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

[MrJeeves]

I'm not advocating higher prices and there is a real need to have affordable flexibility in the fares structure.

I find it quite telling to see this in an email notification for the thread, and then see the post has since edited that out.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I find it quite telling to see this in an email notification for the thread, and then see the post has since edited that out.to bed

I'm not advocating for higher prices and I agree that there is a real need to have affordable flexibility in the fares structure. The only reason I edited the post is that I only realised after I had posted that the specific quote I'd responded to wasn't in answer to one of mine. This forum (unlike some others) doesn't allow a reason for an edit to be posted. Let's put the paranoia to bed now please.

 

[MrJeeves]

Let's put the paranoia to bed now please.

It is tough not to be paranoid when trials are evaluated against undetermined or unpublicised success criteria!

 

[Krokodil]

Inflation means that 1d per mile is obviously not a plausible price to charge

Out of idle curiosity, I've looked it up on the Bank of England's calculator. If the 1d per mile was index-linked from 1844, it would now be 47p per mile, about 5p less than the mileage rate of the present Anytime Single from Kings Cross to Edinburgh. The index-linked regulated fare would therefore be £184.70. £20 off is not a huge reduction, but it would be a welcome one.

There are of course far worse Anytime fares on the network:

• Bristol to Birmingham index-linked to the 1844 regulation would be reduced by around £35. The existing Anytime Single is a whopping 86p/mile.
• Manchester to London would more than halve. Somewhere just under £90 would be closer to the correct rate than the present £193 Anytime Single, which is more than £1/mile (a Reading to Paddington peak single would be cheaper per mile, despite what you would expect for an NSE commuter flow over a much shorter distance).

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Whoop de doo for you.

Currently I know that I can catch a train for an off-peak fare, any day I need it, no matter how close to the day of travel, that is substantially cheaper than the extortionate "anytime" fare (except where the so-called trial is).

To paraphrase the orange moron, the crooked fares trial gives the railway "all the cards" as to when passengers can or can't travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

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.

Indeed. If they want to change the status quo, it ought to be fully and openly evaluated, justified and considered in terms of the needs of passengers.

A cloak and dagger money grab is not acceptable.

 

[BRX]

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.

Today though, the railways are still "competing" against private car travel where the price is pretty much entirely consistent and the same whether you are travelling in two weeks or five minutes. If public transport users are to accept this kind of demand driven / revenue maximising pricing then we should do the same with the roads.

 

[35B]

Today though, the railways are still "competing" against private car travel where the price is pretty much entirely consistent and the same whether you are travelling in two weeks or five minutes. If public transport users are to accept this kind of demand driven / revenue maximising pricing then we should do the same with the roads.

There is that form of pricing. It’s called congestion - and the cost is paid in time and hassle.

 

[AdamWW]

Today though, the railways are still "competing" against private car travel where the price is pretty much entirely consistent and the same whether you are travelling in two weeks or five minutes. If public transport users are to accept this kind of demand driven / revenue maximising pricing then we should do the same with the roads.

Absolutely.

Just think of the economic benefits to drastically reducing congestion by moving to a road pricing scheme with punitive rates for "drive-up travel".

After all nobody ever needs to travel at short notice unless attending a funeral, right?

And just to make sure it works we ought to make it a criminal offence to use a motorway outside the slot you paid for months previously.

And, of course, no refunds if you can't travel or miss your slot.

There is that form of pricing. It’s called congestion - and the cost is paid in time and hassle.

So not quite the same thing as telling non drivers that they're going to have to plan their lives weeks or months in advance in order to be able to afford to travel.

 

[Sonic1234]

Today though, the railways are still "competing" against private car travel where the price is pretty much entirely consistent and the same whether you are travelling in two weeks or five minutes.

The Government would prefer you to drive your highly-taxed car, they just can't publicly admit this because of their commitment to green issues.

LNER's major destinations also fill the niche that rail serves well: destinations that are a hassle to drive to, but attractive enough to want to go to anyway.

Not travelling is not a bad option either from the Government perspective: why go and spend your money in thriving York or Edinburgh, go and spend it in a local town where the economy needs a boost.

A lot think the railways are extortionately priced, even more than they are. There's the child-like response of "if I'm going to be blamed for it, I may as well have done it".

 

[35B]

So not quite the same thing as telling non drivers that they're going to have to plan their lives weeks or months in advance in order to be able to afford to travel.

Not all that different - if I need to travel through some areas (e.g. the West Midlands), I have choices imposed on me about when and how I travel. They're non-financial, sure, but equally inflexible and unhelpful if I have something that I have to do.

Absolutely.

Just think of the economic benefits to drastically reducing congestion by moving to a road pricing scheme with punitive rates for "drive-up travel".

After all nobody ever needs to travel at short notice unless attending a funeral, right?

And just to make sure it works we ought to make it a criminal offence to use a motorway outside the slot you paid for months previously.

And, of course, no refunds if you can't travel or miss your slot.

Politicians remember the impact of the fuel price protests 25 years ago, which is why road pricing is such a no-no. But if they do go that way, we will absolutely see a move to peak pricing with associated enforcement - though the odds are that it will be more akin to a rapid transit contactless model. which sidesteps most of those pre-booking issues.

 

[Sonic1234]

Politicians remember the impact of the fuel price protests 25 years ago, which is why road pricing is such a no-no. But if they do go that way, we will absolutely see a move to peak pricing with associated enforcement - though the odds are that it will be more akin to a rapid transit contactless model. which sidesteps most of those pre-booking issues.

They'll have to be very careful because a lot of people price short car journeys as zero in their mind.

If the goal is suppression of demand, yes you want to make the price clear: "Popping to the supermarket: £5 please!"

But there is a lot of economic activity that comes from travel (not just car travel). If I finish work early, I might go to a nearby town/shopping area and spend money there. If some system told me I'd be billed a fiver for doing so, I wouldn't. The local economy suffers.

Probably they'd go for some contactless-type system where you get an aggregate bill but it's very hard to price an individual journey, like it is with current fuel taxation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So not quite the same thing as telling non drivers that they're going to have to plan their lives weeks or months in advance in order to be able to afford to travel.

That isn't true of the LNER trial by and large. If I look at journeys for today from London to Edinburgh, for example, most "off peak" journeys have an Advance on sale cheaper than the Super Off Peak would have been. There is the odd exception, but that will be to price people off a particularly busy service (e.g. one running as 5 car).

When the "trial" started on the day Advances tended to be around £120-130 and thus a clear increase, but that didn't last long - clearly the market wouldn't bear it and in fact the Super Off Peak itself proved too expensive!

There are a few Anytime priced "off peak" journeys but these are involving XC and that's clearly just because quotas aren't lining up.

 

[Trainbike46]

That isn't true of the LNER trial by and large. If I look at journeys for today from London to Edinburgh, for example, most "off peak" journeys have an Advance on sale cheaper than the Super Off Peak would have been. There is the odd exception, but that will be to price people off a particularly busy service (e.g. one running as 5 car).

When the "trial" started on the day Advances tended to be around £120-130 and thus a clear increase, but that didn't last long - clearly the market wouldn't bear it and in fact the Super Off Peak itself proved too expensive!

There are a few Anytime priced "off peak" journeys but these are involving XC and that's clearly just because quotas aren't lining up.

You're kind of missing the point that most services with advance tickets below the former super-off-peak ticket price, would have had advance tickets priced below the super-off-peak before the fare instead trial started, so the fact certain services still have those isn't a benefit of the "trial"

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're kind of missing the point that most services with advance tickets below the former super-off-peak ticket price, would have had advance tickets priced below the super-off-peak before the fare instead trial started, so the fact certain services still have those isn't a benefit of the "trial"

That those still exist at vaguely similar prices in most cases mean it isn't a disadvantage either, though.

It isn't any more true that you need to be super-rich to decide which train you're getting a few minutes before travel than it was before the trial started, by and large. They don't even seem to be taking the mick on event days and days like 24th December - I've been watching it with some interest over a fairly long period now.

Regulation is a bit weak, yes, I'd agree, though regulation and GBR is an interesting question overall as you just end up with the Government regulating itself. But while some services have gone up and some down, it doesn't seem to have settled into a major overall on-the-day increase like many have feared. One could argue that the move to single leg pricing where two Super Off Peak Singles were about 20% more than one Super Off Peak Return previously was is what actually did that.

The downside seems mostly just to be the lack of flexibility when you already have a ticket - yes, that's a big downside, but if you watch the actual fares there don't seem to have.been any more proportional increases than on non-trial routes like KX-Leeds*. Yes, those journeys involving XC with the quota issue are overpriced, but (a) who wants a journey with a change when there are direct ones, and (b) if you really want those journeys because you can't resist bashing Voyagers, buy them as a split. And it's likely the quota issues would be sorted out under GBR anyway as you wouldn't have individual TOCs setting entire fare structures like you do now.

* Secondarily evidenced by the number of people you read on e.g. X moaning about the trial increasing fares on routes that aren't in it! No, that's just general fare increases!

 

[RJ]

I’ve still not seen the benefits of buying the LNER trial/pilot fares and continue to buy flexible return tickets for the journeys I undertake between London and Edinburgh, and all points in between. These continue to offer better value than the current market rate offering.

The same options are in the system to be found for anyone who the more expensive, restrictive fares don’t quite work for.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not advocating for higher prices and I agree that there is a real need to have affordable flexibility in the fares structure. The only reason I edited the post is that I only realised after I had posted that the specific quote I'd responded to wasn't in answer to one of mine. This forum (unlike some others) doesn't allow a reason for an edit to be posted. Let's put the paranoia to bed now please.

Do you advocate for the LNER fares trial and the expansion of it?

What is your view of the price of Newcastle to London this Sunday at 20:28:



Screenshot shows the LNER website charging £200.80 from Newcastle to London on Sun 17-May-26 at 20:28. The forum's site will offer a split ticket option at less than half the price.

This would have previously been valid on a Super Off Peak ticket.

Do you advocate for, or against, the expansion of such high fares from Newcastle to York, York to London etc, so that the combination of such tickets also reaches £200.80, and roughly what price do you advocate for York to Newcastle to be, and for Newcastle to London to be?

Have you provided any opinions to DfT, GBR, LNER or any other body regarding these high fares, and if so, can you divulge if you opposed them?

 

[redreni]

That isn't true of the LNER trial by and large. If I look at journeys for today from London to Edinburgh, for example, most "off peak" journeys have an Advance on sale cheaper than the Super Off Peak would have been. There is the odd exception, but that will be to price people off a particularly busy service (e.g. one running as 5 car).

Yes, and they'd be wise to keep it that way until they've got rid of all the regulated fares they want rid of. In fact, if I were them I wouldn't even allow the exceptions where the Advances are more expensive than the off-peaks were.

Once you've got rid of all the regulated fares, you can then do whatever you like. And if they go further than you or I think they're going to, it'll be far too late to say "actually, you know what, this was a terrible idea."

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you advocate for the LNER fares trial and the expansion of it?

As a whole no. However I don't oppose something like the 70 Minute Flex being added to the fares offering as it will certainly suit some people to have a fare lower than a fully flexible one that carries an element of flexibility. I am generally in favour of single leg pricing however, except for that the new refund rules throw rather a spanner in the works with regard to date changes on the day of travel. However I would fix that by fixing the rather poorly designed new refund rules rather than not doing single leg pricing (one for another thread, indeed I made such views known on that thread).

The points I make here are that, while not a good scheme, it is not as disastrous as some people make out - by and large fares have not increased that much (they did originally but have settled lower). This of course means LNER could reinstate the Super Off Peak if they wanted without any significant loss!

Screenshot shows the LNER website charging £200.80 from Newcastle to London on Sun 17-May-26 at 20:28. The forum's site will offer a split ticket option at less than half the price.

In my watching of what the impacts have been that is very rare. I assume that's the last seat or two? It's not ideal though and I wonder if it might be a quota error as I've seen that very, very rarely indeed.

The main case of Anytimes showing on "off peak" trains is ones involving XC and I expect they are a mistake. Those are not desirable journeys though, I cannot think of any reason anyone would want to book them, and if they do they can use a split. It could do with being fixed, of course.

Do you advocate for, or against, the expansion of such high fares from Newcastle to York, York to London etc, so that the combination of such tickets also reaches £200.80, and roughly what price do you advocate for York to Newcastle to be, and for Newcastle to London to be?

If the scheme was to be rolled out to those journeys the Anytime fares are:
London-York: 172.50
York-Newcastle: 44.90

It would be these that would be offered, as per the routes where it is in place.

I have suggested in the past that a compromise would be to reduce the Anytime fares a bit on the shorter journeys (it seems silly to me for example that the Edinburgh and Newcastle Anytime fares are only a few quid apart). I'm open to see what GBR proposes, as it seems clear this has not been entirely successful even from LNER's point of view, with the fares having settled rather lower than they seemingly originally wanted.

Have you provided any opinions to DfT, GBR, LNER or any other body regarding these high fares, and if so, can you divulge if you opposed them?

The only feedback I've provided on this scheme was very early on, and it was largely in opposition and provided directly to LNER. I don't have a copy of what I submitted, unfortunately.

I do however think there are, like most things, some advantages to the scheme as I have mentioned in previous posts. The disadvantages probably outweigh them, but I do feel we should acknowledge those cases where it isn't problematic as well as those where it is. I think when opposing something it is important to oppose it on things that can be proven to be a problem (e.g. loss of flexibliity) not things that aren't really the case (the on the day fare always being unaffordably higher than it was, though in some cases as you point out above it is higher).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

Once you've got rid of all the regulated fares, you can then do whatever you like. And if they go further than you or I think they're going to, it'll be far too late to say "actually, you know what, this was a terrible idea."

It's a bit meaningless having regulated fares in a state railway. The state is just regulating itself then, and will just do whatever is in its interest.

 

[Adam Williams]

except for that the new refund rules throw rather a spanner in the works with regard to date changes on the day of travel

The same arguments being used in this thread for the price increase trials were used in exactly the same way by the same people to justify the "sledgehammer to crack a nut" approach taken for watering down passenger refund rights. A move widely regarded as a bit of an own goal when it comes to the business travel sector, particularly.

"The internet has changed how tickets are purchased", "everything about retail is different now", "customers don't need flexibility anymore" etc etc.

 

[OscarH]

The same arguments being used in this thread for the price increase trials were used in exactly the same way by the same people to justify the "sledgehammer to crack a nut" approach taken for watering down passenger refund rights.

"The internet has changed how tickets are purchased", "everything about retail is different now", "customers don't need flexibility anymore" etc etc.

As well as many of the same arguments being used to justify more anti-passenger changes currently being discussed

 

[alistairlees]

Nobody ever begins from the question: “what is the customer experience that we want to deliver?” This encompasses the physical product, the pricing and flexibility, the frequency and service quality, comparisons with other modes and integration with them and ease of purchase / use (low friction).

 

[AlterEgo]

"The internet has changed how tickets are purchased", "everything about retail is different now"

Well yes, we are told these, and those things are true, but they don't justify the price gouging. It's meaningless guff.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Do you advocate for the LNER fares trial and the expansion of it?

What is your view of the price of Newcastle to London this Sunday at 20:28:

View attachment 204126

Screenshot shows the LNER website charging £200.80 from Newcastle to London on Sun 17-May-26 at 20:28. The forum's site will offer a split ticket option at less than half the price.

This would have previously been valid on a Super Off Peak ticket.

Do you advocate for, or against, the expansion of such high fares from Newcastle to York, York to London etc, so that the combination of such tickets also reaches £200.80, and roughly what price do you advocate for York to Newcastle to be, and for Newcastle to London to be?

Have you provided any opinions to DfT, GBR, LNER or any other body regarding these high fares, and if so, can you divulge if you opposed them?

I provide input but am not a decision-maker, however despite accusations to the contrary I don't advocate for higher fares. Myself and professional colleagues are concerned with trying to make the system work but the decisions about fare levels and other major decisions are ones for Government.

You will be well aware that I cannot share the content of internal commercial conversations but any long term change to the fares structure relies on being sustainable to the actual users of the service and that means that large price increases aren't tolerable on a wide scale, nor the situation whereby those in the know can pay much less than ordinary people that don't know the hacks (and no, simply closing the loopholes so that everyone pays more is not the answer).

There's a long way to go yet with getting this right.

 

[Haywain]

Screenshot shows the LNER website charging £200.80 from Newcastle to London on Sun 17-May-26 at 20:28.

A high fare at a time just after the conclusion of West Ham's away match at Newcastle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

It's not ideal though and I wonder if it might be a quota error as I've seen that very, very rarely indeed

See above.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A high fare at a time just after the conclusion of West Ham's away match at Newcastle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==


See above.

Having had a look there are no reservable seats left on that train, it would just sell a counted place. The one half an hour later (albeit with a journey time almost an hour longer) is going at £79.40 (I think this is less than the Super Off Peak would be?). This doesn't look to me like a price gouge, rather as a means of preventing that train being full and standing or even leaving people behind.

Bit of a nuisance for anyone requiring onward travel from London of course, though most of them will still be offered a Super Off Peak.

There are during the rest of the day some quite reasonable fares, e.g. £66.70 on the 1824. The 1527 is priced above the old Super Off Peak level though.

 

[AdamWW]

Not all that different - if I need to travel through some areas (e.g. the West Midlands), I have choices imposed on me about when and how I travel. They're non-financial, sure, but equally inflexible and unhelpful if I have something that I have to do.

But you still get to travel any day you like, just not conveniently at the time you might want to. Which is what we had with the off peak/anytime system.
Would you rather have my road pricing scheme which eliminates the congestion you're referring to but means you have to plan everything in advance? That would be the true equivalent.

It's a bit meaningless having regulated fares in a state railway. The state is just regulating itself then, and will just do whatever is in its interest.

I don't see it that way.

With the current system the government can do whatever it likes with fares and I'm sure already does what's in its interest (i.e. push them up as much as they think they can get away with).

Under privatisation the government chose to use a relatively crude and easy to understand model to control fares.
I don't see how sticking to this would be flawed on the grounds that it's the government regulating itself.
I can see why the government would very much like not to have the constraint of the current fare regulation system and that nationalisation frees them to do that without potential concerns of private companies profiteering. But that's a different argument.

Doesn't London Transport "regulate itself" with annual, transparent, fare increases, rather than just putting prices up here and there when they see fit? It certainly used to work that way.

That isn't true of the LNER trial by and large. If I look at journeys for today from London to Edinburgh, for example, most "off peak" journeys have an Advance on sale cheaper than the Super Off Peak would have been. There is the odd exception, but that will be to price people off a particularly busy service (e.g. one running as 5 car).

Well that's good to hear. I don't know because I don't use that route and there's no simple way of finding out what they have done with fares as opposed to what they could do.

But I also see nothing that guarantees that it will stay that way, nor that if I head out on an advance ticket I won't find when I want to go home that there's been some problem and to make their life easier they've turned off all the advances and I can't afford to come home.

Yes I can make a guess beforehand at when I might be travelling, then have the hassle of changing it when I know what I'm doing.
And I can choose between paying extra for a flex ticket in case my bus to the station doesn't turn up, or planning to spend an hour at the station if all goes well, or leaving it to the last minute to get my ticket and hope it hasn't gone up by then.

But I rather liked the idea of a known, fixed, fare with transparent increases. It was much easier even if at the moment the "trial" doesn't mean it's more expensive.

 

[Krokodil]

It's a bit meaningless having regulated fares in a state railway. The state is just regulating itself then, and will just do whatever is in its interest.

Having them unregulated means that GBR can raise fares when it likes with no big fanfare, and politicians can pretend that it's nothing to do with them. Having them regulated however meant that politicians did get blamed by the media for fare rises (because they had a clear way of stopping them) and were therefore much more likely to shy away from RPI+3 rises, even to the extent that we have seen the odd fare freeze.

 

[yorksrob]

That isn't true of the LNER trial by and large. If I look at journeys for today from London to Edinburgh, for example, most "off peak" journeys have an Advance on sale cheaper than the Super Off Peak would have been. There is the odd exception, but that will be to price people off a particularly busy service (e.g. one running as 5 car).

When the "trial" started on the day Advances tended to be around £120-130 and thus a clear increase, but that didn't last long - clearly the market wouldn't bear it and in fact the Super Off Peak itself proved too expensive!

There are a few Anytime priced "off peak" journeys but these are involving XC and that's clearly just because quotas aren't lining up.

But it's not the fact that most fares are under the old super-off peak that's the issue. It's the fact that they could withdraw all these at the drop of a hat.

I wonder how many people were inconvenienced when LNER were experimenting with those high AP fares at the start of the trial.

As I said earlier, it puts all the cards in the hands of the railway.

 

[yorkie]

As a whole no. However I don't oppose something like the 70 Minute Flex being added to the fares offering...

No chance!

LNER/DfT didn't want to introduce such fares, nor sensibly priced singles, to the existing offering.

The main aims are fistly to increase prices at busy and/or premium times (not always the same thing!) and secondly to reduce flexibility and abolish rights; any products that have to be introduced to get away with abolishing superior products are done grudgingly as an inadequate replacement, rather than as an additional offering.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

A high fare at a time just after the conclusion of West Ham's away match at Newcastle.

Yes, but all sorts of events can trigger this; it also happens if there are no events but reduced services due to engineering works. LNER/DfT are very keen for very high prices to be charged whenever there are events that increase demand; previously they were restricted by the Super Off Peak.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

Bit of a nuisance for anyone requiring onward travel from London of course, though most of them will still be offered a Super Off Peak.

But not if the trial gets extended!

There are during the rest of the day some quite reasonable fares, e.g. £66.70 on the 1824. The 1527 is priced above the old Super Off Peak level though.

That's no use if you can't be at the station until after 20:00!

 

[AdamWW]

But it's not the fact that most fares are under the old super-off peak that's the issue. It's the fact that they could withdraw all these at the drop of a hat.

I wonder how many people were inconvenienced when LNER were experimenting with those high AP fares at the start of the trial.

As I said earlier, it puts all the cards in the hands of the railway.

Indeed.

Maybe next week they decide to spend a few months experimenting to see what happens if they try much higher fares for on-the-day purchases.
Or anything bought less than a week in advance.
Or....

Possibly under this system all will be fine. But I haven't seen anything to reassure me of that, and I'm aware that many other European countries have moved to systems that make any degree of flexibilty uncomfortably expensive.