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

[Starmill]

The industry bodging (some might say abusing) its fares data systems to make something work (in a manner of speaking) rather than trying to do things properly? Say it ain't so

The last time I checked several sites were unable to offer the 70 min ticket at all. That was many months ago now so charitably they could all have been fixed by now.

If I have the time later I'll do some searches to find out.

 

[Adam Williams]

The last time I checked several sites were unable to offer the 70 min ticket at all. That was many months ago now so charitably they could all have been fixed by now.

If I have the time later I'll do some searches to find out.

I don't really blame retailers, because there's nothing in the data to suggest they're any "better" than a bog-standard Advance, and if that interpretation is used then it would be ludicrous to push them over the bog-standard Advances.

 

[JonathanH]

I bet the Open Access operators are rubbing their hands with glee.

Most of the travel on Open Access operators will also be on 'fixed' / advanced tickets. What the removal of the cap on LNER priced tickets means is also the ability of open access operators to increase their prices.

 

[Starmill]

To say that the Fixed are the best value fares is true in the context f the three fare types being offered, for example. Your opinion is different, but that is in a different context.

I don't think it's a matter of an opinion at all. If the cheapest ticket for the train you wish to use is the 70 Min ticket for the following train, the Advance for your train costing more means that's not "best value" nor is it "cheapest". That's not really something open to interpretation or 'alternative facts'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2025 ==

I don't really blame retailers, because there's nothing in the data to suggest they're any "better" than a bog-standard Advance, and if that interpretation is used then it would be ludicrous to push them over the bog-standard Advances.

I quite agree. The on track retail site for example used to give a warning if you selected a standard premium ticket that a cheaper ticket was available, without the context that you obviously wouldn't be able to sit in Standard Premium without paying the upgrade. The 70 Min ticket is far worse for customer messaging and creates a lot more confusion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2025 ==

Make no mistake, this is the thin edge of the wedge, as DfT/LNER both aim to reduce our freedoms, increase the price we are paying, and maximise yields by having a smaller number of passengers paying higher fares.

This is also part of the intention behind the forthcoming timetable change, although luckily some of it has managed to be watered down. However it's probably not on topic in this thread to continue with that, I'm just pointing out that there's a clear relationship between the enormous price increases most Edinburgh or Newcastle - London passengers face and the desire to provide more capacity for people doing that journey, including by making some very big compromises elsewhere.

 

[redreni]

But you have highlighted some things that are quite provably not lies. To say that the Fixed are the best value fares is true in the context f the three fare types being offered, for example. Your opinion is different, but that is in a different context.

I'm not sure it is just my opinion, though?

LNER know that despite this expansion making it harder, there are still hundreds of origins and destinations still offering cheaper off-peak single fares than some of the new Advances, that are valid on the same train boarding and alighting at the same stations, which offer more flexibility and are valid for further travel on connecting services if desired.

I'm sure they would defend it in the way you suggest: the Advances (for which they have invented a new term "Fixed", thus introducing new and additional complexity and scope for confusion as both terms are now in use) are the best value fares because they are the cheapest of the three fare types they want you to buy. In the same way that Sir Humphrey Appleby would tell Jim Hacker that Option 2 represents best value for money because it is cheaper than options 1 and 3, which Sir Humphrey selected specifically because they are both rubbish and expensive.

But even on that self-serving interpretation it isn't likely to be true in every case: buying an Advance for a train you can't be sure of making might be a false economy and possibly (depending if you'd be able to do a last-minute change and how much that would cost) be worse value than a 70 minute flex in a passenger's specific circumstances. Cheapest doesn't necessarily always represent best value.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fixed is a terrible name as they aren't fixed, they are changeable.

 

[Kite159]

At least they are only extending it at the London end and not extending it further at the northern end. Ie extending the fare hike to include stations to Hexham or more Scottish central belt stations. Ie to bypass the increase for Newcastle buying to Blaydon (or Wylam) and for Edinburgh to buy to somewhere like Uphall

At this rate it will be cheaper to buy a single to somewhere like Darlington (or Durham if on a stopping service) and then another ticket on top.

 

[alistairlees]

What people (TOCs?) never seem to get is that tickets have three attributes:
1. usage flexibility (or not); and
2. changeability; and
3. refundability

Advance are inflexible in use, changeable, but not refundable
Off-Peak are semi-flexible* in use, not changeable, but are refundable
Anytime are flexible* in use, not changeable, but are refundable

Rather than each TOC continuing the great uncontrolled experiment (now in its 25th year) of how many more different ticket types, conditions, names and rules unsupported by data can be created by the TOCs, a customer-focused set of products - easily understandable by the man in the street - should be created and rigorously applied to all TOCs (except open access). The test is simple: does the public think train ticketing is easy, or complex? Apparently I'm going to find out what the plan is tomorrow...

*subject to fare routes, i.e. TOC-specific or route-specific

 

[Benjwri]

I don’t think it’s been mentioned that what had happened to a lot of Zone 1-4 is actually worse than stated above. A large amount of stations have had their flexible fares removed, but also not had 70 minute flex fares added, so there is absolutely no flexible fare available. (Most stations off the ECML, Richmond, Ealing Broadway, Tottenham Hale, to name a few).

I think this part is absolutely appalling, all flexibility is lost for the customer, and I think the mask has really fallen off here that it is solely about blocking previously used loopholes. I’m sure this will also prove a nice little revenue booster as well, as anyone will end up paying extra through a separate ticket/contactless to Kings Cross if they do want flexibility.

 

[OneOfThe48]

I don’t think it’s been mentioned that what had happened to a lot of Zone 1-4 is actually worse than stated above. A large amount of stations have had their flexible fares removed, but also not had 70 minute flex fares added, so there is absolutely no flexible fare available. (Most stations off the ECML, Richmond, Ealing Broadway, Tottenham Hale, to name a few).

I think this part is absolutely appalling, all flexibility is lost for the customer, and I think the mask has really fallen off here that it is solely about blocking previously used loopholes. I’m sure this will also prove a nice little revenue booster as well, as anyone will end up paying extra through a separate ticket/contactless to Kings Cross if they do want flexibility.

Mentioned in the first post in this morning

While they do not 'benefit' from the new Semi-Flex tickets, it also looks like any national rail station within Zones 1-4 will have their off-peak and super off-peak tickets removed for journeys to Newcastle and further north at the same time.

 

[Benjwri]

Mentioned in the first post in this morning

Ah I did see this but didn’t clock that it was mentioning not getting 70 minute flex, assumed it was just that they were all included on first read.

 

[Kite159]

So Croydon (or another zone 5/6 station) will become the next Finsbury Park for those passengers in the know when it comes to reducing costs of travel when heading to Berwick*

(Until LNER decide to set reservation quotas for super off-peak fares to be zero, so such tickets will become hard to purchase due to the reservation required flag)

(*using Berwick here solely as it's a station in the centre of the pilot which doesn't have any easy getaround, like Blaydon is for Newcastle or Newcraighall is for Edinburgh)

 

[Sonic1234]

So Croydon (or another zone 5/6 station) will become the next Finsbury Park for those passengers in the know when it comes to reducing costs of travel when heading to Berwick

Looks like it, and you get a bonus tube ride as the ticket has a Maltese cross. Plus you get to doubly annoy the DfT, because not only are you using a Super Off Peak on LNER but the ticket has to be a paper one.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Fixed is a terrible name as they aren't fixed, they are changeable.

Advance is also inaccurate, given the existence of Advance Purchase on the Day. At the time of writing, it's still possible to buy an Advance for the 22:35 Kings Cross to Doncaster for example.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

I don't really blame retailers, because there's nothing in the data to suggest they're any "better" than a bog-standard Advance, and if that interpretation is used then it would be ludicrous to push them over the bog-standard Advances.

Some retailers only seem interested in selling the cheapest possible fare, whilst keeping more expensive, more flexible fares hidden behind the scenes - the forum's ticketing site is no different in that respect, with more expensive tickets seemingly only accessed via the small 'Change ticket selection' link (as per the example below). It's all a far cry from the likes of Premier Inn, where the key attributes of each room rate are spelled out alongside the rate - and all the more curious given that retailer's commission is directly linked to the selling price. Why isn't the Super Off-Peak fare also shown next to the 23:32 Paddington - Bristol, along with it's key attributes of flexibility and refundability - I would guess in the name of 'simplicity', a similar aim to the one that is playing out on the East Coast?



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2025 ==

A further thought occurs: LNER says people want simpler fares. I'm sure they do, but as the rise of split ticketing shows, people want cheaper fares too and if forced to choose between the two, they pick cheaper. LNER is not giving people what they want.

The rise of split ticketing is in no small part due to the one major 3rd party retailer proactively pushing it in specific cases to some or all of their customers.

 

[redreni]

Advance is also inaccurate, given the existence of Advance Purchase on the Day. At the time of writing, it's still possible to buy an Advance for the 22:35 Kings Cross to Doncaster for example.

Sure, but the point is two of the three ticket types offered by LNER on Simpler Fares flows had a name already (however badly named they were). Now thanks to this bit of simplification they have two names each.

The 70 minute flex ticket didn't exist before, so that's a new ticket type. Adding new ticket types adds complexity, of course. At least there's just the one name for this one at the moment, but let's see how that goes as they try to roll out this model to other parts of the network.

 

[RJ]

I logged into the RST website around 9pm the other night to get a Newcastle to London ticket on the last train of the day. The cheapest option offered was the Anytime Single, no flex offered.

Naturally I found a flow to a different station still offering Super Off Peak Singles for less than half the price.

No good really, absolute ripoff for anyone who doesn’t know how to game the system.

 

[yorksrob]

If this government has any concern for the interests of railway passengers at all, they will kill off this atrocious experiment once and for all.

 

[johncrossley]

I logged into the RST website around 9pm the other night to get a Newcastle to London ticket on the last train of the day. The cheapest option offered was the Anytime Single, no flex offered.

That effectively means the train is cancelled.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As @yorkie says, I think it is obvious that LNER do not actually want to offer the 70-minute flex ticket, it's just the sop they've had to provide to justify the removal of the off-peak tickets. I am prepared to bet one shiny Manx Pound that the trial will show these tickets are "too confusing" for passengers and that they will be jettisoned.

It's going to be a never-ending game of whack-a-mole until such time as all the long-distance TOCs are under GBR and so these become the default options for all long-distance services. I'm actually surprised that the likes of Blaydon and Wylam haven't been added to the trial with this latest change; perhaps LNER considered that it would be just too transparent if they had.

The cheapest option offered was the Anytime Single, no flex offered.

The flex is only offered if there are tickets in the advance quota, it is really nothing more than an add-on to the advance ticket. Which is also why I think this add-on will be removed as "too confusing".

There are some trains which LNER do not seem to offer many advance tickets for, the 'Flying Scotsman' being one of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As @yorkie says, I think it is obvious that LNER do not actually want to offer the 70-minute flex ticket, it's just the sop they've had to provide to justify the removal of the off-peak tickets. I am prepared to bet one shiny Manx Pound that the trial will show these tickets are "too confusing" for passengers and that they will be jettisoned.

On the basis of the railway's usual level of competence on fares matters, do we know the non-offering of 70 Minute tickets on these flows is deliberate, or have they potentially just screwed up? Or is it a deliberate "trial" of having it vs. not having it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

Advance is also inaccurate, given the existence of Advance Purchase on the Day. At the time of writing, it's still possible to buy an Advance for the 22:35 Kings Cross to Doncaster for example.

I think there is (and can't really not be) too much complexity in ticket types of any kind to use a name that identifies an attribute of how it works. Much as I've mentioned the misuse of the phrase "best value" above, I am inclined to think Open (or Flex), (Super)Saver and Value were actually good brands for the three. Or you could just make up a non-word.

 

[Tetchytyke]

On the basis of the railway's usual level of competence on fares matters, do we know the non-offering of 70 Minute tickets on these flows is deliberate, or have they potentially just screwed up?

In this case it's probably a screw up, one presumes it is related to the fact there's a connecting TOC involved. IIRC earlier in the trial there weren't any connecting TOCs involved.

Clearly they've just tried to clamp down on people buying tickets from Finsbury Park and have made a complete Horlicks of it.

My point was more general, though: I don't expect the 70-minute flex to be a thing after the trial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point was more general, though: I don't expect the 70-minute flex to be a thing after the trial.

My suspicion is that it will be but in a slightly different form, i.e. without walk-on flexibility but allowing a change within 70 minutes to be done without additional fare/admin fee online IF there is availability (perhaps extending to the next train with availability if those within 70 minutes are full). It's known LNER want French style compulsory reservation, and pricing flexibility out is a sneaky way to do it without actually doing it.

The way they talk about it it seems to me that the walk-on flexibility is just to accommodate the fact that some sales sites will sell the ticket but not allow the "online flexing".

 

[A S Leib]

It's known LNER want French style compulsory reservation,

Unfortunately for LNER, their network includes substantially better services at intermediate stations than TGV's or AVE's.

 

[Benjwri]

On the basis of the railway's usual level of competence on fares matters, do we know the non-offering of 70 Minute tickets on these flows is deliberate, or have they potentially just screwed up? Or is it a deliberate "trial" of having it vs. not having it?

Another interesting question. I do wonder if it is a question of removing it intentionally to stop the workarounds in z1-4, but it would be too much of an issue to introduce all the new ticket types to every London TOC, in terms of ticket barriers , staff training and integration of the rules into revenue devices?

 

[JonathanH]

My point was more general, though: I don't expect the 70-minute flex to be a thing after the trial.

Yes, the 70-minute flex offering is one of those things that seems obvious to offer where the journey is A to B on a direct train running every 30 minutes, and you can switch between discrete direct trains.

Once connections are involved each with their own reservation requirements, the terms become horrendously complicated as to what you can and can't do.

 

[Benjwri]

My suspicion is that it will be but in a slightly different form, i.e. without walk-on flexibility but allowing a change within 70 minutes to be done without additional fare/admin fee online. It's known LNER want French style compulsory reservation, and pricing flexibility out is a sneaky way to do it without actually doing it.

I’m not as sure about this, not least because without a major revamp of how retailing systems work it would be a behind the scenes nightmare for retailers, and a significant issue to implement for a good number.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

Yes, the 70-minute flex offering is one of those things that seems obvious to offer where the journey is A to B on a direct train running every 30 minutes, and you can switch between discrete direct trains.

Once connections are involved each with their own reservation requirements, the terms become horrendously complicated as to what you can and can't do.

Of course given the trial was does with TfL, I still think it might be intentional. It’s well known they dislike paper tickets and want to phase them out, I’m sure they would love everyone to buy separate tickets and use contactless across London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not as sure about this, not least because without a major revamp of how retailing systems work it would be a behind the scenes nightmare for retailers, and a significant issue to implement for a good number.

Realistically GBR needs a "clean slate" design (whatever that design is) which will mean new retailing systems. I don't think that is avoidable and third party retailers need to prepare for it.

 

[Adam Williams]

the forum's ticketing site is no different in that respect

If you had tried proceeding past the initial search results screen, you'd realise that it's not the case that ticket selection is only achieved via that small link in the sidebar, and that there's a ticket information screen which also highlights the tickets from each accommodation class.

Equally, if you'd searched on e.g. an Avanti route, you would've received an upsell to standard premium in the sidebar.

Finally, there's a dedicated filter option for customers who want to avoid Advances and only look at flexible tickets. But yes, the default is going to be the cheapest option because customers don't want to needlessly pay more when trains are already as expensive as they are.

Realistically GBR needs a "clean slate" design (whatever that design is) which will mean new retailing systems. I don't think that is avoidable and third party retailers need to prepare for it.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course given the trial was does with TfL, I still think it might be intentional. It’s well known they dislike paper tickets and want to phase them out, I’m sure they would love everyone to buy separate tickets and use contactless across London.

I often do that anyway. It's more convenient than faffing with paper tickets. I only don't do it when it's unduly expensive to do so.

Now Trainline does splits the idea of needing to use them is no longer a significant issue, given that the vast majority of tickets are sold on Trainline (and all other good retailers do splits too, plus some ropey ones ).