Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thus there's a general conservatism with a rider of "it's not OK if one single person has to pay £0.01 more", which is impossible if you make changes to the fares system regardless of what they are (bar just reducing all fares across the board).
Yes I think (and I am very much guilty of this myself) people often only want to see things that make life better for them and don't want there to be any negative impact even if it's an improvement overall.
I do find it useful being able to have flexibility in a return ticket and would like it if we kept returns as they are as well as single leg pricing. But I can see the argument for dropping them from a revenue protection point of view.
Also, since at present it is possible to reserve seats without holding a ticket, there is no need to commit to a return date and buy tickets just in order to get a reservation.
Yeah I've seen so many people on this forum say that there should be single leg pricing because of the benefits it brings for travellers buying singles or doing triangle journeys etc, but now that it is out there seems to be simply criticism. Yes they have done a stealthy price rise on certain trains but a lot of people will be paying much less money too which should be celebrated
Yeah I've seen so many people on this forum say that there should be single leg pricing because of the benefits it brings for travellers buying singles or doing triangle journeys etc, but now that it is out there seems to be simply criticism. Yes they have done a stealthy price rise on certain trains but a lot of people will be paying much less money too which should be celebrated
Well the ideal (for passengers) would be to introduce single leg pricing while keeping returns as at present. Then nobody loses out.
But the reasons for not doing so do seem to make sense.
I wonder if there's also a psychological benefit for the railways - if you buy each leg separately so you don't have to commit to a return date (or even to returning by train at all) paying in two installments makes it feel cheaper....?
Well the ideal (for passengers) would be to introduce single leg pricing while keeping returns as at present. Then nobody loses out.
But the reasons for not doing so do seem to make sense.
I wonder if there's also a psychological benefit for the railways - if you buy each leg separately so you don't have to commit to a return date (or even to returning by train at all) paying in two installments makes it feel cheaper....?
The problem is that nobody would buy the SLP fares as “we’ve always bought returns “ to get the mindset change needed a bigger step needed to be taken. Let’s face it we’ve had Advance singles for years when they all started as returns.
I honestly don't think most people will even notice if im perfectly honest - think about the average person booking a ticket, they select the trains they want, see what the price says and then pay that price. They don't look to see what ticket type they have. For most people they will see that perhaps their fare has changed by a couple pounds maximum and they wont think any more of it
Anyone at a ticket office will have it explained to them by the member of staff if they ask why they are getting two singles, and the only remaining issue is people using TVMs, so perhaps a couple helpful posters next to LNER TVMs could help to alleviate this issue, but most people buying from TVMs have already decided where they want to travel and therefore won't change their plans because of this. Also, I don't know if LNER have TVMs that get you to select your train etc, but if they do then presumably you'd still be able to book a return journey but the machine would just sell you two singles, something that again I don't think the average person will notice. Considering the number of people who think that they have to travel on their exact train even with an off-peak/anytime ticket that they bought online, its clear to me that most people select the trains they want to take and then pay the price and don't bother thinking about it any more than that
The problem is that nobody would buy the SLP fares as “we’ve always bought returns “ to get the mindset change needed a bigger step needed to be taken. Let’s face it we’ve had Advance singles for years when they all started as returns.
What advantage would the railway have seen if they had offered singles at half the price of returns and seen widespread take-up?
Advances are somewhat different because there is no loss of flexibility by changing from returns to singles (except I think for doubling the fee to change the dates of both legs).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I honestly don't think most people will even notice if im perfectly honest - think about the average person booking a ticket, they select the trains they want, see what the price says and then pay that price. They don't look to see what ticket type they have. For most people they will see that perhaps their fare has changed by a couple pounds maximum and they wont think any more of it
If booking on-line, then yes, and they are probably in the majority now.
But for people just turning up to a ticket office (while we still have them) and asking for a return to such-and-such, they will then have to either specify the return date or have a conversation about why they should now just buy a single and sort the return trip out later.
And if using a non itinerary based TVM they will likely be faced with no option for a return, and if they know that one doesn't buy singles because they cost almost as much as a return...
I don't think this is a reason not to make the change, but like many changes there will be some initial confusion.
Yeah I've seen so many people on this forum say that there should be single leg pricing because of the benefits it brings for travellers buying singles or doing triangle journeys etc, but now that it is out there seems to be simply criticism.
If they had genuinely implemented single leg pricing by halving all the return fares (and if this led to any superflous fares, those priced higher could be abolished) there would have been few grounds for criticism. Or if they had kept the returns in place, that would have been fine too.
But what they have done is abolish fares such as "Off Peak" fares into London; this means that journeys which previously required an Off Peak ticket now have to be made on an Anytime; or an Advance, which may cost more than the Off Peak did!
Did you see my analysys of Leeds to London Off Peak fare rises?
I honestly don't think most people will even notice if im perfectly honest - think about the average person booking a ticket, they select the trains they want, see what the price says and then pay that price. They don't look to see what ticket type they have.
Some people do indeed do this, and are then disappointed when they end up on a different train and are told the ticket they purchased holds no value whatsoever, because it's an Advance ticket. The abolishment of "Off Peak" on London based flows is intended to push more people onto Advances.
and the only remaining issue is people using TVMs, so perhaps a couple helpful posters next to LNER TVMs could help to alleviate this issue, but most people buying from TVMs have already decided where they want to travel and therefore won't change their plans because of this. Also, I don't know if LNER have TVMs that get you to select your train etc, but if they do then presumably you'd still be able to book a return journey but the machine would just sell you two singles, something that again I don't think the average person will notice. Considering the number of people who think that they have to travel on their exact train even with an off-peak/anytime ticket that they bought online, its clear to me that most people select the trains they want to take and then pay the price and don't bother thinking about it any more than that
Have you tried using the LNER itinerary-based TVMs? I don't use them but someone went through the process with me, and to say it was tedious and confusing would be an understatement. I don't think this move would make it any easier and would probably make things even more complicated, especially if someone is used to the idea of buying a flexible return to come back within a month.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In the end objections here tend to be because people have worked out the best way to game the system and so obtain the best value, and so anything that removes that isn't appreciated.
Thus there's a general conservatism with a rider of "it's not OK if one single person has to pay £0.01 more", which is impossible if you make changes to the fares system regardless of what they are (bar just reducing all fares across the board).
This is highly disingenuous to claim; the actual rises are significant for some people. We aren't talking about pennies.
Did you see my analysis of the Leeds to London fares, where people are being charged more for Advance fares to London Terminals, than is currently the case for a flexible return to West Hampstead? Soon, the West Hampstead workaround will be no more, however it should be possible to find workarounds priced by other companies (however if anyone publishes these, there is a risk that they could be sneakily re-routed to prevent good value returns being used via Peterborough, in the way that Edinburgh to London was re-routed to prevent single leg pricing via Carlisle!)
If it only affects a small minority of travellers, then how are the negative changes generating enough revenue to fund the anticipated loss of revenue through the fare reductions? The industry can't argue it both ways!
The reality is that almost everyone who currently buys an Off-Peak Return to/from London/Stevenage will be worse off. That's quite a lot of people and so this is a significant retrograde step for more than just the knowledgeable few who frequent these fora.
It would foolish to assume anything about Advance pricing. It's entirely unregulated and the TOCs can charge whatever they like, constrained only by the existence of walk-up fares. This is why the scrapping of Off-Peak Returns will lead to people paying a lot more.
But with off peak (shoulder peak) tickets aren't you paying more for flexibility - but perversely within quite narrow bands? Unless you want to do exactly this on both legs you are probably better off with a different combination of singles. Most (but of course not all) people I imagine have an idea of exactly when they want to leave by or arrive by but tend to be a bit more fluid on the other leg.
As an aside, twice in the past year due to fat fingers and dodgy eyesight, I have mistakenly bought singles from TVMs that cost 10p less (admittedly GTR not LNER) when I wanted a return, and had a PITA queuing up to get sorted - its just a totally unnecessary, complicated and unfair faff and I resent paying for anything other than I use. Also I've had lifts to the local hospital and had to get a train back and saved a princely 10p on each occasion, not half the fare for my pains - so national single leg pricing can't come soon enough imho.
But with off peak (shoulder peak) tickets aren't you paying more for flexibility - but perversely within quite narrow bands? Unless you want to do exactly this on both legs you are probably better off with a different combination of singles. Most (but of course not all) people I imagine have an idea of exactly when they want to leave by or arrive by but tend to be a bit more fluid on the other leg.
I would be on board with the single leg pricing argument if the entire range of fares was preserved, and halved in price, and if no fares were abolished (except if this resulted in superflous fares, in which case it is the higher priced fare which sould be abolished).
As that isn't being done, your argument does not hold water; see my Leeds to London Off Peak analysis.
As an aside, twice in the past year due to fat fingers and dodgy eyesight, I have mistakenly bought singles from TVMs that cost 10p less (admittedly GTR not LNER) when I wanted a return, and had a PITA queuing up to get sorted - its just a totally unnecessary, complicated and unfair faff and I resent paying for anything other than I use. Also I've had lifts to the local hospital and had to get a train back and saved a princely 10p on each occasion, not half the fare for my pains - so national single leg pricing can't come soon enough imho.
None of that is a valid reason to abolish returns; your arguments for returns being halved are sound, but do you support the abolishment of fare types, as is currently happening?
I would be on board with the single leg pricing argument if the entire range of fares was preserved, and halved in price, and if no fares were abolished (except if this resulted in superflous fares, in which case it is the higher priced fare which sould be abolished).
As that isn't being done, your argument does not hold water; see my Leeds to London Off Peak analysis.
None of that is a valid reason to abolish returns; your arguments for returns being halved are sound, but do you support the abolishment of fare types, as is currently happening?
Well yes, agreed, the thrust of my argument is of course singles being half the return, but i also accept that due to our current system that can't happen in isolation. As others have pointed out, in order to bring singles down in price - often markedly - and given there is no such thing as a free lunch, it clearly has to be paid for somehow, and if that is paid for by abolishing returns (and I have heard of the misuse of using two sets of returns as quasi season ticket etc on a heads they get away with it, tails they simply have to rebuy basis, that it is a definite win (on balance) for the honest traveller.
Well yes, agreed, the thrust of my argument is of course singles being half the return, but i also accept that due to our current system that can't happen in isolation. As others have pointed out, in order to bring singles down in price - often markedly - and given there is no such thing as a free lunch, it clearly has to be paid for somehow, and if that is paid for by abolishing returns (and I have heard of the misuse of using two sets of returns as quasi season ticket etc on a heads they get away with it, tails they simply have to rebuy basis, that it is a definite win (on balance) for the honest traveller.
Yeah I've seen so many people on this forum say that there should be single leg pricing because of the benefits it brings for travellers buying singles or doing triangle journeys etc, but now that it is out there seems to be simply criticism. Yes they have done a stealthy price rise on certain trains but a lot of people will be paying much less money too which should be celebrated
There is criticism because rather than just introducing Single Leg Pricing - in the way that already exists for Anytime Singles, Advances and Super Off-Peak Singles when bought as part of a return journey - LNER are also withdrawing returns, as well as Off-Peak fares for London journeys. There is no inherent reason why this need have happened, and it's entirely fair for them to be criticised for doing that at all, let alone not being honest and straightforward about it.
People will, in aggregate, pay more; the change wouldn't have been authorised by the Treasury otherwise. So let's not pretend that LNER are doing people a favour! Whether that's a small number of people paying a lot more, or a lot of people paying a little bit more, it's unacceptable and LNER and the government shouldn't be let off the hook.
The problem is that nobody would buy the SLP fares as “we’ve always bought returns “ to get the mindset change needed a bigger step needed to be taken. Let’s face it we’ve had Advance singles for years when they all started as returns.
This statement is symbolic of everything that's wrong with this change, and indeed LNER's wider attitude - it seems to be about change for its own sake. Why is there a need to change people's mindset? Give them the flexibility to choose a half-price single or a return.
Advance singles are a totally different kettle of fish, given that they're fixed to one train. People's travel habits often dictate that they might know when they need to go somewhere, but don't know when they'll come back. Advance Returns were therefore entirely unsuitable to such travel requirements.
These changes would also be more acceptable if the industry didn't persist in charging a ridiculously inflated £10 admin fee, at least for the 95% of changes that are capable of being automatically processed.
But with off peak (shoulder peak) tickets aren't you paying more for flexibility - but perversely within quite narrow bands? Unless you want to do exactly this on both legs you are probably better off with a different combination of singles. Most (but of course not all) people I imagine have an idea of exactly when they want to leave by or arrive by but tend to be a bit more fluid on the other leg.
Yes, you are. But removing those Off-Peak tickets removes the cap on what LNER can charge for Advances on those shoulder peak services. It therefore means that people might now have to pay as much as the Anytime Single right up until the first train where Super Off-Peak tickets are valid. Surely it is obvious that this will only increase crowding - exactly the opposite of what LNER disingenuously claim!
As an aside, twice in the past year due to fat fingers and dodgy eyesight, I have mistakenly bought singles from TVMs that cost 10p less (admittedly GTR not LNER) when I wanted a return, and had a PITA queuing up to get sorted - its just a totally unnecessary, complicated and unfair faff and I resent paying for anything other than I use. Also I've had lifts to the local hospital and had to get a train back and saved a princely 10p on each occasion, not half the fare for my pains - so national single leg pricing can't come soon enough imho.
These changes would also be more acceptable if the industry didn't persist in charging a ridiculously inflated £10 admin fee, at least for the 95% of changes that are capable of being automatically processed.
As an admin fee (say, for refunding a flexible ticket) then I agree it's unreasonable (though getting lower in real terms all the time).
I'd say that the charge for changing an advance ticket doesn't necessarily have to be related to the costs to the railway of doing so, as it may also be designed to deliberately reduce the flexibility of advance tickets.
Alright @yorkie, like you, I would like half priced singles AND returns for the extra situational advantages I could leverage out of them (like overnight BoJ), but I accept there is some quid pro quo here - and I am as into penny and bun-ism as anyone, but if you had a straight choice between this new system (including some of the issues you mention - and I speak as someone who has done the whole up via AWC and down via ECML thing) versus the current system of singles nearly always being priced very close to returns (and being fair, all the current complex "this out and that back" micro rules that come with it), all other ifs and buts aside, which system would you pick?
It's mostly an anti fraud measure from the days when most stations were ungated. But also because single trips by definition can't be done by your own car so you've got a captive market and can charge more.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
More likely they think our singles are overpriced, Advances aside. For long distance, (Super) Off Peak Returns are borderline reasonable, anything else is just pricey.
It is a myth that it will (always) cost more to buy a walk up return than 2 Advances.
Do some searches on NRE and you will soon find many examples where the cost of 2 inflexible Advances is more than that of flexible return. Of course if you miss your booked train or want to change your plans the differential will become even greater.
If many passengers really do think it is very difficult to buy a cheaper flexible ticket rather than 2 inflexible ones, and hence pay over the odds as a result, then it is easy to see how people readily fall for other scams.
As an admin fee (say, for refunding a flexible ticket) then I agree it's unreasonable (though getting lower in real terms all the time).
I'd say that the charge for changing an advance ticket doesn't necessarily have to be related to the costs to the railway of doing so, as it may also be designed to deliberately reduce the flexibility of advance tickets.
Wasn't part of the advantage of having a return only priced marginally higher than a single that it encourages passengers to make the return journey by train?
It's mostly an anti fraud measure from the days when most stations were ungated. But also because single trips by definition can't be done by your own car so you've got a captive market and can charge more.
Yes, it was both an anti-fraud measure and a recognition that the majority of single journeys, even at off-peak times, were not discretionary, in economic terms they are less elastic. The rise of yield management and arrival of disruptors in the airline industry such as Ryanair and Easyjet turned this concept on its head in the 90s - they demonstrated that if you could dynamically adjust your pricing to achieve a much greater load factor evenly spread across your inventory, there was no need to worry about whether the journey was single, return, over a weekend, midweek etc.
When first introduced, the equivalent of today's off-peak returns were an explicit discount on the cost of two singles. That connection has been lost over time, resulting in single fares now being reduced to half the off-peak return fare.
Didn't Virgin and GWR both try single leg pricing in the past (without removing the returns) and find that they had a revenue shortfall?
There wasn't a revenue issue in either case, the constraint was in one TOC trying to have a single-based structure in amongst others who weren't. The difference this time is that the LNER change is part of a wider drive (for example Oval/PAYG extensions require a singles-based fare structure).
I honestly don't think most people will even notice if im perfectly honest - think about the average person booking a ticket, they select the trains they want, see what the price says and then pay that price. They don't look to see what ticket type they have.
Agree. In my experience, this happens loads on LNER. People don't even realise they have flexibility on the ticket and assume they are restricted to a specific train.
Similar reasons why people end up without a seat on Sundays. Select a train on flexible ticket & don't realise they don't have a seat reservation until it's too late.
It's a real shame. It makes the the extended booking window on LNER quite frustrating. It's hard to commit to a specific date/time that far in advance.
Agree. In my experience, this happens loads on LNER. People don't even realise they have flexibility on the ticket and assume they are restricted to a specific train.
I think it could be made clearer when the itinerary shown with a ticket is just a "serving suggestion" and other trains that day can also be used. Of course if there are time restrictions for the ticket it isn't necessarily straightforward to show which they are.
The journey I quoted can easily be compared to similar length (time and distance) journeys in the UK. Why would £150 be “fairer”? What’s the size of the country got to do with it?
The fact the journey I quoted happens to be from end to the other is beside the point. Time/distance can easily be compared to a UK journeu
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The journey I quoted can easily be compared to similar length (time and distance) journeys in the UK. Why would £150 be “fairer”? What’s the size of the country got to do with it?
The fact the journey I quoted happens to be from end to the other is beside the point. Time/distance can easily be compared to a UK journeu
These changes would also be more acceptable if the industry didn't persist in charging a ridiculously inflated £10 admin fee, at least for the 95% of changes that are capable of being automatically processed.
Automated != free. Software development costs money. Adapting to changing refund policies costs money. During Covid, refund rules felt like they changed every week - at one point we had some nonsensical logic to implement based on the Covid "tier" that the local authority of the station was within. Every month at the moment, we get new ticket easements and refund policies announced due to the state of industry relations - this requires work so that customers can refund their journeys as soon as strikes are announced. All of this takes up an incredible amount of time.
I know some retailers don't bother with any of this and their refund/COA process is literally as primitive as "send an email and then wait an unknown period" for the customer but most TPRs want to provide a less terrible solution than this given we're in the 21st century.
About a third of refunds require human involvement to process. It's definitely not 5%. Customer support staff cost money.
Most refunds are already fee-free (almost two thirds). The ones that aren't need to pay for the staff to process the ones that are fee-free. 4.5% commission simply doesn't cover it.
Change of advance where the £10 fee is levied represents a pretty small proportion of refunds.
Automated != free. Software development costs money. Adapting to changing refund policies costs money. During Covid, refund rules felt like they changed every week - at one point we had some nonsensical logic to implement based on the Covid "tier" that the local authority of the station was within. Every month at the moment, we get new ticket easements and refund policies announced due to the state of industry relations - this requires work so that customers can refund their journeys as soon as strikes are announced. All of this takes up an incredible amount of time.
I know some retailers don't bother with any of this and their refund/COA process is literally as primitive as "send an email and then wait an unknown period" for the customer but most TPRs want to provide a less terrible solution than this given we're in the 21st century.
About a third of refunds require human involvement to process. It's definitely not 5%. Customer support staff cost money.
Most refunds are already fee-free (almost two thirds). The ones that aren't need to pay for the staff to process the ones that are fee-free. 4.5% commission simply doesn't cover it.
Change of advance where the £10 fee is levied represents a pretty small proportion of refunds.
I'm not suggesting that they need be free (though clearly that would be an ideal position). But equally, ORR investigation has proven that retailers are, on aggregate, charging over twice their true costs.
I also don't see that it is reasonable to say that people paying for refunds should bear the entire cost of developing and maintaining refund systems. After all, that is just a cost of doing business - you won't get licensed otherwise.
Certainly change of journey for e-tickets should not attract anything close to a £10 fee. I have a little bit more sympathy with changes to paper tickets, seeing as these inherently require a degree of manual processing.
Most refunds are already fee-free (almost two thirds). The ones that aren't need to pay for the staff to process the ones that are fee-free. 4.5% commission simply doesn't cover it.
Change of advance where the £10 fee is levied represents a pretty small proportion of refunds.
Seriously though it’ll be interesting when the fares are visible from Sunday
