High fares - The issue that won't go away

[The Ham]

As I've pointed out before, we could fit as this fuss with ticket prices.

It would cost more in taxes, but not as much as 1/3 the average cost of car ownership (the average is £3,600 per year) and not as much as a lot of people already spend on rail travel.

Firstly a bit of context, the cost of government spending per tax payer is £32,000 per year (i.e. more than a lot of people pay in taxes).

Likewise, there is already government spending on the railways and buses.

However the point is to make all public transport free at the point of user would cost the government £1,000 per tax payer.

In terms of extra spending, probably far less than that. As not only is there already government spending on buses and trains, but public transport has a lot of costs in collecting revenue which could disappear (even if you retained all the front line staff).

Especially given revenue protection staff cost more than the directly generate (yes there's loads of people who pay from the fear of getting caught

On top of that the cost to the public sector to travel would fall sufficiently, as could other government costs (people walking to from bus stops and stations would be healthier, as would those who are now living in less polluted areas due to the reduction in road travel, reducing the cost to the NHS).

Yes capacity would never be able to cope, however the point is that actually the cost to everyone would be far smaller.

Even at £1,200 per tax payer (so a budget of about £7.5bn a year for capacity improvements) that's still only the cost of 1/3 of a car (so even if there's two tax payers sharing one car and their car costs are 67% of the average) for many they would be better off paying that much extra in taxes than owning a car (and again the government is already paying some of that so it wouldn't all be extra anyway).

Yes you would need to also improve buses, however given you could triple the number of buses in the country (remembering that includes a LOT of buses run for TfL) for less than £600 per tax payer (as the TfL value is based in TfL road revenue which isn't just buses but also congestion charge income too).

Even adding those together (£1,800) is still only half the average cost of car ownership (again that not all needing to be extra money coming from tax payers).

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I don't think that's entirely true.

Rail travel has some USP's - the ability to relax into a journey for example as opposed to driving. Genuine walk-on travel as opposed to flying.

It just seems that the industry prefers the stick to the carrot (and is moving further in that direction due to ever more restrictions).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

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).

Pricing in flexibility should involve a proportional increase in cost over AP, not making walk-on travel the preserve of the elite - as LNER's diabolical fares trial seeks to do.

 

[35B]

Pricing in flexibility should involve a proportional increase in cost over AP, not making walk-on travel the preserve of the elite - as LNER's diabolical fares trial seeks to do.

You make the mistake of assuming that prices are geared off the AP. The whole point is that the industry compares fares to the regulated fares, and sees other fares as discounts.

What they don’t see (choose not to see?) is that their customers assess value in a completely different way.

Hence the cognitive dissonance between customers seeking value and the industry (and its paymaster) seeking returns.

 

[modernrail]

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

That means that the first fares that should be cut are any advances provided below the off peak fare, not the off peak fare itself. They are being provided at a greater ‘subsidy’.

So remove them all for a year on anything other than a historically very quiet service (so one with lower demand for more than 6 months say), allow only off peak tickets and see where you get to revenue wise.

My guess is that they will fill most long distance services fairly easily and revenue will be up without needing to breach that effective cap as LNER are doing. It is also a much more certain product for passenger.

 

[Haywain]

It is also a much more certain product for passenger.

And much more expensive. That will go down well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And much more expensive. That will go down well.

What's more expensive? A Super Off Peak Single from Finsbury Park to Edinburgh, or a typical Advance bought near to the time of travel from Kings Cross to Edinburgh?

The answer is the one LNER would like it to be, not the one you are suggesting it is, at least on most trains on a Friday and Sunday. This Friday for instance LNER trains are between £101 and £121, and Lumo has taken advantage by knocking their fares up to £93 again pretty much the same all day.

Super Off Peak Single from Finsbury Park? £95.40. Off Peak Return from Euston to Glasgow? £186.90, or £93.45 each way.

It's utterly obvious what they are up to.

 

[Haywain]

What's more expensive?

On a recent journey I made with Mrs H, the Advances were half the price of a Super Off Peak Return. Doubling the price is making it much more expensive by any measure. I'm going to be booking another journey later today where the Advances are less than half the Super Off Peak.

A Super Off Peak Single from Finsbury Park to Edinburgh, or a typical Advance bought near to the time of travel from Kings Cross to Edinburgh?

The answer is the one LNER would like it to be, not the one you are suggesting it is, at least on most trains on a Friday and Sunday.

If the suggestion was to abolish Advances on LNER, and only where the fares trial is in place, it should be clearer in that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the suggestion was to abolish Advances on LNER, and only where the fares trial is in place, it should be clearer in that.

I think that was the suggestion, yes - to do an opposite way round fare trial on the Newcastle/Morpeth/Edinburgh services where the only fares are the Super Off Peak Single and the Anytime Single and see how that goes in comparison.

Advances on the non-fare-trial routes are clearly going to be less than the Super Off Peak as otherwise they wouldn't sell any! (There isn't the niche use for Advances at higher than half the Off Peak Return there are on routes that aren't single fare priced like Avanti and some of GWR for people genuinely making a single journey and getting back some other way like coach, air, picking up a car etc).

 

[PeterC]

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.

Don't forget not being able to sit down to eat your £10 sausage roll because the seats are being saved for the people who said that they would pick up their 20p ones later.

 

[modernrail]

On a recent journey I made with Mrs H, the Advances were half the price of a Super Off Peak Return. Doubling the price is making it much more expensive by any measure. I'm going to be booking another journey later today where the Advances are less than half the Super Off Peak.

If the suggestion was to abolish Advances on LNER, and only where the fares trial is in place, it should be clearer in that.

Why should the taxpayer subside those advance fares when the railway is likely able to find customers who will pay the off peak fare?

Who should those who can’t plan their journey a long time in advance subside your advance fares by paying up to x10 the price of your advance fare for any remaining seats on the train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why should the taxpayer subside those advance fares when the railway is likely able to find customers who will pay the off peak fare?

Who should those who can’t plan their journey a long time in advance subside your advance fares by paying up to x10 the price of your advance fare for any remaining seats on the train?

I think there is an element of marketing there - headline fares are a useful marketing tool. But that said, yield management everywhere bar the railway seems to be moving away from starting with a headline price and increasing it over time and towards being a lot more consistent from start of sale to selling out for a given time of day/week (maybe except the last couple of tickets) - Premier Inns and easyJet certainly don't go up as much as they used to between release and the time of use.

 

[Haywain]

Why should the taxpayer subside those advance fares when the railway is likely able to find customers who will pay the off peak fare?

Who should those who can’t plan their journey a long time in advance subside your advance fares by paying up to x10 the price of your advance fare for any remaining seats on the train?

So, in a thread about fares being too high you are now proposing increasing fares for may people? Lovely. Perhaps you should call for the abolition of split ticketing while you're at it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, in a thread about fares being too high you are now proposing increasing fares for may people? Lovely.

You can't reform fares on a revenue neutral basis without increasing fares for someone. I guess the debate here is whether fares should increase for those requiring flexibility or booking near to the time of travel (as the LNER trial does) or whether they should increase for those who book weeks or months in advance (as per this suggestion). Personally I favour the latter, but I guess you favour the former.

If we won't accept anyone paying more then there can never be any fares reform of any kind.

Perhaps you should call for the abolition of split ticketing while you're at it.

If you mean the outlawing of it like Ireland did (not legally possible in the UK if I recall) I'm with you, but splitting is certainly symptomatic of a faulty fares system, specifically with regard to how Advance quotas work.

 

[Haywain]

Personally I favour the latter, but I guess you favour the former.

I don't favour any form of fares increase - why would I as a fare paying passenger? I buy Advance tickets when it suits me, and I buy walk-up tickets at other times (including split tickets). I certainly don't see what the problem is with accepting a loss of rights (flexibility, refunds) in return for committing to specified trains at reduced prices weeks in advance. And in some cases the non-availability of cheaper Advance tickets will not lead to me paying the walk-up fare, it will lead to me finding an alternative means of travel.

 

[modernrail]

I don't favour any form of fares increase - why would I as a fare paying passenger? I buy Advance tickets when it suits me, and I buy walk-up tickets at other times (including split tickets). I certainly don't see what the problem is with accepting a loss of rights (flexibility, refunds) in return for committing to specified trains at reduced prices weeks in advance. And in some cases the non-availability of cheaper Advance tickets will not lead to me paying the walk-up fare, it will lead to me finding an alternative means of travel.

I don’t won’t you or I to pay more. I would like both of us to pay less. However, if there is a likelyhood seats sold at advance prices can be sold at off peak prices, that option should be very much on the table if higher overall revenue is the aim.

It is a much more logical place to go next than charging some customers more than the effective off peak cap … anything up to the insane anytime fare.

Those who are able to plan months ahead sometimes seem happy to throw other passengers under the bus by justifying LNER’s see what the market can bear pricing, until they think about the possibility of the impact being to raise advance fares to off peak level rather than raising off peak fares towards absolute madness level.

 

[Haywain]

Those who are able to plan months ahead sometimes seem happy to throw other passengers under the bus by justifying LNER’s see what the market can bear pricing, until they think about the possibility of the impact being to raise advance fares to off peak level rather than raising off peak fares towards absolute madness level.

You seem to think that the LNER fares trial applies to the whole network. It doesn't. If you want to talk about that specifically, then you need to be clear that you are talking about that specifically and you'll get responses based on that. I am not talking about LNER.

 

[thedbdiboy]

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”.

As conceived in 1995 it was a price cap but in practice it was very quickly obvious that unless every TOC priced every regulated fare to the maximum level permitted, they'd never win a franchise bid, so it's semantics really.

You make the mistake of assuming that prices are geared off the AP. The whole point is that the industry compares fares to the regulated fares, and sees other fares as discounts.

What they don’t see (choose not to see?) is that their customers assess value in a completely different way.

Hence the cognitive dissonance between customers seeking value and the industry (and its paymaster) seeking returns.

Pricing policy is now in the hands of the DfT, so it's been 5 years since there was any real fares policy driven by TOCs, but the complex and arbitrary way fare regulation was implemented has meant that there has never been anything other than a highly distorted approach to TOC pricing. All the time that regulated off-peak fares are in existence on long distance flows, they create cliff edges between peak and off-peak trains and limit the ability to price by yield. (Again, before the pile-on, I'm not saying it's good or bad, just stating the facts of the consequences).

As far as the public is concerned the single biggest driver of 'value' is how what they pay compares to what they are used to. For that reason, for most people, whether a ticket is off-peak, advance, 70-minite flex or whatever is less important than whether it cost them more to buy than last week or not..

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as the public is concerned the single biggest driver of 'value' is how what they pay compares to what they are used to. For that reason, for most people, whether a ticket is off-peak, advance, 70-minite flex or whatever is less important than whether it cost them more to buy than last week or not..

And what LNER is certainly doing is cranking the price right up.

 

[modernrail]

You seem to think that the LNER fares trial applies to the whole network. It doesn't. If you want to talk about that specifically, then you need to be clear that you are talking about that specifically and you'll get responses based on that. I am not talking about LNER.

A trial that seems to be supported by the Rail Minister as a blueprint for fares across the UK.

The debate is also relevant on all other routes that have counted places right now. If a train has been part filled with advances sold for less than the off peak fare, and the ticketing sites/system then shuts out passengers who were willing to pay the off peak fare, that train has probably been sold more cheaply that it needs to be.

The result of that lower fare take is for the railway to think it should fix the problem by charging later booking customers a super-premium over the advance fare.

A much more sensible approach would be to suppress the demand for cheaper advances on popular services, direct some of that demand to quieter services and leave the capacity on the busier off peak services for those willing to pay the off peak fare.

The railway’s finances are not well served by passengers paying less than the off peak fare on services where people will pay it. The passenger has paid less because they were willing to fix the date and time of travel. On a seat the railway was going to sell anyway, that doesn’t add any utility to the railway.

 

[35B]

As conceived in 1995 it was a price cap but in practice it was very quickly obvious that unless every TOC priced every regulated fare to the maximum level permitted, they'd never win a franchise bid, so it's semantics really.

Pricing policy is now in the hands of the DfT, so it's been 5 years since there was any real fares policy driven by TOCs, but the complex and arbitrary way fare regulation was implemented has meant that there has never been anything other than a highly distorted approach to TOC pricing. All the time that regulated off-peak fares are in existence on long distance flows, they create cliff edges between peak and off-peak trains and limit the ability to price by yield. (Again, before the pile-on, I'm not saying it's good or bad, just stating the facts of the consequences).

As far as the public is concerned the single biggest driver of 'value' is how what they pay compares to what they are used to. For that reason, for most people, whether a ticket is off-peak, advance, 70-minite flex or whatever is less important than whether it cost them more to buy than last week or not..

I agree with you. But my point is that the industry, including it's paymaster in HMG, views this through the lens of what the "full price" is rather than in pure yield terms. The exception to this is LNER, where the fares trial appears to me to be doing two things in particular. One is to redress the "cost" of competition by finding ways to push prices up towards those elsewhere that have been held down by the existence of competitive pressure (and so deprived DfT and HM Treasury of the money they were "entitled" to). The second is, as @modernrail alludes to, testing the true price elasticity of demand for rail. That is giving answers that are unwelcome to most on this forum, as it suggests strongly that (viewed purely economically) rail travel is underpriced.

All of this presumes that the proper goal of pricing is to maximise revenue.

The debate changes dramatically if the objective is to maximise utilisation, at which point a couple of uncomfortable points emerge. One is that, post-Covid, demand patterns have changed significantly to reduce the level of commuting/business travel, meaning that price levers are less effective at driving demand (you could make travel to London free and I'm not sure you'd increase demand that much on some flows). The second is that it is unconnected to leisure travel, and therefore of limited value to those like @yorksrob whose primary goal is simply to reduce prices.

If the objectives shift further, for example towards explicitly targeting modal shift, then other opportunities become visible - @The Ham has some interesting ideas about the cost to the Exchequer of subsidy schemes, but they don't make sense in the absence of a clear policy purpose.

But all of these come back to questions of "why".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

A trial that seems to be supported by the Rail Minister as a blueprint for fares across the UK.

The debate is also relevant on all other routes that have counted places right now. If a train has been part filled with advances sold for less than the off peak fare, and the ticketing sites/system then shuts out passengers who were willing to pay the off peak fare, that train has probably been sold more cheaply that it needs to be.

The result of that lower fare take is for the railway to think it should fix the problem by charging later booking customers a super-premium over the advance fare.

A much more sensible approach would be to suppress the demand for cheaper advances on popular services, direct some of that demand to quieter services and leave the capacity on the busier off peak services for those willing to pay the off peak fare.

The railway’s finances are not well served by passengers paying less than the off peak fare on services where people will pay it. The passenger has paid less because they were willing to fix the date and time of travel. On a seat the railway was going to sell anyway, that doesn’t add any utility to the railway.

Which is evident in how LNER are setting fares - and how that is not choking off demand as much as some may think. However, the fix you propose presumes that people will adjust their plans as much as you suggest, rather than either using an alternative mode or simply not travelling

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with you. But my point is that the industry, including it's paymaster in HMG, views this through the lens of what the "full price" is rather than in pure yield terms. The exception to this is LNER, where the fares trial appears to me to be doing two things in particular. One is to redress the "cost" of competition by finding ways to push prices up towards those elsewhere that have been held down by the existence of competitive pressure (and so deprived DfT and HM Treasury of the money they were "entitled" to). The second is, as @modernrail alludes to, testing the true price elasticity of demand for rail. That is giving answers that are unwelcome to most on this forum, as it suggests strongly that (viewed purely economically) rail travel is underpriced.

That in itself creates interesting dilemmas, because personally while I'm happy for rail to be subsidised to provide an affordable means of transport for the masses, I'm very much not happy to subsidise it as purely a rich person's toy.

Which means I think I would sit between two choices:

1. Up the subsidy to bring fares generally down to no more than the cost of one person driving a small family car (which they presently vastly exceed) - note, that's the marginal cost, because including elements of purchase cost in it are nonsensical, people who own cars do not account their journeys in that way, because they won't be getting rid of their car just because they can take a day trip to London on the train a bit cheaper.

2. Withdraw subsidy from long distance travel entirely and let the fares be set commercially, which would probably up them more than LNER have so far if you consider the InterCity railway as a whole i.e. including less economic bits like XC.

 

[modernrail]

I agree with you. But my point is that the industry, including it's paymaster in HMG, views this through the lens of what the "full price" is rather than in pure yield terms. The exception to this is LNER, where the fares trial appears to me to be doing two things in particular. One is to redress the "cost" of competition by finding ways to push prices up towards those elsewhere that have been held down by the existence of competitive pressure (and so deprived DfT and HM Treasury of the money they were "entitled" to). The second is, as @modernrail alludes to, testing the true price elasticity of demand for rail. That is giving answers that are unwelcome to most on this forum, as it suggests strongly that (viewed purely economically) rail travel is underpriced.

All of this presumes that the proper goal of pricing is to maximise revenue.

The debate changes dramatically if the objective is to maximise utilisation, at which point a couple of uncomfortable points emerge. One is that, post-Covid, demand patterns have changed significantly to reduce the level of commuting/business travel, meaning that price levers are less effective at driving demand (you could make travel to London free and I'm not sure you'd increase demand that much on some flows). The second is that it is unconnected to leisure travel, and therefore of limited value to those like @yorksrob whose primary goal is simply to reduce prices.

If the objectives shift further, for example towards explicitly targeting modal shift, then other opportunities become visible - @The Ham has some interesting ideas about the cost to the Exchequer of subsidy schemes, but they don't make sense in the absence of a clear policy purpose.

But all of these come back to questions of "why".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==


Which is evident in how LNER are setting fares - and how that is not choking off demand as much as some may think. However, the fix you propose presumes that people will adjust their plans as much as you suggest, rather than either using an alternative mode or simply not travelling

It doesn’t matter if they do change their plans or chose another mode. It still puts the railway in a better place financially without causing a massive increase in pricing to some customers. The only time that would be a problem is if there is not underlying demand to fill a train up at off peak fares. Most of the time on intercity routes, off peak, it appears there is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

That in itself creates interesting dilemmas, because personally while I'm happy for rail to be subsidised to provide an affordable means of transport for the masses, I'm very much not happy to subsidise it as purely a rich person's toy.

Which means I think I would sit between two choices:
1. Up the subsidy to bring fares generally down to no more than the cost of one person driving a small family car (which they presently vastly exceed)
2. Withdraw subsidy from long distance travel entirely and let the fares be set commercially, which would probably up them more than LNER have so far if you consider the InterCity railway as a whole i.e. including less economic bits like XC

Or…have a base fare for services so capacity is not being sold more cheaply than it needs to be, whilst retaining overall affordability against an inflation index, and then challenge the railway to maximise income around that starting position (for instance improving utilisation of genuinely quieter services of parts of journeys with advances, offers etc)

We could call these base fares off peak fares.

 

[yorksrob]

You make the mistake of assuming that prices are geared off the AP. The whole point is that the industry compares fares to the regulated fares, and sees other fares as discounts.

What they don’t see (choose not to see?) is that their customers assess value in a completely different way.

Hence the cognitive dissonance between customers seeking value and the industry (and its paymaster) seeking returns.

Presumably off peak fares on the ECML were also regulated, which begs the question how LNER have been given carte blanche to do away with them.

Ultimately there needs to be some regulation of fares with teeth - although with the DfT in control, that can only be a conflict of interest against passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably off peak fares on the ECML were also regulated, which begs the question how LNER have been given carte blanche to do away with them.

Because the DfT is interested in the outcome of their "trial", though I believe it was an LNER idea, at least according to something I read in Modern Railways a while back.

They were allowed to delete the regulated fares on the condition of there being a "fare basket" regulation on some of the Advances, and Priv discount also being made available on some tiers of these. It's a bit of a sham in terms of its effect, but it's not nothing.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with you. But my point is that the industry, including it's paymaster in HMG, views this through the lens of what the "full price" is rather than in pure yield terms. The exception to this is LNER, where the fares trial appears to me to be doing two things in particular. One is to redress the "cost" of competition by finding ways to push prices up towards those elsewhere that have been held down by the existence of competitive pressure (and so deprived DfT and HM Treasury of the money they were "entitled" to). The second is, as @modernrail alludes to, testing the true price elasticity of demand for rail. That is giving answers that are unwelcome to most on this forum, as it suggests strongly that (viewed purely economically) rail travel is underpriced.

All of this presumes that the proper goal of pricing is to maximise revenue.

The debate changes dramatically if the objective is to maximise utilisation, at which point a couple of uncomfortable points emerge. One is that, post-Covid, demand patterns have changed significantly to reduce the level of commuting/business travel, meaning that price levers are less effective at driving demand (you could make travel to London free and I'm not sure you'd increase demand that much on some flows). The second is that it is unconnected to leisure travel, and therefore of limited value to those like @yorksrob whose primary goal is simply to reduce prices.

If the objectives shift further, for example towards explicitly targeting modal shift, then other opportunities become visible - @The Ham has some interesting ideas about the cost to the Exchequer of subsidy schemes, but they don't make sense in the absence of a clear policy purpose.

But all of these come back to questions of "why".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==


Which is evident in how LNER are setting fares - and how that is not choking off demand as much as some may think. However, the fix you propose presumes that people will adjust their plans as much as you suggest, rather than either using an alternative mode or simply not travelling

I'm sure it's been reported somewhere that the LNER trial hasn't increased as much revenue as wanted, therefore government ends up with fewer happy electors and no increase in revenue.

You're correct that there needs to be a wider policy objective to drive lower fares. I can see these as being:

- generating the wider social and economic benefits of facilitated travel
- the equality benefits of making rail travel more accessible to those on limited incomes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

Because the DfT is interested in the outcome of their "trial", though I believe it was an LNER idea, at least according to something I read in Modern Railways a while back.

They were allowed to delete the regulated fares on the condition of there being a "fare basket" regulation on some of the Advances, and Priv discount also being made available on some tiers of these. It's a bit of a sham in terms of its effect, but it's not nothing.

It's hard to see how a proper representative body of passengers with teeth, would acquiesce to such a sham.

 

[crablab]

Which is evident in how LNER are setting fares - and how that is not choking off demand as much as some may think

Would that apply to other routes, which don't have as much latent & elastic demand as the ECML?

Going back to GWML, I don't think the market is elastic enough that you'd be able to get away with that.
Fares are already high enough that the marginal cost of driving (perhaps part way to a Tube station, if you're a commuter) is often much less, and certainly if you have more than one person.

(Yes, I know that's ignoring the TCO for the car. But as has been observed up the thread, many people have a car for other things so the cost of commuting really is the marginal cost of that journey. And no one works out the depreciation impact. So it really is a straight up comparison most people will make, I'm afraid)

The anytime fares already push a large number of people into the shoulder peak. Would they travel later or at all if the fares increased in that period? Pricing predictability is also really important for anyone making a regular journey.

Personally, if prices started being dynamic (and higher) between Reading and Paddington I'd likely be priced off and it'd start being cheaper (it's currently borderline and I'm happy to pay for some convenience) to just drive to a tube station. I know someone, who comes in infrequently, that now drives their EV into central London and parks it for a fraction of their Anytime.

I travel to Bristol regularly. GWR had some well priced Advance fares on early morning weekday trains (peak) which were mostly empty, so I used them. When they ditched those I switched to driving as the marginal cost was far lower, and it was more convenient than being tied to a specific train on the remaining (not very competitive) advances. So now the railway gets no revenue at all from me.

Several people on the forum have commented on this particular change, so I don't think I'm a totally unrealistic example.

 

[yorksrob]

You can't reform fares on a revenue neutral basis without increasing fares for someone. I guess the debate here is whether fares should increase for those requiring flexibility or booking near to the time of travel (as the LNER trial does) or whether they should increase for those who book weeks or months in advance (as per this suggestion). Personally I favour the latter, but I guess you favour the former.

If we won't accept anyone paying more then there can never be any fares reform of any kind.



If you mean the outlawing of it like Ireland did (not legally possible in the UK if I recall) I'm with you, but splitting is certainly symptomatic of a faulty fares system, specifically with regard to how Advance quotas work.

As the OP of this thread, I should point out that I regard revenue neutral fares "reform" as a sham. I come from the POV that fares overall are too high.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure it's been reported somewhere that the LNER trial hasn't increased as much revenue as wanted, therefore government ends up with fewer happy electors and no increase in revenue.

I seem to remember reading that revenue was about the same but from fewer passengers, i.e. more revenue per passenger. As LNER has suffered overcrowding problems in the past, they may still consider this a success, even if it's not as much of a success as they'd perhaps expected.

 

[yorksrob]

As conceived in 1995 it was a price cap but in practice it was very quickly obvious that unless every TOC priced every regulated fare to the maximum level permitted, they'd never win a franchise bid, so it's semantics really.

Pricing policy is now in the hands of the DfT, so it's been 5 years since there was any real fares policy driven by TOCs, but the complex and arbitrary way fare regulation was implemented has meant that there has never been anything other than a highly distorted approach to TOC pricing. All the time that regulated off-peak fares are in existence on long distance flows, they create cliff edges between peak and off-peak trains and limit the ability to price by yield. (Again, before the pile-on, I'm not saying it's good or bad, just stating the facts of the consequences).

As far as the public is concerned the single biggest driver of 'value' is how what they pay compares to what they are used to. For that reason, for most people, whether a ticket is off-peak, advance, 70-minite flex or whatever is less important than whether it cost them more to buy than last week or not..

The cliff edges might be imperfect, however regulated off peak fares are still better than a free for all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

I seem to remember reading that revenue was about the same but from fewer passengers, i.e. more revenue per passenger. As LNER has suffered overcrowding problems in the past, they may still consider this a success, even if it's not as much of a success as they'd perhaps expected.

Indeed, but from a policy point of view, government has to balance less overcrowding against less economic and social benefit from travel and more voter frustration about not getting where they want. These aren't things railway management are concerned with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would that apply to other routes, which don't have as much latent & elastic demand as the ECML?

It's an interesting point. London to Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh (and points north) are probably the only journeys within the UK served well by rail* where air is the main competitor, and air tends to run higher fares. Most people won't happily drive Newcastle/Glasgow/Edinburgh to London, it's just a bit far.

If you apply the same fare approach to Leeds with the same levels of increase, therefore, I think with the car definitely a viable competitor I don't think it would work quite as well. If you apply it to London-Birmingham I think people would think they were having a laugh.

The fare structure less so. Plenty of people travel on Advances on very short journeys on Northern, they just don't buy them until they know which train they're taking, as Northern doesn't really crank them up as departure nears in the same way as the InterCity TOCs do.

Thus while London-Edinburgh was probably underpriced by the market when you consider the available capacity (the extra train per hour in December may change this, and it will be interesting to see the effect this has on fares), I'm not convinced London-Birmingham on Avanti is - indeed the quiet Avanti trains and busier Chiltern and WMT ones on this route would suggest that it's rather overpriced by the market.

* I'm ignoring Bristol/South West to Scotland which is somewhat poorly served because it's XC or a change in London, so people won't prefer rail regardless of price because there are bigger problems there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

Indeed, but from a policy point of view, government has to balance less overcrowding against less economic and social benefit from travel

I think there's plenty of evidence that they genuinely don't care about that, they're scrabbling for money and everything they try explodes in their faces.

and more voter frustration about not getting where they want

Not enough voters use rail for this to affect an election result, sadly.