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

[yorksrob]

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.

It is, but at some stage high fares become a political issue as well (although passengers don't have the same ability blockade the fuel depots that the road hauliers do)

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.

I've seen this argument about limited capacity, but I've yet to see any evidence that demand on the ECML is so routinely overcrowded that:

a) it is being driven be large numbers of off-peak fare holders.

b) it can't be managed in the traditional way by having more or fewer advance purchase fares.

This is why talk of capacity is a red herring. It's about getting more revenue.

 

[35B]

I've seen this argument about limited capacity, but I've yet to see any evidence that demand on the ECML is so routinely overcrowded that:

a) it is being driven be large numbers of off-peak fare holders.

b) it can't be managed in the traditional way by having more or fewer advance purchase fares.

This is why talk of capacity is a red herring. It's about getting more revenue.

I didn't dispute that this is about revenue - that is blindingly obvious. Nor do I necessarily disagree with you about a) or b). The point is different - you are arguing that being run as a state owned business precludes the options of using pricing. That point is fundamentally flawed, and is a political assertion about a state of affairs you wish to be true, not an accurate statement of what is true.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It is, but at some stage high fares become a political issue as well (although passengers don't have the same ability blockade the fuel depots that the road hauliers do)



I've seen this argument about limited capacity, but I've yet to see any evidence that demand on the ECML is so routinely overcrowded that:

a) it is being driven be large numbers of off-peak fare holders.

b) it can't be managed in the traditional way by having more or fewer advance purchase fares.

This is why talk of capacity is a red herring. It's about getting more revenue.

Rail fares haven't really been a political issue in the modern history of the railway. People complain, politicians make some noise, mainly locally, and then the issue goes away. They go every year regardless of any reforms and there's normally a news article and some press coverage, but they still go up. People just get on with it, pay them and the cycle continues in perpetuity.

As I said previously, I'm pretty certain that LNER/DfT will have data that suggests this is largely revenue neutral or only very modestly increasing profit and it's just the distribution of fares that different demographics pay that has changed. People paying more, others paying less/similar. I'm pretty sure this is the case precisely because of the politics - not that it's an issue as above - but if anyone significant did start making a huge issue out of this - the DfT would be able to point to this being neutral overall, but will the benefit of better managed capacity and reduced complaints about crowding and lack of seats.

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't dispute that this is about revenue - that is blindingly obvious. Nor do I necessarily disagree with you about a) or b). The point is different - you are arguing that being run as a state owned business precludes the options of using pricing. That point is fundamentally flawed, and is a political assertion about a state of affairs you wish to be true, not an accurate statement of what is true.

I've never said being a public service precludes using pricing (to manage demand) - I'm pro the off-peak fare, which is itself a type of basic yield management.

I said they have no business turning it into an entirely commercial enterprise.

Rail fares haven't really been a political issue in the modern history of the railway. People complain, politicians make some noise, mainly locally, and then the issue goes away. They go every year regardless of any reforms and there's normally a news article and some press coverage, but they still go up. People just get on with it, pay them and the cycle continues in perpetuity.

As I said previously, I'm pretty certain that LNER/DfT will have data that suggests this is largely revenue neutral or only very modestly increasing profit and it's just the distribution of fares that different demographics pay that has changed. People paying more, others paying less/similar. I'm pretty sure this is the case precisely because of the politics - not that it's an issue as above - but if anyone significant did start making a huge issue out of this - the DfT would be able to point to this being neutral overall, but will the benefit of better managed capacity and reduced complaints about crowding and lack of seats.

If you're raising the cap at which AP can be set, I'm not convinced its mathematically possible for it to be revenue neutral as passengers have the choice of either an anytime fare, which will definitely be a lot more expensive, or an advance, of which a substantial proportion will be more expensive.

Perhaps if they were to publish the evidence we could make a judgement.

Of course, if it is genuinely revenue neutral, why bother in the first place. No Government will want to court controversy for revenue neutral.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're raising the cap at which AP can be set, I'm not convinced its mathematically possible for it to be revenue neutral as passengers have the choice of either an anytime fare, which will definitely be a lot more expensive, or an advance, of which a substantial proportion will be more expensive.

At present I will usually buy an Any Permitted walk-up off peak return fare for most journeys without considering other options (aside from that if travelling via London and it doesn't cost much more I'll split there to get e-tickets) and usually decide on route and timings on the day, particularly for the return half. If this happens, what I will probably do is switch to booking well in advance, occasionally needing to pay a change fee (wish that would go away!) and fare difference to change to later/earlier in the day. Thus the income from me will be reduced, even though I won't *like* it because I prefer the flexibility which I'm happy to pay extra for but not extra to the level of Anytime fares, particularly not Avanti ones which for the journeys I do are roughly twice the cost per mile as LNER London-Edinburgh which is almost borderline reasonable.

(Or let's put it this way - I could see me being willing to pay £200 for a last minute London-Edinburgh journey (or rather £10+the excess between what I did pay and that once in a while), but under no circumstances would I pay that for London-Manchester, and that's about what it is there too!)

Indeed, the ludicrous Avanti Anytimes are one thing that puts me right off this. With an Anytime Single of £100 from London to Manchester, which is what it roughly would be per mile if at the same per mile price as Edinburgh, I would almost find it acceptable to pay that once in a while in return for the total flexibility it offers.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

At present I will usually buy an Any Permitted walk-up off peak return fare for most journeys without considering other options (aside from that if travelling via London and it doesn't cost much more I'll split there to get e-tickets) and usually decide on route and timings on the day, particularly for the return half. If this happens, what I will probably do is switch to booking well in advance, occasionally needing to pay a change fee (wish that would go away!) and fare difference to change to later/earlier in the day. Thus the income from me will be reduced, even though I won't *like* it because I prefer the flexibility which I'm happy to pay extra for but not extra to the level of Anytime fares, particularly not Avanti ones which for the journeys I do are roughly twice the cost per mile as LNER London-Edinburgh which is almost borderline reasonable.

Yes, while I very much dislike advanced tickets, if the LNER 'trial' comes to the XC priced flow I plan to use in 11 months, they will probably make less money than they would from me using advanced tickets compared to the Off-Peak return I will likely buy in ~9 months time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I should add that, as Eurostar has*, the railway would also lose income from random day trips I decide about on the day.

* I'd probably do a couple of random spare-day trips to Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam a year if there was an on the day return of maybe £100-150. But there's no chance of getting that. Such trips are never planned in advance by their nature.

 

[Krokodil]

I should add that, as Eurostar has*, the railway would also lose income from random day trips I decide about on the day.

* I'd probably do a couple of random spare-day trips to Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam a year if there was an on the day return of maybe £100-150. But there's no chance of getting that. Such trips are never planned in advance by their nature.

At the moment you'd be lucky to get a return on Eurostar for less than £400. Even if you do book a little ahead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the moment you'd be lucky to get a return on Eurostar for less than £400. Even if you do book a little ahead.

Yeah, and that's why they have lost out on probably 40 or so random day trips in the 20ish years I've lived down South. It's probably the case that they can make more from selling people £400 tickets than selling me £150 day returns, but it is money they would have got and haven't as a direct result of their pricing policy.

 

[Krokodil]

Yeah, and that's why they have lost out on probably 40 or so random day trips in the 20ish years I've lived down South. It's probably the case that they can make more from selling people £400 tickets than selling me £150 day returns, but it is money they would have got and haven't as a direct result of their pricing policy.

Like LNER they've got more demand than they've got space for (though unlike LNER there is scope to run more trains). So pricing demand off is the only solution. What both routes need is more capacity.

 

[35B]

I've never said being a public service precludes using pricing (to manage demand) - I'm pro the off-peak fare, which is itself a type of basic yield management.

I said they have no business turning it into an entirely commercial enterprise.

Correction noted - and my previous response remains unchanged. It is an entirely legally and constitutionally legitimate choice for government to make, as is the opposite.

 

[A S Leib]

At the moment you'd be lucky to get a return on Eurostar for less than £400. Even if you do book a little ahead.

With Eurostar, I think the best option is to a) be living in Belgium, b) have a way to get to Lille cheaply and c) get long-term Interrail passes.

I saw £78 day returns for the school October half term earlier, although for most families that's still going to mean a £300+ day trip.

 

[Krokodil]

get long-term Interrail passes.

Good luck using Interrail passes at the moment. If the headline price is as high as it is then there will be no quota left

 

[H F Stephens]

As I said previously, I'm pretty certain that LNER/DfT will have data that suggests this is largely revenue neutral or only very modestly increasing profit and it's just the distribution of fares that different demographics pay that has changed. People paying more, others paying less/similar. I'm pretty sure this is the case precisely because of the politics - not that it's an issue as above - but if anyone significant did start making a huge issue out of this - the DfT would be able to point to this being neutral overall, but will the benefit of better managed capacity and reduced complaints about crowding and lack of seats.

As I said, too, it is an almost impossibility that LNER/DfT will have data that does anything of the sort - the retail environment simply does not allow it.

What they will have is reams and reams of data that displays no statistical integrity but which supports (at least) a) confirmation bias and b) incentivised internal targets.

It's a cultural and systemic issue and one that, apparently, began to take hold in the industry more than sixty years ago, so it will likely take a relatively seismic event to address even mildly.

 

[yorksrob]

Correction noted - and my previous response remains unchanged. It is an entirely legally and constitutionally legitimate choice for government to make, as is the opposite.

I think that in the wider transport context, it's extremely poor policy to keep hiking the price of public transport while the cost of motor transport has been stagnant.

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

At present I will usually buy an Any Permitted walk-up off peak return fare for most journeys without considering other options (aside from that if travelling via London and it doesn't cost much more I'll split there to get e-tickets) and usually decide on route and timings on the day, particularly for the return half. If this happens, what I will probably do is switch to booking well in advance, occasionally needing to pay a change fee (wish that would go away!) and fare difference to change to later/earlier in the day. Thus the income from me will be reduced, even though I won't *like* it because I prefer the flexibility which I'm happy to pay extra for but not extra to the level of Anytime fares, particularly not Avanti ones which for the journeys I do are roughly twice the cost per mile as LNER London-Edinburgh which is almost borderline reasonable.

(Or let's put it this way - I could see me being willing to pay £200 for a last minute London-Edinburgh journey (or rather £10+the excess between what I did pay and that once in a while), but under no circumstances would I pay that for London-Manchester, and that's about what it is there too!)

Indeed, the ludicrous Avanti Anytimes are one thing that puts me right off this. With an Anytime Single of £100 from London to Manchester, which is what it roughly would be per mile if at the same per mile price as Edinburgh, I would almost find it acceptable to pay that once in a while in return for the total flexibility it offers.

That's an interesting point, although it assumes that lots of former off-peak passengers will switch to AP at times when they're cheaper than the old off peak.

 

[35B]

I think that in the wider transport context, it's extremely poor policy to keep hiking the price of public transport while the cost of motor transport has been stagnant.

I don't disagree about the contrast between policy and intent.

However, as a driver, I'd challenge that the cost of driving has remained stagnant. Fuel and vehicle prices have risen considerably over time, sometimes dramatically. What you refer to is I suspect the Fuel Duty Escalator, which increased fuel prices each year by adding additional tax to them. If we're making comparisons to the railway, and wondering why fares are rising, it might be instructive to wonder at how the costs of providing a rail service have risen year on year, while the costs of driving have (allegedly) not risen nearly as much.

 

[johncrossley]

Fuel and vehicle prices have risen considerably over time, sometimes dramatically.

Unleaded is typically around £1.30 a litre at the moment. Inflation adjusted, that would make it 68p in 2000. It was actually around 85p per litre.

 

[JamesT]

Unleaded is typically around £1.30 a litre at the moment. Inflation adjusted, that would make it 68p in 2000. It was actually around 85p per litre.

I'm not sure about looking that far back, but the graph on https://www.racfoundation.org/data/cost-of-motoring-index shows the overall cost of motoring has roughly been in line with inflation over the last ten years.

 

[redreni]

I don't disagree about the contrast between policy and intent.

However, as a driver, I'd challenge that the cost of driving has remained stagnant. Fuel and vehicle prices have risen considerably over time, sometimes dramatically. What you refer to is I suspect the Fuel Duty Escalator, which increased fuel prices each year by adding additional tax to them. If we're making comparisons to the railway, and wondering why fares are rising, it might be instructive to wonder at how the costs of providing a rail service have risen year on year, while the costs of driving have (allegedly) not risen nearly as much.

Quite.

People calculate the cost of driving without adequately pricing in the cost of buying the asset (the car) and then owning it while it depreciates.

In the past few years since I have cut down driving to a minimum and taken public transport wherever I can, there is a noticeable difference when you go in for your MOT and they measure your brake wear and tyre tread depth.

People don't really factor these things in either when choosing how to travel. Human psychology is such that it's only the immediate marginal cost that we consider (fuel plus tolls, if any). And that is indeed the bulk of the marginal cost: the big savings come if you decide not to own a car, in which case you still have the option of driving places if you need to, but you have to factor in the price of car hire as well as fuel, which makes everything a bit more realistic.

 

[Sonic1234]

Human psychology is such that it's only the immediate marginal cost that we consider (fuel plus tolls, if any)

This is the battle the railways (or any public transport) will always have. The comparator is a guesstimate on the low side of the cost of fuel for a trip, with local trips priced at or near zero in people's minds.

Most people already believe (rightly or wrongly) they are priced off the railway. While I have met a couple of people in my time who have the attitude of "I have a car, why would I consider any other mode", most are open to the idea of rail but either have swallowed a sensationalist news article "London to Glasgow is cheaper flying via Amsterdam than by train" "You can get to Barcelona cheaper than Didcot!!!" or looked once at a medium-long distance trip and were shocked at the price.

 

[Benjwri]

I'm not sure about looking that far back, but the graph on https://www.racfoundation.org/data/cost-of-motoring-index shows the overall cost of motoring has roughly been in line with inflation over the last ten years.

The overall yes, but it also clearly shows the cost of fuel has not been in line. The vast majority of the pulling of the cost up is thanks to insurance which has skyrocketed.

 

[Krokodil]

Fuel and vehicle prices have risen considerably over time, sometimes dramatically.

Fuel prices haven't. They did spike in the aftermath of the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but they're now back down to the same levels as they were at the beginning of 2012. That's in nominal terms, so it's a real terms cut. In fact, looking back at the oldest data the RAC provides, petrol is a couple of pence below what it would have been if it had risen in line with CPI since 2003. So much for the "war on the motorist"

UK pump prices over time

This chart tracks the changes in petrol and diesel prices over time (weekly on a Monday, rolling ten year period) and is based on BEIS data published each Tuesd

www.racfoundation.org

 

[35B]

Fuel prices haven't. They did spike in the aftermath of the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but they're now back down to the same levels as they were at the beginning of 2012. That's in nominal terms, so it's a real terms cut. In fact, looking back at the oldest data the RAC provides, petrol is a couple of pence below what it would have been if it had risen in line with CPI since 2003. So much for the "war on the motorist"

UK pump prices over time

This chart tracks the changes in petrol and diesel prices over time (weekly on a Monday, rolling ten year period) and is based on BEIS data published each Tuesd

www.racfoundation.org

Which makes my point. If fuel costs, without the distortions of inflation adjusted taxation, have done that yet rail costs have risen as much as they have, what does that say about the railway as a whole?

 

[yorksrob]

Which makes my point. If fuel costs, without the distortions of inflation adjusted taxation, have done that yet rail costs have risen as much as they have, what does that say about the railway as a whole?

Well, one can look at many things such as costs of building stations, costs of leasing clapped-out rolling stock etc.

That doesn't really negate the problem of the costs going up differentially.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==

Quite.

People calculate the cost of driving without adequately pricing in the cost of buying the asset (the car) and then owning it while it depreciates.

In the past few years since I have cut down driving to a minimum and taken public transport wherever I can, there is a noticeable difference when you go in for your MOT and they measure your brake wear and tyre tread depth.

People don't really factor these things in either when choosing how to travel. Human psychology is such that it's only the immediate marginal cost that we consider (fuel plus tolls, if any). And that is indeed the bulk of the marginal cost: the big savings come if you decide not to own a car, in which case you still have the option of driving places if you need to, but you have to factor in the price of car hire as well as fuel, which makes everything a bit more realistic.

I don't count the cost of the asset because people don't count the cost of the asset when making a decision. Where do you stop ? The cost of the mortgage on the garage you keep it in ?

 

[Krokodil]

Which makes my point. If fuel costs, without the distortions of inflation adjusted taxation, have done that yet rail costs have risen as much as they have, what does that say about the railway as a whole?

The price of oil is controlled by a cartel and there has been (I think) 6p worth of duty cuts which has led to the price at the pump being static in nominal terms. Rail is subject to lots of other costs, and the drive for ever improving safety has made staff training more expensive and the price to retain skilled staff has gone up as a result. On roads however safety standards are much lower.

 

[35B]

The price of oil is controlled by a cartel and there has been (I think) 6p worth of duty cuts which has led to the price at the pump being static in nominal terms. Rail is subject to lots of other costs, and the drive for ever improving safety has made staff training more expensive and the price to retain skilled staff has gone up as a result. On roads however safety standards are much lower.

That cartel has limited power, partially demonstrated by the fall in real value of fuel, while the pressure on costs can be seen in the declines in refinery capacity. That demonstrates how options other than prices rise annually do exist - which is not to gainsay the existence of structural differences between road and rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The price of oil is controlled by a cartel and there has been (I think) 6p worth of duty cuts which has led to the price at the pump being static in nominal terms. Rail is subject to lots of other costs, and the drive for ever improving safety has made staff training more expensive and the price to retain skilled staff has gone up as a result. On roads however safety standards are much lower.

Despite this the price of train tickets is largely not coupled to the cost of them, like many things. However where you have an unusual situation with Kings X-Newcastle/Edinburgh (and for that matter points north) is that it is one case where rail is probably the highest value mode of transport - driving is slow and tiring because it's a long way, and air is infrequent and carries all the usual faff of security etc. And while we might debate about the seats LNER does have a high quality reputation that other TOCs largely do not - you can tell this from their socials where most TOCs receive a sarcastic slating every time they post stuff whereas LNER seem to largely receive compliments other than about overcrowding - and this is designed in part to address that.

Try applying this to London-Manchester, which isn't too far to drive (maybe 5 hours, and consider the saving from going door to door rather than getting to Euston/Piccadilly/Stockport first), doesn't largely have an overcrowding problem due to the very high frequency and capacity, and has more frequent air competition that could be scaled up if rail suddenly got bad or expensive, and I can't see it going quite as well. Yes, you could change to an Advance-only ticketing scheme and tweak the balance between trains to even loadings (because with 3tph there's a lot of scope to move people around*, few long distance journeys are sensitive to a 20 minute window), but I don't think it would stand a 150% fare increase which has applied to LNER tickets on the trial routes bought close to travel (the 20% that was put on the Super Off Peak for a return journey when single fare pricing came in, and the further 30% ish that seems to have been applied since the trial).

* Though with 3tph at even 20 minute intervals, you could go 3 trains either way on the 70 Minute Flex, which largely knackers that.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Given the thread drift into overall transport economic policy I'm surprised this hasn't yet been split off into a separate conversation

 

[redreni]

Well, one can look at many things such as costs of building stations, costs of leasing clapped-out rolling stock etc.

That doesn't really negate the problem of the costs going up differentially.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==



I don't count the cost of the asset because people don't count the cost of the asset when making a decision. Where do you stop ? The cost of the mortgage on the garage you keep it in ?

No, nor do I when I work out what's the cheaper way of getting somewhere, because it's a sunk cost so properly falls to be disregarded by then. That doesn't change the reality that it is part of the cost of driving.

It's only when your car needs replacing that you've got to look at whether you need one. I doubt I will replace mine. My situation is admittedly a bit unusual - I live in a house, which I own, and I park my car about 80 yards away on a rectangle of associated land which I also own, but I don't own the land in between. So there are practical difficulties in installing a home EV charger.

Demand for rail travel is bound to increase as the cost of new cars and needed charging infrastructure makes car ownership less affordable and less practical than it used to be, and this will get worse when the screw is tightened on cheap second hand diesel and petrol cars, as more of them become subject to punitive road user charging. This thread is about a way for the UK authorities to bury their head in the sand and make the demand appear to evaporate, rather than building to provide the necessary capacity. If it's allowed to happen, travel will simply become less accessible to a large section of the population.

I'm quite pro-overcrowding. It's a symptom of inadequate capacity, and if it's allowed to be masked, it becomes difficult to persuade people of the necessity of building new railways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm quite pro-overcrowding. It's a symptom of inadequate capacity, and if it's allowed to be masked, it becomes difficult to persuade people of the necessity of building new railways.

It's certainly true that the gross underprovision in places like France and Spain are a lot less visible than in the UK where underprovision causes overcrowding which is very visible.

One thing this scheme has potential to do is to hide underprovision such as the use of 5-car units northbound at 7pm on a Friday.