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

[JonathanH]

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

Actually passengers arguably have decided on this course of action. Most passengers think of long-distance rail journeys as point-to-point displacement, and buy advance fares for those long distance journeys. Enthusiasts may not do so, but they are a subset of the travelling public.

 

[Farigiraf]

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.

From one rabbit hole into another we jump! All in the interests of passengers of course!
Don't mind the fact that the AP fare on numerous LNER routes is higher than the equivalent in Switzerland or the Netherlands, countries where all tickets are fully flexible with full Break of Journey validity.
What's a 'fast' train and what isn't? Quickfire round: GWR Penzance-London between local stops in Devon/Cornwall. Northern Barrow and Windermere services from Manchester. LNER, XC and Scotrail Inter7City along the Dundee-Aberdeen line. Southeastern trains from Medway to Victoria that are just as fast as HS1. Marches line long distance services. TPE to/from Yarm, Malton, Northallerton and Thirsk. Hope you got all of those right, or you get a penalty fare!

 

[AlterEgo]

From one rabbit hole into another we jump! All in the interests of passengers of course!
Don't mind the fact that the AP fare on numerous LNER routes is higher than the equivalent in Switzerland or the Netherlands, countries where all tickets are fully flexible with full Break of Journey validity.
What's a 'fast' train and what isn't? Quickfire round: GWR Penzance-London between local stops in Devon/Cornwall. Northern Barrow and Windermere services from Manchester. LNER, XC and Scotrail Inter7City along the Dundee-Aberdeen line. Southeastern trains from Medway to Victoria that are just as fast as HS1. Marches line long distance services. TPE to/from Yarm, Malton, Northallerton and Thirsk. Hope you got all of those right, or you get a penalty fare!

It's less difficult to differentiate than you'd think. It's clear in Germany what an ICE is, it ought also to be the case here under GBR.

 

[Farigiraf]

and buy advance fares for those long distance journeys.

It doesn't exactly help that the advance fare's often the only sensible option for those journeys, with walk-up fares being gradually increased over the years.

Then since the walk-ups were removed on LNER, they've been gradually raising the advance fare. It's a clever game of social engineering that's gone on for the last decade or two so that the DfT can get away with swapping to the French rail pricing model (which isn't exactly popular). Of course very few people will be choosing the LNER Anytime single, but the price of it is a deliberate decision. It's expensive because they don't want anybody to use it, not the other way round.

Yes, most passengers think of long-distance trips as point-to-point displacement. But no definition of that also means that the average passenger only wants to take one specific train, and wants to have to pay more to take the one twenty minutes later. I'm sure that you've at least once experienced a road traffic jam or diversion, bus delay, medical emergency or museum visit time overrun that requires taking a later train.

 

[yorksrob]

Actually passengers arguably have decided on this course of action. Most passengers think of long-distance rail journeys as point-to-point displacement, and buy advance fares for those long distance journeys. Enthusiasts may not do so, but they are a subset of the travelling public.

Some passengers (myself included) have for some journeys.

If many passengers are already choosing the railway Establishment's preferred type of fare, why then remove the passengers choice of an off-peak fare ?

 

[Farigiraf]

It's less difficult to differentiate than you'd think. It's clear in Germany what an ICE is, it ought also to be the case here under GBR.

There aren't any German stations only served by ICE and IC trains. There are many, many stations in GB where 50-100% of train services are longer-distance trains that call there due to capacity constraints.

For example, you'd have to introduce a Northern service between York and Scarborough, York and Middlesbrough, a ScotRail local train between Dundee and Aberdeen (that runs more than a few times a day) and between Inverness and Perth, a 2nd GWR local stopper on the Cornish mainline, and so on. For that, you need to build infrastructure to permit additional trains on the line. But that's expensive, so the Treasury won't allow it.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't exactly help that the advance fare's often the only sensible option for those journeys, with walk-up fares being gradually increased over the years. Then since the walk-ups were removed on LNER, they've been gradually raising the advance fare. It's a clever game of social engineering that's gone on for the last decade or two so that the DfT can get away with swapping to the French rail pricing model (which isn't exactly popular).

Yes, if you only offer one affordable option, it's hardly surprising that people appear to "choose" it.

I " choose" to breathe air, because it happens to be the only atmosphere provided.

 

[AlterEgo]

There aren't any German stations only served by ICE and IC trains. There are many, many stations in GB where 50-100% of train services are longer-distance trains that call there due to capacity constraints.

For example, you'd have to introduce a Northern service between York and Scarborough, York and Middlesbrough, a ScotRail local train between Dundee and Aberdeen (that runs more than a few times a day) and between Inverness and Perth, a 2nd GWR local stopper on the Cornish mainline, and so on. For that, you need to build infrastructure to permit additional trains on the line. But that's expensive, so the Treasury won't do it.

Of course, but there is no reason that on those flows you simply would not have a "ban" enforced by ticket restriction.

(FWIW I wouldn't have Transpennine as intercity)

 

[yorksrob]

It's less difficult to differentiate than you'd think. It's clear in Germany what an ICE is, it ought also to be the case here under GBR.

Why should passengers between for example, York and Doncaster be made to accept overpriced travel just because its served by an InterCity train ?

 

[A S Leib]

For example, you'd have to introduce a Northern service between York and Scarborough, York and Middlesbrough, a ScotRail local train between Dundee and Aberdeen (that runs more than a few times a day) and between Inverness and Perth, a 2nd GWR local stopper on the Cornish mainline, and so on

As well as at Swindon, which has ~5 intercity tph and a regional offer of around 1tp2h towards Westbury*, and plenty of cases like the Coventry – Wolverhampton corridor (especially the western half) where intercity services have more capacity than regional ones.

*That could be solved by 387s from Paddington to Temple Meads if electrification were completed, with Bristol Parkway services being reinstated and those being the IC ones. That would mean either Bath and Chippenham losing most or all of their IC ones (unpopular), or IC and regional services with effectively the same stopping patterns. Treating Swindon – Gloucester as regional regardless of rolling stock, and saying "regional" Swindon – Cardiff passengers could go via Bristol, seem like easier fixes. This is getting to be a rather long diversion on my part from LNER fares.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why should passengers between for example, York and Doncaster be made to accept overpriced travel just because its served by an InterCity train ?

I haven't said it should cost more.

 

[Farigiraf]

Of course, but there is no reason that on those flows you simply would not have a "ban" enforced by ticket restriction.

(FWIW I wouldn't have Transpennine as intercity)

With the Yarm/Thirsk example, let's look at how you'd do that:
Flexible: Anywhere to Thirsk, Anywhere to Yarm, Anywhere to Northallerton, Eaglescliffe to Thornaby/Middlesbrough/Redcar Central
Fixed (Long distance journeys): Middlesbrough/Thornaby/Redcar Central to York, anywhere to Leeds or Manchester. Not classifying TPE as intercity means these flows wouldn't be classed as long-distance, even though they certainly are.
All on the same train. Every hour, every day of the week. While the prices go up for the average traveller.

Or you could just take the A19 and/or A1(M). Cheaper, simpler, probably faster door-to-door.

This is the major simplification we're talking about?

You can only separate intercity and regional perfectly if you either have plenty of both, or you have high-speed lines serving every long-distance flow. With current infrastructure project time scales, we'd achieve either of those no earlier than 30 years from now.

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

*That could be solved by 387s from Paddington to Temple Meads if electrification were completed, with Bristol Parkway services being reinstated and those being the IC ones. That would mean either Bath and Chippenham losing most or all of their IC ones (unpopular), or IC and regional services with effectively the same stopping patterns. Treating Swindon – Gloucester as regional regardless of rolling stock, and saying "regional" Swindon – Cardiff passengers could go via Bristol, seem like easier fixes. This is getting to be a rather long diversion on my part from LNER fares.

That's a lot of work to achieve a 'simplification' that'll only be simpler to those who could probably afford a private taxi transfer end-to-end. Which is no different from now.
FYI for Bath, don't for a second assume that the DfT will ever approve removing intercity services from there, it's a busy tourist flow!

 

[yorksrob]

I haven't said it should cost more.

More than what a similar journey on the regional network would cost (apologies, should have been clearer).

 

[AlterEgo]

More than what a similar journey on the regional network would cost (apologies, should have been clearer).

How much does it cost at present compared to York to Leeds, a much shorter journey that has a stopper alternative?

 

[Krokodil]

It's less difficult to differentiate than you'd think. It's clear in Germany what an ICE is, it ought also to be the case here under GBR.

Of course, but there is no reason that on those flows you simply would not have a "ban" enforced by ticket restriction.

So in one statement you're saying that we could clearly delineate between Intercity services and the rest; presumably so that the former can have compulsory reservations, unfettered yield management etc.

In the next you're suggesting exceptions be made for those flows that don't have a regional alternative (Warrington-Wigan for example, or anything out of Penrith).

And this is supposed to be simplification? "You have a regional ticket so you can't get on the intercity services. Except that you can get on the intercity services listed here in the small print, but only between certain stations"

 

[AlterEgo]

So in one statement you're saying that we could clearly delineate between Intercity services and the rest; presumably so that the former can have compulsory reservations, unfettered yield management etc.

In the next you're suggesting exceptions be made for those flows that don't have a regional alternative (Warrington-Wigan for example, or anything out of Penrith).

And this is supposed to be simplification? "You have a regional ticket so you can't get on the intercity services. Except that you can get on the intercity services listed here in the small print, but only between certain stations"

I am not arguing for simplification of the system!

 

[MarlowDonkey]

"You have a regional ticket so you can't get on the intercity services. Except that you can get on the intercity services listed here in the small print, but only between certain stations"

Doesn't that happen already on TOC restricted tickets where there are two TOCs operating services, one being the express and the other the stopping services? I'm thinking the services out of Euston with Avanti against LNW/WMR.

 

[yorksrob]

How much does it cost at present compared to York to Leeds, a much shorter journey that has a stopper alternative?

York to Doncaster doesn't appear to have a return or a cheap day return on NRE. The only non-advanced fare I can find is an anytime day single at £23.40, meaning a return of £46.80.

York - Leeds has an off-peak day return of £20.20. Still extortionate IMO, but a lot better than Doncaster.

 

[JamesT]

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.

You may not have noticed, but the UK has an extremely centralised government. The government provides a large chunk of the funding for the industry, so they get to have a say. The minister gets a hammering even if it isn’t under their control.
But earlier posts in this thread have suggested that this ticket model is what the railway professionals have come up with. The quote of Hendy is that he expects this to be the model, not that he’s told proto-GBR to make it so. The direction from government is to reduce subsidy.

 

[Starmill]

Passengers from Durham to Newcastle can jolly well use a Thameslink train like the Stevenage to London crowd.

I'm in favour of this option if the people advocating for it are in favour of an even 6tph / 10 min service from Durham to Newcastle, all of which are accessible at this price. I'd be willing to compromise and allow 4tph / 15 min service but no worse under any circumstances. Any negative effect on the long-distance service is this might have would be just too bad

 

[takno]

The quote of Hendy is that he expects this to be the model, not that he’s told proto-GBR to make it so. The direction from government is to reduce subsidy.

I think when I read quotes from government ministers I read expect as being directive rather than predictive. It's possible Hendy is just making an observation, but it seems like a risky way to do it when you're in a position which has the power to direct.

I'm not sure that ticket model was devised by railway professionals. There hasn't been a great deal of public comment from any relevant professionals, and the whole thing has an air of having been driven start-to-end by Whitehall.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

That's fine, so long as the cheap (fare) Thameslink like train exists.

I've waxed lyrical on many occasions how LNWR's affordable walk-on fare model is wonderful, and why can't we have it on the ECML ?

In terms of Government interference, I suppose they have a duty to ensure that His Majesty's realm is run in an orderly manner, for the benefit of His Majesty's subjects. The problem occurs when they seem intent on making everything worse (as with the so-called LNER fares trial.

 

[Krokodil]

Doesn't that happen already on TOC restricted tickets where there are two TOCs operating services, one being the express and the other the stopping services? I'm thinking the services out of Euston with Avanti against LNW/WMR.

Yes but at least the trains are a different colour, so the passengers have half a chance. And the LNW ones actually exist, which they don't if you're going between Wigan and Warrington.

Saying "you can't use Avanti trains with this ticket, except that you can if you're just going between Wigan and Warrington, or going to Penrith, so long as you use the Scotrail stopper via the G&SW to get to Carlisle..." is where we'd end up if this became a nationwide thing without having stoppers available on all lines.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

It's a short daytrip.

One shouldn't have to rely on the vagaries of the AP market of the day to get a reasonable fare.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes but at least the trains are a different colour, so the passengers have half a chance. And the LNW ones actually exist, which they don't if you're going between Wigan and Warrington.

Saying "you can't use Avanti trains with this ticket, except that you can if you're just going between Wigan and Warrington, or going to Penrith, so long as you use the Scotrail stopper via the G&SW to get to Carlisle..." is where we'd end up if this became a nationwide thing without having stoppers available on all lines.

The big question here is "so what"?

If IC routes became compulsory reservation - so what? Every attempt at reform is met with sacred cow objections, and frankly quite a few have been sacrificed already without much difference either to rail's national utility or the bottom line.

 

[yorksrob]

The big question here is "so what"?

If IC routes became compulsory reservation - so what? Every attempt at reform is met with sacred cow objections, and frankly quite a few have been sacrificed already without much difference either to rail's national utility or the bottom line.

Nonsense. The railway is a public service, not an airline.

The railway has no business playing at airlines, it is there to serve the public.

We've put up with this "free-market" drivel that has led to amongst other things, higher than average (compared with peer countries) fuel bills and sewage filled rivers.

It's time this nonsense was knocked on the head.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nonsense. The railway is a public service, not an airline.

The railway has no business playing at airlines, it is there to serve the public.

We've put up with this "free-market" drivel that has led to amongst other things, higher than average (compared with peer countries) fuel bills and sewage filled rivers.

It's time this nonsense was knocked on the head.

The idea that railways that preserve their flagship offering by making reservations compulsory are somehow poor public services is just kneejerk reactionary thinking. The point of compulsory reservation is actually the opposite of the free market you deride; only GBR will control the allocations, it'll all be nicely centralised and nationalised, and there will be a limit on capacity. It actually will be nearly the opposite of the "free market".

The railways are not a sewer for people to travel on as unpleasantly as possible; packing long distance expresses to the gunwales is not offering a good public service. Asking the railway to do everything and get nothing right cannot stand for much longer.

 

[Adam Williams]

If IC routes became compulsory reservation - so what?

You create a giant single point of failure on a service which:

• Doesn't have any actual on-call coverage (from engineers who can fix infrastructure) for if problems happen out-of-hours
• Isn't owned by the rail industry (is "rented" from a third-party supplier)
• Goes down for hours when a TLS certificate isn't renewed on schedule (and has [or at least, had] no monitoring for any such impending failures)

There will be a complete loss of revenue during this downtime, because the railway will have decided to pretend to be an airline and prevent tickets from being sold by decentralised, reliable parties for people to use on a walk-up basis.

only GBR will control the allocations, it'll all be nicely centralised

Yes, what could go wrong?

---

I understand that signatures on the forum aren't visible to all users, so let me re-iterate in this post that: Comments above reflect my own personal views and my understanding of the state of the management of this service.

 

[yorksrob]

The idea that railways that preserve their flagship offering by making reservations compulsory are somehow poor public services is just kneejerk reactionary thinking. The point of compulsory reservation is actually the opposite of the free market you deride; only GBR will control the allocations, it'll all be nicely centralised and nationalised, and there will be a limit on capacity. It actually will be nearly the opposite of the "free market".

The railways are not a sewer for people to travel on as unpleasantly as possible; packing long distance expresses to the gunwales is not offering a good public service. Asking the railway to do everything and get nothing right cannot stand for much longer.

It's the opposite of the free market, in favour of the vendor, with minimal information to the buyer.

Trains always seem to have crowding - look at CrossCountry where we seem to pay premium fares and still have the crowding.

To suggest that everything has to be flogged at the highest commercial price for the lowest possible service is "free market" bunkham. We may well be turds in the sewer, but we are tax-paying turds through our taxes and we are entitled to the service we pay for.

And for people who don't want to travel with the hoi polloi ? The railway has an answer to that - first class. If the railway want's to promote unaffordable walk-on fares for the elite, first class is the place to do it.

 

[Mainline421]

The idea that railways that preserve their flagship offering by making reservations compulsory are somehow poor public services is just kneejerk reactionary thinking. The point of compulsory reservation is actually the opposite of the free market you deride; only GBR will control the allocations, it'll all be nicely centralised and nationalised, and there will be a limit on capacity. It actually will be nearly the opposite of the "free market".

The railways are not a sewer for people to travel on as unpleasantly as possible; packing long distance expresses to the gunwales is not offering a good public service. Asking the railway to do everything and get nothing right cannot stand for much longer.

I don't know why you insist that the railway should only exist as a government subsidised rich man's play thing to take people on holiday. And that no one should have a choice in the matter, and that this some how benefits those on lower incomes?


If premium travel conditions are a concern make first class reservation compulsory, that's what it's for.