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

[redreni]

Was there a pilot and how long did it last for?

• The pilot launched mid-January 2024 and ran for 2 years. It will then run on a continuing basis whilst a national approach to fares reform is finalised.

In other words: It was never a pilot and it was never evaluated against its stated aims, we had already made up our minds before we did it that it's what we want to do and no evidence could possibly change our minds, so the rollout is purely based on tactical political decisions about what DfTO and the government feel they can get away with at any particular time. Which is not much, right now.

But it's a ratchet - things can only get worse for passengers. "Pilot" reforms don't get rolled back at the end of the "pilot", because they're not pilot reforms. That's just a thing we say because it makes us sound reasonable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In other words: It was never a pilot and it was never evaluated against its stated aims, we had already made up our minds before we did it that it's what we want to do and no evidence could possibly change our minds, so the rollout is purely based on tactical political decisions about what DfTO and the government feel they can get away with at any particular time. Which is not much, right now.

But it's a ratchet - things can only get worse for passengers. "Pilot" reforms don't get rolled back at the end of the "pilot", because they're not pilot reforms. That's just a thing we say because it makes us sound reasonable.

A pilot and a trial are two different things, though. A pilot will generally not be reversed unless it's utterly disastrous, and while it is unpopular here and does have significant disadvantages it would be hard to claim it disastrous. Indeed with the refund rule changes the 70 Minute Flex has a few advantages it didn't before, namely some on-the-day flexibility while retaining the ability to change it to the next day if you want to, which walk-up fares have lost.

 

[MrJeeves]

A pilot and a trial are two different things, though.

LNER have used trial and pilot interchangeably.

 

[redreni]

A pilot and a trial are two different things, though. A pilot will generally not be reversed unless it's utterly disastrous

Really?

Indeed with the refund rule changes the 70 Minute Flex has a few advantages it didn't before, namely some on-the-day flexibility while retaining the ability to change it to the next day if you want to, which walk-up fares have lost.

That's nothing specific to the 70 minute flex fare, though, that's a property of the amended refund rules that prevents refunds or exchanges once a ticket becomes valid for travel, which means Advances can still be changed on the day as long as it's before the booked departure time, while flexible tickets can't.

But as the price of the flexible tickets are fixed, the workaround is simply not to buy them until you're sure of your plans.

None of this makes Advances or 70 Minute Flexes better than they were before, or better than the fares they replaced (if any), it's just that the T&Cs of flexible tickets have got worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But as the price of the flexible tickets are fixed, the workaround is simply not to buy them until you're sure of your plans.

On TOCs that don't do reservations yes that's true, I'd never buy a flexible ticket on say Northern or WMT in advance (other than to avoid the annual fares increase), there's just no point. But on LNER (even where Super Off Peaks exist) so you run a risk of not getting a reservation (or there only being blank wall seats left) in that case, and the number of unreserved seats is very small. Theoretically there's also the risk of all trains on that day being "sold out" or them blocking sale due to disruption, too, which a non-reservation TOC doesn't do (they theoretically could but don't).

Yes, you can fudge their tool to give you a reservation without a ticket, but it's clear they don't want you to do that and I suspect once it's technically possible to prevent it (which won't be possible until CCST goes away) they will do so.

None of this makes Advances or 70 Minute Flexes better than they were before, or better than the fares they replaced (if any), it's just that the T&Cs of flexible tickets have got worse.

That's not untrue, but it can in some circumstances make the Flex a better choice from the options that are on offer now. The options that were on offer a couple of months ago are not relevant other than in criticising the railway for its choices in changing them.

 

[thedbdiboy]

There's a difference between trialing a specific new fare structure and the need to move on from a 41 year old fare structure devised before the internet was invented.
The notion that the default position of any structure is to go back to what it was simply doesn't reflect changes in society and technology. It's not as if the only way you can have affordability and flexibility is to peg longer distance off-peak travel to a specific fare type set in September 1995. If we follow that logic then we ought to be complaining that there should still be one train a day on each route with Third Class fares charged at 1d per mile.
The LNER 'trial' predates nationalisation and as that becomes a reality it becomes obvious that a TOC trial is a legacy of the 'old' system; what will eventually prevail will be a fares policy developed by GBR that meets the Government's economic and social ambitions. The fact that there is money available for a 'fares freeze' does suggest that there needs to be some visible evidence of prices being controlled.

 

[Haywain]

The LNER 'trial' predates nationalisation

The trial (or pilot, or whatever) on fares between London and Newcastle/Berwick/Edinburgh is very much post-nationalisation, in that it certainly happened after the Stagecoach/Virgin franchise was ended.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The notion that the default position of any structure is to go back to what it was simply doesn't reflect changes in society and technology. It's not as if the only way you can have affordability and flexibility is to peg longer distance off-peak travel to a specific fare type set in September 1995.

Indeed one downside of doing this is that peak time fares are absolutely outrageous, making rail useless for leisure journeys requiring travel at those times of day. "Simpler Fares" was intended to address this in part (by increasing fares at busy leisure times like Sunday afternoon they said they could drop them at other times when it's quiet but expensive), but it doesn't look like it has to me - the traditional business peaks are still mostly £200ish single.

 

[redreni]

There's a difference between trialing a specific new fare structure and the need to move on from a 41 year old fare structure devised before the internet was invented.
The notion that the default position of any structure is to go back to what it was simply doesn't reflect changes in society and technology. It's not as if the only way you can have affordability and flexibility is to peg longer distance off-peak travel to a specific fare type set in September 1995. If we follow that logic then we ought to be complaining that there should still be one train a day on each route with Third Class fares charged at 1d per mile.

I disagree. It doesn't matter how long it is since the fare structure was last reviewed fundamentally - if somebody wants to change it then the yardstick for whether the changes are good or bad is if the new structure is better or worse than what went before.

That doesn't mean nothing can ever change: I'm all for change if it's an improvement.

The LNER 'trial' predates nationalisation and as that becomes a reality it becomes obvious that a TOC trial is a legacy of the 'old' system; what will eventually prevail will be a fares policy developed by GBR that meets the Government's economic and social ambitions. The fact that there is money available for a 'fares freeze' does suggest that there needs to be some visible evidence of prices being controlled.

Absolutely. That is why I am disappointed the fares did not revert at the end of the pilot, because the fares that have been withdrawn were the control on prices. If somebody wants to get rid of them but introduce proper regulation and price controls on Advances and 70 Minutes Flexes, great.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That doesn't mean nothing can ever change: I'm all for change if it's an improvement.

There is no possible change that can be made to the fare structure that will be an improvement to everyone. Not even reducing all the fares to tenpence, as that wouldn't be an improvement to the non-rail-using taxpayer who would have to subsidise that, plus there'd be severe overcrowding as car drivers switched to rail in droves.

There are people to whom Simpler Fares is advantageous. An example is a customer who always books in advance (or doesn't mind what they pay), who needs little or no flexibility and who dislikes walk-up travellers as they tend to end up sat in their reserved seat with the awkwardness of asking them to move. There are quite a lot of these customers, though very few on this Forum.

 

[Trainbike46]

There is no possible change that can be made to the fare structure that will be an improvement to everyone. Not even reducing all the fares to tenpence, as that wouldn't be an improvement to the non-rail-using taxpayer who would have to subsidise that.

Obviously this is true, but not all changes are created equal: LNER's single leg prices changes are in my view defensible, as it offered benefits as well as disadvantages. The abolition of super-off-peak fares on the other, only offer disadvantages for passengers.

There are people to whom Simpler Fares is advantageous. An example is a customer who always books in advance (or doesn't mind what they pay), who needs little or no flexibility and who dislikes walk-up travellers as they tend to end up sat in their reserved seat with the awkwardness of asking them to move. There are quite a lot of these customers, though very few on this Forum.

I think you are wrong about this, tbh. The overlap of passengers who both do not care about flexibility and do not care about what fares they pay is miniscule. For passengers who are in one or the other group, this isn't an improvement at all, as many advance tickets got more expensive due to this change.

The solution to too busy LNER trains is in increasing capacity of the trains that run. On the key Edinburgh-London route one way this could be done is by getting new, longer trains (~270m). The CAF order was an opportunity to do this, that was not taken.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Indeed, the definition of 'improvement' will vary from person to person. Bluntly, if a majority find that the price remains comparable and booking/flexibility options meet their needs it will be a success. If people can't find a fare at a price they are comfortable with it will fail. The finer complexities of the system are of little interest to the majority if those basic criteria are met.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously this is true, but not all changes are created equal: LNER's single leg prices changes are in my view defensible, as it offered benefits as well as disadvantages. The abolition of super-off-peak fares on the other, only offer disadvantages for passengers.

It's not completely without advantages. It reduces overcrowding, which is one of the biggest complaints about the railway, by charging fewer people more each and by making buying a ticket once reservations are "sold out" prohibitively expensive.

 

[Tom]

The LNER 'trial' predates nationalisation and as that becomes a reality it becomes obvious that a TOC trial is a legacy of the 'old' system

I believe that it was first announced 16 February 2024.

London North Eastern Railway Limited started operations on 24 June 2018, DfT OLR Holdings Limited (now DfT Operator Limited) has been a "Person of Significant Control" since 6 April 2016. https://find-and-update.company-inf...any/04659712/persons-with-significant-control

The Secretary of State for Transport has been the "Person with Significant Control" of DfT Operator Limited since 6 April 2016. https://find-and-update.company-inf...any/07141122/persons-with-significant-control

If that's not nationalised, then I don't know what is.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I believe that it was first announced 16 February 2024.

London North Eastern Railway Limited started operations on 24 June 2018, DfT OLR Holdings Limited (now DfT Operator Limited) has been a "Person of Significant Control" since 6 April 2016. https://find-and-update.company-inf...any/04659712/persons-with-significant-control

The Secretary of State for Transport has been the "Person with Significant Control" of DfT Operator Limited since 6 April 2016. https://find-and-update.company-inf...any/07141122/persons-with-significant-control

If that's not nationalised, then I don't know what is.

Firstly, until Labour came to power, the effective nationalisation of revenue was considered transitional - there was no state-controlled management of fares policy; it was for TOCs to propose. Secondly, the announcement is the tip of the iceberg. The work actually began under Virgin Trains East Coast.

It was devised under the TOC structure and the notion that there would be anything other than the TOC structure came a long way after February 2024.

 

[Krokodil]

as that wouldn't be an improvement to the non-rail-using taxpayer who would have to subsidise that,

That's not strictly true. Non-rail users do still benefit from money spent on rail. This can take the form of reductions in road traffic, economic growth, or simply the ability to use rail where this was not possible/affordable before.

 

[Haywain]

Non-rail users do still benefit from money spent on rail. This can take the form of reductions in road traffic, economic growth, or simply the ability to use rail where this was not possible/affordable before.

Thye also benefit from people riding bicycles, but you wouldn't get them to admit either of these things.

 

[Tom]

Firstly, until Labour came to power, the effective nationalisation of revenue was considered transitional - there was no state-controlled management of fares policy; it was for TOCs to propose. Secondly, the announcement is the tip of the iceberg. The work actually began under Virgin Trains East Coast.

It was devised under the TOC structure and the notion that there would be anything other than the TOC structure came a long way after February 2024.

While I don't disagree with the substance of the nature of your post, it is disingenuous to suggest that it didn't happen under a 'nationalised' structure because that is exactly what OLR was. Whether or not the work started under an actual franchised TOC or not, the work continued while the TOC was under the control of DfT and HMT.

If the Government of the day was not supportive of the concept, they'd have put an end to it.

The Williams-Shapps plan, whether it was implemented in any detail or not, states that a public body would set most fares and timetables, I quote:

That is why we now propose the biggest change to the railways in 25 years, ending the fragmentation of the past and bringing the network under single national leadership. A new public body, Great British Railways, will own the infrastructure, receive the fare revenue, run and plan the network and set most fares and timetables. Network Rail, the current infrastructure owner, will be absorbed into this new organisation, as will many functions from the Rail Delivery Group and Department for Transport.

so I disagree that there was any notion that there wasn't to be any change until after February 2024.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not strictly true. Non-rail users do still benefit from money spent on rail. This can take the form of reductions in road traffic, economic growth, or simply the ability to use rail where this was not possible/affordable before.

Yes, there is a societal benefit to subsidising rail to an extent, but that's slightly more about subsidising rail that at reasonable fares would be undeliverable otherwise than knocking intercity fares down to tenpence on premium long distance journeys like the ones this relates to. My point was just that any fare change (structural or just the price), whatever it is, will have winners and losers.

It's one reason I don't support the bus fare cap, as all it does now is make longer journeys cheaper for a nice day out given that a good many urban fares would be under three quid single anyway particularly when you start bringing passes into things as most commuters would have. Putting that money into subsidising unprofitable routes for greater coverage (both geographically and in terms of service day and frequency) would be of massively more benefit.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Well, as someone inside the industry who knows how it is managed I can tell you that the way the industry is run has changed dramatically since February 2024.

 

[OscarH]

Well, as someone inside the industry who knows how it is managed I can tell you that the way the industry is run has changed dramatically since February 2024.

The industry is now less interested than ever in the end customer, and the main focus is workflows dedicated explicitly to increasing fares as much as possible without political fallout?

 

[Tom]

Well, as someone inside the industry who knows how it is managed I can tell you that the way the industry is run has changed dramatically since February 2024.

I am very aware of the changes in how the industry is managed. I'm also aware of the fact that as someone who depends far more on income from the general public than anything else that there is something in actually caring about what passengers think and want, and not try to serve the whims of the Government of the day and/or pinching every penny and/or raising fares without the appearance of doing so at every opportunity. It sometimes pays to push back (and yes, I have.)

 

[Wallsendmag]

So I don't need to join the project call tomorrow then?

 

[yorksrob]

There are people to whom Simpler Fares is advantageous. An example is a customer who always books in advance (or doesn't mind what they pay), who needs little or no flexibility and who dislikes walk-up travellers as they tend to end up sat in their reserved seat with the awkwardness of asking them to move. There are quite a lot of these customers, though very few on this Forum.

Someone who always books in advance had the ability to always book in advance already, so limited advantage there, particularly as the cap on their fares has doubled.

As for not liking walk-on travellers - tough, they're paying more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2026 ==

There's a difference between trialing a specific new fare structure and the need to move on from a 41 year old fare structure devised before the internet was invented.
The notion that the default position of any structure is to go back to what it was simply doesn't reflect changes in society and technology. It's not as if the only way you can have affordability and flexibility is to peg longer distance off-peak travel to a specific fare type set in September 1995. If we follow that logic then we ought to be complaining that there should still be one train a day on each route with Third Class fares charged at 1d per mile.
The LNER 'trial' predates nationalisation and as that becomes a reality it becomes obvious that a TOC trial is a legacy of the 'old' system; what will eventually prevail will be a fares policy developed by GBR that meets the Government's economic and social ambitions. The fact that there is money available for a 'fares freeze' does suggest that there needs to be some visible evidence of prices being controlled.

The presence of the internet has nothing to do with the price of fish.

One of the railway's main competitors is still the motor car, by which travellers don't have to book months in advance to get what they perceive to be a decent price.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2026 ==

So I don't need to join the project call tomorrow then?

At least you might be spared the irritation of another pointless meeting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So I don't need to join the project call tomorrow then?

I'm just going off what LNER has made public. If that information is potentially misleading and the doc I linked above contains weasel words to hide that, eg there is a plan to roll out more routes, then that says a lot about the honesty of their publicity department, regardless of what one may think about the actual scheme.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The presence of the internet has nothing to do with the price of fish.

One of the railway's main competitors is still the motor car, by which travellers don't have to book months in advance to get what they perceive to be a decent price.

Are you seriously saying that being able to look up and buy a fare in real time from your pocket hasn't made a difference to how people compare travel costs?
If I were going from London to Manchester tomorrow in 1985, I'd have to call up to find out the fare, and then buy it in the morning. Today, I can have a look and see what prices are tomorrow morning and if I see a price that's worthwhile I'll just buy it right now, in seconds. That has fundamentally changes how fares are priced and sold.

 

[Watershed]

There's a difference between trialing a specific new fare structure

Let's drop the pretence that this is a 'trial' of specific ticket types. It is naked attempt at testing the price and political sensitivity of higher fares, to see whether people will complain enough to prevent the abolition of long-distance regulation.

A real trial would have had a predefined, clearly communicated duration and its criteria for success or failure would have been set out in advance. When responding to an FoI request around the start of 'Simpler Fares', LNER claimed to have no record of either.

and the need to move on from a 41 year old fare structure devised before the internet was invented.

The internet (or at least, TCP/IP which is the backbone of it) was invented in 1983, so if the fares structure is only 41 years old then the internet predates it!

In reality the concept of having a reasonably priced walk-up fare is one that has existed since the railways were invented, so for around 200 years. There is absolutely no reason to move on from that, however old the concept may be.

The notion that the default position of any structure is to go back to what it was simply doesn't reflect changes in society and technology.

Why do any such changes justify the removal of regulated fares? The way that we buy tickets has changed but the fundamental need for affordability has not.

It's not as if the only way you can have affordability and flexibility is to peg longer distance off-peak travel to a specific fare type set in September 1995.

I'd love to see how else you are proposing to guarantee reasonably priced walk-up travel.

If we follow that logic then we ought to be complaining that there should still be one train a day on each route with Third Class fares charged at 1d per mile.

The concept of a Parliamentary train is still very much alive and well. Inflation means that 1d per mile is obviously not a plausible price to charge, but the concept of regulated fares has existed for almost the entire duration of the railways' existence - indeed fares were only unregulated between 1967 and 1995, far less than the duration of regulation before or since.

The LNER 'trial' predates nationalisation and as that becomes a reality it becomes obvious that a TOC trial is a legacy of the 'old' system; what will eventually prevail will be a fares policy developed by GBR that meets the Government's economic and social ambitions. The fact that there is money available for a 'fares freeze' does suggest that there needs to be some visible evidence of prices being controlled.

Why should we trust the railway to mark its own homework? Other countries show the way forward: decisions about fares regulation should be independent of the management of railways. For example, in Switzerland there are countless private railways but all are bound by the decisions of the independent Price Supervisor. Of course, I am sure I will be told that any such arrangement makes far too much sense to happen here...

 

[Starmill]

It was devised under the TOC structure and the notion that there would be anything other than the TOC structure came a long way after February 2024.

The changes clearly weren't substantially devised before June 2018. Your claim would imply that it was six years from being substantially devised to first contact with the public, which doesn't hold water. This is the key reason you've received pushback on it.

the effective nationalisation of revenue was considered transitional - there was no state-controlled management of fares policy

The latter part of this may well be completely true, but that doesn't imply the former. There was, however, an attempt to convince people that it was temporary to save the blushes of a Conservative minister nationalising multiple failed contracts.

There are people to whom Simpler Fares is advantageous. An example is a customer who always books in advance (or doesn't mind what they pay), who needs little or no flexibility and who dislikes walk-up travellers as they tend to end up sat in their reserved seat with the awkwardness of asking them to move.

I think even you will be willing to admit that this is wrong because of how much Advance tickets have increased in price. It is good for people whom you reference in brackets, or people with free travel on LNER, especially people with a FIP coupon from a railway abroad, a Status Pass or Staff Travel Card on dated boxes. But that's it. It's also not actually that good for them because trains still run with people standing or incorrectly occupying a reserved seat on the regular. The main causes of this always were, and still are, a cancellation or engineering works. Not ticket choices...

 

[Tom]

It is good for people whom you reference in brackets, or people with free travel on LNER, especially people with a FIP coupon from a railway abroad, a Status Pass or Staff Travel Card on dated boxes. But that's it. It's also not actually that good for them because trains still run with people standing or incorrectly occupying a reserved seat on the regular. The main causes of this always were, and still are, a cancellation or engineering works. Not ticket choices...

Alas, the vast majority of railway management don't get to experience the joy of going through the ticket purchasing process and are therefore completely out of touch with the reality of how changes to fares policy impacts the travelling public. It's so much easier when you have free travel or a significant discount. I suspect most of those who plan and implement changes that negatively impact the customer haven't bought a full fare ticket in years.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Why should we trust the railway to mark its own homework? Other countries show the way forward: decisions about fares regulation should be independent of the management of railways. For example, in Switzerland there are countless private railways but all are bound by the decisions of the independent Price Supervisor. Of course, I am sure I will be told that any such arrangement makes far too much sense to happen here...

Where an industry is privatised, it has a regulator - such as in Switzerland. Fare regulation was only introduced in Great Britain because of privatisation. Publicly owned industries are governed by elected bodies, there is no precedent for them being additionally regulated. TfL doesn't have 'fare regulation'. Neither did BR.The industry will still be subject to the oversight of the Competition and Markets authority.

The changes clearly weren't substantially devised before June 2018. Your claim would imply that it was six years from being substantially devised to first contact with the public, which doesn't hold water. This is the key reason you've received pushback on it.

It's not a claim, the desire to reform fares goes back nearly two decades. If you think that six years is a long time, you've never had first hand experience of how long Governments take to actually do anything (HS2...Heathrow second runway...planning reform...etc)

By the latter years of privatisation, the whole issue had become toxic. Any attempt at all at reform was kicked into the long grass to avoid any sort of controversy.