to the origin

But not necessarily by the same route. When driving it is quite normal to return to the origin via another location.

If rail is to have any chance of competing, rail needs to offer cheap return fares, but is failing to do so.

The root of the problem is that fares are too expensive overall. But pricing a single at more than 50% of the return fare will almost always make the return cheaper than it would have been if return fares don't exist regardless of how affordable fares are. If the overriding priority is to make returns as cheap as possible then you would remove single fares altogether. Including making Advance fares return only.

As a general rule (there will always be exceptions), singles are competing with non-car journeys, for which passengers are generally more likely to be prepared to pay a bit more (proportionally)

I would have thought that 3+ leg journeys would be the main reason for needing singles and in those cases the car is the obvious alternative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That requires waiting until the first valid Super Off-Peak service (or travelling considerably earlier to avoid the evening peak), which won't be feasible or desirable for most people.

I don't think it's as much of an issue as you suggest, as a long-time user of the WCML which has never had shoulder-peak walk up fares. What I'd do to avoid the whacking cost of an Anytime back north is to have a "cheeky Nando's" (other vendors are available) and travel a bit later. An employee-oriented company would probably even fund that meal in return for the later arrival home.

Won't suit everyone, but there isn't uproar over on the WCML about the lack of these fares.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==

I would have thought that 3+ leg journeys would be the main reason for needing singles and in those cases the car is the obvious alternative.

There are certainly journeys I've made by car due to the lack of reasonably priced singles, though Avanti's 70% is low enough to tempt me in (the classic 95% ish isn't). Indeed I have one in a couple of weeks, travelling out in a friend's car and back by train, if it was a classic "single 5p less than return" I'd just drive myself.

 

[yorkie]

Changing the range of tickets needs to be treated as a separate issue.

So it was purely coincidence and nothing to do with single leg pricing?

But not necessarily by the same route. When driving is quite normal to return to the origin via another location.

Tickets have become more restrictive under LNER's single leg pricing than hitherto, for example "Route via: Peterborough" restrictions have prevented people travelling back via different routes; so things are getting worse in this area, not better!

The root of the problem is that fares are too expensive overall.

Absolutely, and LNER are not solving that!

But pricing a single at more than 50% of the return fare will almost always make the return cheaper than it would have been if return fares don't exist regardless of how affordable fares are. If the overriding priority is to make returns as cheap as possible then you would remove single fares altogether. Including making Advance fares return only.

I see no rationale for that whatsoever.

I would have thought that 3+ leg journeys would be the main reason for needing singles and in those cases the car is the obvious alternative.

Do more people do journeys where they break their journey at locations which are along non-permitted routes, than make return journeys, do you think?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==

I don't think it's as much of an issue as you suggest, as a long-time user of the WCML which has never had shoulder-peak walk up fares.

Not true at all and indeed after they disappeared, DfT ordered Virgin (as was) to sort out the cliff edge.

What I'd do to avoid the whacking cost of an Anytime back north is to have a "cheeky Nando's" (other vendors are available) and travel a bit later. An employee-oriented company would probably even fund that meal in return for the later arrival home.

If your meeting finishes at 1530 (or even a couple of hours later), waiting in Nandos until 1900 isn't going to be anything other than a very niche persuit.

Won't suit everyone, but there isn't uproar over on the WCML about the lack of these fares.

No; people take alternatives instead (for example me, on Friday, when I will use Chiltern instead of Avanti)

There are certainly journeys I've made by car due to the lack of reasonably priced singles, though Avanti's 70% is low enough to tempt me in (the classic 95% ish isn't). Indeed I have one in a couple of weeks, travelling out in a friend's car and back by train, if it was a classic "single 5p less than return" I'd just drive myself.

But do more people make single journeys than return? Is the alternative to a single journey really usually a car journey?

 

[johncrossley]

So it was purely coincidence and nothing to do with single leg pricing?

Even if it wasn't a coincidence you can't rule out single leg pricing altogether in the fear that there will be other fare changes at the same time.

I see no rationale for that whatsoever.

In order to pay for cheaper return fares the train operator needs to recover that revenue from elsewhere, for example by making everyone pay the return fare even if they don't need to return.

Do more people do journeys where they break their journey at locations which are along non-permitted routes, than make return journeys, do you think?

Obviously not many people will make those kinds of trips by train because they are prohibitively expensive. But by car it is quite normal to do that.

 

[yorkie]

Even if it wasn't a coincidence you can't rule out single leg pricing altogether in the fear that there will be other fare changes at the same time.

As I have said (many times) before, I am all for single leg pricing if it's done by halving the full range of fares (and if any fares end up duplicated, you'd remove the higher priced superfluous fares).

But that isn't how LNER have done it and I do not support single leg pricing at any cost!

In order to pay for cheaper return fares the train operator needs to recover that revenue from elsewhere, for example by making everyone pay the return fare even if they don't need it.

Do they? How do you explain the existence of cheaper return fares for York to Newcastle then?

Obviously not many people will make those kinds of trips by train because they are prohibitively expensive. But by car it is quite normal to do that.

I don't disagree it should be cheap to do that, but is it really the case that more people want to travel via completely different routes on their return journeys compared to their outward journeys?