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

[RJ]

Either that's just an error, or they realise that last minute purchases on the last train of the day are generally distress purchases and they can charge what they like and maximise income?

I wasn’t travelling myself, it was on behalf of someone else who asked my help with sorting their ticket as the ticket office closes at 7pm. This was about 30 minutes before the train left. Date of travel was the 7th August. I have my own arrangements for travel on that line.

It's probably a muck-up on the quotas, although the Edinburgh Festival really does distort things.

So "positively received" that LNER have had to spend administrative time removing all the loopholes.

I think we all know that LNER wouldn't be going to the trouble of doing that if it was only a handful of cranks buying the loophole tickets.

Where it comes to loopholes, if they can, they will shut them down if only one person is doing it and it comes to their attention.

While the changes may be seen as progressive, for Priv holders it could be seen as regressive as it’s going back to the days of the discount only being available on Anytime fares!

 

[Bletchleyite]

While the changes may be seen as progressive, for Priv holders it could be seen as regressive as it’s going back to the days of the discount only being available on Anytime fares!

I genuinely think staff should make representations to their Unions about this and seek to have the situation improved, e.g. by allowing Priv to be applied to all Advances on the route and all 70 minute tiers. Even if not contractual, the Unions are quite powerful and should be able to apply appropriate pressure.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I genuinely think staff should make representations to their Unions about this and seek to have the situation improved, e.g. by allowing Priv to be applied to all Advances on the route and all 70 minute tiers. Even if not contractual, the Unions are quite powerful and should be able to apply appropriate pressure.

That's unlikely to be an issue in the medium term from what I hear anyway, depending on various future pay awards/negotiations.

There simply won't be a need for staff to book these, but it's for a different topic.

 

[Starmill]

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.

As I said above, my priority would be to maximise economic growth potential, rather than ticket revenues, quality, volume or other things.

However, that's generally not a view shared by hardly anyone else, certainly not the Minister and her staff!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

That's unlikely to be an issue in the medium term from what I hear anyway, depending on various future pay awards/negotiations.

There simply won't be a need for staff to book these, but it's for a different topic.

You think non-safeguarded Network Rail staff are going to get free leisure travel on LNER?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

I doubt the intention is to bar Priv holders from that train (effectively) so that's something that, were I one, I would feed back formally via my Union, as it devalues the benefits that are a contractual part of my role. Or would be if I worked on't'railway!

Someone who is entitled to Privelage rate is going to be really stuffed if they want to travel from Clapham Junction to Edinburgh next month, for example. Obviously they could split at a much higher price, but if they knew that, they'd probably also know they could buy a Berrylands to Edinburgh which would be cheaper.

 

[Hadders]

Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I thought it had been agreed that Priv discount would be allowed on 70-minute flex fares.

 

[Kite159]

.

Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I thought it had been agreed that Priv discount would be allowed on 70-minute flex fares.

They are available (from London Kings Cross), however it is still often cheaper to buy a super offpeak ticket to a station outside the area (at times when the super offpeak is available to buy).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

As I said above, my priority would be to maximise economic growth potential, rather than ticket revenues, quality, volume or other things.

However, that's generally not a view shared by hardly anyone else, certainly not the Minister and her staff!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==


You think non-safeguarded Network Rail staff are going to get free leisure travel on LNER?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

There isn't going to be an LNER and there isn't going to be a Network Rail.

The plans I see show quite a lot of mergers from 2027 onwards, and the Eastern Region/ Sector is at the forefront of that, especially the former Anglian TOCs.

 

[Failed Unit]

Someone who is entitled to Privelage rate is going to be really stuffed if they want to travel from Clapham Junction to Edinburgh next month, for example. Obviously they could split at a much higher price, but if they knew that, they'd probably also know they could buy a Berrylands to Edinburgh which would be cheaper.

Sshh- If LNER are reading this they will be adding this station to the trail in the next “due to popular demand we are adding station x (which has had a large increase in sales to Edinburgh) to the trail as people don’t want to buy super-off peak tickets anymore

 

[Kite159]

Sshh- If LNER are reading this they will be adding this station to the trail in the next “due to popular demand we are adding station x (which has had a large increase in sales to Edinburgh) to the trail as people don’t want to buy super-off peak tickets anymore

The next step will probably be to include all the stations within zones 1-6 to increase revenue due to the removal of that pesky super offpeak fare cap

 

[Sonic1234]

The next step will probably be to include all the stations within zones 1-6 to increase revenue due to the removal of that pesky super offpeak fare cap

I'm honestly surprised they didn't do this. Zones 5 and 6 have a lot of the big outer London towns like Bromley, Croydon, Kingston, Harrow etc. where there may be genuine demand for through tickets from.

 

[yorkie]

I'm honestly surprised they didn't do this. Zones 5 and 6 have a lot of the big outer London towns like Bromley, Croydon, Kingston, Harrow etc. where there may be genuine demand for through tickets from.

I'm sure LNER will continue to increase the price for an ever increasing number of people as rapidly as they can.

Indeed, LNER were charging Newcastle fans less to go to Wembley than to go to King's Cross for the Cup Final 5 months ago:

LNER trains for Carabao Cup Final (Sunday 16th March 2025)

Apparently LNER have committed to running four trains (two up, two down) for Newcastle United fans wanting to get to the Carabao Cup Final at Wembley stadium on Sunday 16th March 2024, where they face some team called Red United or something. Newcastle 07.23 07.52 Kings Cross 11.09...

www.railforums.co.uk

Just checked fares today

Newcastle to Kings Cross is £98.30
Newcastle to Wembley Central is £97.80 via Kings Cross. On same train from Newcastle as the £98.30 fare.

This is because Newcastle to London Terminals tickets have been "simplified" so that the only options are Anytime or Advance.

However, Newcastle to Wembley Central flow still has Super Off Peak fares available.

The DfT are intending to get rid of Super Off Peak/ Off Peak fares on as many flows as they can possibly get away with, as this allows for "simple" fares which reduce passenger rights and bring in more revenue. LNER are more than happy to go along with this.

Apparently customers prefer to be restricted to one specific train, for a higher price, than be able to take any off-peak service; the latter is deemed to be "too complicated" by the powers-that-be.

However, let's not discuss that here, as we've had threads dedicated to the topic!

LNER are very keen that people don't have freedoms to take alternative services, and pay as much as possible, so they will continue to roll this out as rapidly and widely as DfT allow them to.

LNER know that until their method of ticketing applies across the entire network, people will be able to find ways round it.

 

[Failed Unit]

They have a lot of Scotland to cover first, can they remove the ‘9F” codes as these are valid via Glasgow and Edinburgh so they are penalising Avanti as well.

 

[Starmill]

Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I thought it had been agreed that Priv discount would be allowed on 70-minute flex fares.

70 Min Advances aren't available at all for that journey (i.e not just there's no quota, there's actually no fare) despite the Super Off Peak being withdrawn.

It may be the case that no fares are available for any station where there would be a cross London marker.

 

[Krokodil]

as is Avanti's when it comes to Anytime fares which are priced to maximise revenue, not maximise passenger numbers.

I'm not sure that is true any more. They might have maximised revenue before the pandemic, but I suspect that they now have the opposite effect in the post-pandemic world, they are so ludicrously expensive, particularly from Manchester. Remember that peak restrictions were relaxed a few years ago and it turned out to be a profitable move?

 

[Richardr]

As I said above, my priority would be to maximise economic growth potential, rather than ticket revenues, quality, volume or other things.

Apologies if you have explained it and I've missed it, but [briefly!] what does maximizing economic growth potential mean in relation to LNER ticketing?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I thought it had been agreed that Priv discount would be allowed on 70-minute flex fares.

For the first phase of the trial, a Priv discount was offered on ticket types DMP and DNR (70-minute Flex in Standard and First Class) and BUS and OES (Advances.)

That has since changed, with no discount being offered on Advances at all, but it's been extended to 70-minute Flex ticket types DMP to DMU in Standard and DNR to DNU in First Class.

So where you'd have paid around £23.85 for a Priv Super Off-Peak Single from Kings Cross to Edinburgh this year if they still existed, or £23 for a Priv Advance, you now pay between £28 and £40.60 for a Priv 70-minute Flex (subject to availability) or £51.20 for a Priv Anytime Single...if you don't use an alternative station pair.

 

[Trainbike46]

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

That is dangerous talk for the railway; if it is fully commercial, why should it get subsidy from the government?

I think it is entirely fair to state that the aims of the OAOs are rather different than those of the other passenger TOCs. That's not a criticism of either type of operators.

It's a matter of ideology and politics.

Agreed it is a matter of politics and ideology.

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.

To some extent, yes, but certainly not completely. If it was, loads of services would not operate.

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.

This section just proves you completely misunderstood my point. I'll try and come up with a way to explain what I meant more clearly (but can't think of one now).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

As I said above, my priority would be to maximise economic growth potential, rather than ticket revenues, quality, volume or other things.

However, that's generally not a view shared by hardly anyone else, certainly not the Minister and her staff!

I wasn't replying to you in the post of me you quoted, but that would be quite a bit more sensible (and have a reason to retain subsidy for the railway!)

Frankly, I really don't get what the government is smoking; If anyone finds out, could you get me some

 

[Sonic1234]

The Intercity railway is the most commercial part of the railway. The socially necessary railway is the likes of Overground - allowing people to get to jobs, college etc. a few miles away or get to the nearest town centre. This is where the railway enables economic activity.

London, York and Edinburgh are thriving cities. The economy would benefit more if you spent your money in a local town - exactly what some of those priced off LNER who then decide to go somewhere else or not travel will do. And if you choose to drive instead, there will be a nice bit of revenue in taxes, parking charges etc. for both central and local government.

 

[A S Leib]

The Intercity railway is the most commercial part of the railway. The socially necessary railway is the likes of Overground - allowing people to get to jobs, college etc. a few miles away or get to the nearest town centre. This is where the railway enables economic activity.

London, York and Edinburgh are thriving cities. The economy would benefit more if you spent your money in a local town - exactly what some of those priced off LNER who then decide to go somewhere else or not travel will do. And if you choose to drive instead, there will be a nice bit of revenue in taxes, parking charges etc. for both central and local government.

In which case introduction of LNER's experiment to shorter legs like Northallerton or Doncaster to York would be particularly problematic.

 

[Bikeman78]

I don't think Tazi is saying people aren't entitled to opinions, I think they are just saying that in all likelihood this pricing structure (or something like it) is the "new normal" on IC routes in due course, and attention is better directed to how to obtain the best value from it. People are entitled to moan if they want, but they aren't necessarily going to effect change by doing so.

I've long since realised that complaining about services of any description is a waste of time. They aren't going to change unless most of their customers walk away. The whole dynamic pricing thing seems to have rocketed since Covid. Perhaps it was something that many businesses wanted to do anyway and the Covid restrictions gave them the perfect opportunity.

Take the London Aquarium for example. Ten years ago, I'm pretty sure it had one entry price. Now the price changes by day and time and you have to book a time slot. If I want to take the kids to two or three places on the same day, I have to guess how long the first will take to make sure I get to the next one on time. Interestingly, they have anytime entry tickets which I don't think existed last year. So perhaps people are getting tired of fixed time attractions and want more flexibility again. On August 15th, the anytime price is 38 quid. The fixed time slot prices vary from 28 to 39 quid!

 

[NER1621]

The Intercity railway is the most commercial part of the railway. The socially necessary railway is the likes of Overground

Which is lovely, unless you find yourself in a part of the world where the “Intercity” railway is, de facto, also the local service serving less well-off or smaller towns. If LNER wants to pretend to be a surface airline conveying the well-heeled between London, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh only then fine - merge it with Lumo and run it as a limited stop executive service. But then give the rest of us who live along the ECML a decent metro service along the *entire* line of route (no metro gaps between London outer suburbia and Yorkshire, or Newcastle and Edinburgh) linking all the smaller towns into those hubs.

EDIT Posted before I saw that @A S Leib had made the same point.

 

[Starmill]

Apologies if you have explained it and I've missed it, but [briefly!] what does maximizing economic growth potential mean in relation to LNER ticketing?

Just that I would encourage / discourage travel to the point that the evidence best suggested there could be the most economic growth, even if that resulted in some trains being a little busier or quieter than perhaps would be ideal, or prices too high or low than would maximise short run ticket revenue.

 

[thedbdiboy]

But these tweaks seem to all be to the determent of the customer. I am going over old ground but if this is such a wonderful system, why were LNER so quick to shut down the first "loopholes" namely London - Manor and London - Haymarket. The fact the took these step doesn't convince me "normal" customers have accepted these changes. The fact these loopholes were published in multiple national newspapers doesn't strike me as positively received. The tweaks all seem to be about making it worse for customers such as including all stations south of Stevenage in the trail.

It's erroneous to view the closing of loopholes as an admission of failure. Short of making a 'big bang' change to the entire fares structure, changes need to be incrementally added. This will create a distortion because the 'losers' under the new structure will naturally gravitate to the remaining unrestructured fares. Tackling those in due course is simply part of the implementation process. Whatever the ultimate evolution of the long distance fares structure under GBR, you can be sure that eventually, all conflicting elements of the 'old' structure will be dealt with, This doesn't mean that all of the issues will be ignored - there is clearly scope to work out the optimum 'semi-flexible' offer, including issues such as refundability and starting/finishing short.
However, the old style long distance 'off-peak' fare's days are numbered. It was invented in the 70s, popularised in the 80s and only a quirk of fate in the privatisation process turned it into the zombie fare that couldn't be touched. If BR had survived you can bet it would have been replaced in the early 2000s.

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.



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

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?

The railway is a public service but it has to function within agreed budgets. The after effects of COVID and changes in travel habits meant that overall public subsidy for the rail industry increased by £4bn. Increasing revenue is not a 'cash cow', it is about closing that shortfall, and that includes reform of the fare structure to reflect how people travel now. That inevitably means that on routes with modal competition and strong demand, higher fares will be charged where it is apparent people will pay them. That is not an abrogation of public service, because closing that funding gap also ensures that many more of the socially necessary services can continue to be provided.

 

[yorksrob]

I've long since realised that complaining about services of any description is a waste of time. They aren't going to change unless most of their customers walk away. The whole dynamic pricing thing seems to have rocketed since Covid. Perhaps it was something that many businesses wanted to do anyway and the Covid restrictions gave them the perfect opportunity.

Take the London Aquarium for example. Ten years ago, I'm pretty sure it had one entry price. Now the price changes by day and time and you have to book a time slot. If I want to take the kids to two or three places on the same day, I have to guess how long the first will take to make sure I get to the next one on time. Interestingly, they have anytime entry tickets which I don't think existed last year. So perhaps people are getting tired of fixed time attractions and want more flexibility again. On August 15th, the anytime price is 38 quid. The fixed time slot prices vary from 28 to 39 quid!

I think this sort of thing ought to be cracked down on.

In previous centuries, the government introduced regulations such as the Weights and Measures act to prevent people being conned, yet it seems these days just because its an algorithm fleecing people instead of a person, it's deemed perfectly acceptable by the Establishment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

It's erroneous to view the closing of loopholes as an admission of failure. Short of making a 'big bang' change to the entire fares structure, changes need to be incrementally added. This will create a distortion because the 'losers' under the new structure will naturally gravitate to the remaining unrestructured fares. Tackling those in due course is simply part of the implementation process. Whatever the ultimate evolution of the long distance fares structure under GBR, you can be sure that eventually, all conflicting elements of the 'old' structure will be dealt with, This doesn't mean that all of the issues will be ignored - there is clearly scope to work out the optimum 'semi-flexible' offer, including issues such as refundability and starting/finishing short.
However, the old style long distance 'off-peak' fare's days are numbered. It was invented in the 70s, popularised in the 80s and only a quirk of fate in the privatisation process turned it into the zombie fare that couldn't be touched. If BR had survived you can bet it would have been replaced in the early 2000s.


The railway is a public service but it has to function within agreed budgets. The after effects of COVID and changes in travel habits meant that overall public subsidy for the rail industry increased by £4bn. Increasing revenue is not a 'cash cow', it is about closing that shortfall, and that includes reform of the fare structure to reflect how people travel now. That inevitably means that on routes with modal competition and strong demand, higher fares will be charged where it is apparent people will pay them. That is not an abrogation of public service, because closing that funding gap also ensures that many more of the socially necessary services can continue to be provided.

It is absolutely an abrogation of public service. The railway is provided at (in part) public expense, therefore deliberately pricing people off is at odds with running a public service. I'm a taxpayer and I expect public services to be run as a public service. Westminster and Whitehall have no business turning it into an entirely commercial enterprise.

I'm also intrigued by the cockamaime idea that the railway up to (say) milepost 80 is a vital public service, yet beyond is entirely a frivolity where passengers can be conned. Do people not have the need to visit relatives, investigate job opportunities, go to university etc elsewhere ?

I suppose at least they've stopped expecting us to genuflect to the Government just because they were kind enough to run empty trains when no one was allowed to travel in covid.

 

[johncrossley]

Which is lovely, unless you find yourself in a part of the world where the “Intercity” railway is, de facto, also the local service serving less well-off or smaller towns. If LNER wants to pretend to be a surface airline conveying the well-heeled between London, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh only then fine - merge it with Lumo and run it as a limited stop executive service. But then give the rest of us who live along the ECML a decent metro service along the *entire* line of route (no metro gaps between London outer suburbia and Yorkshire, or Newcastle and Edinburgh) linking all the smaller towns into those hubs.

This is where we need a similar parallel local/regional network like in Germany. DB Fernverkehr is mostly commercial. ICE trains are now market priced, but people who want to save money have always got a regional alternative with its own ticket range.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

It is absolutely an abrogation of public service. The railway is provided at (in part) public expense, therefore deliberately pricing people off is at odds with running a public service. I'm a taxpayer and I expect public services to be run as a public service. Westminster and Whitehall have no business turning it into an entirely commercial enterprise.

If the maximum revenue is not driven from the parts of the industry where it can be, then there will have to be cut backs to services. The Government has been clear that there is no more money, department budgets are being cut and the DfT has been particularly hard hit. Treasury has been clear that it wants to see the cost of the railways to the national purse reduced. For the most part (aside from minor ancillaries such as advertising space) the railway's income comes from the farebox and the taxpayer, with the latter being cut either the former has to make up the slack, or outputs (costs) in terms of service levels and preventative maintenance will have to be reduced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the most part (aside from minor ancillaries such as advertising space) the railway's income comes from the farebox and the taxpayer, with the latter being cut either the former has to make up the slack, or outputs (costs) in terms of service levels and preventative maintenance will have to be reduced.

There are cases where services could be viably reduced without much of an issue, to be fair (discussion of this isn't for this thread).

Edit: though it probably is worth a discussion so here is a thread for it: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/service-reductions-to-save-money.290781/

 

[yorksrob]

If the maximum revenue is not driven from the parts of the industry where it can be, then there will have to be cut backs to services. The Government has been clear that there is no more money, department budgets are being cut and the DfT has been particularly hard hit. Treasury has been clear that it wants to see the cost of the railways to the national purse reduced. For the most part (aside from minor ancillaries such as advertising space) the railway's income comes from the farebox and the taxpayer, with the latter being cut either the former has to make up the slack, or outputs (costs) in terms of service levels and preventative maintenance will have to be reduced.

As I've pointed out many times, they've billions to hold back fuel duty for several years. Even a tiny proportion of this would have a massive effect on reducing rail fares.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

As I've pointed out many times, they've billions to hold back fuel duty for several years. Even a tiny proportion of this would have a massive effect on reducing rail fares.

They have, and you are dead right - however that is a political decision that I don't see being reversed any time soon, which is unfortunate as I would much rather see that outcome as well.

 

[35B]

It is absolutely an abrogation of public service. The railway is provided at (in part) public expense, therefore deliberately pricing people off is at odds with running a public service. I'm a taxpayer and I expect public services to be run as a public service. Westminster and Whitehall have no business turning it into an entirely commercial enterprise.

It is a policy that has been operated at times over the entire history of the railway, because the cost of meeting demand has exceeded the income that meeting that demand can generate. It is noticeable that this has especially happened in railway history when "public service" requirements have limited fares.

The public service provided by the railway network is the ability to travel. Your, mine or anyone else's ability to make that journey is a private benefit - as is the ability to do so at the price you would choose to pay.

As for what Westminster and Whitehall may do with it, can I remind you that a nationalised organisation is owned and controlled by the government - and that they have very broad discretion as to how they have those services managed. Subject to the verdict of voters, which will depend on many factors, they are entirely at liberty to make the railways entirely commercial - or to make them entirely free to use.