LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[Bikeman78]

There are RRBs. The idea of not releasing any Advances so people are charged that when in reality it should be discounted for the inconvenience utterly stinks.

No surprise though. I'm sure it was you that predicted LNER would use price to manage demand when they don't want people to travel.

 

[modernrail]

No surprise though. I'm sure it was you that predicted LNER would use price to manage demand when they don't want people to travel.

Having stuffed many of the trains full of cheaper advance fares purchased well in advance.

Why such a reluctance to find a better balanced half way house.

If you are trying to maximise revenue, why offer any advance fares priced lower than an off peak fare at all if you think that train can take the fare and still fill up. It seems to me like a lot of things in the UK at the moment. Give all the attention to the troublesome extremes. Forget the solid middle ground.

As for those who might immediately shout back, yes but then what about seat reservations, well:

- we are being told only 11% or something like that of fares on these flows are off peak fares. I would guess something like 90% of those people book a seat and stick to it. That is not where overcrowding originates. It is statistically impossible for it to.

I suspect an awful lot of not using your booked seat behaviour is because the booking engines are infuriating in ignoring your requests and shoving you in a windowless seat facing backwards. Advance passengers are just as likely to pick a better seat as off peak passengers so that isn’t the source of the strife.

The answer to that is to have proper seat booking as LNER to be fair has if you book direct. However an awful lot of people book on Trainline which doesn’t have that function. It should.

I suspect most standing is from those on shorter journeys who will never be on advance only. For instance the Peterborough and Milton Keynes crew.

By far the biggest cause of standing is likely the above plus disruption. Not off peak fares.

And how many of that 11% get a different train? Maybe 2-4%? Again, hardly the cause of the ills some say this measure seeks to overcome. Yet, the flexibility is often super important to those passengers. They have paid more than the advance fare for the pleasure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seat selection with compulsory reservations causes inefficient use of seats - offering it by default doesn't work. It could be a chargeable extra, though.

One outcome of this trial is likely to be that LNER end up having "full" trains that actually have two different seats available, split, for the full trip. In the past these would be used by Super Off Peak walk up purchasers, but hardly anyone is going to buy an Anytime for that.

 

[AdamWW]

Seat selection with compulsory reservations causes inefficient use of seats - offering it by default doesn't work. It could be a chargeable extra, though.

There is of course a middle ground where the system can offer a bit more choice, e.g. actual window seats vs seats by the side of the train but with nothing to look through and possibly even the choice of coach.

I'm sure at one point there was a "window view" attribute that could be set in booking systems.

And personally I'd rather not see UK railways go down the route of starting to add extra charges for things.

 

[MrJeeves]

I'm sure at one point there was a "window view" attribute that could be set in booking systems.

There still is — both window view and restricted view exist, as well as the attribute that just says you're in a "window seat".

 

[modernrail]

There still is — both window view and restricted view exist, as well as the attribute that just says you're in a "window seat".

They might exist. Yet the number of times I have selected a choice and the system has ignored it. Then I have either used a seat planner and my choice is actually available, or I have got on the train and my choice is available unreserved (and not in the unreserved carriage).

I have had it happen plenty of times on really very quiet trains and long ago came to assume there is the digital equivalent of the can’t be bothered booking office assistant who asks with a forced smile if you have a seat request and then chucks it over their shoulder when you hand it to them.

I always ignore the allocated seat and sit in the better choice if available.

 

[MrJeeves]

Yet the number of times I have selected a choice and the system has ignored it.

The "system" just looks at the window seat attribute and not the view attribute as far as I am aware.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I had this on TPE last week, booked a seat on the GWR site facing window and ended up with back aisle, facing window next to it was unreserved

 

[Adam Williams]

Half the battle is that the TOCs put junk into the industry reservation system for their trains and can't be bothered to set the attributes on their seats properly. If a window has a view it's supposed to be marked VIEW. If it doesn't, it should be NOWI.

Let's look at GR605000, it's a 9 coach Azuma service departing next Thursday at 06:15am

The Azuma coach map on LNER's website says that A47 is a "Limited view" seat:




So, it will surely say this in the data, right?

<P u="A47 ">
    <U c="SEAT"></U>
    <A c="WIND"></A>
    <A c="BACK"></A>
</P>

No, that would be far too easy.

I don't often praise Avanti, but they get this right and they get it right pretty consistently from what I've seen of their pendos:

<P u="A29 ">
    <U c="SEAT"></U>
    <A c="WIND"></A>
    <A c="INFW"></A>
    <A c="BACK"></A>
    <A c="QUIE"></A>
    <A c="NOWI"></A>
</P>

(Coach A on VT604000, departing 22/02/2024.)

The "system" just looks at the window seat attribute and not the view attribute as far as I am aware.

Entirely up to the TIS. You can ask for NOWI or VIEW if you want it.

Anyone who offers that preference to customers is brave though, given how poor the data quality is! You're bound to get customers complaining that they asked explicitly not to get a no-view seat, and got one anyway. Good luck explaining that one.

 

[Watershed]

Entirely up to the TIS. You can ask for NOWI or VIEW if you want it.

Anyone who offers that preference to customers is brave though, given how poor the data quality is! You're bound to get customers complaining that they asked explicitly not to get a no-view seat, and got one anyway. Good luck explaining that one.

Given the hopeless quality of the data I'd suggest it's a fool's errand to rely on it as a retailer. Realistically, retailers have to do their own legwork to obtain reliable data.

 

[modernrail]

Half the battle is that the TOCs put junk into the industry reservation system for their trains and can't be bothered to set the attributes on their seats properly. If a window has a view it's supposed to be marked VIEW. If it doesn't, it should be NOWI.

Let's look at GR605000, it's a 9 coach Azuma service departing next Thursday at 06:15am

The Azuma coach map on LNER's website says that A47 is a "Limited view" seat:

View attachment 152637


So, it will surely say this in the data, right?

<P u="A47 ">
    <U c="SEAT"></U>
    <A c="WIND"></A>
    <A c="BACK"></A>
</P>

No, that would be far too easy.

I don't often praise Avanti, but they get this right and they get it right pretty consistently from what I've seen of their pendos:

<P u="A29 ">
    <U c="SEAT"></U>
    <A c="WIND"></A>
    <A c="INFW"></A>
    <A c="BACK"></A>
    <A c="QUIE"></A>
    <A c="NOWI"></A>
</P>

View attachment 152638
View attachment 152639

(Coach A on VT604000, departing 22/02/2024.)


Entirely up to the TIS. You can ask for NOWI or VIEW if you want it.

Anyone who offers that preference to customers is brave though, given how poor the data quality is! You're bound to get customers complaining that they asked explicitly not to get a no-view seat, and got one anyway. Good luck explaining that one.

No expert on these sorts of systems but surely as the same trains are used day in day out for up to 35 years this might be a job that one might hope could be done properly?

The mind boggles LNER and others who can’t be bothered to do this properly bearing in mind seat utilisation is critical. If say 10% of a train is getting on and thinking, screw that I am sitting somewhere else - and those seats are not used by others thinking they are reserved, then you might suddenly be on a service with people standing.

This sort of lack of attention to detail also just makes you question the whole operation - I just do not believe they are looking at this advance fares vs off peaks vs anytime with the right, balanced and skillful mindset (how do we maximise revenue whilst respecting the off peak fare and flexibility).

 

[Wallsendmag]

I’d expect the data to improve once more TIS move away from the broker and onto the direct API. There seem to be a few strange quirks in RARs to say the least.

 

[modernrail]

Given the hopeless quality of the data I'd suggest it's a fool's errand to rely on it as a retailer. Realistically, retailers have to do their own legwork to obtain reliable data.

Seriously depressing considering the importance of seat booking and seat utilisation on the modern railway.

 

[Adam Williams]

Realistically, retailers have to do their own legwork to obtain reliable data.

I appreciate that this is the approach some retailers (and hell, the TOCs themselves!) have decided to take but it really is a damning indictment of the reservation system and the stewardship of the data within it.

 

[Haywain]

So I think it's a bit more nuanced than LNER (and predecessors) having wanted to do this for years and finally the DfT have let them.

TOCs have been told by DfT to bring in more revenue. People in LNER have been working on projects around single leg pricing and dynamic pricing for years. I'll let you join the dots

 

[Starmill]

Seat selection with compulsory reservations causes inefficient use of seats - offering it by default doesn't work. It could be a chargeable extra, though.

One outcome of this trial is likely to be that LNER end up having "full" trains that actually have two different seats available, split, for the full trip. In the past these would be used by Super Off Peak walk up purchasers, but hardly anyone is going to buy an Anytime for that.

Of course, LNER's proposal to make many services more express means there will only be 3*3 possible combinations on about half of London - Edinburgh.

 

[Rail101]

Several reports in the press now about this adding more than one hundred pounds to the cost of some rail journeys






== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2024 ==


Looks like the latest press reports are the result of an investigation by PA news agency.

Regardless of whether this abolition of off peak fares London to Newcastle Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh is coming from LNER management, Department for Transport, HM Treasury or Government Ministers LNER is under Government control so the Government is responsible and rail passengers should raise this issue with their Members of Parliament.

Looking at all of those articles, they've taken the information from the PA news agency. So PA have covered it and distributed it on the wire, where journalists then just add some of their own copy on top before using whatever PA have written.

A shame in a way because it means there's not much analysis or critique, but still good that there is wider coverage of this ridiculous fare change

 

[yorkie]

Half the battle is that the TOCs put junk into the industry reservation system for their trains and can't be bothered to set the attributes on their seats properly. If a window has a view it's supposed to be marked VIEW. If it doesn't, it should be NOWI.

Let's look at GR605000, it's a 9 coach Azuma service departing next Thursday at 06:15am

The Azuma coach map on LNER's website says that A47 is a "Limited view" seat:

View attachment 152637


So, it will surely say this in the data, right?

<P u="A47 ">
    <U c="SEAT"></U>
    <A c="WIND"></A>
    <A c="BACK"></A>
</P>

No, that would be far too easy.

I don't often praise Avanti, but they get this right and they get it right pretty consistently from what I've seen of their pendos:

<P u="A29 ">
    <U c="SEAT"></U>
    <A c="WIND"></A>
    <A c="INFW"></A>
    <A c="BACK"></A>
    <A c="QUIE"></A>
    <A c="NOWI"></A>
</P>

View attachment 152638
View attachment 152639

(Coach A on VT604000, departing 22/02/2024.)


Entirely up to the TIS. You can ask for NOWI or VIEW if you want it.

Anyone who offers that preference to customers is brave though, given how poor the data quality is! You're bound to get customers complaining that they asked explicitly not to get a no-view seat, and got one anyway. Good luck explaining that one.

LNER have a lot of adverts at stations encouraging people to "book direct".

One of the reasons given is to book your favourite seat; the implication is that you can only do this by booking direct.

Therefore, at best one could say they have no incentive to supply correct data, and at worst it could be feasible that they deliberately do so.

LNER are aware the data is incorrect, and they are aware that they have manual 'hacks' applied to their software to fix these bugs, so it's difficult to see how this isn't deliberate and is merely incompetent.

I'll see if I can get a photo at some point and post it here.

 

[modernrail]

LNER have a lot of adverts at stations encouraging people to "book direct".

One of the reasons given is to book your favourite seat; the implication is that you can only do this by booking direct.

Therefore, at best one could say they have no incentive to supply correct data, and at worst it could be feasible that they deliberately do so.

LNER are aware the data is incorrect, and they are aware that they have manual 'hacks' applied to their software to fix these bugs, so it's difficult to see how this isn't deliberate and is merely incompetent.

I'll see if I can get a photo at some point and post it here.

And in the process they are creating a behaviour that they then complain about bitterly. Not sitting in your designated seat. It is so bizarre or at least very short sighted.

I know absolutely loads of people who get annoyed by this one. It is such a running joke with a couple of friends that we sometimes send photos of our ‘forward facing window seat’ to each other as part of general morning banter.

 

[yorkie]

And in the process they are creating a behaviour that they then complain about bitterly. Not sitting in your designated seat. It is so bizarre or at least very short sighted.

I know absolutely loads of people who get annoyed by this one. It is such a running joke with a couple of friends that we sometimes send photos of our ‘forward facing window seat’ to each other as part of general morning banter.

I believe LNER would take the view that it's your fault for not "booking direct"

Our site has a seat selector, and if you want to have more information regarding the seat, you can refer to the PDF on the LNER website when you book.

 

[calopez]

...you can refer to the PDF on the LNER website when you book.

Unless I've missed it, the LNER PDFs don't show you where the windows actually are, do they?

 

[Adam Williams]

Unless I've missed it, the LNER PDFs don't show you where the windows actually are, do they?

No, but there's a key that tells you which seats to avoid if you actually wanna be able to see out!

 

[modernrail]

Unless I've missed it, the LNER PDFs don't show you where the windows actually are, do they

I believe LNER would take the view that it's your fault for not "booking direct"

Our site has a seat selector, and if you want to have more information regarding the seat, you can refer to the PDF on the LNER website when you book.

I would take the view LNER and being (a) childish and more worryingly (b) totally unprofessional by not accepting the system that has been established by their owner (The Government) for the selling of rail tickets in the UK.

Now I would absolutely LOVE it if the Government had decided to create a single Government owned ticket website with common functionality across all TOCs about, maybe 10 years ago as I don’t see any benefit whatsoever of having loads of different versions by TOC nor do I want my money leaking out to the private sector when it could be going directly into the system.

However, I didn’t set the whole thing up did I LNER. Your bosses did. Therefore be a good chap and do your bloody job will you.

 

[calopez]

No, but there's a key that tells you which seats to avoid if you actually wanna be able to see out!

In my experience, many of the seats not described as 'Limited window view' are still poorly placed for people who want to enjoy the landscape rather than their phone!

 

[Hadders]

I would take the view LNER and being (a) childish and more worryingly (b) totally unprofessional by not accepting the system that has been established by their owner (The Government) for the selling of rail tickets in the UK.

Now I would absolutely LOVE it if the Government had decided to create a single Government owned ticket website with common functionality across all TOCs about, maybe 10 years ago as I don’t see any benefit whatsoever of having loads of different versions by TOC nor do I want my money leaking out to the private sector when it could be going directly into the system.

However, I didn’t set the whole thing up did I LNER. Your bosses did. Therefore be a good chap and do your bloody job will you.

A single national ticket selling system would be very bad for passengers. It would end up being the most basic site, little investment and little innovation. Like them or loathe them you can't deny that Trainline have revolutionised rail ticket retailing over the last 20 years and Trainsplit has led in split ticket innovation. None of this would ever have happened with a single site controlled by the Government.

Different sites also allow different things like different via points, allowing slower services, forcing a change at a specified station, allowing or excluding certain operators. This is good because it opens up all sorts of different ticketing opportunities.

Don't fall for the trick of saying that LNER's site is decent. It's only decent because it needed to match Trainline functionality. If Trainline didn't exist then it wouldn't be anything like it is today.

 

[Haywain]

It's only decent because it needed to match Trainline functionality

Not just Trainline but the functionality that other providers, such as Worldline, could offer. But then all providers seek to do that because that's how a marketplace works.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2024 ==

I would take the view LNER and being (a) childish and more worryingly (b) totally unprofessional by not accepting the system that has been established by their owner (The Government) for the selling of rail tickets in the UK.

Are you saying that because something, in this case the fares system, is "established" there should be no innovation?

 

[modernrail]

Not just Trainline but the functionality that other providers, such as Worldline, could offer. But then all providers seek to do that because that's how a marketplace works.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2024 ==


Are you saying that because something, in this case the fares system, is "established" there should be no innovation?

I don’t really see the innovation as that strong. All Trainline has is an ability to buy tickets on broadly the same basis as the TOC websites, but without a seat planner which is a major omission.

The marketplace clearly doesn’t work if there is no requirement on the TOCs to enter accurate data.

Yes the UX on the Trainline app is better but that is hardly ground breaking and absolutely not worth leakage of 5% of fares.

There are plenty of UK Government websites that work pretty well. The .gov websites are probably something we do reasonably well compared to some other countries.

It is just an attention to detail thing. There was nothing to stop the DfT deciding to get a hold of this one years ago. Instead we have ended up with mass duplication across TOCs and Trainline and because the TOC websites tends to be a bit below standard, Trainline takes its oversized UX tax.

To this discussion Trainline is not able to innovate around arbitrary TOC decisions such as running a trial which withdraws was a general route ticket (the off peak) as somehow making that a TOC only ticket or denying the availability of an available ticket (leaving you to go to a ticket office of machine for that ticket where weirdly it is actually available.

Split-ticketing being a thing speaks more to how silly it has all got. TOCs put differential pricing in to ‘take account of different markets’ - plenty of people on here try and justify that approach for this and that reason. Trainline innovate around that - plenty of people on here say that is a good thing because it is the market working etc etc. In reality what it just did is render the differential pricing pointless by introducing a workaround, turning the whole thing into a more and more confusing and stupid game of chance.

 

[Watershed]

I don’t really see the innovation as that strong. All Trainline has is an ability to buy tickets on broadly the same basis as the TOC websites, but without a seat planner which is a major omission.

The marketplace clearly doesn’t work if there is no requirement on the TOCs to enter accurate data.

Yes the UX on the Trainline app is better but that is hardly ground breaking and absolutely not worth leakage of 5% of fares.

You say "leakage" as if there wouldn't be any cost to developing, maintaining and operating in-house retailing facilities. Clearly, there would be such costs; whilst they might not amount to 5%, they would certainly not be insubstantial.

Paying commission for third parties to sell tickets is normal practice across the transport sector and therefore I think it's misleading to suggest that this kind of 'cost of sales' is in any way avoidable.

There are plenty of UK Government websites that work pretty well. The .gov websites are probably something we do reasonably well compared to some other countries.

It is far easier to provide a cookie-cutter online website containing information than to develop a site retailing train tickets. The complexity of the latter can't be underestimated.

.gov.uk sites are also a very rare example of the government getting IT right. It is the exception to the rule in almost all senses.

Split-ticketing being a thing speaks more to how silly it has all got. TOCs put differential pricing in to ‘take account of different markets’ - plenty of people on here try and justify that approach for this and that reason. Trainline innovate around that - plenty of people on here say that is a good thing because it is the market working etc etc. In reality what it just did is render the differential pricing pointless by introducing a workaround, turning the whole thing into a more and more confusing and stupid game of chance.

Yes, but without sites that sell split tickets, I'm sure that LNER wouldn't have introduced their own internal split ticketing functionality (which discounts certain LNER tickets to match external split prices - a rather anticompetitive action).

Like it or not, splits are a function of our fare system; there is absolutely no prospect of fares being cut to avoid splits being cheaper.

 

[Starmill]

I don’t really see the innovation as that strong. All Trainline has is an ability to buy tickets on broadly the same basis as the TOC websites, but without a seat planner which is a major omission.

The marketplace clearly doesn’t work if there is no requirement on the TOCs to enter accurate data.

Yes the UX on the Trainline app is better but that is hardly ground breaking and absolutely not worth leakage of 5% of fares.

There are plenty of UK Government websites that work pretty well. The .gov websites are probably something we do reasonably well compared to some other countries.

It is just an attention to detail thing. There was nothing to stop the DfT deciding to get a hold of this one years ago. Instead we have ended up with mass duplication across TOCs and Trainline and because the TOC websites tends to be a bit below standard, Trainline takes its oversized UX tax.

To this discussion Trainline is not able to innovate around arbitrary TOC decisions such as running a trial which withdraws was a general route ticket (the off peak) as somehow making that a TOC only ticket or denying the availability of an available ticket (leaving you to go to a ticket office of machine for that ticket where weirdly it is actually available.

Split-ticketing being a thing speaks more to how silly it has all got. TOCs put differential pricing in to ‘take account of different markets’ - plenty of people on here try and justify that approach for this and that reason. Trainline innovate around that - plenty of people on here say that is a good thing because it is the market working etc etc. In reality what it just did is render the differential pricing pointless by introducing a workaround, turning the whole thing into a more and more confusing and stupid game of chance.

The type of splitting trainline does is actually pretty close to what TOCs want, because it doesn't split flexible tickets...

Splitting Advance tickets actually makes your pricing more dynamic rather than less.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2024 ==

Yes, but without sites that sell split tickets, I'm sure that LNER wouldn't have introduced their own internal split ticketing functionality (which discounts certain LNER tickets to match external split prices - a rather anticompetitive action).

Exactly. It's improving their yeild management, not undermining it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The type of splitting trainline does is actually pretty close to what TOCs want, because it doesn't split flexible tickets...

It absolutely does. I've come across two very useful Anytime Day Single splits because of it (OK, one only saves £1.50 but the other over a fiver). But only if it's the cheapest option, it doesn't give you an option for a flexible-only split if an Advance (split or otherwise) is cheaper.

What I don't understand is why it doesn't seem to split those "off peak" LNER Anytimes. Does it perhaps only split the same ticket type or something, i.e. it won't give you two Off Peaks to substitute for an overpriced Anytime? I can't imagine them being stupid enough to collude with LNER by removing only that route from their split functionality, as to do so would likely be illegal as anticompetitive behaviour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2024 ==

Exactly. It's improving their yeild management, not undermining it.

There was actually an industry proposal a while back (didn't happen) that all Advances should be sold sort-of that way, i.e. calculate a summed price based on vehicle journeys and issue it as one ticket. There's a lot going for that, particularly as it removes anomalies where you can't get an Advance for Bletchley-Milton Keynes Central as the quota was all sold but would get one for Milton Keynes Central-Glasgow, for instance. I think it was also going to take into account availability of different tiers within a vehicle journey but I'm less sure about that.