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

[AlterEgo]

On the other had if the price differential between off peak and Advances is next to nothing, it's worth paying slightly extra for the flexibility. There's also the risk of financial loss if unable to use the Advance ticket in circumstances where the ticket isn't valid on subsequent trains.

A ticket p[tion that no longer seems to exist was that you got an Advance for the trip out and a cut price Single for the return journey. Ideal for weekend leisure trips where you can be prepared to commit to a fixed departure but not a fixed return.

That was the old Saver Half Return, it was online only if I recall.

 

[Adam Williams]

The cost-constrained traveller heading to an exploratory meeting may end up "killing time" if the meeting turns out to be quite short, because they had to book fixed-train tickets that allowed enough time for a lengthier meeting.

Which wouldn't be so bad if stations had better facilities for waiting around, but you're lucky if you even manage to find somewhere to sit down at Euston when it's busy.

 

[Egg Centric]

Pushing people from flexible to fixed-train journeys (whether through imposing reservations-only or by pricing them off flexible tickets) is really bad for national productivity.

The rational HS2 passenger on a fixed-train ticket will spend upwards of 30 minutes travelling at 0mph before their 45 mins at 200mph because they have had to allow for traffic/transport disruptions that might see them severely punished if they miss their booked train.

The cost-constrained traveller heading to an exploratory meeting may end up "killing time" if the meeting turns out to be quite short, because they had to book fixed-train tickets that allowed enough time for a lengthier meeting.

And that is before factoring in the extra time spent booking and amending your tickets.

It can't be *that* bad for national productivity because if the person's time is truely worth thousands an hour then the employer will pay the extra for flexibility.

 

[Mozd]

That was the old Saver Half Return, it was online only if I recall.

I got a useful ticket on SWR the other day that was fixed train out (like an advance) and any train back. It suited my day perfectly. I think it was called something like semi-flexible

 

[Watershed]

I got a useful ticket on SWR the other day that was fixed train out (like an advance) and any train back. It suited my day perfectly. I think it was called something like semi-flexible

Yes, the SWR SemiFlex. Not a bad idea in principle but it has equivalent restrictions to the Super Off-Peak Return on the return portion, which make it extremely inflexible despite what the name suggests. If it had equivalent restrictions to the Off-Peak Return it might be more worthwhile. It's also completely non-refundable whereas the Saver Half part of a return booking was refundable.

 

[Farigiraf]

Hendy and the clique that advises him are small thinkers who attach no value to passengers' time.

You are absolutely correct, though. It's common sense: you allow plenty of time if it's critical to be on a specific train, but if i isn't critical then you can leave quite a bit later aiming for the same train and catching it most of the time. Overall waiting time much less. Overall journeys much quicker and more efficient. Artificially introducing criticality to being at the terrminus in time for a particular train reduces efficiency.

Which wouldn't be so bad if stations had better facilities for waiting around, but you're lucky if you even manage to find somewhere to sit down at Euston when it's busy.

I've started a trivia thread on the stations that will be the most affected by the upcoming changes: link

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, the SWR SemiFlex. Not a bad idea in principle but it has equivalent restrictions to the Super Off-Peak Return on the return portion, which make it extremely inflexible despite what the name suggests. If it had equivalent restrictions to the Off-Peak Return it might be more worthwhile. It's also completely non-refundable whereas the Saver Half part of a return booking was refundable.

One ticket which did this was the Saturday Day Travelcard that Virgin West Coast had. Fixed train out and any train back on a Saturday. One price though reservations were quota controlled IIRC.

 

[35B]

People's personal plans might mean they simply can't afford to miss a certain train, but in a great many cases that is not so.

On my football trips up north (when Maidenhead were good enough to have games up north) normally involved aiming to be there about 12. It would be no big deal not to get there until 12.30 or 1pm. The only thing making it a big deal is the high cost of changing the ticket (or writing off the first ticket and buying another if the intended train was missed narrowly).

If it's just a matter of comfort and having a reserved seat, that is perfectly possible with a flexible ticket and you don't need to allow an extra half hour or whatever to make certain of catching the intended train, because if you miss it you can just go to the ticket office to try and get a reservation on the next one and/or be sure to be among the first to board and grab an unreserved seat. And most of the time you will catch your intended train, just with less padding and a quicker overall journey.

Vdry often it's the threat of a disproportionate financial penalty for missing the train that forces travellers to allow a lot of unnecessary extra time.

Possibly, though I think you’re overestimating the willingness and ability of people to make changes on the fly. But my observation of people planning journeys is that they generally decide where they want to travel between, and then organise themselves to make that journey. The thought of a risk based trade off between a flexible ticket and a fixed one is rare, and the choice is primarily price driven even where the fares are close together.

For example, I recently had to persuade my wife to book a flexible ticket when I knew her journey was fluid and flexibility would be useful, despite the difference being less than £5 and not a high percentage of the fare.

 

[yorksrob]

Possibly, though I think you’re overestimating the willingness and ability of people to make changes on the fly. But my observation of people planning journeys is that they generally decide where they want to travel between, and then organise themselves to make that journey. The thought of a risk based trade off between a flexible ticket and a fixed one is rare, and the choice is primarily price driven even where the fares are close together.

For example, I recently had to persuade my wife to book a flexible ticket when I knew her journey was fluid and flexibility would be useful, despite the difference being less than £5 and not a high percentage of the fare.

Which strongly suggests that the vast majority of people on long distance journeys will choose advanced purchas fares of their own volition and don't need to be corralled into it by removing off peak fares.

This means that the only possible explanation for the desperation to remove off peak fares is to be able to jack up fares further.

 

[Sonic1234]

Which strongly suggests that the vast majority of people on long distance journeys will choose advanced purchas fares of their own volition and don't need to be corralled into it by removing off peak fares.

Not helped by journey planners pushing the cheapest fare at you and hiding other tickets, even when that cheapest fare is only by a pound or two.

 

[35B]

Which strongly suggests that the vast majority of people on long distance journeys will choose advanced purchas fares of their own volition and don't need to be corralled into it by removing off peak fares.

This means that the only possible explanation for the desperation to remove off peak fares is to be able to jack up fares further.

Very possibly, which I also note has been government policy for the last 20-odd years (well, expressed as reducing the share of rail income provided by subsidy).

The free market economist in me then notes a couple of things which neither proponents nor opponents of this seem to have noted. First is that if people will pay more for their tickets than they are being charged at present, that is income that the railway is not getting benefit of. Second is that there are alternatives to rail travel - both other modes of transport and also not travelling at all (including Zoom etc.) which mean that there will be a point at which increased prices will reduce total income.

Before anyone jumps in and says "what about those who can't afford...", I also agree that there are political limits to what is acceptable. But that doesn't remove the difficult questions around who the subsidies are intended to benefit.

 

[WillC]

Rail ticketing is an abject disgrace designed to over-complicate, confuse, and push passengers towards unnecessary expense and anxiety. Singles only (bin returns), no peak/off-peak, no advanced nonsense - one ticket for one journey, on ANY ToC. If this means prices have to go up then we need an adult conversation re. subsidies and what transport we want to nudge people towards.

 

[A S Leib]

no advanced nonsense -

Only if long-distance flexible fares would be brought down enough to be affordable. If they were at similar levels to Belgium – with Train+, €14 per journey for the same distance as Manchester to London without peak restrictions – I could accept it, but not if it becomes impossible to travel long distances, especially in the peaks, for below £100.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2026 ==

one ticket for one journey, on ANY ToC

There's plenty of cases where TOC-specific fares undercut others by too small amounts and with too little time distances to make sense, but for cases like London to Birmingham (at least pre-HS2) I think they should be kept, or simplified into intercity and non-intercity rather than separate via High Wycombe and LNR/WMR fares.

 

[andy33gmail]

But my observation of people planning journeys is that they generally decide where they want to travel between, and then organise themselves to make that journey. The thought of a risk based trade off between a flexible ticket and a fixed one is rare, and the choice is primarily price driven even where the fares are close together.

I would still contend that this doesn’t have to lead to people picking a particular train

If I decided to drive somewhere, I’d be working on the basis of how long the journey takes, and either backwards from an intended arrival time or forwards to co-ordinate a time. Or to be flippant, I don’t need to decide that I want to be at Black Cat by 11:00 and Scotch Corner by 18:00

At this risk of building a strawman, you are saying that if you were to use the train instead, most people would [need to] pick an itinerary to do this

Whereas depending on service frequency and number of changes, I could take the time approach “It takes about 3 hours to get there”

Naturally the time approach maps better to TfL with frequent random arrivals and lots of alternative routing whereas the itinerary approach maps better to infrequent but reliable trains (if such a thing exists)

 

[35B]

I would still content this doesn’t have to lead to people picking a particular train

If I decided to drive somewhere, I’d be working on the basis of how long the journey takes, and either backwards from an intended arrival time or forwards to co-ordinate a time

At this risk of building a strawman, you are saying that if you were to use the train instead, most people would [need to] pick an itinerary to do this

Whereas depending on service frequency and number of changes, I would take the “car” approach “It takes about 3 hours to get there”

Naturally the time approach maps better to TfL with frequent random arrivals and lots of alternative routing whereas the itinerary approach maps better to infrequent but reliable trains (if such a thing exists)

Within rapid transit areas, I agree with your approach. My point is about long distance journeys, where the package of journey time, price, and booking all come together. It is what very many people do, and where the AP approach is what very many people choose to buy because of its convenience - just as so many people buy package holidays.

 

[redreni]

Not helped by journey planners pushing the cheapest fare at you and hiding other tickets, even when that cheapest fare is only by a pound or two.

Exactly. The claim is that a "revealed preference" has emerged under those conditions. I'd like to see a controlled experiment that isn't goosed to yield the desired result before I concede that point.

 

[35B]

Exactly. The claim is that a "revealed preference" has emerged under those conditions. I'd like to see a controlled experiment that isn't goosed to yield the desired result before I concede that point.

The revealed preference is not just from loaded experiments, it's what millions of people do over time.

 

[AlterEgo]

The revealed preference is not just from loaded experiments, it's what millions of people do over time.

The sheer number of people.I used to come across who had bought a £68 advance instead of the £70 off peak single are testament to this. The typical use case is that people on long distances generally prefer to lock down their travel and value the predictability and consistency of this approach. That is completely true and this was the case when buying on mixing decks or other platforms where the Off Peak was certainly shown to the customer.

 

[yorksrob]

Very possibly, which I also note has been government policy for the last 20-odd years (well, expressed as reducing the share of rail income provided by subsidy).

The free market economist in me then notes a couple of things which neither proponents nor opponents of this seem to have noted. First is that if people will pay more for their tickets than they are being charged at present, that is income that the railway is not getting benefit of. Second is that there are alternatives to rail travel - both other modes of transport and also not travelling at all (including Zoom etc.) which mean that there will be a point at which increased prices will reduce total income.

Before anyone jumps in and says "what about those who can't afford...", I also agree that there are political limits to what is acceptable. But that doesn't remove the difficult questions around who the subsidies are intended to benefit.

By the same token, there are also political limits to how much the public are prepared to subsidise a service that is seen as too expensive/premium.

It seems unlikely that the railway will escape the need for subsidy altogether, therefore the commercial urge to obtain as much funding as individuals are prepared to pay is balanced by the political need for the railway to be financially accessible to more people.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2026 ==

The sheer number of people.I used to come across who had bought a £68 advance instead of the £70 off peak single are testament to this. The typical use case is that people on long distances generally prefer to lock down their travel and value the predictability and consistency of this approach. That is completely true and this was the case when buying on mixing decks or other platforms where the Off Peak was certainly shown to the customer.

Or more likely they weren't aware that for two pound extra, they could have still booked a seat reservation but not had the jeopardy of having to pay again if they missed their train.

 

[blimmo]

I think there are plenty of people who book advances with the understanding they'll probably get away with travelling on a train they haven't booked anyway if they need to. They are probably not aware of the maximum potential penalty.

 

[35B]

By the same token, there are also political limits to how much the public are prepared to subsidise a service that is seen as too expensive/premium.

It seems unlikely that the railway will escape the need for subsidy altogether, therefore the commercial urge to obtain as much funding as individuals are prepared to pay is balanced by the political need for the railway to be financially accessible to more people.

Agreed. But if the railways can increase the fares paid without losing demand, that suggests they are under-charging their customers compared to what we would pay

Or more likely they weren't aware that for two pound extra, they could have still booked a seat reservation but not had the jeopardy of having to pay again if they missed their train.

You make the common assumption that other people think like you. Some aren't aware, but for many, they buy the advance because they intend to travel on it and it's the best value for their journey.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed. But if the railways can increase the fares paid without losing demand, that suggests they are under-charging their customers compared to what we would pay

You make the common assumption that other people think like you. Some aren't aware, but for many, they buy the advance because they intend to travel on it and it's the best value for their journey.

On the first point, I don't think it does. It might be undercharging some of its wealthier passengers. Perhaps it means that it should be doing more to attract those to passengers to premium offers such as first class, so the railway can support more people overall.

The second point is isn't really relevant because the proposal isn't to remove advanced purchase fares, so those people won't be disadvantaged (if anything the proposal disadvantages those passengers as well as it allows the railway to hike those fares up more).

 

[35B]

On the first point, I don't think it does. It might be undercharging some of its wealthier passengers. Perhaps it means that it should be doing more to attract those to passengers to premium offers such as first class, so the railway can support more people overall.

My answer was from a straightforward view of supply and demand - if a provider is charging less than the clearing price for their stuff, they will be leaving money on the table.

That understanding is important when making decisions about subsidy - and what those subsidies may achieve.

The second point is isn't really relevant because the proposal isn't to remove advanced purchase fares, so those people won't be disadvantaged (if anything the proposal disadvantages those passengers as well as it allows the railway to hike those fares up more).

The point is not about what fares may be removed or altered, but why people buy what they buy.

 

[Starmill]

Remove interavailable tickets from problem flows (Birmingham to Coventry as one example

In what universe is this a "problem" today? It actually works very, very well as it is today. The stopping London trains are usually full in and out of Birmingham and the express London ones have a small amount of free space, lots in First and Premium, for those who want that. The XC is a problem when a four car turns up but that is a problem at in effect every part of the Manchester - Bournemouth service and has nothing to do with Coventry - Birmingham.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2026 ==

Pushing people from flexible to fixed-train journeys (whether through imposing reservations-only or by pricing them off flexible tickets) is really bad for national productivity.

The rational HS2 passenger on a fixed-train ticket will spend upwards of 30 minutes travelling at 0mph before their 45 mins at 200mph because they have had to allow for traffic/transport disruptions that might see them severely punished if they miss their booked train.

The cost-constrained traveller heading to an exploratory meeting may end up "killing time" if the meeting turns out to be quite short, because they had to book fixed-train tickets that allowed enough time for a lengthier meeting.

And that is before factoring in the extra time spent booking and amending your tickets.

Exactly. It's a complete and utter nonsense.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2026 ==

Yes, the SWR SemiFlex. Not a bad idea in principle but it has equivalent restrictions to the Super Off-Peak Return on the return portion, which make it extremely inflexible despite what the name suggests. If it had equivalent restrictions to the Off-Peak Return it might be more worthwhile. It's also completely non-refundable whereas the Saver Half part of a return booking was refundable.

The SWR implementation is also poorer because it's operator-restricted. The ticket it replaced wasn't restricted. This is a genuine issue because previously you could get connections on GWR without fuss e.g. Bournemouth - Reading Green Park. Now though you're SOL if you show up at the ticket office or ask to book in advance for that.

 

[318266]

There's quite a number of different use cases within my family that I've had to help book with before, which I think may serve relevant to the thread, none being enthusiasts of any descriptor:

• The horrifically frugal economist rambler: Std AP Singles all the time even for a 2 quid saving, prefers to wait around for ages before train to make sure they will make it. However, prefers not to split ticket for smaller savings as it's "too confusing with the reservations" despite having shown him the TrainSplit seat picker. On rare occasions, a flexible return leg might be booked, if it is unknown
• Avoiding "stress": Usually still Std AP Singles for long distance journeys, with the occasional upgrade to 1st when this is not much extra, or a bargain Seatfrog comes up. Will pay extra to travel on direct services, even if limited to inconvenient times (e.g. Glasgow to Milton Keynes)
• The wealthy Americans with little sense: Heavily depends on the route, but usually for long distance either standard day returns (e.g. Glasgow to Oban or Edinburgh), or 1st AP Singles (and/or Std AP + Seatfrog flat upgrade, if cheaper)

Notably, all of these people don't actually need that much flexibility and tend to prefer giving it up in order to save a little bit of money. I think that flexible tickets are always going to be disproportionately used by enthusiasts as they provide significantly more route and traction variety, but in the modern era of planning everything online within a few taps on a couple apps (rather than having to go to a booking office!) people will naturally be used to having an itinerary before travel, that nine times out of ten they will be following even when issued flexible tickets.

It should be said that I don't believe that justifies removing them completely, the railway as a public service should make itself open to as many travel types as possible, and I tend to gravitate towards a Scottish model of increased flexibility (which probably doesn't cost as much as some here may expect).

 

[Starmill]

I think there are plenty of people who book advances with the understanding they'll probably get away with travelling on a train they haven't booked anyway if they need to. They are probably not aware of the maximum potential penalty.

On the rare occasion when a member of staff checking tickets enforces the advance tickets on the right train, you can bet they'll find a substantial proportion of people who are on the wrong train and don't give any reason to be beyond "oh I didn't realise".

Within rapid transit areas, I agree with your approach. My point is about long distance journeys, where the package of journey time, price, and booking all come together. It is what very many people do, and where the AP approach is what very many people choose to buy because of its convenience - just as so many people buy package holidays.

When you're buying a package holiday you typically have a choice of a flight or two per day in peak season to popular destinations, and a flight or two per week otherwise. For most long-distance journeys in this country e.g. London - Manchester / Bristol / Leeds, you're looking at two or more trains per hour. If there were still just five or six through trains or good connections a day between London and Manchester, as is still the case for, say, London - Aberdeenshire, your approach would have merit.

Also, when you're buying a package holiday, it typically isn't possible to drive there at all without also booking an independent transport service at a limited range of times, such as a ferry. It would take so long compared to your Jet2 Holiday to Malaga that it would be utterly impractical. Driving between Manchester and London is the norm practiced by millions of people every year though, with no bookings of anything necessary. It's completely practical and straightforward to do.

 

[Egg Centric]

The wealthy Americans with little sense

Unless they've no sense at all, you should introduce them to BritRail...

 

[A S Leib]

I tend to gravitate towards a Scottish model of increased flexibility (which probably doesn't cost as much as some here may expect).

How does that differ beyond the lack of peak fares (which I'd agree with on the potential cost point, given DB, SBB and ÖBB – or, I think, SNCF, with more routes not having any trains in off-peak hours – don't have peak fares in the GB sense either)?

 

[318266]

Unless they've no sense at all, you should introduce them to BritRail...

It isn't usually worth it, they are mostly coming to see us rather than the country at so aren't on trains most of the time. (For what it is worth, they also usually pay for those they are visiting and are coming with them for whatever reason).

How does that differ beyond the lack of peak fares (which I'd agree with on the potential cost point, given DB, SBB and ÖBB – or, I think, SNCF, with more routes not having any trains in off-peak hours – don't have peak fares in the GB sense either)?

Most ScotRail tickets don't tend to have many heavy route restrictions, and you don't have many SR Only restrictions either where competition with the DafT exists.

 

[Bikeman78]

Chiming in here. These are all perfectly valid points. What I do think you're missing though is the fact that most passenger who experience overcrowding or chaos as a result of no guaranteed seats, are not being presented the question "would you rather have a low-flexibility, high-cost railway, that's a bit more comfortable or one where most people can actually travel if they want to, it just may be very busy at times?"

The questions that are presented are a lot more simplistic at that, and all fail to mention that a move towards a more 'comfortable' railway requires either an increase in investment, or pricing even more people off the trains. Certainly if I asked the people sitting on the floor of the morning peak King's Lynn - King's Cross train, "what would you do to fix this" they'd say "add more carriages", because that's an actually sensible solution. Pricing people off to make it nicer for others is an extreme version of robbing Peter to pay Paul, where in this case Peter is on a modest income while Paul can afford to take a high-demand train service post-price hike. I think the priorities are just in the wrong place.

In the KLN-KGX example, a lot of morning peak trains are already over double the cost of the off-peak fare for lots of people - having to pay the anytime fare + railcards not being valid that early, results in around a 60% price rise. If you want to eliminate overcrowding on this service, you'd likely have to do another 60% price rise. For those paying £60 for a peak time train ticket that's also overcrowded, the current system feels unfair. What's even less fair though, is charging £80-100 with everyone else switching to driving.

Add to that the fact that making a few dozen exceptions or additions to what's otherwise planned to be a fully French-style ticketing system, is just adding more complexity. Having people on TfGM-set fares taking an intercity operator between Wigan and Warrington, or busy peak-time trains that form commuter services (e.g. into Reading, Coventry or Wolverhampton) somehow barring short-distance travellers, are all strategies that add to the complexity of rail ticketing, they don't reduce it. When you consider that this plan would anyway result in loss of flexibility and price-hikes, I'm not a fan of that trade-off.

I don't travel much on LNER or Avanti. I do travel on GWR quite often between Cardiff and Paddington. I nearly always get a seat. The only time I don't is when a five car turns up instead of 10 car, or following severe disruption. The LNER ticket system would do nothing to help in these scenarios and simply reduce flexibility at all other times.