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

[redreni]

You mean in the way that most GB rail fares actually work?

Yes, absolutely. But in the way it decidedly doesn't work, as I mentioned, when through tickets between a new station pair are created.

 

[BRX]

This would be a very dangerous place to go with the railway given that a few people on a fume belching Sprinter or Voyager would undoubtedly emit more CO2 than if they had instead chosen to drive an EV, even a large SUV. The only logical way to go with it (absent electrification money) would be closure of non-electrified routes, particularly branch lines, in favour of electric buses and coaches.

That would be a horribly simplistic way to look at it though; making public transport less attractive by shunting people onto buses instead of trains wouldn't just take people off 10 miles of the fume belching sprinter but the 100 miles they might do on electric as their next leg - they might just do the whole lot by car or plane. Then there's the way it could tip the balance of people's travel habits overall where someone buys a car and starts doing all of their travel that way. And you can't electrify a closed branch line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

they might just do the whole lot by car or plane

Reply here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...way-by-electrification-of-other-modes.292822/

 

[yorksrob]

A lack of return tickets is not a lack of through ticketing. And return tickets to Cornwall are available from West Yorkshire.

The super off peak from Leeds to Penzance return via London isn't though. It was one I occasionally used if not wanting to be tied down on several legs.

Your rights with a split are exactly the same as with a through ticket, and on a journey like that (aside from the trial) it's very likely a split will offer better value because the chance of quotas lining up for a good value through Advance are low. If LNER were seeking to change that I'd have a real problem with it, but for all the bad things about what they are doing there is no evidence that they are doing that.

For Advances I'm genuinely not convinced there is any benefit at all in through ticketing; one ticket per vehicle journey issued as a split in a very large number of cases gives a better value fare (sometimes more than one ticket per vehicle journey ) and they can easily be issued in one transaction and it's much simpler to set up the quotas etc. You occasionally do get a good value through Advance with a change when it's the same TOC (I did last night on Northern, in fact) but for the journey you give as an example splitting will almost certainly be cheaper. Or XC, but that's best avoided anyway

Sometimes I just want the option of an off peak return (of the sort one can get from Leeds to Whitby). Yes, I might decide its too expensive and get AP anyway, but if the difference isn't too much I might opt for the flexibility.

When I tried to book WYorks to Cambridge and back recently, this wasn't available (except going via Nottingham, which I went for in the end).

As @Haywain says, it isn't a discount, it's effectively an add-on to an international journey. It's like saying PlusBus is a 'discount' not available to local users because they have to come from somewhere else by train.

The 1990s concept of through ticketing has been pretty comprehensively dismantled by split ticketing.

I go back to the example of my WYorks to Penzance via London super off peak. It was an option I didn't take up every time, but it was useful when I needed it.

As far as plus bus is concerned, as a local passenger, I'd be miffed if the plus bus add-on came to a lot less than a single bus journey in the area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sometimes I just want the option of an off peak return (of the sort one can get from Leeds to Whitby). Yes, I might decide its too expensive and get AP anyway, but if the difference isn't too much I might opt for the flexibility.

£247.80 for an Off Peak Return Manchester-Penzance (as a comparison) which is the equivalent ticket. Almost nobody will buy that, it's just way too expensive for people to really contemplate even if they like a bit of flexibility. And that requires the use of XC - there isn't even a via London option, surprisingly!

We have no way of knowing but I would suspect the vast majority of those are sold to Priv and Railcard holders and hardly any are undiscounted.

Anytime Return is over £500 which is just ludicrous. One wonders if they have ever sold one, I bet you're talking single figures a year.

There's a TfW (via Hereford) Anytime Return for £149 which is much more like it.

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

As far as plus bus is concerned, as a local passenger, I'd be miffed if the plus bus add-on came to a lot less than a single bus journey in the area.

Why? I wonder does someone paying four quid to go from MKC to Bletchley gets cross at me getting it for free on a through ticket to further away? I doubt it. That's just how fares work.

 

[yorksrob]

£247.80 for an Off Peak Return Manchester-Penzance (as a comparison) which is the equivalent ticket. Almost nobody will buy that, it's just way too expensive for people to really contemplate even if they like a bit of flexibility. And that requires the use of XC - there isn't even a via London option, surprisingly!

We have no way of knowing but I would suspect the vast majority of those are sold to Priv and Railcard holders and hardly any are undiscounted.

If it were via London (which would be a fairly long distance) it probably would be justified in some cases.

When you have a lot of journey legs, something that bundles them up can be quite attractive.

The WYorks/Penzance not via London ticket was/is somewhat less than the via London, but I've often found the cross country services too crowded.

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

Why? I wonder does someone paying four quid to go from MKC to Bletchley gets cross at me getting it for free on a through ticket to further away? I doubt it. That's just how fares work.

I'm less likely to be annoyed at the Eurostar add-on when there's still an equivalent off peak fare available for domestic journeys. Less so if the "trial" gets rolled out.

 

[redreni]

As @Haywain says, it isn't a discount, it's effectively an add-on to an international journey. It's like saying PlusBus is a 'discount' not available to local users because they have to come from somewhere else by train.

Or go somewhere else by train. So it is available to local users, just not when they're only travelling locally. Visitors are in the same position, except on the day they arrive and the day they leave.

I'm really not sure I see what the perceived fairness issue could possibly be, here? These schemes are (inadequate) ways of trying to make sure fares for people's end-to-end journey are reasonable and competitive with driving. If you want people to give up their cars, you do need to make sure that is reliably the case.

The LNER Simpler Fares trial, because it aims to bring to an end the state of affairs where as long as you can avoid peak hours, there's a semi-reasonable cap on what you will have to pay, is actually a really powerful way of persuading people they can't be without their car, as their car is the only thing that can protect them against fares that are unregulated, unpredictable and could be enormously out of proportion to the cost of driving.

 

[35B]

Or go somewhere else by train. So it is available to local users, just not when they're only travelling locally. Visitors are in the same position, except on the day they arrive and the day they leave.

I'm really not sure I see what the perceived fairness issue could possibly be, here? These schemes are (inadequate) ways of trying to make sure fares for people's end-to-end journey are reasonable and competitive with driving. If you want people to give up their cars, you do need to make sure that is reliably the case.

The LNER Simpler Fares trial, because it aims to bring to an end the state of affairs where as long as you can avoid peak hours, there's a semi-reasonable cap on what you will have to pay, is actually a really powerful way of persuading people they can't be without their car, as it is the only thing that can protect them against fares that are unregulated, unpredictable and could be enormously out of proportion to the cost of driving.

Yet are being paid. And there's the rub - LNER are charging these fares, and people are buying them. If you are DfT, and have a target of shifting the costs of the railway away from HM Treasury, that is a desirable feature and not a bug - because the railway is getting more of what people are willing to pay.

 

[johncrossley]

Yet are being paid. And there's the rub - LNER are charging these fares, and people are buying them. If you are DfT, and have a target of shifting the costs of the railway away from HM Treasury, that is a desirable feature and not a bug - because the railway is getting more of what people are willing to pay.

That's why a boycott is necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's why a boycott is necessary.

I largely have a semi-informal boycott of the ECML regardless of this fares "trial" because it's just too expensive and always has been, and also is scenery-wise absolutely boring as sin apart from the bit through Durham, central Newcastle and a short section on the coast just before Edinburgh (whereas the WCML is interesting more or less throughout), though I will be using it next week for the first time in years. However demand outstrips supply (lots of "sold out" trains unlike on the West Coast) so I doubt LNER will care.

 

[35B]

That's why a boycott is necessary.

A boycott which is going how well?

The fares are being raised within what the public at large will tolerate, a long time after they were hoicked up elsewhere. The evidence is in the cash filling the coffers, and semi-informal boycotts by individuals or even small groups of enthusiasts are not going to make a serious dent in that.

It's also regulation that is driving how this is being done - by setting a cap (for which, in reality, read "floor") on annual rises, manoeuvres like LNER's are one of the few options within the current government policy framework. The tricks wouldn't be nearly so necessary if those regulatory constraints didn't exist.

 

[johncrossley]

A boycott which is going how well?

There obviously isn't a boycott going on at the moment, so it needs to start. We need prominent people to campaign against train use, LNER in particular. We need to lobby MPs and celebrities, for example. I would at least expect people on this forum to stop using LNER.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet are being paid. And there's the rub - LNER are charging these fares, and people are buying them. If you are DfT, and have a target of shifting the costs of the railway away from HM Treasury, that is a desirable feature and not a bug - because the railway is getting more of what people are willing to pay.

In reality what is happening is that the price-sensitive buy Advances 2 months out while most people buying walk up fares to Edinburgh and Newcastle from Kings Cross (and vice versa) just aren't price sensitive and will pay whatever is asked. There is also generally a budgetish option (ignoring Lumo) in that if you look on the day there's usually at least one train on the day that's priced below the old Super Off Peak Single, most are just priced higher, but if budget is important and you need to travel today you can just pick the cheaper one. And LNER has very high satisfaction levels generally as it's quite a well run operation (that was a bit of a poster child here until they started screwing with fares). Thus they can quite clearly get away with it.

Yes, it would be a nuisance if you were in Edinburgh and your Nan was on her deathbed in London, but that happens a relatively small number of times in one's life (if at all depending on where you live) and so it's just not a consideration for most.

I'm not sure for instance that XC would get away with the same thing - though to be honest I am quite surprised it *hasn't* been tried on XC given their well-known overcrowding issues and need to price people off the 4 car diagrams.

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

There obviously isn't a boycott going on at the moment, so it needs to start. We need prominent people to campaign against train use, LNER in particular. We need to lobby MPs and celebrities, for example. I would at least expect people on this forum to stop using LNER.

Even if every single poster on here didn't use LNER it is not going to make a dent.

 

[redreni]

It's also regulation that is driving how this is being done - by setting a cap (for which, in reality, read "floor") on annual rises, manoeuvres like LNER's are one of the few options within the current government policy framework. The tricks wouldn't be nearly so necessary if those regulatory constraints didn't exist.

That's a curious view on regulation. A little bit like blaming the phenomenon of speeding on speed limits, rather than on lax enforcement?

I do get where you're coming from, however. Given the objectives the government has set, it has to either change the regulations (which is a pain) or allow them to be circumvented or ignored.

 

[hexagon789]

There obviously isn't a boycott going on at the moment, so it needs to start. We need prominent people to campaign against train use, LNER in particular. We need to lobby MPs and celebrities, for example. I would at least expect people on this forum to stop using LNER.

Why?

Like so many things discussed on this forum, nobody really cares and people on this forum need to understand how the wider public really couldn't care less about this, or about many other things.

 

[Mainline421]

Why?

Like so many things discussed on this forum, nobody really cares and people on this forum need to understand how the wider public really couldn't care less about this, or about many other things.

The general public obviously would care if LNER hadn't (ironically) made things so complicated that you can't easily explain it in 30 seconds or so. If rolled out nationally these changes will force many thousands onto the roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The general public obviously would care if LNER hadn't (ironically) made things so complicated that you can't easily explain it in 30 seconds or so.

How? LNER are right that Off Peak fares are complex. That complexity isn't that important now most fares are bought via planners, though.

If rolled out nationally these changes will force many thousands onto the roads.

I think, for all I don't like it, that is hyperbole.

 

[Mainline421]

How? LNER are right that Off Peak fares are complex. That complexity isn't that important now most fares are bought via planners, though.



I think, for all I don't like it, that is hyperbole.

Most notably by making it so that most people don't know what the normal price is. But also by removing the widely understood concept of open returns in favour of unclear ticket names and deliberately misleading "guidance," and by pretending trains can "sell out." Trying to punish people who want any flexibility doesn't benefit anyone except LNER and the treasury, and even they both seem happy to have empty seats when people do want to travel.

Off-Peak fares are not inherently complex, and removing all rights with threat of unaffordable fines doesn't benefit passengers. As has been said many times in this thread you can always choose to follow a booked itinerary with an Off-Peak fare if you wish

 

[35B]

That's a curious view on regulation. A little bit like blaming the phenomenon of speeding on speed limits, rather than on lax enforcement?

No. It's a regulatory framework that is tied to a subset of fares, and creates what is in reality a cap on increases (how often are fare rises below the maximum?). Because it's tied to certain fares, the incentive is to shift demand onto other fares, but the regulated fares are also the ones that are used as the benchmark. The result is that the nature of the regulatory rulebook encourages gamesmanship like this, because it doesn't actually address the real target.

That is then compounded by the role of government, which is stuck in an insoluble conflict of interest.

 

[redreni]

In reality what is happening is that the price-sensitive buy Advances 2 months out while most people buying walk up fares to Edinburgh and Newcastle from Kings Cross (and vice versa) just aren't price sensitive and will pay whatever is asked. There is also generally a budgetish option (ignoring Lumo) in that if you look on the day there's usually at least one train on the day that's priced below the old Super Off Peak Single, most are just priced higher, but if budget is important and you need to travel today you can just pick the cheaper one. And LNER has very high satisfaction levels generally as it's quite a well run operation (that was a bit of a poster child here until they started screwing with fares). Thus they can quite clearly get away with it.

Yes, it would be a nuisance if you were in Edinburgh and your Nan was on her deathbed in London, but that happens a relatively small number of times in one's life (if at all depending on where you live) and so it's just not a consideration for most.

I'm not sure for instance that XC would get away with the same thing - though to be honest I am quite surprised it *hasn't* been tried on XC given their well-known overcrowding issues and need to price people off the 4 car diagrams.

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



Even if every single poster on here didn't use LNER it is not going to make a dent.

I really don't agree with this.

There are non-price sensitive passengers, but there just aren't very many of them.

People who buy walk-up tickets are as likely to be distress purchases as anything else. People who normally plan ahead to get a more reasonable fare, but life being what it is, sometimes find themselves having to travel at short notice.

Most of those people will opt to drive if the only available fare is £230 one way and they have a car.

Not capping fares at a semi-reasonable level is one reason - not the only one, but one reason - why these people will not easily be persuaded they can manage without a car, or with one less car in their family.

Consequently I am not that interested in whether some people will pay what most people consider a ridiculous fare. Nor am I interested only in the people who already travel between London, Newcastle and Edinburgh and pay outrageous fares to do so. Nor am I interested in whether one particular part of the network may be capacity-constrainted to the point where pricing off excess demand looks like a clever move if you ignore all the wider ramifications.

I am looking at the public transport network as a whole and considering if it is reasonable to expect people to choose to rely on it and give up car ownership.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I think that TOC pricing tactics are actually the root cause here; split ticketing is just an outcome of that.

The actual root cause was the decision at privatization to both require national through ticketing and at the same time eliminate any joined up process for doing it by parceling out flows between TOCs who then set fares valid on other TOCs, whilst also making it illegal for them to consult with each other. The TOCs simply acted logically for their own interests in an entirely illogical setup.

 

[35B]

I really don't agree with this.

There are non-price sensitive passengers, but there just aren't very many of them.

People who buy walk-up tickets are as likely to be distress purchases as anything else. People who normally plan ahead to get a more reasonable fare, but life being what it is, sometimes find themselves having to travel at short notice.

Most of those people will opt to drive if the only available fare is £230 one way and they have a car.

Not capping fares at a semi-reasonable level is one reason - not the only one, but one reason - why these people will not easily be persuaded they can manage without a car, or with one less car in their family.

Consequently I am not that interested in whether some people will pay what most people consider a ridiculous fare. Nor am I interested only in the people who already travel between London, Newcastle and Edinburgh and pay outrageous fares to do so. Nor am I interested in whether one particular part of the network may be capacity-constrainted to the point where pricing off excess demand looks like a clever move if you ignore all the wider ramifications.

I am looking at the public transport network as a whole and considering if it is reasonable to expect people to choose to rely on it and give up car ownership.

I think you under-estimate the number of non-price sensitive passengers - and their importance to the railway bottom line.

There is then a wider question about policy, and the purposes of the railway within the wider transport ecology of the country. But those proposing any approach that both encourages demand, and holds prices down, need to accept that they are increasing the costs of the railway - and therefore the likely demand on the public purse.

There are various ways of answering that question, which go well beyond the scope of this thread. But in a system where private car ownership, with the accompanying sunk costs, is the norm, there needs to be an acknowledgement that people choose their cars for a range of reasons, and that the price of public transport is far from the only reason why they may choose not to give up their cars. Even in large cities.

 

[AdamWW]

the price of public transport is far from the only reason why they may choose not to give up their cars. Even in large cities.

Of course not.

Even if train travel was free with a guaranteed seat for all there are plenty of people (the majority I imagine, even in large cities) who wouldn't give up their car.

BUT if you make it so that giving up a car also means giving up any meaningful ability to travel with flexibility there will be very few people willing to do so.

Never mind the impact on people who can't drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of those people will opt to drive if the only available fare is £230 one way and they have a car.

That mostly isn't the case. The fares for KX-Edinburgh on the day in what were previously super off peak times seem to vary between about £80 and about £130. Only when a specific train is nearly "full" does the £204.80 Anytime Single tend to come up, plus in the peak when the Super Off Peak wasn't relevant anyway.

The last few trains today are:

1730 - £204.80 (Anytime fare)
1800 - £152.80
1830 - £152.80
1900 - £101.30

Only the bottom one was previously Super Off Peak and while that's an Advance if you're buying it to travel now it doesn't really matter, it's about what you would have paid before. I did a little tour of the North West yesterday using Northern Advances purchased shortly before departure, it didn't matter that they were Advances as I didn't buy them until I knew which train I was going to take.

It's not *good* as a general thing but I think we can get hyperbolic on exactly how bad it is.

Edit: the 1900 tomorrow is £204.80 but there are only two tickets left before all reserved seats are taken. That's a very busy train on a Thursday due to weekly commuters. I expect the new timetable with the additional trains will help here.

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

I am looking at the public transport network as a whole and considering if it is reasonable to expect people to choose to rely on it and give up car ownership.

I can answer that now - no, it is not. That is a lost cause. Public transport is for most people an adjunct to the car, and the thing you're trying to get them to do is use it when it makes sense.

Only those in large cities living near the centre might viably choose to give up their car.

 

[yorksrob]

A boycott which is going how well?

The fares are being raised within what the public at large will tolerate, a long time after they were hoicked up elsewhere. The evidence is in the cash filling the coffers, and semi-informal boycotts by individuals or even small groups of enthusiasts are not going to make a serious dent in that.

It's also regulation that is driving how this is being done - by setting a cap (for which, in reality, read "floor") on annual rises, manoeuvres like LNER's are one of the few options within the current government policy framework. The tricks wouldn't be nearly so necessary if those regulatory constraints didn't exist.

Really ? Weren't LNER saying the trial was "breaking even" recently. Hardly "filling the coffers". And for what ? Peeing off half of tour customers ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really ? Weren't LNER saying the trial was "breaking even" recently. Hardly "filling the coffers". And for what ? Peeing off half of tour customers ?

The biggest complaint about train travel is overcrowding, and it resolves that because piling on without a reservation gets very expensive (give or take 70 Minute tickets, but that is still predictable in its effect). It's effectively compulsory reservation by stealth because they've realised they can't actually do it not by stealth.

Among the majority of LNER users I can see why it might be popular, particularly those who book in advance so aren't necessarily paying much more.

I don't think it would be as popular if rolled out for much shorter journeys (e.g. Euston-Birmingham), and would be interested to know what the next phases of the "trial" might entail. Having said that Northern Advances seem to sell well including for some very short journeys on which they would normally be regarded as a bit silly.

 

[yorksrob]

Why?

Like so many things discussed on this forum, nobody really cares and people on this forum need to understand how the wider public really couldn't care less about this, or about many other things.

They seemed to get quite fired up about ticket offices. I imagine some publicity of a blatant campaign to hike prices (which is what this is) could build up some steam.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They seemed to get quite fired up about ticket offices.

Interestingly one effect this has is to get even more bookings away from booking offices so they can destaff and shorten opening hours further. Northern's Advances will have a similar effect. Yes, you can buy them at booking offices, but I bet hardly anyone does.

 

[yorksrob]

The biggest complaint about train travel is overcrowding, and it resolves that because piling on without a reservation gets very expensive (give or take 70 Minute tickets, but that is still predictable in its effect). It's effectively compulsory reservation by stealth because they've realised they can't actually do it not by stealth.

Among the majority of LNER users I can see why it might be popular, particularly those who book in advance so aren't necessarily paying much more.

I don't think it would be as popular if rolled out for much shorter journeys (e.g. Euston-Birmingham), and would be interested to know what the next phases of the "trial" might entail. Having said that Northern Advances seem to sell well including for some very short journeys on which they would normally be regarded as a bit silly.

Crowding is annoying, but more so than extortionate fares ? I'm not convinced.

 

[AdamWW]

Crowding is annoying, but more so than extortionate fares ? I'm not convinced.

If you're asking people who travel by train, then it seems plausible.

The ones who are priced off the railway aren't on trains, but the ones affected by overcrowding are.

Though from what I've read here, overcrowding isn't a significant issue on this route perhaps thanks to the fake compulsory reservation policy.