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

[Egg Centric]

for whatever reason

Probably cause they're generous and like their family? I mean I know nothing about your folks at all but I know what a typical American and a typical Scot is like - especially when there's a wealth differential. It's one of the most endearing things about the former, they really are a generous people just so long as it's not going on the liburuhls and xyz agenda .

While I'm not saying it's the same as it's far more extreme (although the UK-USA gap is widening due to respective govt policies) when we're in Zambia we pay for all our extended family with the exception of a couple of well connected ones, it'd be crazy and frankly impossible to share the bill equally. The yanks probably think the same cause you don't have air con and a pick up truck*!

*Maybe you do idk, I'm joshing

 

[andy33gmail]

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.

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

All depends what you’re optimising for

Maximum social good?
Maximum social mobility?
Maximum revenue?

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

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.

Right, but effectively what effects pricing is the net of government subsidy & extraction by shareholders?

That affects the underlying effectiveness of carrying paying passengers per unit money?

 

[Egg Centric]

All depends what you’re optimising for

Maximum social good?
Maximum social mobility?
Maximum revenue?

It should be remembered that in a subsidised + socialised industry in a time of strain on public finances that the two bolded things are almost the same thing and recognition of or disagreement with this key point is I think part of the disconnect here.

 

[35B]

It should be remembered that in a subsidised + socialised industry in a time of strain on public finances that the two bolded things are almost the same thing and recognition of or disagreement with this key point is I think part of the disconnect here.

They’re not the same at all. Consider the cap on bus fares - social good is the purpose, but the result is not revenue maximisation. @andy33gmail ia absolutely right to highlight the importance of deciding the purpose of subsidy when making decisions.

 

[absolutelymilk]

They’re not the same at all. Consider the cap on bus fares - social good is the purpose, but the result is not revenue maximisation. @andy33gmail ia absolutely right to highlight the importance of deciding the purpose of subsidy when making decisions.

If the total amount of subsidy is fixed, then any extra revenue from intercity services would go immediately into either paying for services that serve more of a social good, or investment for lines already at capacity

 

[35B]

If the total amount of subsidy is fixed, then any extra revenue from intercity services would go immediately into either paying for services that serve more of a social good, or investment for lines already at capacity

If that’s the model, then the logic works. I suggest you look at adult residential care to see where that leads - and it’s also a material part of why both National Express and Virgin/Stagecoach ECML franchises failed to meet their growth targets.

I’d also question the logic that says local lines serve more of a social good than intercity routes

 

[yorksrob]

It should be remembered that in a subsidised + socialised industry in a time of strain on public finances that the two bolded things are almost the same thing and recognition of or disagreement with this key point is I think part of the disconnect here.

Not if extracting maximum revenue means that fewer people are able to obtain the social good.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2026 ==

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

It might be acceptable for an independant private company to fleece its customers for as much as it can get, but that is simply not acceptable for a heavily subsidised public service.

People buy flexible fares because they want flexibility. The public railway should facilitate that.

 

[absolutelymilk]

If that’s the model, then the logic works. I suggest you look at adult residential care to see where that leads - and it’s also a material part of why both National Express and Virgin/Stagecoach ECML franchises failed to meet their growth targets.

I’d also question the logic that says local lines serve more of a social good than intercity routes

In adult social care, private care costs significantly more than Local Authorities pay for it, so effectively they are cross-subsidising care for those with low assets.

Agree on local lines not necessarily being more of a social good than intercity routes, but intercity lines are generally already at capacity so more money doesn't necessarily help (unless you put it into investment as I suggested). Having spare cash on local lines means more services can run even if they don't make a profit. Personally I would keep the new fare structure and put the money into increasing capacity, but it's not up to me!

 

[35B]

Not if extracting maximum revenue means that fewer people are able to obtain the social good.

That is the balance that policy makers need to determine.

It might be acceptable for an independant private company to fleece its customers for as much as it can get, but that is simply not acceptable for a heavily subsidised public service.

I agree, which is why DfT's approach to letting franchises (notably) ECML was so unacceptable - it was a matter of government policy that the intercity TOCs were being expected to raise prices to balance the overall budget. For people to keep talking about TOCs as "independent private companies" when they are working on highly prescriptive public contracts is a category error

People buy flexible fares because they want flexibility. The public railway should facilitate that.

That doesn't necessarily follow. You are presuming that the social good requires the form of service that you wish to purchase. It's the same fallacy that tabloid papers fall into when they conflate "what the public are interested in" with "the public interest".

All of this leads onto the point about cross-subsidy, and the expectation that intercity routes should generate a surplus to support other routes. At one level, that's a truism - intercity services tend to generate more income, and be more efficient to provide, so are more likely to generate a surplus. But if that gets taken too far, the effect is perverse - as in my example of adult social care. The surplus from "those who can pay" is used to subsidise "those who can't pay", but is effectively a tax on users so that their fees subsidise those whose fees are paid for them. The same applies to rail fares - and at some point (as with social care) people just can't pay, which undermines the whole system.

 

[Haywain]

Right, but effectively what effects pricing is the net of government subsidy & extraction by shareholders?

There's really none of the latter now that the remaining "private" TOCs are simply being paid a management fee.

 

[takno]

All of this leads onto the point about cross-subsidy, and the expectation that intercity routes should generate a surplus to support other routes. At one level, that's a truism - intercity services tend to generate more income, and be more efficient to provide, so are more likely to generate a surplus. But if that gets taken too far, the effect is perverse - as in my example of adult social care. The surplus from "those who can pay" is used to subsidise "those who can't pay", but is effectively a tax on users so that their fees subsidise those whose fees are paid for them. The same applies to rail fares - and at some point (as with social care) people just can't pay, which undermines the whole system.

In terms of cross-subsidy from intercity routes, it makes sense to me that any cross-subsidy should be restricted to the value of the network effects. More people use intercity trains because they can get through-ticketing, full-journey guarantees, and easy changes from local services to intercity services, so there is clearly some revenue benefit. There are probably also some fairly significant cost benefits as well to being part of a larger network, since it reduces the costs of having staffed stations, shares track maintenance and to some extent provides a training ground for staff.

Ignoring cross-subsidies, it's probably worth providing some level of subsidy to intercity trains generally, because it's a greener form of travel, and it cuts congestion. You may also want to subsidize quite specific requirements of intercity operations, in ways which don't maximize revenue in the annual accounts - encouraging modal shift over the longer term, providing accessible travel, ensuring that travel across the country is available to all, making it cheap to travel/move to jobs in other areas, and making it easier to industry and jobs to spread across the country.

It's not at all clear that the LNER-style mandatory reservations and advance-only ticketing has really achieved anything to anybody's benefit at all. I haven't seen any internal analyses, but given that they are now running dozens of extra trains compared to the start of the trial period, and their revenue increases have been rather modest over the time, I'd suggest that it doesn't increase revenue, and therefore doesn't decrease subsidy.

Equally, it doesn't seem to have driven more people off the roads and onto their trains - standing levels are arguably disappointingly low for the only transport medium which can effectively allow standing, and the seats aren't exactly busy, particularly further north. My experience of West Coast may be slightly restricted, but to me it always seems to load rather better.

Finally, it removes options and confidence about travel from a whole segment of the user base, which acts strongly and directly against the benefits to regional and industrial policy the government should be pursuing. It's all bad, all the way down.

 

[35B]

In terms of cross-subsidy from intercity routes, it makes sense to me that any cross-subsidy should be restricted to the value of the network effects. More people use intercity trains because they can get through-ticketing, full-journey guarantees, and easy changes from local services to intercity services, so there is clearly some revenue benefit. There are probably also some fairly significant cost benefits as well to being part of a larger network, since it reduces the costs of having staffed stations, shares track maintenance and to some extent provides a training ground for staff.

Ignoring cross-subsidies, it's probably worth providing some level of subsidy to intercity trains generally, because it's a greener form of travel, and it cuts congestion. You may also want to subsidize quite specific requirements of intercity operations, in ways which don't maximize revenue in the annual accounts - encouraging modal shift over the longer term, providing accessible travel, ensuring that travel across the country is available to all, making it cheap to travel/move to jobs in other areas, and making it easier to industry and jobs to spread across the country.

It's not at all clear that the LNER-style mandatory reservations and advance-only ticketing has really achieved anything to anybody's benefit at all. I haven't seen any internal analyses, but given that they are now running dozens of extra trains compared to the start of the trial period, and their revenue increases have been rather modest over the time, I'd suggest that it doesn't increase revenue, and therefore doesn't decrease subsidy.

Equally, it doesn't seem to have driven more people off the roads and onto their trains - standing levels are arguably disappointingly low for the only transport medium which can effectively allow standing, and the seats aren't exactly busy, particularly further north. My experience of West Coast may be slightly restricted, but to me it always seems to load rather better.

Finally, it removes options and confidence about travel from a whole segment of the user base, which acts strongly and directly against the benefits to regional and industrial policy the government should be pursuing. It's all bad, all the way down.

And that last analysis is ultimately the interesting one - does the change work in its own terms.

 

[AlterEgo]

People buy flexible fares because they want flexibility. The public railway should facilitate that.

In most cases, people are buying flexible tickets because that's the only option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2026 ==

Driving between Manchester and London is the norm practiced by millions of people every year though

Very doubtful about this claim. It is absolutely not the norm; the train is surely the default mode of travel.

 

[JamesT]

Very doubtful about this claim. It is absolutely not the norm; the train is surely the default mode of travel.

Surface rail has 10% share for trips over 10 miles, cars are 81%. That's over the whole country, but even though London and Manchester have a relatively good service between them, it would be surprising if the train had the majority of share between the two.

 

[Tom]

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.

What ticket did it replace? I can't think of one. I remember thinking it was a genuinely innovative product at the time and I still buy them from time to time when I am travelling in the peaks and the prevailing AP + the semi-flex supplement is less than the equivalent railcard discount coming back.

They came in around 2020 from memory so we only had Super Off Peaks/Off Peaks around then. This would have been around the same time that SWR dropped a lot of the day tickets to London from west/south of Basingstoke/Guildford(?) though. Long after Apex/Superadvance were dropped in favour of Advances which happened under SWT.

The Evening Out change which replaced the super off peaks in the inner areas landed in 2023 ish?

 

[AlterEgo]

Surface rail has 10% share for trips over 10 miles, cars are 81%. That's over the whole country, but even though London and Manchester have a relatively good service between them, it would be surprising if the train had the majority of share between the two.

Ten years ago the Rail Usage Drivers Dataset which informed HS2 strategy estimated - based on data from 2013 (!) - that about 4.5 to 5 million people travel by train directly between London and Manchester's urban areas annually. We can reasonably assume that in line with passenger growth of about 33% (heavy discount for the Elizabeth Line opening) that the upper end of that estimate is fair.

By way of comparison, the M6 (which you must take to travel from London to Manchester) sees about 50 million vehicles (not just cars) per year using it for at least some of its distance. 70% of which will be private cars. So let's say 35 million cars per year, most of whom are not even traversing the full M6 and instead doing regional trips or going to places other than London or Manchester. I think it is very unlikely that 10% of all the cars on the M6 are driving between London and Manchester, which is what you'd need to match passenger numbers. People are generally disincentivised from driving into London by various factors, not limited to expensive or unavailable parking, ULEZ/congestion charging, more stressful driving conditions and more jeopardy.

Most people who are driving long distances are making trips which the railway cannot provide for them - they are looking for last-mile convenience, or the ability to stop anywhere, or conveying large items, or making multiple door-to-door trips. I'm not convinced the railway ought to be subsidising its long distance services heavily when true change is to be found at the local level. Congestion is found in towns and cities and is caused mostly by local journeys, quite a few of which are made out of muscle memory or convenience. Those journeys are by almost every metric the most harmful to society. It's why a £2 bus fare cap makes more sense as policy than subsidising people going from London to Manchester.

 

[yorksrob]

That is the balance that policy makers need to determine.

I agree, which is why DfT's approach to letting franchises (notably) ECML was so unacceptable - it was a matter of government policy that the intercity TOCs were being expected to raise prices to balance the overall budget. For people to keep talking about TOCs as "independent private companies" when they are working on highly prescriptive public contracts is a category error

That doesn't necessarily follow. You are presuming that the social good requires the form of service that you wish to purchase. It's the same fallacy that tabloid papers fall into when they conflate "what the public are interested in" with "the public interest".

All of this leads onto the point about cross-subsidy, and the expectation that intercity routes should generate a surplus to support other routes. At one level, that's a truism - intercity services tend to generate more income, and be more efficient to provide, so are more likely to generate a surplus. But if that gets taken too far, the effect is perverse - as in my example of adult social care. The surplus from "those who can pay" is used to subsidise "those who can't pay", but is effectively a tax on users so that their fees subsidise those whose fees are paid for them. The same applies to rail fares - and at some point (as with social care) people just can't pay, which undermines the whole system.

In truth, IC had been expected (if not always achieved) to pay a premium for decades. This has generally been achieved by the mix of peak and off-peak walk on fares and AP. There's not been a situation until now when walk on fares have been made so deliberately unaffordable for the vast majority.

It is absolutely in the public interest how a subsidised public service is run.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2026 ==

In most cases, people are buying flexible tickets because that's the only option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2026 ==


Very doubtful about this claim. It is absolutely not the norm; the train is surely the default mode of travel.

I should have clarified "on longer distance IC journeys" !

 

[35B]

In truth, IC had been expected (if not always achieved) to pay a premium for decades. This has generally been achieved by the mix of peak and off-peak walk on fares and AP. There's not been a situation until now when walk on fares have been made so deliberately unaffordable for the vast majority.

It is absolutely in the public interest how a subsidised public service is run.

I'd suggest that the public interest is in the policy, not the detail.

More generally, I've no problem with an integrated organisation using profits in one area to support others. It has to be done with care, especially where parts of the whole are loss making, but is part of reasonable business planning.

I've more problem with, as has happened on the ECML franchise multiple times, the surplus demanded being based not on what is a reasonable profit for that business, but the contribution to those other businesses. That is where the equivalence with adult social care applies

 

[yorksrob]

I'd suggest that the public interest is in the policy, not the detail.

More generally, I've no problem with an integrated organisation using profits in one area to support others. It has to be done with care, especially where parts of the whole are loss making, but is part of reasonable business planning.

I've more problem with, as has happened on the ECML franchise multiple times, the surplus demanded being based not on what is a reasonable profit for that business, but the contribution to those other businesses. That is where the equivalence with adult social care applies

There are all sorts of arguments for subsidy, however we're getting away from the point that this "trial" is a bum deal for passengers.

 

[yorkie]

There are all sorts of arguments for subsidy, however we're getting away from the point that this "trial" is a bum deal for passengers.

Are you suggesting that train companies such as LNER should offer the best deal for mere passengers? And that they actually give people freedom to not be tied to a specific train unless they are paying £200+? Are you suggesting that LNER should not be pandering to the once per year passengers who travel on the busiest day of the year and demand that no-one else is able to board 'their' train on a whim? Are you suggesting that LNER should not be running trains line an airline?

Do you not realise, this is not a sensible country where public transport is provided as an actual service for the greater good, and people who want that sort of flexibility in GB are expected to own and drive a car!

 

[Egg Centric]

They’re not the same at all. Consider the cap on bus fares - social good is the purpose, but the result is not revenue maximisation. @andy33gmail ia absolutely right to highlight the importance of deciding the purpose of subsidy when making decisions.

What I'm trying to say is that every £1 of extra revenue for LNER is £1 extra to spend on nurses or social care or whatever.

 

[NER1621]

More people use intercity trains because they can get through-ticketing, full-journey guarantees, and easy changes from local services to intercity services,

Or alternatively, people use intercity trains because the postcode lottery of how train services are run in this country means that someone like me who just wants to travel to another town in the same region that’s only 15-25 mins away by train has to use intercity trains with fares set by a company that thinks everyone using its trains is a well-heeled long distance traveller. I just want to get from Darlington to York, Durham or Newcastle at a reasonable price, but in the absence of any coherent regional train service I’m at the mercy of LNER’s rapacious fares.

 

[andy33gmail]

It should be remembered that in a subsidised + socialised industry in a time of strain on public finances that the two bolded things are almost the same thing and recognition of or disagreement with this key point is I think part of the disconnect here.

I’m not sure I understand your point, and I’d like to.

They’re not the same at all. Consider the cap on bus fares - social good is the purpose, but the result is not revenue maximisation. @andy33gmail ia absolutely right to highlight the importance of deciding the purpose of subsidy when making decisions.

An even in terms of revenue maximisation, a railway that “loses money” and “costs” the treasury money in subsidies may still induce more income tax and so forth by increasing access to jobs. Or VAT through shopping. Or save money on hospitals through fewer road traffic collisions

If the total amount of subsidy is fixed, then any extra revenue from intercity services would go immediately into either paying for services that serve more of a social good, or investment for lines already at capacity

This assumes subsidising the railway is not the best way to use taxpayer’s money. That’s a debate in itself, not a foregone conclusion

It might be acceptable for an independant private company to fleece its customers for as much as it can get, but that is simply not acceptable for a heavily subsidised public service.

And there’s the monopoly/oligopoly effect. It’s not like a private company can crack on and make new infrastructure in isolation, the TOCs, ROSCOs and friends are in privileged powerful positions

Most people who are driving long distances are making trips which the railway cannot provide for them - they are looking for last-mile convenience, or the ability to stop anywhere, or conveying large items, or making multiple door-to-door trips. I'm not convinced the railway ought to be subsidising its long distance services heavily when true change is to be found at the local level

I have driven to Scotland many times. I would have made most of those by train if the cost were similar. Whereas it’s potentially cheaper to buy a car off eBay, use it for one round trip, then give it away in a charity raffle when you’re back than it is to pay a walk up fayre.

Even travelling to London, the most well served transport area in the UK, with a mainline station in my village and a direct train it’s tempting to drive to Cheshunt or equivalent to half the total cost (including parking and electrons)

The suggestion that the cost of long distance travel doesn’t force a modal shift to cars doesn’t ring true

 

[yorksrob]

Are you suggesting that train companies such as LNER should offer the best deal for mere passengers? And that they actually give people freedom to not be tied to a specific train unless they are paying £200+? Are you suggesting that LNER should not be pandering to the once per year passengers who travel on the busiest day of the year and demand that no-one else is able to board 'their' train on a whim? Are you suggesting that LNER should not be running trains line an airline?

Do you not realise, this is not a sensible country where public transport is provided as an actual service for the greater good, and people who want that sort of flexibility in GB are expected to own and drive a car!

I know, radical isn't it

 

[absolutelymilk]

I’m not sure I understand your point, and I’d like to.

This assumes subsidising the railway is not the best way to use taxpayer’s money. That’s a debate in itself, not a foregone conclusion

These are effectively the same point - if the Treasury decides that the railways will get say £4 billion per year subsidy, then every pound of extra revenue from LNER means an extra pound that can be spent on either operational subsidy for other lines, or on investment on increasing capacity on busy lines

 

[AlterEgo]

I have driven to Scotland many times. I would have made most of those by train if the cost were similar. Whereas it’s potentially cheaper to buy a car off eBay, use it for one round trip, then give it away in a charity raffle when you’re back than it is to pay a walk up fayre.

Even travelling to London, the most well served transport area in the UK, with a mainline station in my village and a direct train it’s tempting to drive to Cheshunt or equivalent to half the total cost (including parking and electrons)

The suggestion that the cost of long distance travel doesn’t force a modal shift to cars doesn’t ring true

I haven't suggested that cost isn't a factor in modal shift. But on long distance journeys it is less important as a factor than it is on short journeys, and by way of policy, directing subsidy towards getting people out of cars and onto public transport for local trips is vastly better policy. And we do not have an unlimited pot of money. It's why the £2 bus fare cap makes sense. I drive a car and by far my most "problematic" journeys are those to my nearest town, Daventry. I contribute to urban congestion, I have to drive on smaller roads exposing people to risk, my car runs much less efficiently and makes emissions next to schools and homes, and I consume diesel at twice the rate I would if I was driving on trunk roads.

Long distance intercity needs to wash its own face financially (though I remain opposed to how exactly LNER are doing this). By doing this, more subsidy is available to improve rail services on journeys where they make the most difference as a social good.

And look, trains to Scotland are really expensive, no doubt about it. But it would be very bad policy if they were expensive and full of empty seats. Today's 0803 has no seats at all in standard class available. Same for the 0833, 0903, in fact quite a few trains today.

 

[35B]

An even in terms of revenue maximisation, a railway that “loses money” and “costs” the treasury money in subsidies may still induce more income tax and so forth by increasing access to jobs. Or VAT through shopping. Or save money on hospitals through fewer road traffic collisions

It may. But the same logic must also apply to any transport subsidy, including roads.

This assumes subsidising the railway is not the best way to use taxpayer’s money. That’s a debate in itself, not a foregone conclusion

Indeed, it is a debate. But, by the same logic you use, nor is the desirability of a subsidy a foregone conclusion

And there’s the monopoly/oligopoly effect. It’s not like a private company can crack on and make new infrastructure in isolation, the TOCs, ROSCOs and friends are in privileged powerful positions

I think this analysis is back to front. The monopoly power is held by DfT, who determine determine which firms may operate public rail services while also setting the objectives for them in terms of both pricing and service levels. That position will be consolidated with the formation of GBR, as it brings the network infrastructure under common ownership.

The ROSCOs may be an oligopoly, but form a competitive market for capital in train leasing and have no formal barriers to new entrants to the market (I realise that this is a specialised area, and needs deep pockets for any new entrant). Lease finance is a competitive market, and new entrants (notably Rock Rail) have broken into; one of the main challenges is the low margins on capital for the banks relative to other sectors they could invest in.

I have driven to Scotland many times. I would have made most of those by train if the cost were similar. Whereas it’s potentially cheaper to buy a car off eBay, use it for one round trip, then give it away in a charity raffle when you’re back than it is to pay a walk up fayre.

Even travelling to London, the most well served transport area in the UK, with a mainline station in my village and a direct train it’s tempting to drive to Cheshunt or equivalent to half the total cost (including parking and electrons)

The suggestion that the cost of long distance travel doesn’t force a modal shift to cars doesn’t ring true

Given how busy the network is, I’m not sure that this is a robust argument for more subsidy. What it amounts to is an argument for increasing rail demand by reducing prices, and therefore putting more pressure on the busiest parts of the network, which will then require more government expenditure to ease the resulting blockages.

Many of the factors that drive car use are inherent. Fares are set per seat, people travel in groups. Drivers don’t tend to cost trips to consider capital, but only on the margins. And most of us aren’t actually travelling from or to the railway stations our train journeys involve

One of the prompts for this conversation was discussion of driving from Manchester to London. As a kid, I grew up in SW London and had relatives near Crewe. I can’t remember ever doing that journey by train; the reverse journey by my relatives was only done by train under particular circumstances.

 

[wilbers]

I haven't suggested that cost isn't a factor in modal shift. But on long distance journeys it is less important as a factor than it is on short journeys, and by way of policy, directing subsidy towards getting people out of cars and onto public transport for local trips is vastly better policy. And we do not have an unlimited pot of money. It's why the £2 bus fare cap makes sense. I drive a car and by far my most "problematic" journeys are those to my nearest town, Daventry. I contribute to urban congestion, I have to drive on smaller roads exposing people to risk, my car runs much less efficiently and makes emissions next to schools and homes, and I consume diesel at twice the rate I would if I was driving on trunk roads.

Long distance intercity needs to wash its own face financially (though I remain opposed to how exactly LNER are doing this). By doing this, more subsidy is available to improve rail services on journeys where they make the most difference as a social good.

And look, trains to Scotland are really expensive, no doubt about it. But it would be very bad policy if they were expensive and full of empty seats. Today's 0803 has no seats at all in standard class available. Same for the 0833, 0903, in fact quite a few trains today.

Daventry (even without a train station) is one of those places far enough that I've decided I don't want to drive to (after doing it once) as train then bus from Rugby or Northampton works - relatively affordable off-peak tickets and no LNER shenanigans. Still can't go to Pinfest this year because the hotel its at sold out before it was even announced for being available for sale, and its a lot trickier when not staying there and not local-ish; Blackpool it is again for me (for one of the UK's biggest retro-gaming events that includes some pinball).

Suppose with events of this sort that are quite niche most of the locals never go to it (equivalent here is potfest - I don't really have much interest in pots).

35B did you know Pinfest (UK's biggest pinball event) existed? (and if not, then I recommended you go for a day at end of August).

 

[35B]

Daventry (even without a train station) is one of those places far enough that I've decided I don't want to drive to (after doing it once) as train then bus from Rugby or Northampton works - relatively affordable off-peak tickets and no LNER shenanigans. Still can't go to Pinfest this year because the hotel its at sold out before it was even announced for being available for sale, and its a lot trickier when not staying there and not local-ish; Blackpool it is again for me (for one of the UK's biggest retro-gaming events that includes some pinball).

Suppose with events of this sort that are quite niche most of the locals never go to it (equivalent here is potfest - I don't really have much interest in pots).

35B did you know Pinfest (UK's biggest pinball event) existed? (and if not, then I recommended you go for a day at end of August).

Never heard of it, and my August passes out are as always focused on the Proms

 

[318266]

What I'm trying to say is that every £1 of extra revenue for LNER is £1 extra to spend on nurses or social care or whatever.

That's if you are planning on only spending as much as your income, which may be how households work but not particularly large governments...