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

[D6700]

You may want to break your return journey for a number of days at an intermediate station - as I did last week.

Probably not an issue in a small geographical area (eg. the Oval area), but when we're talking about 200+ mile journeys, which is a good proportion of journeys made on LNER, that is something people occasionally want to do. As buying A->B and B->C tends to be considerably more expensive for long journeys than A->C, not having a period return ends up being considerably more expensive.

It doesn't. It's sometimes even cheaper. On occasions it's more expensive, to be fair, but not always.

The first quote is true, the second isn't. I can only assume the latter is based on very little experience of purchasing long distance flexible tickets where the ECML is the main leg. Obviously , there are some exceptions. Ironically, buying separate tickets to break a journey, even for travel forward on the same day, is exactly what LNER have suggested people should do in documents found via this forum. In most cases, the passenger will pay more.

Whilst I am strongly against this false "simplification" scheme, I am a fan of single leg pricing, but do see overnight breaks of journey on the return leg as one of the biggest down sides. Of course, it is perfectly possible to do single leg pricing and still retain return tickets, it's just LNER chose not to do so - no surprise...

 

[cactustwirly]

No, but I'd say the upsides of single fare pricing outweigh this to me. (The upsides of *dynamic pricing* from this trial don't, however).

They should have kept the existing return fares instead

 

[D6700]

They should have kept the existing return fares instead

As well, not instead

I am currently travelling on a journey, not involving LNER, where a single is exactly half the price of a period return, but the period return still exists.

 

[aron2smith]

I agree. The single fares trial has ballsed up buying returns to further afield.

However, that is less serious than the crooked withdrawal of off-peak fares on some flows. This is an entirely unjustified assault on the passenger, however much people on here seem to assume a remarkable amount of insight into everyone's lives.

The "oh, you should be able to plan this or that life event, leisure activity, family meet up etc months in advance" and other such nonsense is all distraction to the fact that this is a price gouge. However some people will argue black is white and visa versa given the opportunity.

100%. Travel should be as frictionless as possible for the passenger. Anything that makes it seem awkward or a rip off, just makes people drive instead. I need routine to do things myself but I still don't want to have extra barriers thrown in my area by something as silly as rail ticket restrictions. Part of why I pick trains over coaches despite the higher cost is the flexibility that is the default with train travel. I usually have a train I aim to catch but why make it stressful where if its missed, I have to pay again, that makes little sense. That makes train travel more like flying, why would we even go there?

I see LNER's trial as a bit of a punishment from government for failing to invest enough in the infrastructure.

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

There will be some significant fares increases as a result of Project Oval, especially for leisure travel.

Looking at my local line, Stevenage to London. Current fares are:

Anytime Day Return £28.90
Off Peak Day Return £22.80 - no evening restrictions on the return
Weekend Super Off Peak Day Return £16.80

We don't know the exact Project Oval fares yet but I suspect that to Kings Cross they'll be something like:

Peak £14.40
Off Peak £11.40
I suspect the weekend super Off Peak fares will be abolished

Thanks for explaining in detail, I wish these forums had a thumbs up button sometimes.

Valid point on the super off peak, but I do think its better overall as the single will be half of the return. I would use Stevenage to Cuffley a lot more if it was already like that. It would make visiting places in Herts and Essex more flexible as currently I go out by bus but limited to bus running hours, so the train would allow me to stay out longer.

I think losing the super off peak on Great Northern would hit few people, whereas on SWR routes it would be a real loss, as the 'Evening' return (valid in the afternoon funnily enough) is available every day and has some very cheap fares. The removal of super off peak must've led to some proper anomalies for places north of Milton Keynes too.

 

[yorksrob]

100%. Travel should be as frictionless as possible for the passenger. Anything that makes it seem awkward or a rip off, just makes people drive instead. I need routine to do things myself but I still don't want to have extra barriers thrown in my area by something as silly as rail ticket restrictions. Part of why I pick trains over coaches despite the higher cost is the flexibility that is the default with train travel. I usually have a train I aim to catch but why make it stressful where if its missed, I have to pay again, that makes little sense. That makes train travel more like flying, why would we even go there?

Absolutely. Sometimes we, as passengers are in a position to know exactly when we will be travelling, sometimes we are not.

It is acceptable to have a bit of a discount for those who can plan in advance. It is totally unacceptable to price those who can't off, with preposterous "anytime" fares.

I wish this perfidy were just a one off "punishment". I fear the car owning Establishment want to ruin the rest of the railway this way.

 

[yorkie]

I saw that article and it was interesting as Leeds is *not* part of the trial that this thread discusses. Single fare pricing was an earlier trial, and I wholeheartedly support it. In all likelihood a Super Off Peak Return would, if it still existed, cost around what those two singles did.

Not so.

I think you have come up with this randomly without evidence or experience, despite various threads where this has cropped up before staying the opposite.

LNER further increased the cost of 2 x singles, compared to a return, on top of the substantial yearly increase.

Where they still exist, LNER returns are cheaper, e.g. York to Newark is a whopping £28 each way. It's £7.10 extra to go to Grantham, however a return from York to Grantham is less underpriced at £62.30 return.

Not long before the Intercity East Coast franchise was nationalised, a return from York to Newark wasn't much more than a single is today. Yes we have had inflation since then, but not by that much!

It did highlight another problem - that LNER is too expensive generally - but that's nothing to do with the trial (aside from that that makes it a bit more expensive) - the ECML has been expensive compared with other UK rail services for a long time, particularly the WCML which has quite low off peak walk up fares for historical reasons (those being that Virgin abolished the SuperSaver and reduced the Saver to compensate, which then became the regulated fare).

Yes the ECML has been expensive for a while, but LNER have been making it even worse.

GNER had some competitively priced Day Return fares, which the nationalised replacement operators have been keen to abolish, and replace with airline style non-flexible pricing at premium rates.

 

[Trainbike46]

Not so.

I think you have come up with this randomly without evidence or experience, despite various threads where this has cropped up before staying the opposite.

LNER further increased the cost of 2 x singles, compared to a return, on top of the substantial yearly increase.

Where they still exist, LNER returns are cheaper, e.g. York to Newark is a whopping £28 each way. It's £7.10 extra to go to Grantham, however a return from York to Grantham is less underpriced at £62.30 return.

If memory serves, when introducing single-leg pricing at LNER they halved the cost of the return ticket, and increased the resulting fare by about 4% to give the new single fare. This contrasts with project oval, where the singles were priced at half the relevant return, without an extra fare increase being snuck in.

Not long before the Intercity East Coast franchise was nationalised, a return from York to Newark wasn't much more than a single is today. Yes we have had inflation since then, but not by that much!


Yes the ECML has been expensive for a while, but LNER have been making it even worse.

GNER had some competitively priced Day Return fares, which the nationalised replacement operators have been keen to abolish, and replace with airline style non-flexible pricing at premium rates.

Agreed on LNER being expensive. However, the abolition of the (super) off-peak fares is, in my view, by far the most harmful move of all undertaken by LNER with regards to pricing.

 

[johncrossley]

The principle of single leg pricing is a good one. If returns were never introduced in the first place, or if they were priced at twice the single, then there wouldn't be such controversy, at least on this thread. For 40 years and counting, passengers have been forced into paying crazy prices for singles, or alternatively have been required to be creative with excesses. When Advance fares came in, this provided freedom from such unfairness for some journeys. It became once again possible to make triangular trips without the cost being prohibitively expensive. Other countries work mostly or exclusively off single leg pricing.

It is possible to have reasonable fares even where returns don't exist. For example, from next Wednesday the few remaining returns in Belgium are being scrapped but fares will still be affordable. The *maximum* single fare nationwide (for any trip longer than 120 km) is being reduced to 14.00 EUR! (with a 6 EUR per month or 48 EUR per year railcard).

 

[35B]

The principle of single leg pricing is a good one. If returns were never introduced in the first place, or if they were priced at twice the single, then there wouldn't be such controversy, at least on this thread. For 40 years and counting, passengers have been forced into paying crazy prices for singles, or alternatively have been required to be creative with excesses. When Advance fares came in, this provided freedom from such unfairness for some journeys. It became once again possible to make triangular trips without the cost being prohibitively expensive. Other countries work mostly or exclusively off single leg pricing.

It is possible to have reasonable fares even where returns don't exist. For example, from next Wednesday the few remaining returns in Belgium are being scrapped but fares will still be affordable. The *maximum* single fare nationwide (for any trip longer than 120 km) is being reduced to 14.00 EUR! (with a 6 EUR per month or 48 EUR per year railcard).

At the risk of boring myself, I'm bemused as to why there is so much disdain poured on the heads of the operators, who are responding to demands by government to reduce subsidy and increase farebox income. Belgium can make that work through a level of subsidy that the British government are not willing to offer.

 

[Trainbike46]

The principle of single leg pricing is a good one. If returns were never introduced in the first place, or if they were priced at twice the single, then there wouldn't be such controversy, at least on this thread. For 40 years and counting, passengers have been forced into paying crazy prices for singles, or alternatively have been required to be creative with excesses. When Advance fares came in, this provided freedom from such unfairness for some journeys. It became once again possible to make triangular trips without the cost being prohibitively expensive. Other countries work mostly or exclusively off single leg pricing.

It is possible to have reasonable fares even where returns don't exist. For example, from next Wednesday the few remaining returns in Belgium are being scrapped but fares will still be affordable. The *maximum* single fare nationwide (for any trip longer than 120 km) is being reduced to 14.00 EUR! (with a 6 EUR per month or 48 EUR per year railcard).

Belgium's rail fare reform does seem to include a significant reduction in fares overall, whereas LNER is quite clearly trying to increase fares

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

At the risk of boring myself, I'm bemused as to why there is so much disdain poured on the heads of the operators, who are responding to demands by government to reduce subsidy and increase farebox income. Belgium can make that work through a level of subsidy that the British government are not willing to offer.

It is entirely fare to criticise decisions being made, and of course LNER is going about the demands of government in a rather different way than most other operators.

And at the end of the day, it is possible to criticise both the TOC leadership and the government!

 

[MikeWM]

For 40 years and counting, passengers have been forced into paying crazy prices for singles, or alternatively have been required to be creative with excesses.

Fixing that doesn't require abolishing period returns though, it simply requires pricing singles at a sensible level. A poster above is currently on a route where the single is half the price of the return, but both are still available.

In the same way, adding a degree of flexibility to advances doesn't require removing off-peak returns, but LNER have chosen to do so nevertheless.

 

[35B]

It is entirely fare to criticise decisions being made, and of course LNER is going about the demands of government in a rather different way than most other operators.

And at the end of the day, it is possible to criticise both the TOC leadership and the government!

Indeed. But fair criticism would acknowledge the policy that the operator is working within (and, yes, I do note that LNER are particularly aggressive in their fare rises).

 

[yorksrob]

At the risk of boring myself, I'm bemused as to why there is so much disdain poured on the heads of the operators, who are responding to demands by government to reduce subsidy and increase farebox income. Belgium can make that work through a level of subsidy that the British government are not willing to offer.

It's like after the pandemic when they were parroting the "the Government were so wonderful to run services during the pandemic" when no one could use them at the time, as a justification for cuts when people could travel. Why do they have to sound so invested in it.

If they were saying something like "this is a government initiative that we're trying" I could understand, but they seem to be determined to "own" it. Given they're state run, you'd have thought they'd be in the ideal position to drop the odd hint in that this is a government initiative.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Fixing that doesn't require abolishing period returns though, it simply requires pricing singles at a sensible level.

There's long been a perception that day returns should be cheaper than period returns.

I can recall that in my university days, the single fare to London was 16s, but the day return was 21s. I assume the period return

In more recent years, either the day return prices has been cut or the one way ticket increased and you got the slightly ridulous position of the day return being priced at only 10p more than the corresponding single. They couldn't price it at below the single for fairly obvious reasons. although didn't they try?

 

[35B]

It's like after the pandemic when they were parroting the "the Government were so wonderful to run services during the pandemic" when no one could use them at the time, as a justification for cuts when people could travel. Why do they have to sound so invested in it.

If they were saying something like "this is a government initiative that we're trying" I could understand, but they seem to be determined to "own" it. Given they're state run, you'd have thought they'd be in the ideal position to drop the odd hint in that this is a government initiative.

All operators are under firm orders to own what they do; DfT are staying well back and leaving the operators to take the flak.

There’s plenty wrong with this initiative, and how it’s been used to smuggle through fare rises, but I suggest that the heat is targeted where it belongs. Rants about the general level of fares just distract from the real problem with this “experiment”, which is that if it is “successful”, it will allow a dramatic increase in the base level of fares

 

[yorksrob]

All operators are under firm orders to own what they do; DfT are staying well back and leaving the operators to take the flak.

There’s plenty wrong with this initiative, and how it’s been used to smuggle through fare rises, but I suggest that the heat is targeted where it belongs. Rants about the general level of fares just distract from the real problem with this “experiment”, which is that if it is “successful”, it will allow a dramatic increase in the base level of fares

There must be someone about to retire or jump ship in one of these companies. It's about time one of them said it like it is.

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

. Rants about the general level of fares just distract from the real problem with this “experiment”, which is that if it is “successful”, it will allow a dramatic increase in the base level of fares

Agree with you there. I don't think those of us opposing the experiment on this forum can be accused of being oblivious to the wider implications.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed. But fair criticism would acknowledge the policy that the operator is working within (and, yes, I do note that LNER are particularly aggressive in their fare rises).

However, the current management of LNER were just as aggressive in their fare rises when they were the management of Stagecoach VTEC.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Belgium's rail fare reform does seem to include a significant reduction in fares overall, whereas LNER is quite clearly trying to increase fares

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


It is entirely fare to criticise decisions being made, and of course LNER is going about the demands of government in a rather different way than most other operators.

And at the end of the day, it is possible to criticise both the TOC leadership and the government!

Belgium's rail network is about the size of the London & South East network in the UK so doesn't provide an exact comparison of the ECML, which is an InterCity route with external competition from road, air, car and coach

 

[sheff1]

Belgium's rail network is about the size of the London & South East network in the UK

and, under the about to be implemented structure , will have a maximum fare of €5.50 for seniors at any time, €3.30 off peak and weekends, for an annual subsription of €32.
Look forward to that in L&SE.

 

[yorksrob]

and, under the about to be implemented structure , will have a maximum fare of €5.50 for seniors at any time, €3.30 off peak and weekends, for an annual subsription of €32.
Look forward to that in L&SE.

Quite ! This country is a laughable outlier compared to similar in Europe, in spite of all the credulous "it can't possibly work here" brigade.

 

[Krokodil]

No, but I'd say the upsides of single fare pricing outweigh this to me

You can have single leg pricing without abolishing return fares.

It is possible to have reasonable fares even where returns don't exist. For example, from next Wednesday the few remaining returns in Belgium are being scrapped but fares will still be affordable. The *maximum* single fare nationwide (for any trip longer than 120 km) is being reduced to 14.00 EUR! (with a 6 EUR per month or 48 EUR per year railcard).

Belgium's rail network is about the size of the London & South East network in the UK so doesn't provide an exact comparison of the ECML, which is an InterCity route with external competition from road, air, car and coach

Well if we could start by introducing a maximum fare cap of £12 for journeys within the Network Railcard area (and equivalent price cuts for the rest of the UK of course) then you'll hear no objection from me.

No chance of it happening of course

 

[py_megapixel]

LNER forcing people to use advances is not a good thing. Opens the door to reservation only services, which defeats the point of travel.

I'm a little uneasy about reservation only services, but I don't see how it "defeats the point of travel"?

The point of travel is surely that you start in one place and end up in another, and whether or not you book the seat you travel in in advance is irrelevant to that fundamental aim!

 

[yorksrob]

I'm a little uneasy about reservation only services, but I don't see how it "defeats the point of travel"?

The point of travel is surely that you start in one place and end up in another, and whether or not you book the seat you travel in in advance is irrelevant to that fundamental aim!

It certainly defeats one of rail's unique selling points - the ability (for longer distance public transport) to turn up and go.

 

[johncrossley]

It certainly defeats one of rail's unique selling points - the ability (for longer distance public transport) to turn up and go.

As long as seats are available it doesn't prevent booking just before departure.

 

[yorksrob]

As long as seats are available it doesn't prevent booking just before departure.

"As long as seats are available".

That's precisely the point.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

"As long as seats are available".

That's precisely the point.

I'd agree.

Even in my late 50s I'd rather take the chance on having to stand for long distances than have to wait several hours for a seat to become available.

 

[BRX]

It doesn't. It's sometimes even cheaper. On occasions it's more expensive, to be fair, but not always.

As a couple of others have said, it is very often more expensive to buy two singles than to break a journey covered by one ticket. It's most pronounced on long journey because traditionally the walk-up fares haven't been priced per mile - effectively the per mile cost tends to go down the further you travel.

For example - a super off peak single from Inverness to Brighton is £127. If you want to break your journey in York & buy it in two legs, they are about £90 each giving a total of £180 so it's going to cost an extra 50% on top which is pretty substantial.

 

[johncrossley]

It should be noted that the option to break journey throughout the month only applies to the return portion of a Super Off-Peak Return. So if you want to go from Inverness to York on Monday and York to Brighton on Thursday on your outward journey you can't use a Super Off-Peak Return. There's no technical reason why a Super Off-Peak Single couldn't be valid for more than 1 day (apart from the easement to allow overnight break of journey if the journey cannot be completed on day 1), as the Anytime Single is valid for 2 days and the outward portion of the Anytime Return is valid for 5 days.

 

[BRX]

There's no technical reason why a Super Off-Peak Single couldn't be valid for more than 1 day (apart from the easement to allow overnight break of journey if the journey cannot be completed on day 1), as the Anytime Single is valid for 2 days and the outward portion of the Anytime Return is valid for 5 days.

Sadly the chance of any favourable (to the passenger) change to the T&Cs of walk up tickets currently appears to be zero.

 

[Starmill]

I'd agree.

Even in my late 50s I'd rather take the chance on having to stand for long distances than have to wait several hours for a seat to become available.

There are places on the continent where you may have to wait days rather than hours too...