Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

[Tetchytyke]

It's Advances on things like the frequent Manchester and Leeds local services that are a bit silly

They're a symptom of a wider issue with the ticketing framework though. Northern set the any permitted fares on those routes which means they're prohibited from setting their own TOC-restricted walk up ticket. Bringing in Advance tickets is the only way they can reduce fares for people who are prepared to commit to Northern trains.

I'd say Advances on these types of trains are better for the customer than, for instance, the mish-mash of walk-up tickets between, say, Manchester Airport and Manchester Stations. TPE's tickets in particular really get my goat up- they're only a few pence cheaper than the any permitted and, because they're issued to MANCHESTER STNS rather than MANCHESTER CTLZ you lose the validity on the tram.

As for the wider implications of LNER's little trial, I can foresee a future where all tickets are either advance or anytime. No doubt this will be sold as "simplifying" the "complex peak restrictions".

 

[A S Leib]

As for the wider implications of LNER's little trial, I can foresee a future where all tickets are either advance or anytime. No doubt this will be sold as "simplifying" the "complex peak restrictions".

What would happen for e.g. Chelmsford – London (apart from PAYG)? The off-peak day return's ~¾ of the price of an anytime day return, and I suspect* that route's busy enough at peak times that it would be preferable to try to price some people away from then.

* A recent London Reconnection post said that in 1933 slightly over a third of the Shenfield line's daily traffic in one direction was in one peak hour; I suspect it's less extreme now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would happen for e.g. Chelmsford – London (apart from PAYG)? The off-peak day return's ~¾ of the price of an anytime day return, and I suspect* that route's busy enough at peak times that it would be preferable to try to price some people away from then.

The answer is PAYG, and paper ticket fares based on that (though it's not unlikely they'd be punitively priced to encourage the use of contactless, even though they aren't at the start of Project Oval).

The vast majority of other European countries use flat fares on regional services and yield managed fares on long distance services, with the former subsidised and the latter expected to operate commercially. A policy like that is most likely.

 

[Krokodil]

I wonder how many people buy tickets from Llanrwst (Central!!!) to North Llanrwst!

Four.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Four.

Per year?

 

[Kite159]

If anything, those short distance advances should simply be binned, with the flexible single ticket reduced so it's not 5p less than a return. They probably cause more hassle with some customers getting caught out when travelling on the delayed 14:13 from Stockport to Manchester, which departed at 14:18 when that customer had a ticket for the 14:18 departure. (Just an example).

Made worse with that customer buying it on The Trainline which doesn't make it clear that it's booked train only.

 

[Krokodil]

Per year?

In the 23/24 financial year. I couldn't be bothered to check any further back

 

[Bletchleyite]

If anything, those short distance advances should simply be binned, with the flexible single ticket reduced so it's not 5p less than a return. They probably cause more hassle with some customers getting caught out when travelling on the delayed 14:13 from Stockport to Manchester, which departed at 14:18 when that customer had a ticket for the 14:18 departure. (Just an example).

Made worse with that customer buying it on The Trainline which doesn't make it clear that it's booked train only.

Agree, and they don't largely exist in the Oval contactless areas - singles are half of returns (keeping the returns if you want them unlike LNER) and there aren't any period returns, just buy two singles at the same price as a day return. Plus you can mix singles if you're going out in the peak and back off peak or vice versa.

I always thought a reasonable approach was that if you can reserve a specific seat it's probably a long distance service where yield management makes sense, and if you can't then it's a regional/local service where fares should be walk up/contactless. There are some long distance services where you can't reserve a seat, but that's probably the thing to fix. Counted places have not been a benefit, really.

 

[sheff1]

Northern's ones of course merely being an ORCATS dodge

Don't know why this claim continues to be made. As pointed out many a time, Northern Advances are available on many flows where they are the only operator and there is no possibility of an "ORCATS dodge".

 

[takno]

Don't know why this claim continues to be made. As pointed out many a time, Northern Advances are available on many flows where they are the only operator and there is no possibility of an "ORCATS dodge".

I suspect people make the assumption because the alternative seems to be that they are selling people a similarly-priced ticket with heavy restrictions in the hope that they will make a mistake and can be penalty-fared. Nobody wants to assume that Northern are purely evil.

 

[Bikeman78]

Don't know why this claim continues to be made. As pointed out many a time, Northern Advances are available on many flows where they are the only operator and there is no possibility of an "ORCATS dodge".

Then what purpose do they serve? If they are only slightly cheaper than flexible tickets, they are unlikely to generate much extra revenue.

 

[Kite159]

Don't know why this claim continues to be made. As pointed out many a time, Northern Advances are available on many flows where they are the only operator and there is no possibility of an "ORCATS dodge".

Likewise with some of those TfW advance fares (i.e. Llanrwst-North Llanrwst from post 718) where TfW would get 100% of the revenue of the flexible ticket.

 

[Krokodil]

Likewise with some of those TfW advance fares (i.e. Llanrwst-North Llanrwst from post 718) where TfW would get 100% of the revenue of the flexible ticket.

The overall scheme is designed as an ORCATS dodge (management let slip that this was the objective), but to avoid creating anomalies it has been applied to all non-SW Metro flows.

If it is not an ORCATS dodge, then pray tell what the real purpose of these schemes are.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Then what purpose do they serve? If they are only slightly cheaper than flexible tickets, they are unlikely to generate much extra revenue.

They're very useful for people who are only travelling in one direction. I generally use them in that situation.

This could equally be solved by making the flexible single half the price of the flexible return, of course, as LNER sort-of did.

 

[A S Leib]

According to Philip Haigh on Twitter, the DfT's telling the transport committee that the trial's being well-received.

More from the transport committee: DfT reckons passengers have welcomed LNER’s fares simplification that has ditched cheaper off-peak tickets in favour less flexible, and often more expensive, advance fares.

Tweet here; should be available on a committee feed (https://committees.parliament.uk/event/22219/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/?) or in Hansard later for those who'd rather not go there / for more context.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because LNER told them so, and LNER cannot do wrong!

 

[yorksrob]

Liars.

 

[nwales58]

According to Philip Haigh on Twitter, the DfT's telling the transport committee that the trial's being well-received.

I can easily construct survey questions which will prove that users genuinely really really love the new 70 minute flex fares.

And another that proves that everyone wants much much more flexibility, say, any off-peak train or even on another day, and are prepared to pay a little more for it even.

We can guess which one LNER commissioned.

 

[jayah]

Unfortunately, more whitewash in Modern Railways' otherwise very interesting update on ECML affairs:



Interesting to note no mention of revenue.

In terms of this alleged increase in customer satisfaction, I can imagine some established users of AP tickets liking the flex option. Great, have them alongside the off-peak option.

As for business travellers, LNER is a largely leisure focused service anyway, according to the article. Some of us leisure passengers appreciate real flexibility on occasions. They need to have an option for this, rather than the ludicrous "anytime" fares.

Almost everybody appreciates flexibility.

We've all been in meetings where someone wants to alter the start and finish the meeting to work around their off peak travel times, and someone else is stuck in a coffee shop for an hour or two after it finishes because their company travel policy was to buy the cheapest ticket.

No doubt the LNER Managers issuing these press releases all have passes, so they have 24/7-365 flex and never had to do battle with a dodgy data signal to change a booking.

 

[Discuss223]

Mod note: split from existing thread

LNER to pilot removal of Off-Peak tickets

LNER is to pilot the replacement of Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak tickets on certain flows (Kings Cross to Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh) with a new '70-minute Flex' ticket. During the trial there will be only three fare types available: Anytime, 70-min Flex, and Advance. From...

www.railforums.co.uk

---

Expansion of 70-min Flex for journeys made from 30-9-24...

I don't like this at all. Essentially, they are making Off Peak ticket bands in to Advance bands.

For example, if one buys a Flex ticket to leave at around 17:00, one gets chatting to an old friend in the pub, and it becomes 18:40, one's ticket is useless.

Historically, Off Peak tickets were aimed at leisure travellers, hoping to have a day out and leaving after 09:30 and not returning home until the evening. There's no point in purchasing a flexible ticket if there is a one-hour time restriction on it.

I shall certainly not be buying one of these tickets, it will be Anytime only for me.

As a customer, the benefit of the railway is freedom from time restrictions, e.g. unlike the railway's competitors, coach companies. It's a great shame that this flexibility seems to be being lost to a drive for Advance style tickets.

 

[JonathanH]

I shall certainly not be buying one of these tickets, it will be Anytime only for me.

Well they'll be getting more money from you, or you will travel less, which would appear to be part of the objective.

As it said in the current Modern Railways, 4 out of 5 journeys on LNER is for leisure, which is one potential reason why unnecessarily subsidising fares is seen as a poor use of taxpayer funding.

 

[AdamWW]

Well they'll be getting more money from you, or you will travel less, which would appear to be part of the objective.

As it said in the current Modern Railways, 4 out of 5 journeys on LNER is for leisure, which is one potential reason why unnecessarily subsidising fares is seen as a poor use of taxpayer funding.

But if this is revenue neutral as has been suggested it's doing nothing to reduce subsidies.

Anyway I'm not sure what the argument is here. We shouldn't be subsidising leisure travel but should be subsidising business travel? Or commuting costs for people who live hundreds of miles from their workplace?

And I presume by "leisure" they just mean non commuting, non business travel. There are plenty of non work related journeys that wouldn't generally be considered leisure.

 

[yorksrob]

Almost everybody appreciates flexibility.

We've all been in meetings where someone wants to alter the start and finish the meeting to work around their off peak travel times, and someone else is stuck in a coffee shop for an hour or two after it finishes because their company travel policy was to buy the cheapest ticket.

No doubt the LNER Managers issuing these press releases all have passes, so they have 24/7-365 flex and never had to do battle with a dodgy data signal to change a booking.

Yes, I bet they can all swan around at discounted rates whenever they choose.

Railway management should get no concessions and be forced to pay full price.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Dec 2024 ==

Well they'll be getting more money from you, or you will travel less, which would appear to be part of the objective.

As it said in the current Modern Railways, 4 out of 5 journeys on LNER is for leisure, which is one potential reason why unnecessarily subsidising fares is seen as a poor use of taxpayer funding.

The spirit of the Victorian mill owner strikes again.

Fine to subsidise trave to get the drones to their pits and factories, but heaven forfend the state should help to facilitate the pursuit of happiness.

This country has a peasant mentality.

 

[Tetchytyke]

which is one potential reason why unnecessarily subsidising fares is seen as a poor use of taxpayer funding.

LNER doesn’t receive subsidy, it makes money- and lots of it.

Railway management should get no concessions and be forced to pay full price.

Now that I’d agree with.

 

[JonathanH]

LNER doesn’t receive subsidy, it makes money- and lots of it.

A negative subsidy is still a subsidy if the business could make more money.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A negative subsidy is still a subsidy if the business could make more money.

“Anything short of price gouging is subsidy”.

That’s certainly one opinion (!)

 

[jayah]

As it said in the current Modern Railways, 4 out of 5 journeys on LNER is for leisure, which is one potential reason why unnecessarily subsidising fares is seen as a poor use of taxpayer funding.

Very few people using LNER are being subsidised, despite the incredibly expensive deal DfT did on their train fleet.

The poor use of taxpayers money is the eye watering cost base and the inability for policy makers to specify or operate the network efficiently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNER doesn’t receive subsidy, it makes money- and lots of it.

If you apportion the Network Rail grant across TOCs none of them make a profit.

 

[Hadders]

We’re starting to drift off-topic taking about subsidy.

This is angling standing thread about 70-Minute Flex tickets and the impact of them on passengers.
Mog anyone wants to discuss subsidy and its relationship to fares please free to start a new thread.

 

[BRX]

I've been thinking about how it is quite hard to get the point across to many people, about what the problem is here - because it's so easy for LNER et al to obfuscate.

Perhaps what's needed is a "save our off peaks" campaign.

Focus on what is being abolished and what is lost.

1. Ability to buy a ticket right up to departure. Always. No "sold out" quotas.
2. Certainty of price
3. Flexibility over entire day (outside peaks).

Probably not worth over-complicating with stuff about break of journey on returns etc.

Then anything that LNER or anyone else counters as a newer/better ticket is simple to assess against those three criteria. Does it meet them yes or no?

At the moment it's too easy for them to bamboozle with detail that covers up the essential fact that this long standing component of the UK rail fare structure is being entirely abolished.