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

[35B]

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.

I said “can deliver better”, not “will deliver better”. Specifically, my issue is the way that people complaining about the failure of the public sector to deliver effectively then demanding that the fix is the model that is failing.

I’m well aware of the achievements of the likes of Chris Green, and know that BR was far better than its harsher critics claim, at least in its later years. But claims about accountability are risible when what we have now is under precisely the accountability that’s being demanded, and has shown itself to be deeply flawed when governments have acted as both regulator and provider. If repeating the same thing expecting a different outcome is the definition of idiocy, then…

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I think that this is a problem for lots of the higher management and the governing class in general. Lots of free or heavily subsidised travel, big salaries, car access etc.

They have no comprehension that for those who rely on the train as a public service, it's highly inappropriate to try and run it as an airline.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

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).

Yes, because everyone relying on the train has money to splash out on hotels in London.

You can sugar-coat a turd, but it's still a turd.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

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

Why the private sector ? It's the private sector that shoved us down this route.

The Scots have shown that it's not inevitably British that the travelling public have to be fleeced at every opportunity. It seems to be more of a Westminster/Whitehall fixation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

I said “can deliver better”, not “will deliver better”. Specifically, my issue is the way that people complaining about the failure of the public sector to deliver effectively then demanding that the fix is the model that is failing.

I’m well aware of the achievements of the likes of Chris Green, and know that BR was far better than its harsher critics claim, at least in its later years. But claims about accountability are risible when what we have now is under precisely the accountability that’s being demanded, and has shown itself to be deeply flawed when governments have acted as both regulator and provider. If repeating the same thing expecting a different outcome is the definition of idiocy, then…

Which is why GBR will still need some form of fares regulation as the privatised railway did (which was a point made on this forum a few posts back).

 

[mmh]

Welsh Water is publicly owned and is (poorly) regulated by Ofwat.

It isn't publicly owned, it's a private company.

 

[takno]

The Scots have shown that it's not inevitably British that the travelling public have to be fleeced at every opportunity. It seems to be more of a Westminster/Whitehall fixation

The Scots have made peak travel cheaper. They've done nothing about single leg pricing, which was always a bigger issue for me, particularly on "day return" length routes like Edinburgh Glasgow. They also lack a really convenient and comprehensible tap on/off system for local travel.

On longer distance fares their walk-up fares are okay, particularly at peak, but they struggle to do competitive advances. Meanwhile their bus policy is completely detached and seems to be working in direct opposition to the trains policy.

The LNER "pilot" is bad, but Scotland's fare setup may actually be worse

 

[35B]

Why the private sector ? It's the private sector that shoved us down this route.

The Scots have shown that it's not inevitably British that the travelling public have to be fleeced at every opportunity. It seems to be more of a Westminster/Whitehall fixation.

You demonstrate my previous point - it's not about public/private per se but the approach of individual governments to rail funding. The current route in England is an implementation of government policy; Scotland has devolved powers and is operating a different policy.

If government policy changes to focus on maximising loads, say, then fares policies would also change.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Specifically, my issue is the way that people complaining about the failure of the public sector to deliver effectively then demanding that the fix is the model that is failing.

The failed model is the franchising model.

But claims about accountability are risible when what we have now is under precisely the accountability that’s being demanded, and has shown itself to be deeply flawed when governments have acted as both regulator and provider.

Like many people, you appear to be confusing accountability with responsibility.

The franchising model has no accountability. It was deliberately designed and structured so that no one person or organisation had accountability for anything.

The politicians were not accountable- the franchises were all private businesses, and who is a politician to tell a private business how to operate. Go moan at the private companies.

The private companies were not accountable- they're only providing what the franchise agreement says they should. Go moan at the politicians.

The civil servants who structured the franchise agreements were not accountable- they were just doing what the politicians told them to.

Regulators are not accountable- regulators are there to enforce the rules, not be accountable for whether those rules are any good.

The net effect of franchising is that there is no accountability. This is a design feature. It always has been. It is precisely why politicians love franchising models.

Under public ownership, ultimately the politician is accountable. If fares are too high and services are too poor, the politician is accountable. If the management are rubbish, as with LNER, the politician is still accountable.

 

[35B]

The failed model is the franchising model.


Like many people, you appear to be confusing accountability with responsibility.

The franchising model has no accountability. It was deliberately designed and structured so that no one person or organisation had accountability for anything.

The politicians were not accountable- the franchises were all private businesses, and who is a politician to tell a private business how to operate. Go moan at the private companies.

The private companies were not accountable- they're only providing what the franchise agreement says they should. Go moan at the politicians.

The civil servants who structured the franchise agreements were not accountable- they were just doing what the politicians told them to.

Regulators are not accountable- regulators are there to enforce the rules, not be accountable for whether those rules are any good.

The net effect of franchising is that there is no accountability. This is a design feature. It always has been. It is precisely why politicians love franchising models.

Under public ownership, ultimately the politician is accountable. If fares are too high and services are too poor, the politician is accountable. If the management are rubbish, as with LNER, the politician is still accountable.

I fully understand the difference between accountability and responsibility. I agree with your portrayal of the franchising system, and also that the dilution of accountability is a critical failing in both rail and other public services. However, unlike you, I also see that as structurally inherent in all publicly provided services due to the division between political accountability and the accountability to end users. It's a structural issue that sees repeated service failures in public services that are "accountable", but where the users have neither choice over provision (the accountability that exists for private sector firms) nor any effective remedy.

Nye Bevan's idea that a dropped bedpan in Tredegar would echo round Whitehall has never worked effectively - and when those echoes do sound across Whitehall, there's usually more bark than bite.

There are many other possible models, and I am not arguing "public bad, private good". I am however suggesting that the idea that, where regulation has been gutted by the actions of politicians and that gutting is an instrument of policy that has been followed across parties, the idea that government control per se is the remedy is laughable. Matters like regulation of fares sit within the world of Whitehall, not Westminster, and the impact of political scrutiny is negligible.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, unlike you, I also see that as structurally inherent in all publicly provided services due to the division between political accountability and the accountability to end users.

At a macro level, there is no division. If a public service isn't serving the end users- the voters- then the politicians will be voted out of office.

There is more accountability here than in a franchised model, where the politician can point at the private provider and the private provider can point at the politician.

It's a structural issue that sees repeated service failures in public services that are "accountable", but where the users have neither choice over provision (the accountability that exists for private sector firms) nor any effective remedy.

Market-based accountability for private firms only exists in a competitive marketplace. We have not had a competitive rail market in the UK since before World War One.

Market-based accountability also exists as a paradox: if one company does better they will get more customers and the other companies will get fewer customers. Gradually, the worst-performing companies will go out of business, until there are only one or two left. At which point, there's no market-based accountability so those companies can do what they want. 90% of the world's grain trade is controlled by just four companies.

On a smaller level, look at butter in the UK. If you don't like Lurpak butter (owned by Arla) you can always go and buy Anchor butter (also owned by Arla), or you can buy Tesco butter (made by Arla), Asda butter (made by Arla), or maybe even Aldi butter (you guessed it, made by Arla).

Under the privatised railway, if I wanted to travel directly from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London I had a choice: I could travel with Virgin (West Coast) or I could travel with Virgin (East Coast), both of which were fully owned by Virgin and Stagecoach. Oh.

 

[Adam Williams]

Scotland's fare setup may actually be worse

Not to mention clinging onto non-portable mTickets - which offer a demonstrably worse user experience - until the bitter end (and they still haven't fully embraced E-Tickets!)

 

[35B]

At a macro level, there is no division. If a public service isn't serving the end users- the voters- then the politicians will be voted out of office.

That level is so diffuse as to be useless - it is accountability across a range of issues, not accountability for provision of a particular service. This is clearly evident in healthcare, where a structure of regulation still hasn't addressed the basic issue that most patients, most of the time, have no choice about who treats them or where, and is then manifest in poor patient outcomes.

Market-based accountability for private firms only exists in a competitive marketplace. We have not had a competitive rail market in the UK since before World War One.

Market-based accountability also exists as a paradox: if one company does better they will get more customers and the other companies will get fewer customers. Gradually, the worst-performing companies will go out of business, until there are only one or two left. At which point, there's no market-based accountability so those companies can do what they want. 90% of the world's grain trade is controlled by just four companies.

On a smaller level, look at butter in the UK. If you don't like Lurpak butter (owned by Arla) you can always go and buy Anchor butter (also owned by Arla), or you can buy Tesco butter (made by Arla), Asda butter (made by Arla), or maybe even Aldi butter (you guessed it, made by Arla).

Under the privatised railway, if I wanted to travel directly from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London I had a choice: I could travel with Virgin (West Coast) or I could travel with Virgin (East Coast), both of which were fully owned by Virgin and Stagecoach. Oh.

The view of rail as a natural monopoly requires treating rail as a wholly separate market, with no external competition. It also ignores the demonsstrated success of OAOs in exerting competitive pressure on standards of service and limiting fares where they have existed.

More generally, you assume that the tendency of successful firms to aggregate power is unlimited, and that the market doesn't provide corrective mechanisms. That a company has market power does not make it invulnerable - business history is littered with examples of firms that thought they were invulnerable, and found that they weren't.

As for the role of franchises, the point about competition was less about on the rail competition and more about the market competition that outsourcing delivers, where competition is exerted through the franchising purposes. Which takes us back to the underlying issue, which is the monopsonistic market for the franchises of the government, being both supplier and regulator.

 

[yorksrob]

The Scots have made peak travel cheaper. They've done nothing about single leg pricing, which was always a bigger issue for me, particularly on "day return" length routes like Edinburgh Glasgow. They also lack a really convenient and comprehensible tap on/off system for local travel.

On longer distance fares their walk-up fares are okay, particularly at peak, but they struggle to do competitive advances. Meanwhile their bus policy is completely detached and seems to be working in direct opposition to the trains policy.

The LNER "pilot" is bad, but Scotland's fare setup may actually be worse

Generally shorter distance fares south of the border aren't single leg either, so I wouln't call that worse. If CDR's are reasonable across the country in Scotland, that's possibly better than England, where there's a lot of variation, depending on where you are.

They could possibly do better on advanced purchase, but I've not seen anything in your list that strikes me as worse than the LNER trial.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2026 ==

You demonstrate my previous point - it's not about public/private per se but the approach of individual governments to rail funding. The current route in England is an implementation of government policy; Scotland has devolved powers and is operating a different policy.

If government policy changes to focus on maximising loads, say, then fares policies would also change.

Well indeed - although there are alternative ways to maximise revenue - as has been happening elsewhere.

 

[35B]

Well indeed - although there are alternative ways to maximise revenue - as has been happening elsewhere.

Quite. Which is why I tend to push back, hard, on positioning this as about control - as has been demonstrated, governments have the ability to do things (including regulation) in a number of ways, which may be good or bad.

 

[takno]

They could possibly do better on advanced purchase, but I've not seen anything in your list that strikes me as worse than the LNER trial.

The LNER trial is annoying because it removes rail as a flexible and convenient option. To their credit LNER had already sorted out single-leg pricing with only a relatively small price increase baked in. In practice I still travel by rail on the East Coast, albeit more reluctantly, usually on Lumo, and without being willing to pay any premium at all over air travel.

The Scotrail pricing, combined with not having got back to pre-Covid service levels, means that the last couple of times I've been to Glasgow it's been much cheaper, not that much slower, and just as convenient to get the bus. Given the way bus pricing is going, I'm not seeing me making much use of Scotrail at all going forward.

 

[yorksrob]

The LNER trial is annoying because it removes rail as a flexible and convenient option. To their credit LNER had already sorted out single-leg pricing with only a relatively small price increase baked in. In practice I still travel by rail on the East Coast, albeit more reluctantly, usually on Lumo, and without being willing to pay any premium at all over air travel.

The Scotrail pricing, combined with not having got back to pre-Covid service levels, means that the last couple of times I've been to Glasgow it's been much cheaper, not that much slower, and just as convenient to get the bus. Given the way bus pricing is going, I'm not seeing me making much use of Scotrail at all going forward.

Now there's a difference - my commute takes twice as long by bus.

In terms of local pricing, I find Great Western's Cornwall fares to be pretty good, but as mentioned previously, its a pretty mixed bag south of the border.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't think I'd be exaggerating to say I've been fed the LNER "When I ride the train I feel like freedom" advert on Youtube over a hundred times now.

It doesn't quite sum up my view of their new pricing policy.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think I'd be exaggerating to say I've been fed the LNER "When I ride the train I feel like freedom" advert on Youtube over a hundred times now.

It doesn't quite sum up my view of their new pricing policy.

Yes, it's when I get to London and can start using my Network Railcard that the freedom tends to kick in.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

The LNER trial is annoying because it removes rail as a flexible and convenient option. To their credit LNER had already sorted out single-leg pricing with only a relatively small price increase baked in. In practice I still travel by rail on the East Coast, albeit more reluctantly, usually on Lumo, and without being willing to pay any premium at all over air travel.

When considering what you are prepared to pay compared to air, do you factor in the full door-to-door cost/convenience? I ask that not knowing whether the stations or airports are more or less convenient for your origin/destination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When considering what you are prepared to pay compared to air, do you factor in the full door-to-door cost/convenience? I ask that not knowing whether the stations or airports are more or less convenient for your origin/destination.

Pulled that out into a new thread, I think it's an interesting discussion in itself:

Rail travel vs. air travel - fair comparisons?

Thought it worth a thread in itself on fairness of comparison between rail and air for long journeys rather than it just being an aside in the LNER fare increase trial thread... When considering what you are prepared to pay compared to air, do you factor in the full door-to-door...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[takno]

When considering what you are prepared to pay compared to air, do you factor in the full door-to-door cost/convenience? I ask that not knowing whether the stations or airports are more or less convenient for your origin/destination.

Mostly going to south London, so Gatwick is a bit quicker journey and a similar price to Kings Cross. If I'm on an advance train ticket I realistically have to be at Kings Cross 55 minutes early anyway, so the waiting time benefit is very small. Bus in Edinburgh is cheapish and doesn't take that long.

In practice I usually end up on Lumo. The point is that I used to be able to just know that I could buy a train ticket for a tolerable price and then go with the flow - even the torture of combining Azuma seats with my extremely incompatible back could be alleviated with a break at York. All the benefits of civilised walk-up train travel.

Under the new ticketing arrangements I have to plan travel, and it's really only thanks to an open access operator that train wins.

 

[yorksrob]

Does anyone know what Transport Focus' view is on all of this ?

Seen an interview with the CE
in rail 1056 and it didn't mention it at all, which is quite surprising really.

There were the usual government blandishments about there being "winners and losers"

 

[yorksrob]

Just reading Rail 1065 (page 8) and in what's perhaps not exactly a "Surprise Surprise" Cilla moment, Lord Hendy has been quoted as saying the that the trial has been deemed a success and that he "expects GBR's long-distance ticketing option to be similar".

He is also quoted as saying a few lines later:

"I'm amazed by the relatively low seat occupation of some of the advanced services out of Euston, and that's because fares are so high".

If Lord Hendy thinks that removing acceptable value off-peak fares will alleviate the problem of fares being too high, I'll have what he's smoking.

 

[Adam Williams]

What's an advanced service out of Euston?

 

[redreni]

What's an advanced service out of Euston?

A question for DfT, perhaps (if that's an accurate quote from the Rail Minister)?

 

[Krokodil]

If Lord Hendy thinks that removing acceptable value off-peak fares will alleviate the problem of fares being too high, I'll have what he's smoking.

Indeed. Avanti should have a trial of the Scotrail model - scrap the Anytime fares. It's the Off Peak trains that are full, remember. When Avanti (or was it the latter days of Virgin?) scrapped Friday peak restrictions it was a profitable move.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Avanti should have a trial of the Scotrail model - scrap the Anytime fares. It's the Off Peak trains that are full, remember. When Avanti (or was it the latter days of Virgin?) scrapped Friday peak restrictions it was a profitable move.

Indeed. It's funny that the great and good of the industry are silent about the abolition of peak fares in Scotland.

 

[Farigiraf]

"I'm amazed by the relatively low seat occupation of some of the advanced services out of Euston, and that's because fares are so high".

I'm beginning to think that Lord Hendy hasn't been on a train in at least a decade, discounting press trips. Wouldn't be surprised.

he "expects GBR's long-distance ticketing option to be similar".

Where do you draw the line?
Will York - Darlington have a flexible option? How about York - Newcastle? York - Edinburgh?
All journeys that are daytrippable by distance, but currently have high demand and low capacity, and are only served by long-distance services.

Overall it's interesting to see the DfT's 'zero growth, maximum profit' railway strategy developing. Maybe a few years from now, when sitting on the slow and depressing Flixbus to Edinburgh (because the LNER service will start at £100 and Lumo will be sold out), I'll be looking back at 2026 with nostalgia.

 

[JonathanH]

Where do you draw the line?
Will York - Darlington have a flexible option? How about York - Newcastle? York - Edinburgh?
All journeys that are daytrippable by distance, but currently have high demand and low capacity, and are only served by long-distance services.

The change to this kind of pricing has been on the cards ever since RDG's 'easier fares for all' consultation over seven years ago. The line is drawn broadly at the separate travel to work areas around the major conurbations.

This from 2019, on long distance fares

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2019-02_easier_fares_for_all.pdf

In long distance markets, there is in most cases a regulated Off-Peak (formerly Saver) Return fare. The regulation of these fares at very specific time bands of travel, has held some fares at an artificially low level below that which the market can sustain, while increasing fares at other times to compensate. The effect is often underutilised, more expensive services at natural Peak times (this varies between operators, but generally falls before 0900 and between 1630 and 1930), and typically over-crowded, cheaper services during the ‘shoulder Peak’ (immediately before and after the above times).

The current regulation in these markets works against the interests of customers by distorting the ability to offer competitive prices at the times people most want to travel and restricting the ability to manage demand to reduce overcrowding. We consider that external market forces exert a powerful incentive in this market and this is supported by analysis from KPMG indicating that current long-distance regulation could be hampering the ability to ensure that a range of good prices are offered throughout the day.

We are however aware of the need for
assurance around continuing regulation to protect affordable access to the network and in particular about protecting access to the walk-up railway.

For this reason, we are proposing that for contracted or franchised long-distance services, there could be some regulation of the overall level of revenue that can be raised, while allowing appropriate demand management on individual services, so fares can be adjusted to make journeys more comfortable. This approach, unlike the current one, would enable appropriate protection where this is necessary, while unlocking innovation of fare types and structures which would be of wider benefit to customers, for example greater use of service-specific fares throughout the day.

These fares would be available to purchase both in advance as well as up to the point of departure, with analysis indicating that reform would enable up to 80% of off-peak trains to have lower walk-up fares than currently available – supporting customers’ need to be able to ‘walk-up and go’. This price point could be used to replace the current regulated Off-Peak products to prevent market distortions.

Combined with fares levels that better reflect value by reducing ‘price cliffs’ between Peak and Off-Peak periods and allowing customers to better match actual departure times to preferred departure times, overcrowding could be reduced by up to a third on some of the busiest services, while making better use of existing capacity.

The 'flexible option' becomes the anytime single, but train-specific tickets are available up to the time of departure.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm beginning to think that Lord Hendy hasn't been on a train in at least a decade, discounting press trips. Wouldn't be surprised.


Where do you draw the line?
Will York - Darlington have a flexible option? How about York - Newcastle? York - Edinburgh?
All journeys that are daytrippable by distance, but currently have high demand and low capacity, and are only served by long-distance services.

Overall it's interesting to see the DfT's 'zero growth, maximum profit' railway strategy developing. Maybe a few years from now, when sitting on the slow and depressing Flixbus to Edinburgh (because the LNER service will start at £100 and Lumo will be sold out), I'll be looking back at 2026 with nostalgia.

A walk on ticket from York to Darlington is already fairly eye watering for the distance.

If the DfT does succeed in establishing a zero growth, maximum profit railway it will be a political failure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2026 ==

The change to this kind of pricing has been on the cards ever since RDG's 'easier fares for all' consultation over seven years ago. The line is drawn broadly at the separate travel to work areas around the major conurbations.

This from 2019, on long distance fares

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2019-02_easier_fares_for_all.pdf

The 'flexible option' becomes the anytime single, but train-specific tickets are available up to the time of departure.

It may have been on the cards, but its still a terrible idea and no way to run a railway.

Who exactly has decided on this course of action ? Not passengers, that's for sure.

There's been no scrutiny, not from the likes of Transport for the North, nor the supine railway press, which dismisses dissent about these changes as being just "social media".

 

[Farigiraf]

The line is drawn broadly at the separate travel to work areas around the major conurbations.

These very rarely don't have any overlap though. For example, there's plenty of commuting from Yorkshire to Greater Manchester, from the south WCML to both London and Birmingham, and from South Wales to Bristol. At the same time, there isn't much commuting from e.g. Wrexham to Manchester or Brecon to Cardiff, which are similar distances away from the major city as some busy commuter towns are.

From e.g. Cardiff to either Abergavenny or Hereford: will one flow have flexible fare options, with the other only allowing fixed (or 70 min flex) tickets? On top of the obvious price gouging, I don't see this becoming much simpler than it is now.
The UK rail network is not like France or Spain - most frequencies are predictable and fairly high, with 1 or 2 trains an hour on most intercity routes. Many, many people travelling from one place to another choose to take a train a few hours later for some reason or other, not always within their control. Certainly for a day trip down to London I'll never get an advance on the return journey, and Cambridge isn't exactly in inner London commuterland.

If the airline model is followed further, such passengers may have to pay a major premium for flexibility, or will face a lot of extra complications when trying to amend an advance ticket. These travellers will just choose to drive, or not travel at all.

A walk on ticket from York to Darlington is already fairly eye watering for the distance.

At least it exists. If you know exactly which trains you're taking, there are plenty of advance fares for these routes. But there's 4 or 5 trains an hour between the two cities, so there's little reason to force passengers to take one of them in particular. The fact that the walk-up fare is expensive is already bad enough, getting rid of it altogether is rubbing salt in the wound.

 

[takno]

Where do you draw the line?
Will York - Darlington have a flexible option? How about York - Newcastle? York - Edinburgh?
All journeys that are daytrippable by distance, but currently have high demand and low capacity, and are only served by long-distance services.

You presumably draw the in the same place other European operators with stupid fares models draw the line: trains that go fast have to be booked, trains that go slow are walk-up fares. Passengers from Durham to Newcastle can jolly well use a Thameslink train like the Stevenage to London crowd.

The really strange thing about this is the idea that GBR's pricing model is any of the minister's business. The government can decide that affordable open ticketing isn't a priority for them, but it would be strange for them to determine that they are politically opposed to it. If an independent organisation run by professionals determines that open ticketing maximises revenue and ridership then it isn't good non-executive leadership to second-guess that.