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

[Bletchleyite]

DB is basically the same as the LNER trial now on IC/ICE services. They used to have discounted walk up fares years ago but they were a bit odd, they were at a fixed price regardless of distance.

The other difference is that seat reservations in 2nd class are never free in Germany even with an "Advance".

France, Spain etc of course have no long distance flexible fares at all per-se, though some of the higher ones are changeable for free.

 

[AdamWW]

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.

My "proposal" wasn't intended seriously - I'm sure something like that would never happen. I can't see how drivers would ever accept a system where they had to book their road usage ahead of time.

But perhaps if drivers wouldn't stand for such a thing, maybe that's an argument that we shouldn't force such terms on non drivers either?

 

[redreni]

My "proposal" wasn't intended seriously - I'm sure something like that would never happen. I can't see how drivers would ever accept a system where they had to book their road usage ahead of time.

But perhaps if drivers wouldn't stand for such a thing, maybe that's an argument that we shouldn't force such terms on non drivers either?

Bingo!

If motorways are congested badly enough, we widen them or build more. Maybe that's a clue to what should happen on the railway too.

On fares regulation, I agree with you entirely, the comparisons with pre-privatisation BR or TfL miss the fact BR didn't, and TfL doesn't, have a suite of fares and quotas that can be set, on a day-to-day basis, totally arbitrarily at the whim of the operator, at any level they pluck out of the air or their AI agent tells them to set.

As imperfect as it is, the annual "Rail Minister announces fares to rise by 3.5%" headlines (which refer only to regulated fares, of course, and only to averages) are the nearest thing to democratic accountability for rail fares that we have. Losing that and leaving it at the whim of DfTO or GBR just, quite simply, gives too much power and not enough accountability to pricing managers (hi there, if you're reading this), because each passenger only knows how they are affected by pricing choices, which might not be typical of the general picture.

The general picture of what's happening to fares remains a literal secret under the unregulated Advance fares and unregulated quotas model. It will probably remain so, at least on the ECML, because anyone trying to get data about fares from GBR will probably be told it's commercially sensitive given competition from the open access operators.

 

[35B]

My "proposal" wasn't intended seriously - I'm sure something like that would never happen. I can't see how drivers would ever accept a system where they had to book their road usage ahead of time.

But perhaps if drivers wouldn't stand for such a thing, maybe that's an argument that we shouldn't force such terms on non drivers either?

Possibly. But that begs complicated questions about how capacity is provided.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bingo!

If motorways are congested badly enough, we widen them or build more. Maybe that's a clue to what should happen on the railway too.

Well, we built the M6 Toll. Actually one thing that really flabbergasts me about that is that it doesn't have dynamic pricing. It would be a relatively cheap thing to implement (you'd pay the price shown on the display when you were ANPRed passing the sign showing the prices before the carriageways split) and it'd mean you wouldn't be going "I'm not paying over a tenner when the journey time difference is 3 minutes" (I'd pay a quid or three in such cases though as it's a little bit nicer to drive). But if you save an hour, it could be twenty quid or more and still worth it.

On fares regulation, I agree with you entirely, the comparisons with pre-privatisation BR or TfL miss the fact BR didn't, and TfL doesn't, have a suite of fares and quotas that can be set, on a day-to-day basis, totally arbitrarily at the whim of the operator, at any level they pluck out of the air or their AI agent tells them to set.

As imperfect as it is, the annual "Rail Minister announces fares to rise by 3.5%" headlines (which refer only to regulated fares, of course, and only to averages) are the nearest thing to democratic accountability for rail fares that we have. Losing that and leaving it at the whim of DfTO or GBR just, quite simply, gives too much power and not enough accountability to pricing managers (hi there, if you're reading this), because each passenger only knows how they are affected by pricing choices, which might not be typical of the general picture.

The general picture of what's happening to fares remains a literal secret under the unregulated Advance fares and unregulated quotas model. It will probably remain so, at least on the ECML, because anyone trying to get data about fares from GBR will probably be told it's commercially sensitive given competition from the open access operators.

That much is true, and it is one reason the railway likes Advance fares - it can adjust the income it gets without even changing the fare levels, you just fiddle with quotas.

 

[35B]

Bingo!

If motorways are congested badly enough, we widen them or build more. Maybe that's a clue to what should happen on the railway too.

On fares regulation, I agree with you entirely, the comparisons with pre-privatisation BR or TfL miss the fact BR didn't, and TfL doesn't, have a suite of fares and quotas that can be set, on a day-to-day basis, totally arbitrarily at the whim of the operator, at any level they pluck out of the air or their AI agent tells them to set.

As imperfect as it is, the annual "Rail Minister announces fares to rise by 3.5%" headlines (which refer only to regulated fares, of course, and only to averages) are the nearest thing to democratic accountability for rail fares that we have. Losing that and leaving it at the whim of DfTO or GBR just, quite simply, gives too much power and not enough accountability to pricing managers (hi there, if you're reading this), because each passenger only knows how they are affected by pricing choices, which might not be typical of the general picture.

The general picture of what's happening to fares remains a literal secret under the unregulated Advance fares and unregulated quotas model. It will probably remain so, at least on the ECML, because anyone trying to get data about fares from GBR will probably be told it's commercially sensitive given competition from the open access operators.

I'd suggest the accountability is as a business, and through the farebox. BR did, and TfL do, have precisely the sort of fares you describe - and used their ability to price set.

Meanwhile, the reality is that these price rises are being driven because of government policy, where ministerial accountability is being abused to deny the root cause of these pricing strategies.

 

[Starmill]

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.

The fact that you were undertaking work or providing consulting services on it prior to June 2018 around the desire for reform doesn't seem to me to alter the position at all. I'm aware of the evidence of calls for reform and indeed efforts for it a long time prior to the well known changes made during 2008 for example.

 

[AdamWW]

Possibly. But that begs complicated questions about how capacity is provided.

Perhaps but I don't believe that the only way to deal with limited capacity is an opaque fares structure where the price to use a particular train is what the operator decides will maximise their income.

I'd suggest the accountability is as a business, and through the farebox.

But of course "accounability as a business" has its limitations.

Should we leave the provision of facilities for wheelchair users to the market? I hope nobody would suggest that we do; I think I can guess what would happen if we did.

But is it OK for the market to decide if we're going to go for a "you can always drive if you can't get a flexible fare at a price you can afford" approach that leaves non drivers somewhat stuck?

I do realise that most European countries (and indeed what remains of "Intercity" rail in North America) have gone for airline style inflexible pricing models, and that what LNER is currently doing seems somewhat benign in comparison. So this is very probably a losing battle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do realise that most European countries (and indeed what remains of "Intercity" rail in North America) have gone for airline style inflexible pricing models, and that what LNER is currently doing seems somewhat benign in comparison. So this is very probably a losing battle.

Certainly LNER's pricing - even the Anytime Single - is completely reasonable compared to some of the prices charged by Eurostar, both "red" and "blue"!

 

[Starmill]

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.

Again these claims don't hold any water.

Certainly LNER's pricing - even the Anytime Single - is completely reasonable compared to some of the prices charged by Eurostar, both "red" and "blue"!

I believe this is one of the reasons why Eurostar no longer carries passengers within the same territory. Eurostar London's licence also depended on their not doing so.

 

[35B]

Perhaps but I don't believe that the only way to deal with limited capacity is an opaque fares structure where the price to use a particular train is what the operator decides will maximise their income.

But of course "accounability as a business" has its limitations.

Should we leave the provision of facilities for wheelchair users to the market? I hope nobody would suggest that we do; I think I can guess what would happen if we did.

But is it OK for the market to decide if we're going to go for a "you can always drive if you can't get a flexible fare at a price you can afford" approach that leaves non drivers somewhat stuck?

I do realise that most European countries (and indeed what remains of "Intercity" rail in North America) have gone for airline style inflexible pricing models, and that what LNER is currently doing seems somewhat benign in comparison. So this is very probably a losing battle.

I'm no fan of opaque fares that make flexible travel unduly difficult. But the revealed preferences of millions of customers shows that, given the choice, they take price over flexibility. That is also a revelation that lends itself to revenue maximisation, which is presumably why many organisations do it - not least airlines.

Markets act within rules, typically set by governments. Those governments can act as regulators, for example making legislation requiring accessibility provision. Many of the issues we're discussing have at least some of their roots in government being both a regulator and a provider, and failing to manage the tension between the two. I find it interesting and revealing that, in England at least, the general rule is that the greater the government control, the worse for the customer.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm no fan of opaque fares that make flexible travel unduly difficult. But the revealed preferences of millions of customers shows that, given the choice, they take price over flexibility.

Well yes and under the LNER "trial" I'd choose price over flexibility because the only flexible tickets left are ones I can't afford but my "revealed preference" would not make me a supporter of the scheme.

Also looking at the preferences of people who are using trains doesn't tell you about the preferences of people who would like to be using them but can't.

 

[35B]

Well yes and under the LNER "trial" I'd choose price over flexibility because the only flexible tickets left are ones I can't afford but my "revealed preference" would not make me a supporter of the scheme.

Also looking at the preferences of people who are using trains doesn't tell you about the preferences of people who would like to be using them but can't.

Indeed - though I'd suggest that those who don't are more important than those who can't, as the chances of getting them to buy tickets is higher

 

[redreni]

I'd suggest the accountability is as a business, and through the farebox. BR did, and TfL do, have precisely the sort of fares you describe - and used their ability to price set.

TfL changes its fares once a year. It does not charge you double or more because it's a busy time or there's an event on or it has worked out there's demand at a higher price point at the particular time you want to travel. It doesn't fiddle with fares and quotas on the fly.

Meanwhile, the reality is that these price rises are being driven because of government policy, where ministerial accountability is being abused to deny the root cause of these pricing strategies.

Yes, of course.

I'm no fan of opaque fares that make flexible travel unduly difficult.

That's a relief, I was beginning to think you were!

But the revealed preferences of millions of customers shows that, given the choice, they take price over flexibility.

Under conditions where, if the flexible fare is 20p more expensive than the cheapest inflexible one, the flexible fare is rendered all but invisible.

It's as if Tesco ran an experiment to see if customers prefer Arial or Persil, but for the duration of the experiment they hid all the Persil in a cupboard so that customers had to go out of their way to find it or ask a member of staff for it, and then said "the revealed preferences of millions of customers is that, given a choice between Arial and Persil, they prefer Arial".

People are buying what the rail industry wants to sell them and what the retailers push.

Even the forum's site, which is much better than most at showing you the full range of fares you can buy, makes the cheapest fare by far the most prominent for any given itinerary, even if it is much less flexible than a fare that is only marginally more expensive. The passenger experience ranges from that to retailers with much larger market shares that just outright hide the flexible fare from view (equivalent to Tesco hiding the Persil in a cupboard).

 

[Watershed]

Where an industry is privatised, it has a regulator - such as in Switzerland.

Publicly owned industries are governed by elected bodies, there is no precedent for them being additionally regulated

A plausible argument but for all the counterexamples.

SBB is federally owned. The BBC is publicly owned and yet is regulated by Ofcom. Welsh Water is publicly owned and is (poorly) regulated by Ofwat. I could go on...

Public ownership is not an a reason to fall outside of independent regulation.

TfL doesn't have 'fare regulation'. Neither did BR.

BR did until the mid-60s. The lack of regulation for TfL has exposed Londoners to some swinging price increases - for example RPI+1 this year despite National Rail fares being frozen - so it can hardly be given as an example of best practice.

 

[yorksrob]

DB is basically the same as the LNER trial now on IC/ICE services. They used to have discounted walk up fares years ago but they were a bit odd, they were at a fixed price regardless of distance.

The other difference is that seat reservations in 2nd class are never free in Germany even with an "Advance".

France, Spain etc of course have no long distance flexible fares at all per-se, though some of the higher ones are changeable for free.

Not everything done on the Continent is a good idea.

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

I'd suggest the accountability is as a business, and through the farebox.

The railway is funded like a public service and looks set to be so for the foreseeable, therefore it ought to be subject to public accountability - particularly with regard to fares.

 

[Mainline421]

It's as if Tesco ran an experiment to see if customers prefer Arial or Persil, but for the duration of the experiment they hid all the Persil in a cupboard so that customers had to go out of their way to find it or ask a member of staff for it, and then said "the revealed preferences of millions of customers is that, given a choice between Arial and Persil, they prefer Arial".

And despite that found 11% of customers still went out of their way to ask for Persil.

DB is basically the same as the LNER trial now on IC/ICE services. They used to have discounted walk up fares years ago but they were a bit odd, they were at a fixed price regardless of distance.

DB is nothing like the LNER trial, Fkexpreis is way more affordable than Anytime, refunds are allowed on "Advance" equivalents, you don't get a reservation unless you ask for one, and there are many other flexible products.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm no fan of opaque fares that make flexible travel unduly difficult. But the revealed preferences of millions of customers shows that, given the choice, they take price over flexibility. That is also a revelation that lends itself to revenue maximisation, which is presumably why many organisations do it - not least airlines.

Actually, the thing people like is choice. The choice to pay a low fare or a higher fare for more flexibility.

Leaving ridiculous anytime fares as the only truly flexible option removes that choice and makes the railway more like the "rich man's toy" decried by politicians.

I also often choose price by buying AP, however this isn't always the case and I value off-peak as a back-up.

 

[Richardr]

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.

Having made a song and dance over nationalization and given the rebranding coming, I think politicians won't be able to evade blame.

TfL changes its fares once a year. It does not charge you double or more because it's a busy time or there's an event on or it has worked out there's demand at a higher price point at the particular time you want to travel. It doesn't fiddle with fares and quotas on the fly.

There are always going to be differences between the turn up and go style services in commuter areas and fares charged for infrequent longer journeys.

 

[Kite159]

The example posted earlier with the football, if you are a West Ham fan heading to Newcastle for the big match on Sunday, would you risk buying an advance knowing that potentially the game could be extended by 10–15 minutes depending on any lengthy VAR decisions or injury time. Add on potential congestion getting out of the stadium (especially if the police decide to hold the away supporters in for an extra period of time to allow the home support to get out of the way first etc).

Under the previous system, if you have a super off-peak single then you didn't have to worry about making a mad dash to the station for your booked train, as no doubt there will be some LNER train managers out on Sunday night ready to pounce on anybody daring to travel on the wrong train.

And I would agree with the comment about LNER Management having no clue what it is like for the general public when it comes to buying tickets, after-all they have their free travel passes.

 

[Krokodil]

Having made a song and dance over nationalization and given the rebranding coming, I think politicians won't be able to evade blame.

Having fares tinkered with on a fairly continuous basis will make it much easier to slip rises in without being noticed than when there was one uniform annual rise.

 

[BRX]

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

The equivalent to this is buying a walk-up ticket on the day and finding you have to stand for four hours because you have no seat reservation. Or get to your destination 2 hours too late because of delays, or because you chose to wait for a later slightly less packed train.

There's a big difference between (a) being able to get somewhere at a predictable and affordable price, with some pain or hassle, and (b) only being able to get there at a much greater price, or (c) simply not being able to get there at all on the day you want to.

When wanting to make last minute travel plans, private motorists usually don't encounter scenarios (b) and (c) but rail passengers increasingly do.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But the revealed preferences of millions of customers shows that, given the choice, they take price over flexibility.

I've highlighted the word choice. This is the most important word.

Under the old fares structure, passengers had a choice. They could buy an advance, they could spend a bit more for an off-peak ticket, or they could spend a lot more for an anytime ticket.

Now, the choice is the advance, a slightly more expensive advance with some stupid gimmicks attached, or the insane anytime price.

You can choose to spend a sensible amount of money for your travel, or you can choose to spend £401.60 on a flexible return to Newcastle. Oh, nobody chose flexibility. Weird, eh.

I would agree with the comment about LNER Management having no clue what it is like for the general public

I would have left it "having no clue" tbh.

And no, I don't think this idea came from DfT, I think this was all LNER’s handywork.

 

[AdamWW]

The equivalent to this is buying a walk-up ticket on the day and finding you have to stand for four hours because you have no seat reservation. Or get to your destination 2 hours too late because of delays, or because you chose to wait for a later slightly less packed train.

There's a big difference between (a) being able to get somewhere at a predictable and affordable price, with some pain or hassle, and (b) only being able to get there at a much greater price, or (c) simply not being able to get there at all on the day you want to.

When wanting to make last minute travel plans, private motorists usually don't encounter scenarios (b) and (c) but rail passengers increasingly do.

You've just saved me from making the post I was going to write...

France, Spain etc of course have no long distance flexible fares at all per-se, though some of the higher ones are changeable for free.

Last time I looked, in Spain you could make tickets at all but the cheapest fare level flexible for an extra 5 Euros, enabling you to change trains on the day to any other train without paying a change fee or the difference in price.
The catch - there has to be a seat left on the train you want. Often not the case.
You can also make them "fully" refundable (only not really because you don't get back the 5 Euros you paid to make it refundable).
But still both are a lot better than our rules for Advances.

 

[Haywain]

The example posted earlier with the football, if you are a West Ham fan heading to Newcastle for the big match on Sunday, would you risk buying an advance knowing that potentially the game could be extended by 10–15 minutes depending on any lengthy VAR decisions or injury time. Add on potential congestion getting out of the stadium (especially if the police decide to hold the away supporters in for an extra period of time to allow the home support to get out of the way first etc).

The train in question is about an hour after the match is likely to finish. The stadium is 15 minutes away so it is very low risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The example posted earlier with the football, if you are a West Ham fan heading to Newcastle for the big match on Sunday, would you risk buying an advance knowing that potentially the game could be extended by 10–15 minutes depending on any lengthy VAR decisions or injury time. Add on potential congestion getting out of the stadium (especially if the police decide to hold the away supporters in for an extra period of time to allow the home support to get out of the way first etc).

You'd buy one for the later train. Or tomorrow and stay over (for which a super off peak single isn't useful either with the new refund rules).

 

[AdamWW]

DB is nothing like the LNER trial, Fkexpreis is way more affordable than Anytime, refunds are allowed on "Advance" equivalents, you don't get a reservation unless you ask for one, and there are many other flexible products.

And if your train is cancelled or changed your "advance" ticket becomes a Flexpreis rather than having to figure out which other trains you're allowed on (and potentially get heavily penalised if you get it wrong).
And anyone is eligable to buy a railcard giving 50% off Flexpreis fares (OK it's not cheap but it does exist).

 

[35B]

The railway is funded like a public service and looks set to be so for the foreseeable, therefore it ought to be subject to public accountability - particularly with regard to fares.

Then accept what that means in the real world. There are better ways, but they require attitudes to government control that are profoundly un-British, or an acceptance that the private sector can deliver better

 

[Sonic1234]

rather than having to figure out which other trains you're allowed on (and potentially get heavily penalised if you get it wrong).

Anyone who says public transport is less stressful than driving needs to travel on the wrong train with an Advance (in a situation where this is allowed, in theory), on the wrong operator relying on a vague statement about ticket acceptance several clicks from the front page of the TOC website. For a bonus make it an operator that is consistent with ticket checks, not DOO.

 

[Tetchytyke]

an acceptance that the private sector can deliver better

It’s not about public sector or private sector, it’s about competent management.

There’s no difference between VTEC and LNER. VTEC failed miserably but the government kept all the same management on to do exactly the same things which had just failed before.

I also genuinely don’t think DfT had any involvement in this trial, other than to sign off the rule change. I genuinely think this change came from the brains trust who took the legacy they inherited from East Coast and absolutely smashed it to smithereens within a year.

Chris Green is an example of it the other way around. He was just as good and just as innovative in the private sector as he had been in the public sector.

The idea that the public sector is intrinsically useless and the private sector is intrinsically amazing is, quite frankly, nonsense.