LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

[BRX]

We can also note that the period being referenced covers less than two months of the trial and for many people travelling during that period will have had no impact as their tickets had already been purchased.

For sure. But I was talking about a hypothetical scenario where we see the combination of an increase in revenue and a decrease in passenger-miles.

 

[paul1609]

If revenue is higher but the number of people travelling is lower, then LNER are going to have to work quite hard on their spin to justify the trial as a "success".

If revenue is up by say 20% and passenger figures are down by 1.7% (100,000) Id say that was a success. In fact the 100k is probably within the limits of a normal year s variations escpecially during industrial action.

 

[yorksrob]

If revenue is up by say 20% and passenger figures are down by 1.7% (100,000) Id say that was a success. In fact the 100k is probably within the limits of a normal year s variations escpecially during industrial action.

A success for the Treasury and maybe. Not a success for the travelling public.

 

[Ianigsy]

It suggests that the product was undervalued, unless the 1.7% transferred to Lumo (which I suppose isn’t impossible).

 

[weeklycommuter]

LNER accounts are currently only available up to 31 March 2023 (see post #1837) so at present the only information available up to 31 March 2024 is passenger numbers for all LNER journeys derived from ticket sales. I would be very surprised if revenue increased with passenger numbers not increased when potential rail passengers can choose to fly, travel by car or travel with an alternative train operator London to and from Newcastle and Edinburgh and the off peak fares are still available for those who are aware of the workarounds of fares to and from Manors and Haymarket instead. Potential rail passengers can also choose not to travel. The anytime return cost of around four hundred pounds between Newcastle and London is around 80p a mile or 50p a km and anything more than 40p a mile or 25p a km means it is likely to be cheaper even for one person travelling alone to make the journey by car. One of the problems of advance fares is that because they are different for every journey it is impossible to advertise a specific fare to attract passengers. Specific and fixed off peak fares can be advertised as available all day Friday Saturday and Sunday to attract passengers but the anytime fares are far too high to attract passengers and instead attract headlines and social media posts such as the following which put potential rail passengers off even considering making their journeys by train.

LNER quotes rail passenger £786.80 for Newcastle to London return tickets

‘Are you out of your actual minds?!’ asked a shocked social media user

www.independent.co.uk

‘Are you out of your actual minds?’ LNER charges pair £783 for Newcastle-London trip

Customer expresses fury at ‘cheapest’ return journey fare for two people that is double the price of airline tickets

www.telegraph.co.uk

Uber now almost as cheap as train between Newcastle and London

Two return fares were advertised for £786.80 in standard and £1,049.20 in first class - almost the same price as a return journey in an Uber.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

 

[yorksrob]

It suggests that LNER perhaps needs a management clearout. Whoever is pushing this agenda is clearly determined to push fares policy in the wrong direction.

 

[BRX]

If revenue is up by say 20% and passenger figures are down by 1.7% (100,000) Id say that was a success. In fact the 100k is probably within the limits of a normal year s variations escpecially during industrial action.

How could that be a success judged against what they claim are the objectives? It would mean the average ticket price has gone up by more than 20%, and also that the network was carrying fewer passengers.

 

[Hadders]

DfT/RDG/Treasury want to pay less subsidy to run the railway so this means schemes like this will become more commonplace. Expect LNER style abolition of Off Peak tickets to be rolled out across the network in due course. This is a very bad thing in my opinion, the train cimpanies have wanted to do it for years. They will claim of course that they're making fares simpler to understand and it's what passengers want.

Don't expect a massive change under a new Government either.

 

[Haywain]

The reality is that neither overall passenger numbers for a few weeks of the trial or revenue for a similar period are an indication of success or failure. Only a subset of both figures will be affected, and passenger numbers would have to take into account the ability to buy tickets several months in advance of travel. The overall figures include enormous numbers unaffected by the trial.

 

[weeklycommuter]

DfT/RDG/Treasury want to pay less subsidy to run the railway so this means schemes like this will become more commonplace. Expect LNER style abolition of Off Peak tickets to be rolled out across the network in due course. This is a very bad thing in my opinion, the train cimpanies have wanted to do it for years. They will claim of course that they're making fares simpler to understand and it's what passengers want.
Don't expect a massive change under a new Government either.

I am not expecting this as it would not work at all for the overwhelming majority of train journeys which are medium and short distance. We do not currently know which party or parties will form the next Government but if it is the widely expected result I note the commitment to

"reliable, affordable, high-quality, and efficient services"

on page 33 of the Labour Party's 2024 manifesto so if they want to have any credibility they will have to reduce the current exorbitant long distance anytime rail fares to more affordable levels and bin the current LNER pilot.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

 

[Wallsendmag]

I am not expecting this as it would not work at all for the overwhelming majority of train journeys which are medium and short distance. We do not currently know which party or parties will form the next Government but if it is the widely expected result I note the commitment to "reliable, affordable, high-quality, and efficient services" on page 33 of the Labour Party's 2024 manifesto so if they want to have any credibility they will have to reduce the current exorbitant long distance anytime rail fares to more affordable levels and bin the current LNER pilot.

I don't think you're going to be happy with the future then. I agree that one size doesn't fit all on the Railway but Single leg pricing of one kind or another is probably the way forward.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not expecting this as it would not work at all for the overwhelming majority of train journeys which are medium and short distance

Northern seem to disagree. Though Northern's Advances are a bit less of an issue than LNER's because they seem to be pretty much fixed-price and very high in number, so you could easily buy just before travel once you know your desired train. It's LNER's desire to charge Anytime like rates for on the day purchase I have the main problem with. In short, the problem is fundamentally the fare increase - most people don't need the flexibility. (I like it, but most people don't care).

 

[yorksrob]

DfT/RDG/Treasury want to pay less subsidy to run the railway so this means schemes like this will become more commonplace. Expect LNER style abolition of Off Peak tickets to be rolled out across the network in due course. This is a very bad thing in my opinion, the train cimpanies have wanted to do it for years. They will claim of course that they're making fares simpler to understand and it's what passengers want.

Don't expect a massive change under a new Government either.

Yes, the labour manifesto is very uninspiring for rail passengers. One wonders whether we're looking at 1964/1997 all over again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2024 ==

I don't think you're going to be happy with the future then. I agree that one size doesn't fit all on the Railway but Single leg pricing of one kind or another is probably the way forward.

And LNER had single leg pricing.

"Look at our off peak singles. These are the future" they said, before promptly abolishing them in a blatant fares hike.

 

[jon0844]

Lumo is seemingly going from strength to strength and its main weakness is the lack of services, and the length of their trains. If they can get more paths and invest in more trains, they could steal a lot of custom from LNER.

Looking at the data, I wonder if a lot of people have already switched (vs not travelling at all, driving, going by coach, finding an alternative route via other TOCs/lines etc).

 

[Starmill]

But that could be spun as increasing revenue and reducing overcrowding, so doesn't necessarily garner bad publicity. After all, most people (including journalists) don't see things the way this forum does.

I think that people who use the forum generally see the railway as better value for money than is typical, even accounting for the use of loopholes and whatnot, because we know that we can quickly use a service such as Trainsplit etc to see the cheaper tickets in a hassle-free way. We also know the easy things to do to find the keenest prices, such as hold a railcard where entitled and prioritise towards the operators who are more price-competitive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lumo is seemingly going from strength to strength and its main weakness is the lack of services, and the length of their trains. If they can get more paths and invest in more trains, they could steal a lot of custom from LNER.

The main issue with Lumo is their awkward luggage policy. However if they were able to lengthen their trains this wouldn't necessarily need to remain the case. I reckon they'd fill 10 car on most services now...

 

[bakerstreet]

If the Government wishes to pay less subsidy and also avoid the poor headlines caused by LNER’s troubling fares policy, then give some of LNER’s paths to LUMO or another open access operator. If LUMO can make money from a handful of trains a day and are looking to expand (they want an increase from the 5 cars and more routes) then surely that is the way forward.

 

[Haywain]

If LUMO can make money from a handful of trains a day and are looking to expand (they want an increase from the 5 cars and more routes) then surely that is the way forward.

Is there anything stopping Lumo from getting more rolling stock to extend their trains?

then give some of LNER’s paths to LUMO or another open access operator.

Be careful what you wish for. Lumo are not noted for doing much to help their customers when things go wrong.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Is there anything stopping Lumo from getting more rolling stock to extend their trains?

Be careful what you wish for. Lumo are not noted for doing much to help their customers when things go wrong.

Hitachi's prices aparently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hitachi's prices aparently.

Other rolling stock manufacturers exist.

 

[Haywain]

Other rolling stock manufacturers exist.

That would probably mean new trains, rather than extended trains.

 

[Starmill]

Other rolling stock manufacturers exist.

No compulsion exists for Lumo to order more or new capacity into their fleet, certainly not at above prevailing market rate. They'll order more as and when they decide it's profitable to. They were granted rights to run with the fleet they've got, and that's that really. The problem I'd argue was with the weakness of the conditions attached to the grant, but that's in the past now.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Probably for another area of the forum, but the main issue with Lumo and rolling stock is primarily power consumption/availability (lack of) on certain parts of the route in the North, rather than cost of rolling stock.

 

[redreni]

It suggests that the product was undervalued, unless the 1.7% transferred to Lumo (which I suppose isn’t impossible).

No, it would suggest there were regulated fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it would suggest there were regulated fares.

Regulated fares prevent charging more, they don't (despite the dishonest rubbish some TOCs come up with) prevent charging less.

 

[redreni]

Regulated fares prevent charging more, they don't (despite the dishonest rubbish some TOCs come up with) prevent charging less.

Exactly.

If we decide as a society to have regulated fares that serve to cap fares below what the market would bear, it doesn't mean the product is being undervalued, it just means a more important goal is being pursued.

 

[Krokodil]

Other rolling stock manufacturers exist.

If adding luggage racks is the aim then extending existing units has to be the answer. The reason that there are no racks is that Lumo found a novel way to comply with the 400 seat minimum within five car trains. Extending existing units can only be done by ordering from Hitachi

 

[Bletchleyite]

If adding luggage racks is the aim then extending existing units has to be the answer. The reason that there are no racks is that Lumo found a novel way to comply with the 400 seat minimum within five car trains. Extending existing units can only be done by ordering from Hitachi

Replied here:

Longer trains for Lumo - how?

From the LNER fares thread: If adding luggage racks is the aim then extending existing units has to be the answer. The reason that there are no racks is that Lumo found a novel way to comply with the 400 seat minimum within five car trains. Extending existing units can only be done by ordering...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[paul1609]

It suggests that the product was undervalued, unless the 1.7% transferred to Lumo (which I suppose isn’t impossible).

If 1.7% have transferred to Lumo it would seem by my back of the fag packet figures to suggest that over 40% of Lumos available capacity is being used to extract revenue from LNER. That would suggest that the ORR got their OA application sums badly wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

If 1.7% have transferred to Lumo it would seem by my back of the fag packet figures to suggest that over 40% of Lumos available capacity is being used to extract revenue from LNER. That would suggest that the ORR got their OA application sums badly wrong.

If they're (ORR) letting this dreadful pilot go ahead, that's the lesser of their iniquities.