LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[yorksrob]

It's only politically acceptable because politicians are happy to accept it.

I suspect that most of them don't fully understand the implications of this either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect that most of them don't fully understand the implications of this either.

Or they only care about the bottom line (as Tories are wont to do).

This did fool a few journos though. I think it's time someone approached the Press with a scandal story about what it is really all about.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

This did fool a few journos though. I think it's time someone approached the Press with a scandal story about what it is really all about.

I think Gwyn Topham at the Guardian might be interested - I approached him with a story about FGW fare rises a few years back and that made it into the paper.

 

[modernrail]

You're not making a like for like comparison though - you're comparing prices for fixed flights, bought ahead of time, to totally flexible Anytime tickets available for purc

Yes and on Friday 23 February the 11 is £113.40 the best part of £30 more than the SSS whilst the 1130 and 1200 are £101.70 around £20 more than the SSS.

I appreciate that you may have to come and bat for this idea but surely you can see how for many people having to pay £30 more than they would have a month ago for the same train is not going to be winning them ver no matter the supposed "benefits" that the trial brings to passenger

So we have the biggest increase in fares since privatisation and the Anytime shift, sneaked in via the back door, rendering the annual regulated fare increase meaningless.

Let’s now watch the 2 year trail become a 2 month trial.

Accountability removed from fares overnight without consultation.

At least they have shown their hand early enough to provide absolutely incontrovertible evidence that they just raised off-peak ticket prices under the absolute utter bare faced lie of simplifying fares. It really is shameful stuff. Utter cowards. I hope nobody on here has been involved in the formation and marketing of this. If you have been and your were under orders you should think about having a whistleblow that it is a LIE and the LIE extends to a wider agenda that we are also being lied to about.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we have the biggest increase in fares since privatisation and the Anytime shift, sneaked in via the back door, rendering the annual regulated fare increase meaningless.

Bingo (again).

It's not just about fare increases now, it's about hiding future ones. Imagine being able to get rid of the adverse publicity of the annual fares round?

 

[Wallsendmag]

Possibly, but even 7 is too short - everything should be full length on such a congested railway.

Not a lot of room to expand at Kings Cross

 

[Haywain]

the LIE extends to a wider agenda that we are also being lied to about.

The great railway fares conspiracy?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not a lot of room to expand at Kings Cross

There aren't any platforms under 160m, and all the IC platforms can take a 10 car (260m).

 

[Haywain]

and all the IC platforms can take a 10 car (260m).

Or two 5 cars - which is where moving to 6/7 cars might create a problem.

 

[MTR380A]

Isn't that off-peak, super off-peak etc ?

It's like (super) off-peak but not exactly. It's more granular as there can be many more steps of fares. Each ticket is still tied to a particular service (you can change by paying the difference), and so help prevent delay repay claim fraud. The only advantage of booking a ticket early is to get a seat reservation, not lower fare. The model to predict ridership can be improved over time. So in time all trains will be almost fully occupied. Occasionally when the prediction goes wrong, those who buy tickets late would have to stand, or pay extra to upgrade to first class.

 

[modernrail]

The great railway fares conspiracy?

It is not a conspiracy. It is a lie. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

When your child lies to you, it is not a conspiracy. It is a lie.

When you say you are simplifying fares and then use that process to raise prices above the previously ‘regulated’ fare - you are lying.

It is very simple.

 

[Haywain]

It is not a conspiracy. It is a lie. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

When your child lies to you, it is not a conspiracy. It is a lie.

When you say you are simplifying fares and then use that process to raise prices above the previously ‘regulated’ fare - you are lying.

It is very simple.

So what's the "wider agenda that we are also being lied to about"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what's the "wider agenda that we are also being lied to about"?

To move funding the railway onto the farepayer rather than the taxpayer.

 

[Haywain]

To move funding the railway onto the farepayer rather than the taxpayer.

I wouldn't call that something we're "being lied to about" - it's been public knowledge (for those who are interested) for several years. If there's anything that's a lie it's the idea of the "war on motorists", where the poor souls are having to put up with real terms cuts to the costs of motoring year on year!

 

[takno]

So what's the "wider agenda that we are also being lied to about"?

Raising prices. If you put out press releases about how you're "limiting price rises" to 4.5% the same week you introduce (or allow to be introduced) a change which is putting a huge range of fares up by 20-100%, and is a trial which is clearly aimed at wider rollout, they you are lying and have an agenda. This isn't difficult.

 

[Haywain]

Raising prices. If you put out press releases about how you're "limiting price rises" to 4.5% the same week you introduce (or allow to be introduced) a change which is putting a huge range of fares up by 20-100%, and is a trial which is clearly aimed at wider rollout, they you are lying and have an agenda. This isn't difficult.

Isn't that the first lie?

 

[AlterEgo]

You're the one who keeps on implying that its somehow about about capacity and throwing the cost of infrastructure etc into the mix. I (along with the majority of right minded people on here) have been clear all along that this is nothing but a back door fares hike.

Those are the same thing! The fares are being hiked to do exactly that - sweat the infrastructure and assets for a return. This is not hard to understand, but you refuse to engage with the bigger picture - along with lots of other posters.

You could not do the same thing with a half empty railway. This doesn't happen in a scenario where LNER's trains all carry fresh air.

The point is the accountants have decreed that Off Peaks both offer too good a value to the individual passenger and don't recoup a "fair" return to the railway - that is, the Treasury. In short, they think the railway is under-pricing its marginal capacity and they think the railway should be bringing in more money for each seat sold.

That is the political environment we are operating in. Hence, the removal of the cap, and the potential now for higher Advance and Semi Flex fares. Like everything else with this government, the obsession is with getting a return on investment - billions in subsidies are being poured into the railway and the Government wants better value for it. There is no point trying to pretend that isn't the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't call that something we're "being lied to about" - it's been public knowledge (for those who are interested) for several years. If there's anything that's a lie it's the idea of the "war on motorists", where the poor souls are having to put up with real terms cuts to the costs of motoring year on year!

The lie was the smarmy sales pitch.

I'd have hated it less, as I said above (as did others) if the publicity was "sorry, we have to do this because the Government have insisted we reduce taxpayer funding and with limited capacity it's the only way we viably can".

Positively spinning something that's overridingly negative is tantamount to lying in my book, don't know about you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2024 ==

There is no point trying to pretend that isn't the case.

So perhaps, you know, LNER and the Government could, you know, just be a little bit honest about it too and cut the "our customers told us" (in a loaded survey) rubbish and instead just say "sorry, we've run out of money, we have to do this, we hope you'll still stick with us"?

It's like toxic positivity is mandatory for everything these days.

This may be necessary but it's overridingly negative, and it'd be better to apologise for it than try to polish the giant elephant's turd that's just been dropped on the ECML's long distance passengers.

 

[Krokodil]

To move funding the railway onto the farepayer rather than the taxpayer.

While cutting APD and freezing fuel duty at the same time. The government certainly has very warped priorities given what the planet is facing but I'd never suggest that they were organised enough to have a conspiracy.

 

[AlterEgo]

So perhaps, you know, LNER and the Government could, you know, just be a little bit honest about it too and cut the "our customers told us" (in a loaded survey) rubbish and instead just say "sorry, we've run out of money, we have to do this, we hope you'll still stick with us"?

It's like toxic positivity is mandatory for everything these days.

This may be necessary but it's overridingly negative, and it'd be better to apologise for it than try to polish the giant elephant's turd that's just been dropped on the ECML's long distance passengers.

Oh I am in agreement that the sales pitch is tantamount to a lie. The average fare paid will certainly rise, by design. That is not a secret at all and the spin is just total BS.

 

[Krokodil]

So perhaps, you know, LNER and the Government could, you know, just be a little bit honest

The government? Honest? What mythical fairy land is this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh I am in agreement that the sales pitch is tantamount to a lie. The average fare paid will certainly rise, by design. That is not a secret at all and the spin is just total BS.

Yep.

There's even a halfway house with the spin - "sorry, we have to do this, but we've surveyed you and hopefully designed the 70 Minute Flex so it will fulfil as many of your flexibility requirements as we can in the present financial climate, even if you might have to pay a little more at busy times".

(Though I dispute it does that - in particular I remain of the view that break of journey restrictions on Advances are utterly unnecessary and could simply be replaced by "you must travel on all trains in your booked itinerary in full unless you do not travel at all").

 

[Haywain]

sorry, we've run out of money, we have to do this,

That would also be a lie.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would also be a lie.

OK, fair point. But what I mean is that they could be honest about the reasons for it, namely the need to increase income to reduce the rail subsidy post COVID (I think that's more correct!)

The point is that the spin is just utterly contemptuous of the customer.

 

[AlterEgo]

While cutting APD and freezing fuel duty at the same time. The government certainly has very warped priorities given what the planet is facing but I'd never suggest that they were organised enough to have a conspiracy.

The overall impact of the APD changes brings more quite a lot more money into the treasury. APD has risen for long haul flights and for premium tickets. The cut was only for domestic flights which make up a tiny portion of the exchequer's take and was done partly as a political sop to Northern Ireland (though it was BS they allowed the "mainland" to benefit from this too, like London to Edinburgh).

They also introduced a more punitive APD band for 5500+ mile flights which didn't exist before. If you want to fly to Singapore in premium economy you will now have to pay £200 in tax to do so.

 

[Bikeman78]

The point is the accountants have decreed that Off Peaks both offer too good a value to the individual passenger and don't recoup a "fair" return to the railway - that is, the Treasury. In short, they think the railway is under-pricing its marginal capacity and they think the railway should be bringing in more money for each seat sold.

That is the political environment we are operating in. Hence, the removal of the cap, and the potential now for higher Advance and Semi Flex fares. Like everything else with this government, the obsession is with getting a return on investment - billions in subsidies are being poured into the railway and the Government wants better value for it. There is no point trying to pretend that isn't the case.

I find it amusing that 174 pounds for a return trip to Edinburgh is seen as too cheap. There must be a lot of wealthy people out there.

Regarding subsidy, perhaps the government should look at what the money is spent on. For example, 25 million quid refurbishing and reforming the class 458 with no intention of them being used. I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[bakerstreet]

The lie was the smarmy sales pitch.

I'd have hated it less, as I said above (as did others) if the publicity was "sorry, we have to do this because the Government have insisted we reduce taxpayer funding and with limited capacity it's the only way we viably can".

Positively spinning something that's overridingly negative is tantamount to lying in my book, don't know about you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2024 ==



So perhaps, you know, LNER and the Government could, you know, just be a little bit honest about it too and cut the "our customers told us" (in a loaded survey) rubbish and instead just say "sorry, we've run out of money, we have to do this, we hope you'll still stick with us"?

It's like toxic positivity is mandatory for everything these days.

This may be necessary but it's overridingly negative, and it'd be better to apologise for it than try to polish the giant elephant's turd that's just been dropped on the ECML's long distance passengers.

This disappointed me from the person in charge of LNER publicity - ie the communications director.

 

[modernrail]

This disappointed me from the person in charge of LNER publicity - ie the communications director.


View attachment 151105

LIESSSSSS

If it ain’t a lie, he will be able to point to the cap on the flex. There ain’t one. Is it Truth, is it a lie. It’s a LIEEEEE.

 

[Snow1964]

DFT have published results of Single Leg pricing fare trial

Introduction In January 2020, a Single Leg Pricing (SLP) Trial was introduced on three London North Eastern Railway (LNER) flows to/from London to Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh to provide a fairer and simpler fares structure. It is noted that LNER implemented Single Leg Pricing (i.e. selling Walk-Up Singles for ~50% of the Walk-Up Return price) before the January 2020 trial. The trial mainly involved removing the Walk-Up Returns and customers would need to buy two Walk-Up Singles (adding up to approximately the same price) or mix-and-match Walk-Up and Advance tickets for the different legs of their journey. It also meant that the Off-Peak Return was removed leaving passengers with a choice between advance tickets, super off-peak tickets or anytime tickets.

5.1.4 Based on the analysis undertaken in this study, it is not clear whether there would be a significant revenue impact if the SLP trial were to be introduced across other LNER flows.

5.1.2 Regarding ticket types and potential switching:  The removal of the Off-Peak Return is a significant driver of ticket choice behaviour and revenue impacts.  The market share of the cheaper Standard Advance tickets has generally increased which has had a net impact of a decrease in yield across all ticket types. Please note that the Edinburgh comparison differs to this, which is mainly driven by the comparison of Glasgow.  There appears to be a switch to more expensive Anytime tickets for the longer distance LNER flows, which can be combined flexibly with other single tickets and is giving an increase in average yield across the ticket types.

All rather inconclusive, but seems Single Leg Pricing, is costing more for some people

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651d2974e4e658001459d8e8/dft-lner-slp-trial-evaluation-revenue-report.pdf

 

[Starmill]

Unfortunately it doesn't matter who you vot for, the government always gets in. Ministers set policy "we want simpler fares" (I can't see Labour having a different approach), the civil serpents who implement it in this half-arsed way won't be changing.

Bare cynicism is incredibly popular and ironically almost always wrong. There's myriad reasons why a Labour majority government would be better, and noticeably so, without that meaning there's likely to be change as an immediate priority or that they'd specially have railway policy that made a big difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2024 ==

They also introduced a more punitive APD band for 5500+ mile flights which didn't exist before. If you want to fly to Singapore in premium economy you will now have to pay £200 in tax to do so.

Given the carbon equivalent cost of someone travelling premium economy to Singapore that sounds like a bargain to me.