High fares - The issue that won't go away

[Watershed]

This isn't a problem with having the 70 minute flex, it's a problem with incompetently* defining how it is priced (or creating a ticket that railway systems can't price in a way that prevents those anomalies).

That is, in the example you give, the 70 Minute Flex should be £150**, not £120, i.e. at the level of the most expensive fare in the time band within which it is valid, determined at the time of purchase. But railway systems can't do that so the fudge is to make it a flat £20 more.

** Or maybe a little more, but not less.
* A great many things about the LNER trial are incompetent, such as not having coordinated quotas with XC so London-Edinburgh itineraries with a change tend to come up as just the Anytime fare, the only way to get a sensible price on them being to split.

Given that there are never any gaps of more than 70 minutes in London-Edinburgh services (at least during a normal timetable) that would effectively require the 70 Minute Flex to be the same price all day. Which is clearly not what LNER want to do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that there are never any gaps of more than 70 minutes in London-Edinburgh services (at least during a normal timetable) that would effectively require the 70 Minute Flex to be the same price all day. Which is clearly not what LNER want to do.

That wouldn't be the case, think about it again. It would only be the case if you priced it recursively based on other 70 Minute Flex tickets.

Simplified example with a limited service day:

Time - Advance fare - Flex fare
1000 £50 £60
1100 £60 £65
1200 £65 £65
1300 £20 £65
1400 £40 £80
1500 £80 £80

 

[Watershed]

That wouldn't be the case, think about it again. It would only be the case if you priced it recursively based on other 70 Minute Flex tickets.

Simplified example with a limited service day:

Time - Advance fare - Flex fare
1000 £50 £60
1100 £60 £65
1200 £65 £65
1300 £20 £65
1400 £40 £80
1500 £80 £80

Ah, well I was assuming they continued pricing Flex fares a set amount above a given train's Advance fare.

Your proposed approach, whilst making more sense, would be much more complex to deliver as it would require the availability of Flex tiers on one train to be linked to the tiers available on other trains. I doubt whether that it is feasible to do given the constraints of the RARS (Rail Availability and Reservations Service) platform.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, well I was assuming they continued pricing Flex fares a set amount above a given train's Advance fare.

You could add a fiver or a tenner on to cover the "premium" of the flexibility.

Your proposed approach, whilst making more sense, would be much more complex to deliver as it would require the availability of Flex tiers on one train to be linked to the tiers available on other trains. I doubt whether that it is feasible to do given the constraints of the RARS (Rail Availability and Reservations Service) platform.

It'd be hard to do it now, but who says GBR shouldn't have a totally new fares system launched at the same time as a totally new retail system? I'd say it needs that - start again from scratch. Probably end that here though as it was just a minor aside making the point that the issue is the way 70 Minute Flex has been done in the trial rather than the concept being flawed, not an intention to start a new speculative thread on what GBR's entire fare policy should be as there have already been such threads.

 

[Krokodil]

On long distance, yes, people's plans are mostly fixed. The industry's own research bears this out; even 15 years ago Virgin West Coast were finding that among flexible ticket holders who had selected an itinerary, well over 80% of them were using the train on their itinerary.

80% is some way from "nearly everyone on the railway", even before you consider that most people on the railway aren't travelling a long distance. Indeed, even with Northern and TfW throwing out Advances like confetti they still represent less than 10% of journeys made. The most popular ticket type nationwide (by passenger journeys) is the Off Peak.

Most passengers value simplicity and predictability;

Indeed. What is simpler than an Anytime return? When you travel back you can just turn up at the station and board any train that is going the right way. In most cases there are almost no rules about how you use the ticket. Whereas with an Advance you MUST be on your booked train or be stung for £££. You can't break your journey, if your train gets cancelled you can't take an earlier on without appealing to the goodwill of the staff, or use the stopper to get home unless acceptance has been agreed between operators.

But I also feel that many of the discounts against the benchmark fare are so limited that the deal isn't really worth the candle

This. Where advances are priced marginally below the walkup fare they serve no purpose to the passenger, they just deprive them of options. They serve no purpose to the railway as a whole because that's a small amount of revenue lost from the difference in price (until someone gets stung for being on the wrong train, then quids in). All they serve is to avoid sharing the ORCATS pie with other operators.

 

[35B]

It'd be hard to do it now, but who says GBR shouldn't have a totally new fares system launched at the same time as a totally new retail system? I'd say it needs that - start again from scratch. Probably end that here though as it was just a minor aside making the point that the issue is the way 70 Minute Flex has been done in the trial rather than the concept being flawed, not an intention to start a new speculative thread on what GBR's entire fare policy should be as there have already been such threads.

It speaks to why the 70 Minute Flex is a poor idea. To do it well and fairly requires an ever increasing degree of complexity, requiring a load of consequential changes to deliver something of marginal utility - and then only to make an unpalatable change just about acceptable.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a scale of charges where flexibility comes at a premium, and then discounts are offered in return for reduced flexibility. That might be in the form of the Cheap Day Return as we once knew it, where the loss of flexibility was the inability to use it at peak periods, or it might be in terms of a fixed itinerary ticket. It's where the industry wants to have its cake and eat it, using fixed tickets but giving the illusion of flexibility, that it starts to feel unfair and unreasonable.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

This. Where advances are priced marginally below the walkup fare they serve no purpose to the passenger, they just deprive them of options. They serve no purpose to the railway as a whole because that's a small amount of revenue lost from the difference in price (until someone gets stung for being on the wrong train, then quids in). All they serve is to avoid sharing the ORCATS pie with other operators.

They also serve to mitigate a 'refund' culture that has developed where a minority of unscrupulous customers choose to defraud the industry by using refundable fares on e-ticket and then refunding them - sometimes as part of a fraud using multiple split tickets and refunding those that haven't been scanned by a gate or on-board. A non-refundable Advance ticket can not, in normal circumstances, be refunded. Customers have the choice to buy these Advance tickets at a small discount, or a slightly more expensive walk-up fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It speaks to why the 70 Minute Flex is a poor idea. To do it well and fairly requires an ever increasing degree of complexity, requiring a load of consequential changes to deliver something of marginal utility - and then only to make an unpalatable change just about acceptable.

Is an Advance with insurance against missing your train really of "marginal utility"? If you're reaching your train by bus it would seem a sensible and useful feature to me.

 

[Krokodil]

They also serve to mitigate a 'refund' culture that has developed where a minority of unscrupulous customers choose to defraud the industry by using refundable fares on e-ticket and then refunding them - sometimes as part of a fraud using multiple split tickets and refunding those that haven't been scanned by a gate or on-board. A non-refundable Advance ticket can not, in normal circumstances, be refunded. Customers have the choice to buy these Advance tickets at a small discount, or a slightly more expensive walk-up fare.

True. Advance purchase on the day (APOD) is also an easy way for revenue to sting those who didn’t buy before they boarded. Except that those who bought five minutes before departure also get caught out because sales for the train approaching the platform suddenly stopped with just a "something went wrong" as the card payment failed, the train changes to "not available to buy" and the passenger (wanting to do the right thing but not knowing how) just selects the next one on the list.

Ching!

Complex fares create more ways to get caught out. It's this sort of thing that devalues the railway's reputation.

 

[35B]

Is an Advance with insurance against missing your train really of "marginal utility"? If you're reaching your train by bus it would seem a sensible and useful feature to me.

It's only of utility because of the degree of price difference between advance and on the day tickets. What would be interesting would be the take up of a supplement giving the ability to change your ticket. I suspect that the railway could price that very cheaply on the basis that it would be rarely used (yes, I know that this would provide a loophole that a few would exploit), and that the gains through selling the supplement would outstrip the lost income.

 

[redreni]

On long distance, yes, people's plans are mostly fixed. The industry's own research bears this out; even 15 years ago Virgin West Coast were finding that among flexible ticket holders who had selected an itinerary, well over 80% of them were using the train on their itinerary.

Splendid, we don't need to tie people to a particular train, then.

 

[AlterEgo]

Splendid, we don't need to tie people to a particular train, then.

In a world of unlimited capacity, perhaps, but that isn't the world we operate in. A lot of infrequent (that is - non-captive, discretionary) passengers are extremely sensitive to complexity, perceived or otherwise, and to the threat of crowding, inconvenience and dread risk of "having the wrong ticket".

Most of the people who are (semi-)power users on flexible walk ups are far more likely to take the train and navigate the idiosyncracies of the industry.

 

[redreni]

In a world of unlimited capacity, perhaps, but that isn't the world we operate in. A lot of infrequent (that is - non-captive, discretionary) passengers are extremely sensitive to complexity, perceived or otherwise, and to the threat of crowding, inconvenience and dread risk of "having the wrong ticket".

Most of the people who are (semi-)power users on flexible walk ups are far more likely to take the train and navigate the idiosyncracies of the industry.

But people don't want flexibility, so keep the variable pricing to encourage people to choose less busy trains when they book, but don't require them to travel on their booked train.

As most people just want to stick to their booked itinerary, what could go wrong?

 

[AlterEgo]

But people don't want flexibility, so keep the variable pricing to encourage people to choose less busy trains when they book, but don't require them to travel on their booked train.

As most people just want to stick to their booked itinerary, what could go wrong?

What is your point, in plain English?

 

[redreni]

What is your point, in plain English?

That if people didn't want flexibility, it wouldn't be necessary to threaten them with being shaken down for hundreds of pounds, or worse, for travelling on the wrong train, as very few of them would travel on a train they didn't book even if there were no adverse consequences to doing so. That's what not wanting flexibility means. If we're not willing to operate in that way, it must be because a non-trivial number of passengers actually would like a degree of flexibility.

And if people have a tendency to stick rigidly to their itinerary even when they hold a flexible ticket, that may be because they are not confident that they know which other trains, if any, they can travel on with the ticket they hold.

It might not necessarily be, in every case, that they wouldn't want comprehensible flexibility (e.g. a graphical illustration of the journey options available to them on the day, with those on which their ticket is valid shown in green and any on which it isn't valid shown in red), if it were available.

 

[crablab]

A non-refundable Advance ticket can not, in normal circumstances, be refunded. Customers have the choice to buy these Advance tickets at a small discount, or a slightly more expensive walk-up fare.

a) this is just another example of the railway industry putting their convenience above the customer experience
b) you think those who perpetrate this type of fraud haven't figured that out?

It also prevents DR fraud too. Of course, in both of these examples the industry is perfectly capable of dealing with these issues by doing a data trawl & sending scary letters.

 

[35B]

That if people didn't want flexibility, it wouldn't be necessary to threaten them with being shaken down for hundreds of pounds, or worse, for travelling on the wrong train, as very few of them would travel on a train they didn't book even if there were no adverse consequences to doing so. That's what not wanting flexibility means. If we're not willing to operate in that way, it must be because a non-trivial number of passengers actually would like a degree of flexibility.

And if people have a tendency to stick rigidly to their itinerary even when they hold a flexible ticket, that may be because they are not confident that they know which other trains, if any, they can travel on with the ticket they hold.

It might not necessarily be, in every case, that they wouldn't want comprehensible flexibility (e.g. a graphical illustration of the journey options available to them on the day, with those on which their ticket is valid shown in green and any on which it isn't valid shown in red), if it were available.

I think you have the logic the wrong way round. The railways use the existing structure of penalties on people using the "wrong" service because, having that legislation in their favour, it simply never occurs to the industry that this is a bad way to operate.

They offer restrictive tickets because, like other industries, it allows them to sell both a greater volume of tickets and earn more revenue than if they just sold simple singles and returns.

 

[Sonic1234]

I think you have the logic the wrong way round. The railways use the existing structure of penalties on people using the "wrong" service because, having that legislation in their favour, it simply never occurs to the industry that this is a bad way to operate.

It's also because of a culture of suspicion of passengers - look at all the rules there are because someone might be smart and save a pound here or there, and that the railway has no concern about customer retention. Most businesses wouldn't treat customers the way the railway does because it would push customers to their competitors. But you're only on the train because a) you have no other reasonable option and/or b) the other options are even worse, and demand is high enough that even if a passenger never returns, someone else will fill their seat.

 

[modernrail]

So do you think the likely outcome of the trail is that either
(A) LNER won’t move to extend to other journeys or
(b) LNER will keep the fares on the current journeys only whilst not rolling them out further?

If it is neither of these I don’t see your point.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2025 ==


I don’t know a lot about Hendy. The new boss of the NHS is a legend in his own area and has given a major interview blasting the NHS and saying it is build to give patients a bad experience. He is very critical indeed of a patient unfriendly culture he erased in his own trust leading to it being by far the best performing in the country.

He has massive criticism of how bloated the management structures are etc. He seems to be, as we hear far too little of these days, a man of the people and for the people.

What is Hendy like within that context? If he seriously feels able to lie and say 70 mins flex is an improved offer for customers I am struggling to believe he isn’t part of the problem.

What other innovations has LNER trialled that have really improved life? Certainly not comfortable seats, trains that don’t shake over points, affordable peak fares etc etc.

It runs the countries consistently most close to profit line. It is doing the minimum compared to its predecessors on the same line, with hardly any improvements and a big step back in on board comfort.

According to some on this forum, Greggs should charge the same price for all products, whether its a sausage roll or vegetable slice, because to have a sausage-roll only fare is somehow in breach of competition law.

The whole £49.50 AP vs £50.00 off-peak flexible ticket thing is totally due to have the fares are presented by trainline or whatever. The public have no idea how fares work. They just pick an itinerary and choose the cheapest price on the next screen. If a retailer had a Ryanair-style screen on the next page saying "upgrade to a flexiile ticket for only 50p more allowing travel on any train after 9:30am" I wonder how many people would then press that button. Of course it can never be that simple, because the railway has kind of shot itself in the foot with extremely long convoluted restrictions that often can't be easily summarised in one sentence.

Exactly. The presentation of fares and their associated terms and conditions is a disgrace. Lots of my friends have no idea there is such a difference between an advance and an off peak. Once their education is complete not only do they opt for the off peak far more often I get messages of thanks when they have avoided an Advance shafting. It is a solid example of the railway treating those that pay its bills with absolute contempt.

Advances should not be called Advances. You buy all tickets in advance. They should be called Inflexible or Restricted. Off peaks should probably be called Off Peak Flexible. The 70 min flex should be called a step and a complication too far and banned.

Of course more people buy advances than off peaks. Partly because they are cheaper and some people will sacrifice flexibility for a cheaper ticket. Partly because some people are being conned into buying a 50p cheaper ticket without any real indication of the difference in terms. Partly because for many it is the only way they will step foot on a peak train without winning the lottery. Partly because the railway has got into a habit of filling too much of popular trains with advance fares not leaving enough seats for off peaks (railway then moans about not enough capacity available and prices those people off by saying, oooh the same sausage roll is now only available at 10x price the guy next to you paid for his) as opposed to not over-encouraging people on in the first place which would be a better move on busy services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

What is your point, in plain English?

The point of I understand it correctly, is really important. Some on here are saying, we don’t need off peak fares because most people buy an advanced.

If only a minority of people buy an off peak, why do you need to do anything about off peak tickets. Why do you need to remove them. Why is there any problem with them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

a) this is just another example of the railway industry putting their convenience above the customer experience
b) you think those who perpetrate this type of fraud haven't figured that out?

It also prevents DR fraud too. Of course, in both of these examples the industry is perfectly capable of dealing with these issues by doing a data trawl & sending scary letters.

Exactly. The excuses for creating further complexity just because the railway owns a computer that it can shove more fare codes into at will are feeble.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Indeed. What is simpler than an Anytime return? When you travel back you can just turn up at the station and board any train that is going the right way. In most cases there are almost no rules about how you use the ticket. Whereas with an Advance you MUST be on your booked train or be stung for £££. You can't break your journey, if your train gets cancelled you can't take an earlier on without appealing to the goodwill of the staff, or use the stopper to get home unless acceptance has been agreed between operators.

Indeed - which is precisely why on longer distance journeys the simplicity of being able to use any train has a value. You can either price it in and realise that value and use the revenue to cross subsidise other products, or you offer it to everyone but reduce revenue (because there is no ability to price demand) and increase costs (because too many people will want to travel on holidays/Fridays/Sundays with little incentive to try for a less crowded time).

 

[modernrail]

Indeed - which is precisely why on longer distance journeys the simplicity of being able to use any train has a value. You can either price it in and realise that value and use the revenue to cross subsidise other products, or you offer it to everyone but reduce revenue (because there is no ability to price demand) and increase costs (because too many people will want to travel on holidays/Fridays/Sundays with little incentive to try for a less crowded time).

It is priced in. An off peak flexible ticket is more expensive than an advance ticket.

If the railway thinks that train is so popular that it could be filled with people who would pay for that value, then only allow off peak tickets. Then you make more money per train.

You don’t need to shaft the people looking for flexibility by making them pay 10x the cheapest advance for largely the same product. There is an argument to pay a but more for the flexibility, but that is what we had until the railway started acting like charlatans with advance fares 50p cheaper than the off peak and lies about removing a price cap being about simplifying fares.

Why on earth should somebody who is willing to pay a bit more for a ticket be told they now need to pay x5 or x10 more to cross subsidise somebody else buying a much cheaper advance?

There is no way I am ever going to pay £10 for a Greggs sausage roll just so somebody can get one for 20p just because they got into the store when it first opened.

 

[AlterEgo]

The point of I understand it correctly, is really important. Some on here are saying, we don’t need off peak fares because most people buy an advanced.

Has anyone actually said that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has anyone actually said that?

It's been sort of alluded to.

The reason LNER want to remove them has little to do with complexity and everything to do with wanting to put up fares at busy but traditionally off peak times.

 

[redreni]

The point of I understand it correctly, is really important. Some on here are saying, we don’t need off peak fares because most people buy an advanced.

If only a minority of people buy an off peak, why do you need to do anything about off peak tickets. Why do you need to remove them. Why is there any problem with them?

Well, yeah, except we know why they want to remove them: they're effectively a price cap on Advances.

I am just calling BS on the idea people don't want flexibility, and responding to a claim that even when people buy a flexible ticket they still stick to their booked itinerary. I'm not doubting that's the case, but if it were a reflection of passengers' preferences (as distinct from being the behaviour the industry has conditioned into them) then you could charge different fares to book different trains based on demand, but you wouldn't need to enforce or even have a rule that they must travel on their booked train, because apparently people don't want to travel on a train they didn't book.

Being a bit more sensible, if you wanted credible demand-based pricing but didn't want to treat people like chumps, subject to availability of seats you could let people change their booking and just pay an excess if they're switching from a quieter to a busier train, and let them do it for free if they're switching between two trains neither of which are busy, or from a busier to a less busy train. You know, rather than penalising people if they help you out by travelling on an empty train rather than the one they booked, which was heaving, as happens currently.

This would be different to the current system where you can change your booking by paying the difference in fare: it wouldn't penalise you if fares generally have gone up since you booked. It would only charge you extra if the train you want to switch to is more in demand than the one you booked originally. So it would be based on comparing the higher of (a) the predicted load factor of your booked train at the time of booking or (b) the predicted load factor of your booked train at the time of the change, against (c) the predicted load factor of the train you want to switch to. And the passenger wouldn't have to understand any of this, they could just access their booking and see a list of trains they could switch to along with details of any excess they would have to pay. That would be modern flexibility.

 

[yorkie]

One of the more odd ways that the 70 min flex is bad can be summarised thus:

If the 0500 train, which takes 4 hours, is £150, and the 0600 train, which takes 4h30m, is £120 on 70 min flex - why would anyone buy the train they wanted to catch? A customer having this "hack" explained to them would be confused as to why it exists. The entire feel of the structure is counterintuitive, and it actually breeds a lack of confidence in the railway overall. What other random stuff hacks are they missing out on? Where else are they overpaying for their journeys?

One day, we want to be able to "pre-flex" fares, i.e. issue a ticket for the 'wrong' train but valid for the train the passenger selects, and for that train to be their reserved train. I'm not sure if it will happen, but if the 'trial' goes on for a very long time, or becomes the new standard, it's inevitable to happen eventually.

LNER are, of course, desperate for people to book with them, so as to ensure people miss out on any "hacks" and pay the highest amount possible, hence their huge "book direct" marketing campaign, at great taxpayers expense!

 

[Sonic1234]

hence their huge "book direct" marketing campaign, at great taxpayers expense!

With the cashback incentives!

 

[crablab]

That would be modern flexibility.

And even more cutting edge, you could show this loading data to passengers upfront in the booking process - shock

So all these arguments that inflexible advances are the only way to manage demand fall away, if you show passengers the predicted loading of services as they book (based on actual reservations to date, and historic loading data as measured by the train).

Then people can make informed decisions about which trains they want to travel on, depending on how busy it's likely to be, and how much they want a seat. Some retailers might even offer search functionality that allows a passenger to prioritise quieter services and routes.

No need for complicated ticketing or restrictions (of course, we know these are really about revenue)

This would be different to the current system where you can change your booking by paying the difference in fare: it wouldn't penalise you if fares generally have gone up since you booked

This is basically the system Eurostar operate and it works fine. It's certainly an improvement on the existing advances
I've previously rocked up at Brussels Midi unexpectedly early (didn't get DB'd) and rebooked my Interrail reservation onto an earlier service leaving in 40 minutes for a princely €15 (to be fair, this one is a flat change fee)

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would be different to the current system where you can change your booking by paying the difference in fare: it wouldn't penalise you if fares generally have gone up since you booked. It would only charge you extra if the train you want to switch to is more in demand than the one you booked originally. So it would be based on comparing the higher of (a) the predicted load factor of your booked train at the time of booking or (b) the predicted load factor of your booked train at the time of the change, against (c) the predicted load factor of the train you want to switch to. And the passenger wouldn't have to understand any of this, they could just access their booking and see a list of trains they could switch to along with details of any excess they would have to pay. That would be modern flexibility.

To be fair just dropping the admin fee would be a start. There is no reason why an admin fee should be payable for an online change of an e-ticketed Advance fare; nobody does any actual administration.

There are sales sites that don't, but it should be standard not to do so.

Premier Inn does not charge an admin fee for online amendments - and it even refunds you the difference if the date you change to is cheaper! This is the sort of friendliness the railway needs to look at. Travelodge by contrast (the Ryanair of hotels) does charge £10 admin fee and I think doesn't refund the difference if cheaper.

And Lumo deserves a special kick in the manhood for its policy on the "LumoFlex" fare (to add to the kick it deserves for its luggage policy and failure to monetise allowing a limited number of pre booked larger bags) - no fee up to the day before travel, a fee on the day of travel. That's just taking advantage particularly given that it will likely result in a fairly considerable fare uplift for most such changes.

 

[thedbdiboy]

It is priced in. An off peak flexible ticket is more expensive than an advance ticket.

Not at market rates - the off-peak ticket has been regulated since 1995. That is effectively a subsidy. Please note I am not arguing for or against the policy but just trying to make the point that fares priced below what the market will bear are replacing money that would come from passengers with money that has to come from somewhere else - either cost cutting or taxes

 

[35B]

Not at market rates - the off-peak ticket has been regulated since 1995. That is effectively a subsidy. Please note I am not arguing for or against the policy but just trying to make the point that fares priced below what the market will bear are replacing money that would come from passengers with money that has to come from somewhere else - either cost cutting or taxes

Being pedantic, the existence of a price cap is not a subsidy. Arguably, it may even permit operators to increase prices beyond what pure market based pricing would do by creating the sense that certain prices are “allowed”.