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

[Haywain]

I would feed back formally via my Union, as it devalues the benefits that are a contractual part of my role.

Priv travel is not a contractual benefit for non-safeguarded staff.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would they not use as a workaround that the Anytime is the fare, and if you want a cheaper fare you must sign up to the loyalty scheme?

I don't see how that could work in the current commercially competitive rail ticket retail environment.

I'm no expert, but I can't see how blocking other retailers from selling advance tickets, or keeping the best tiers exclusive to the operator, would be interpreted as anything other than anti-competitive.

 

[Failed Unit]

But the reality is - this is happening, this is almost certainly the future of intercity travel, on any mode of transport. That's my point here. Shouting at that brick wall isn't going to change things or put them back to the way you think the railway should be run.

So why bother having a trail in the first place and just do it? I agree LNER are not going to go back to the old changes. They just want to be able to say customers want this and distort the data to avoid the MPs getting involved. Now that my area is in the trial and harder to avoid I will take it to my MP. It maybe is shouting at a brick wall. However it is a more useful brick wall then then LNER considering it is a marginal seat. (As are a lot of the Labour seats in Hertfordshire).

I have little faith as Grant Shapps couldn't sort GTR or LNER

I think the recent flurry of activity is because of the inclusion of stations south of Stevenage and many TfL stations into the trail. Something that isn't wanted, but if they was really a trail proof yet again that customers don't want it.

 

[Starmill]

Priv travel is not a contractual benefit for non-safeguarded staff.

Indeed. On paper they are now receiving a much worse deal than before as well evidenced above by RJ. However, in practice...

 

[H F Stephens]

A genuine trial would have require success/failure metrics before it started. When asked under FoI at the start of the trial, LNER said they didn't have any.

That belies the fact this is not a trial in any conventional sense. It is a test to see whether the government can get away with increasing rail revenue by introducing demand-based pricing and removing any semblance of a price cap.


How is buying a ticket for a different journey, outwith the scope of the trial, perverting it?

You need control variables in order to assess what the impact of any change is. Surely comparing similar journeys with and without the changes would have given that?


It benefits those who rightly refuse to pay £200 for a London to Edinburgh journey!


I'm sorry, but I don't believe that for one minute. And the only advantage being taken here is LNER taking advantage of people who don't know the workarounds. They are rinsing them for huge sums.


From LNER's twisted perspective, perhaps. But when you look at it from a holistic standpoint, the fact that LNER have expanded the scope so drastically gives away the true intention behind this sham "trial".


There is nothing innovative about it. It is an exercise in revenue raising, nothing more than that. They will not be getting reliable data given the many workarounds still available.

Having had various conversations with individual corporate employees (on other matters), it's almost impossible to not form the impression that LNER's customer/retail data quality is, bluntly, appalling.

This despite the amount of data, and the number of people being paid to 'analyse' it.

Within the current industry structure and environment, it's probably no worse than any other Train Operating Company's and it's arguably a matter of some further concern that the best 'data' is owned, controlled and monetised by an entirely separate third party private entity in the form of Exponent (The Trainline).

Fundamentally, LNER has little to no clue who its customers are, how or why they engage their custom, how their custom relates to the wider competitive marketplace and myriad other considerations that (for example) airlines have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of.

For anyone with a working understanding of loyalty schemes, the LNER Perks iteration is almost a floodlit advertisement for the company's lack of awareness in this area.

Given the above, it's therefore borderline impossible not to conclude that the 'Simpler Fares Trial' is simply a corporate empolyee-incentivised attempt to increase revenue on a single passenger flow between London and selected points to and including Edinburgh (with repeated tinkering to massage that London to Edinburgh route retail 'performance').

 

[yorksrob]

At the end of the day, there's 37 pages on here so far of (predominantly rail enthusiasts or fringe demographics)
mostly complaining about these fares.

LNER services are still extremely busy and popular. Farebox revenue/growth is doing great. There is reasonably healthy competition available with airlines, coaches and other train operators.

Undoubtedly, the market as a whole can afford to pay more, and will pay more at certain times of the day - it would be reckless to leave that money off the table. However, that is balanced by the fact that better yield management strategies also mean cheaper tickets at less desirable times - desirable meaning both a combination of desirable to customers and desirable to the railway.

As David Horne has said previously, although perhaps not on this forum, and I'm somewhat paraphrasing, but "normal" customers have accepted these changes and, on the whole, it's been positively received. It hasn't been perfect, and tweaks are suggested and made.

You can all continue to moan and groan as much as you like - but this is the new world. Perhaps stop shouting at a brick wall and focus on how to make the most of these fares - there will always be loopholes and anomalies which you guys will continue to find and exploit.

I expect the next evolution in the fullness of time to be personalised pricing - especially with the continued advances in AI and personal profiling/ fingerprinting.

"Normal" customers have only "accepted" these changes because they've been hoodwinked.

Establishment stooges have throughout history wanted people to roll over and accept what they're told like good little peasants. I shaln't be doing so.

 

[Krokodil]

As for the "toxic positivity" in how it is communicated, that's basically standard these days, isn't it? And has been for years - "revised fares" placards on buses are nothing new, when "increased fares" is what it should really say.

Like when Amazon "improved" Prime music. There is a word for this that I cannot repeat here, suffice it to say that it was Macquarie Dictionary's Word of the Year 2024.

No? Lots of companies fess up when things go wrong and lots of consumers appreciate the honesty.

Usually when they've made a genuine mistake, or if they deliberately did something and it blew up big time. Not when they think that they've got away with it.

No consumer will see the same journey at a higher price than before (inflation adjusted) as anything other than something bad and wrong.

The consumer should see it that way, but is it any different from price hikes or shrinkflation in other sectors? I don't see any apologies when that happens.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Having had various conversations with individual corporate employees (on other matters), it's almost impossible to not form the impression that LNER's customer/retail data quality is, bluntly, appalling.

This despite the amount of data, and the number of people being paid to 'analyse' it.

Within the current industry structure and environment, it's probably no worse than any other Train Operating Company's and it's arguably a matter of some further concern that the best 'data' is owned, controlled and monetised by an entirely separate third party private entity in the form of Exponent (The Trainline).

Fundamentally, LNER has little to no clue who its customers are, how or why they engage their custom, how their custom relates to the wider competitive marketplace and myriad other considerations that (for example) airlines have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of.

For anyone with a working understanding of loyalty schemes, the LNER Perks iteration is almost a floodlit advertisement for the company's lack of awareness in this area.

Given the above, it's therefore borderline impossible not to conclude that the 'Simpler Fares Trial' is simply a corporate empolyee-incentivised attempt to increase revenue on a single passenger flow between London and selected points to and including Edinburgh (with repeated tinkering to massage that London to Edinburgh route retail 'performance').

But so what? It is a legal requirement for businesses to maximise the return for their shareholders, even if the shareholder is the government/taxpayer.

What is so intrinsically wrong with maximising revenue (which goes back to the taxpayer)? If people are prepared to pay more, and continue to do so, however begrudgingly, then clearly the product or service they're buying is priced appropriately.

I still don't think this is necessarily a revenue generating exercise specifically - and I suspect overall it's effect is rather neutral - as some will move to competitors and others will pay the same/less overall. I do genuinely believe it's a combination of better maximising capacity, as well as extracting the most available revenue from the market overall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But so what? It is a legal requirement for businesses to maximise the return for their shareholders, even if the shareholder is the government/taxpayer.

No, it isn't. Shareholders can set the aim of the company to be anything they wish it to be, provided it is solvent and complying with regulatory requirements, employment law etc. That typically is the priority in a multi-shareholder public company, but LNER isn't that, it's a company owned wholly by one shareholder, the Government.

What is so intrinsically wrong with maximising revenue (which goes back to the taxpayer)? If people are prepared to pay more, and continue to do so, however begrudgingly, then clearly the product or service they're buying is priced appropriately.

That the railway is a public service and not simply a means of making a profit?

 

[yorksrob]

In some regards it is an improvement. Again and again passenger surveys call out overcrowding as the main problem with trains, and call for TOCs to stop overselling. People who book in advance, which is most people these days, don't worry about "sold out" because that won't happen until close to the time of travel.

Is it really ? Things such as price and reliability usually seem to be up there as much, if not more.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

Establishment stooges have throughout history wanted people to roll over and accept what they're told like good little peasants. I shaln't be doing so.

So you will stop travelling to avoid the new fares structure as it grows?

 

[Krokodil]

What is so intrinsically wrong with maximising revenue

I would mind less if they were honest about it, rather than trying to pretend that the new tickets are good for passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

So you will stop travelling to avoid the new fares structure as it grows?

I'll try and avoid it in every way I can.

But first, I think the more people moan and complain, the more politically unpopular it becomes.

Remember the proposed ticket office closures ? If they tried to roll this out nationwide, there would be more momentum to kick up a real stink.

 

[Trainbike46]

I still don't think this is necessarily a revenue generating exercise specifically - and I suspect overall it's effect is rather neutral - as some will move to competitors and others will pay the same/less overall. I do genuinely believe it's a combination of better maximising capacity, as well as extracting the most available revenue from the market overall.

If the result of this is revenue neutral, I have serious doubts about the competence of the people involved.

Fares are increased significantly, and from December, capacity will also be increasing. If they don't manage to increase revenue from that position they're doing it wrong.

However, I think this will be revenue positive, as much as I dislike it. I do think it undermines any case for public subsidy to the railway though. The reason we subsidise the railway is because it is a public service, and this trial is the opposite of that.

 

[OLJR]

Fundamentally, LNER has little to no clue who its customers are, how or why they engage their custom, how their custom relates to the wider competitive marketplace and myriad other considerations that (for example) airlines have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of.

For anyone with a working understanding of loyalty schemes, the LNER Perks iteration is almost a floodlit advertisement for the company's lack of awareness in this area.

With 18 years in the airline revenue trade I can confirm that airlines do not really understand these things either. That said, they may understand them better than LNER does, relatively speaking.

 

[MikeWh]

With 18 years in the airline revenue trade I can confirm that airlines do not really understand these things either. That said, they may understand them better than LNER does, relatively speaking.

The problem in my view is that airlines and trains are completely different animals, albeit they serve the same cross-section of their customer base. Once you are on a plane you are there until the destination. That is not the case with trains where very few operate solely between two stations with no intermediate stops. And many trains also serve both local and intercity markets at the same time.

 

[Failed Unit]

If the trail was really about a if the product was wanted / needed as @Starmill has said they wouldn't withdraw the existing product.

You would basically look at the retail data.

1. Number of APs sold - 1000
2. Number of Off-Peak Returns sold - 10

After the trial.
1. Number of AP's sold - 900
2. Number of Flex tickets sold - 100
3. Number of Off-Peak returns sold 10

This would show that people like the product and it has a need. People my be happy to pay slightly more on the advanced for the increase flexibility.

However LNER just want to kill off the off-peak returns. Something that people were concerned about back in the 1990s so they made regulated fares in the first place. I have on flows myself bought the off-peak because if is cheaper then the advance. Or if the advance is only slightly cheaper than the off-peak I am prepared to pay a little more the flexibility. However I think again this argument has already taken place. I think I would have more respect if LNER just withdrew it and took the view we are just trying to make as much money as possible, if you can't afford to travel by train - drive. However dressing this up as something the customers want is a little dishonest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would show that people like the product and it has a need. People my be happy to pay slightly more on the advanced for the increase flexibility.

In effect the Flex is a £20 insurance policy against missing your booked train (plus the bonus ability to move a bit earlier if you need to). This is a pretty useful thing in many cases (e.g. where one reaches the station by bus and the service isn't the most reliable, or where a meeting might overrun or a flight be slightly delayed) and could just be added to the range.

 

[Tom]

But so what? It is a legal requirement for businesses to maximise the return for their shareholders, even if the shareholder is the government/taxpayer.

No it isn't. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which I assume is what you are referring to, merely talks about promoting the success of the business. You may interpret that it is to maximise returns, but that is not the legally defined obligation.

 

[Failed Unit]

In effect the Flex is a £20 insurance policy against missing your booked train (plus the bonus ability to move a bit earlier if you need to). This is a pretty useful thing in many cases (e.g. where one reaches the station by bus and the service isn't the most reliable, or where a meeting might overrun or a flight be slightly delayed) and could just be added to the range.

Exactly. I think they could have very happily increase revenue with this product, so why the need to remove the off-peak? Because LNER view it as too cheap. As many people state, in most cases cheaper options exist then the off-peak single. The nonsense LNER are spouting about fares being confusing, can't be true when "normals" are using the trainline (other platforms available) to split tickets to get the best deal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. I think they could have very happily increase revenue with this product, so why the need to remove the off-peak? Because LNER view it as too cheap. As many people state, in most cases cheaper options exist then the off-peak single. The nonsense LNER are spouting about fares being confusing, can't be true when "normals" are using the trainline (other platforms available) to split tickets to get the best deal.

Because by increasing fares you can increase revenue while removing a common complaint of overcrowding.

I don't think the same would work for Birmingham because there are alternatives and Avanti trains are not full.

 

[Trainbike46]

In effect the Flex is a £20 insurance policy against missing your booked train (plus the bonus ability to move a bit earlier if you need to). This is a pretty useful thing in many cases (e.g. where one reaches the station by bus and the service isn't the most reliable, or where a meeting might overrun or a flight be slightly delayed) and could just be added to the range.

Personally, I would offer that as an add-on available to advance tickets.

It is a separate matter from removing the super-off-peak tickets in my view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I would offer that as an add-on available to advance tickets.

It might well sell better like that, as someone who picked an Advance costing £10 less than the Super Off Peak might still select it even if it was poor value. Buy-ups do often work better than packages. However doing that is hard with the way fares are retailed at present.

 

[Failed Unit]

Because by increasing fares you can increase revenue while removing a common complaint of overcrowding.

I don't think the same would work for Birmingham because there are alternatives and Avanti trains are not full.

How often is London - Edinburgh really over-crowded? I have travelled on full trains, but not standing trains outside of disruption for long distances. Normally you may get standees for short distances such as Doncaster - York. Normally a lot of the crowded short flows alternatives exist (along with walk on fares)

On a lot of the route other slower options exist.

London - York, you have the slow trains.
York - Newcastle - XC and TPE
Newcastle - Edinburgh

It is a challenge as people will be selecting LNER over XC if travelling to York for many reason. However load of the trains on the ECML is variable.

Compared to routes such as Nottingham - Skegness, LNER doesn't have an over-crowding issue.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

How often is London - Edinburgh really over-crowded? I have travelled on full trains, but not standing trains outside of disruption for long distances. Normally you may get standees for short distances such as Doncaster - York. Normally a lot of the crowded short flows alternatives exist (along with walk on fares)

On a lot of the route other slower options exist.

London - York, you have the slow trains.
York - Newcastle - XC and TPE
Newcastle - Edinburgh

It is a challenge as people will be selecting LNER over XC if travelling to York for many reason. However load of the trains on the ECML is variable.

Compared to routes such as Nottingham - Skegness, LNER doesn't have an over-crowding issue.

It's not about filling trains to capacity though, in some cases that's exactly what they're intentionally pricing to avoid.

A full train isn't necessarily the best way to manage overall capacity and/or revenue. Occasionally a full train can actually mean less revenue.

A train operator has to strike the right balance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not about filling trains to capacity though, in some cases that's exactly what they're intentionally pricing to avoid.

A full train isn't necessarily the best way to manage overall capacity and/or revenue. Occasionally a full train can actually mean less revenue.

A train operator has to strike the right balance.

This obviously raises questions on what should constitute the right balance when you're operating a public service rather than a private business. LNER's approach is one you would expect from a private business, as is Avanti's when it comes to Anytime fares which are priced to maximise revenue, not maximise passenger numbers.

 

[Trainbike46]

It's not about filling trains to capacity though, in some cases that's exactly what they're intentionally pricing to avoid.

A full train isn't necessarily the best way to manage overall capacity and/or revenue. Occasionally a full train can actually mean less revenue.

A train operator has to strike the right balance.

It depends on what you're aiming to achieve.

LNER is not an OAO that tries to maximise profit, it is providing a public service and as such its goals should be different from OAOs.

 

[Failed Unit]

It's not about filling trains to capacity though, in some cases that's exactly what they're intentionally pricing to avoid.

A full train isn't necessarily the best way to manage overall capacity and/or revenue. Occasionally a full train can actually mean less revenue.

A train operator has to strike the right balance.

This is public transport. Why should private transport get all the benefits such as reductions in fuel duty (which never get reversed when the price of oil drops). Look at the costs private transport has to the NHS (accidents, deaths, breathing problems)

I know that the 1700 Kings Cross - Edinburgh has a lot less people on it then then the 1100 Kings Cross - Edinburgh. I suspect the 1700 makes more revenue.

However as a country surely we should be looking to encourage people onto rail, not force them into driving? You never hear the government trying to find more ways of extracting money out of motorists?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It depends on what you're aiming to achieve.

LNER is not an OAO that tries to maximise profit, it is providing a public service and as such its goals should be different from OAOs.

No, that's what you (and others on here) want it to be - not what it actually is.

It's a matter of ideology and politics.

It is set up and structured at the moment to return the greatest profit possible to the Treasury, (and others to consume the lowest subsidy possible) and given the appropriate flexibility and latitude to achieve that.

Yes, the shareholder is the government. Yes, the railways are being nationalised.

That does not mean, and has never meant, that it is therefore not going to be operated as a commercial venture to maximise revenue. GBR isn't some altruistic transport provider catering to every need and wish of society. If you want it to be so, then you'll need to change the political landscape entirely - which isn't likely.

 

[Failed Unit]

No, that's what you (and others on here) want it to be - not what it actually is.

It's a matter of ideology and politics.

It is set up and structured at the moment to return the greatest profit possible to the Treasury, (and others to consume the lowest subsidy possible) and given the appropriate flexibility and latitude to achieve that.

Yes, the shareholder is the government. Yes, the railways are being nationalised.

That does not mean, and has never meant, that it is therefore not going to be operated as a commercial venture to maximise revenue. GBR isn't some altruistic transport provider catering to every need and wish of society. If you want it to be so, then you'll need to change the political landscape entirely - which isn't likely.

Why do you think the railways are getting singled out to be a cash cow?

I see many buses that must make massive losses. (now with £3 fares and very few customers but a life line to those that use them)
The road network swallows millions and no-one cares. (however constantly having fuel duty cuts / freezes as you can't tax motorist more)
The airlines had APD reduced (which took money away from the treasury)
However LNER seems to be on the objective to be a mode of transport for the very rich with these fare increases? Any reason you believe rail is getting singled out and why the closes competitor(s) on the London - Edinburgh are getting enhanced support by reduction in duty?