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!
They didn't "disappear", they never existed. The WCML never had a Business Saver (BVR) ticket; this was an innovation of GNER and was copied I think by MML and GWR. It was done by way of Advances (aka Virgin Value fares, as first introduced). There were a few other odd walk-ups on the WCML like "The Weekender" though (this was an unrestricted ticket which could be used for a long weekend, valid for out Friday or Saturday and return on or before the following Monday, if I recall), plus the dirt cheap "Saturday Day Out" which was a walk up return to London on a Saturday only for about £25, and was progressively more restricted and abandoned not long after.
What Virgin did abolish right at the start of their franchise was the SuperSaver, which was not valid Friday and summer Saturdays, and in doing so reduced the Saver, to become the Off Peak, by about 10%. This is what resulted in WCML Off Peak Returns being about 10% cheaper than those on other routes for similar distances. It's also true that Virgin did quickly tighten Saver/Off Peak restrictions to as tight as their franchise agreement permitted.
WCML Super Off Peaks are not related to any of those old tickets, but were created on flows where there is significant competition with other operators like WMT and Chiltern, and are highly deep-discount tickets with very stringent restrictions, similar to WMT's own.
The "cliff edge" being referred to is the Friday evening one, which both LNER and Avanti/Virgin (forget exactly when it was) resolved by removing Friday evening restrictions entirely (and Avanti went one further and binned Friday morning restrictions too).
It doesn't matter what the origins and destinations are. If you charge people more to travel one-way, that makes it easier to offer a cheaper return than you would otherwise be able to because you don't need to raise as much money from returning travellers. The more you charge for the one-way trip, the cheaper you can make the return fare. Surely this isn't difficult to understand?
I don't disagree it should be cheap to do that, but is it really the case that more people want to travel via completely different routes on their return journeys compared to their outward journeys?
They didn't "disappear", they never existed. The WCML never had a Business Saver (BVR) ticket; this was an innovation of GNER and was copied I think by MML and GWR. It was done by way of Advances (aka Virgin Value fares, as first introduced). There were a few other odd walk-ups on the WCML like "The Weekender" though (this was an unrestricted ticket which could be used for a long weekend, valid for out Friday or Saturday and return on or before the following Monday, if I recall).
Not true; Virgin did introduce at least some Super Off Peak fares, after the DfT demanded something be done about the cliff edge. Also by your own admission...
, and in doing so reduced the Saver, to become the Off Peak, by about 10%. This is what resulted in WCML Off Peak Returns being about 10% cheaper than those on other routes for similar distances.
The "cliff edge" being referred to is the Friday evening one, which both LNER and Avanti/Virgin (forget exactly when it was) resolved by removing Friday evening restrictions entirely (and Avanti went one further and binned Friday morning restrictions too).
Again this is wrong; the cliff edge does apply Monday to Thursdays. It currently doesn't apply at King's Cross (except to LDS/NCL/EDB) but will apply after the new fares come in.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It doesn't matter what the origins and destinations are. If you charge people more to travel one-way, that makes it easier to offer a cheaper return than you would otherwise be able to because you don't need to raise as much money from returning travellers. The more you charge for the one-way trip, the cheaper you can make the return fare.
As I have repeatedly said I am all for single leg pricing, but if you admit that the majority do make return journeys, you appear to be admitting that the way LNER have implemented this does not actually benefit the majority of people, is that right? But you still appear to support LNER's actions?
Not true; Virgin did introduce at least some Super Off Peak fares, after the DfT demanded something be done about the cliff edge. Also by your own admission...
WCML Super Off Peaks have nothing to do with the cliff edge, they were solely introduced to compete with WMT and Chiltern and exist only on some flows. They cannot be to do with the cliff edge, they are more restricted than the Off Peak, which itself is the former Saver, called Super Off Peak on LNER.
They are also not related to the former SuperSaver which was abolished a long way back.
As I said, the WCML never had a Business Saver equivalent, that was GNER's invention, copied by others but not Virgin who preferred Virgin Value fares (which were the precursor to Advance Singles).
It does, but is slightly smoothed with Advances and is less of an issue on those days than Fridays when it caused severe overcrowding due to the much higher demand than other days.
FWIW I would rather they'd kept that intermediate step, but I find the concept of single-fare pricing so compelling in its benefits that I'm willing to take some disadvantages in return, and would be on the WCML too.
Nearly nobody will be getting a 45% cut. Nearly everyone who travels frequently will be paying the 4.5% rise. And people who use Off Peak tickets will be getting an enormous rise of between a third and half.
feel free to create a thread if you'd like to discuss this further. Should railways outside the UK routinely offer discounted return fares, funded by raising the price of single fares? For the most part, there is very little difference between singles and returns in the UK, meaning that going...
It does, but is slightly smoothed with Advances and is less of an issue on those days than Fridays when it caused severe overcrowding due to the much higher demand than other days.
You obviously never travel on LNER on Thursday evenings if you think it's smoothed out. It's anything but. But I guess as long as it's not you that's the poor sod who stands up in an Azuma doorway for two hours it's good because it fits your preferences...
They did until 2018 very effectively, because they didn't have PM restrictions. Virgin Trains East Coast introduced PM restrictions almost exactly the same as the Super Off Peak, in a desperate attempt to increase yield and save themselves, the current mess is the result.
WCML Super Off Peaks have nothing to do with the cliff edge, they were solely introduced to compete with WMT and Chiltern and exist only on some flows. They cannot be to do with the cliff edge, they are more restricted than the Off Peak, which itself is the former Saver, called Super Off Peak on LNER.
They are also not related to the former SuperSaver which was abolished a long way back.
As I said, the WCML never had a Business Saver equivalent, that was GNER's invention, copied by others but not Virgin who preferred Virgin Value fares (which were the precursor to Advance Singles).
Simon Calder on the finer points of why train ticket pricing doesn't make sense
www.independent.co.uk
...By the time the 3.30pm service leaves, the fare doubles, and remains stubbornly high until the 7.30pm – which, from past experience, is a crush of ill-tempered travellers who are rightly irritated by not being allowed to reach their Lancastrian loved ones in time for dinner....
I definitely remember the DfT taking issue with the cliff edge and requiring Virgin to do something about it; I remember there being a thread on this forum but I can't find it now. I will see if I can locate it and edit this post accordingly with a link.
If I recall correctly they required Virgin to actually appoint someone to look at how to spread the load better.
My point is that this cliff edge problem most definitely did exist on the West Coast; it was far worse than has ever been the case on the East Coast precisely because of the more sensible structure on the East Coast.
However you word it, the fact is the West Coast did have three tiers of walk-up fares, and the cliff edge problem was at its worst when only two tiers existed. This is precisely my point. You are losing sight of the actual argument by delving into minutiae (which I find very frustrating).
So you admit that it's part of LNER's ploy to abolish reasonably priced walk-up fares and move more people onto Advances; do you think this is a good thing?
FWIW I would rather they'd kept that intermediate step, but I find the concept of single-fare pricing so compelling in its benefits that I'm willing to take some disadvantages in return, and would be on the WCML too.
No-one really knows! Doing that, instead of increasing the price, will encourage more people to travel, which could actually increase revenue. But the rail industry isn't really run as a public service and part of the pricing strategy is to price people off the railways (there is huge untapped demand which is held back by high fares) and LNER don't want more people to travel on walk-up tickets. LNER know that good value walk-up singles are a threat to their Advance fares, which is the type of fare they want the vast majority of their passengers to use.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They did until 2018 very effectively, because they didn't have PM restrictions. Virgin Trains East Coast introduced PM restrictions almost exactly the same as the Super Off Peak, in a desperate attempt to increase yield and save themselves, the current mess is the result.
Ah, I see. So its only real advantage in its present form is to allow an earlier departure southbound?
An interesting question is whether you could do something like increase the Anytime Single from its current rate but make it something required only for morning travel. WMT sort of currently have that, with the Off Peak Day Single and Return carrying no evening restrictions, as a result of which Anytime Day Single into London and Off Peak Day Single back is cheaper for some flows than an Anytime Day Return (oops!) and if you have a Network Railcard it's cheaper on pretty much every flow!
(If people are interested in pursuing that line of discussion give me a PM and I'll spawn a new thread, but otherwise it's just a throwaway comment )
If they were up front that prices are rising by around 10% on an annualised basis in order to pay for this, then I'd respect that honesty.
However, unless you can point me to a statement that has been made by a Minister, RDG or LNER that says what the additional rise East Coast passengers are paying is actually for, then I think we can be confident in saying it's simply being done to squeeze more money out of people, to make them pay for the costs imposed on the industry by the pandemic.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Super Off Peak (return portion) is barred to depart King's Cross "after 02:59 and before 09:06 and after 14:59 and before 18:59 (18:15 on Fridays)"
Off Peak (return portion) is barred to depart King's Cross "Mondays to Thursdays after 06:44 and before 07:59 or after 15:57 and before 17:46 - or Fridays after 06:44 and before 07:59"
While it's nowhere near as generous as it was before LNER added restrictions, it allows departures such as 15:00, 15:30 and 17:50, 18:00 etc. Charging £160 for such trains (to York), which by rights should only be charged at a maximum of £110, is scandalous.
No-one really knows! Doing that, instead of increasing the price, will encourage more people to travel, which could actually increase revenue. But the rail industry isn't really run as a public service and part of the pricing strategy is to price people off the railways (there is huge untapped demand which is held back by high fares) and LNER don't want more people to travel on walk-up tickets. LNER know that good value walk-up singles are a threat to their Advance fares, which is the type of fare they want the vast majority of their passengers to use.
British Rail clearly assumed that introducing the Saver ticket as a compulsory return (and therefore making the single more than 50% of the price of the return) would increase revenue more than simply cutting single fares, which they could have done instead. Yes there were issues regarding reuse of return tickets but I'd be surprised if that was such a significant factor.
British Rail clearly assumed that introducing the Saver ticket as a compulsory return (and therefore making the single more than 50% of the price of the return) would increase revenue more than simply cutting single fares, which they could have done instead. Yes there were issues regarding reuse of return tickets but I'd be surprised if that was such a significant factor.
Yes because most people make return journeys; those who don't are often prepared to pay a premium. Whether they should be charged a premium is another matter!
Yes because most people make return journeys; those who don't are often prepared to pay a premium. Whether they should be charged a premium is another matter!
For sure, a significant proportion of people who make a single journey are prepared to pay a lot more money (than would be the case for an 'average' passenger), due to having to make a non-discretionary journey that has to be done, for which there may be few (or no) realistic alternatives.
If you make the argument that such people should be paying a premium, and you are also making the argument that return fares should not exist, then the end result is expensive return fares, which is what LNER have done, and what I don't agree with. If you agree with what LNER have done, then I suggest we agree to disagree, rather than constantly go round in circles.
If you invert your thinking you might get nearer to the truth. Pricing the public off the railways, roads, air by 2030 or 2050 or whatever net zero plan they present to us is their thought process. Higher rail prices and the devaluing of money will certainly take a toll.
But, in my opinion, that doesn't justify doing what LNER have done (nor are the two mutually exclusive). Clearly you take a different view; shall we agree to disagree?
Earlier you said it was very difficult (for some unexplained reason) for many passengers to buy a cheaper fare (i.e a walk up flexible return) as opposed to the dearer option of two singles. LNER seem to have removed that supposed problem by doing away with the cheaper fare and whacking up the single fares by 4% ..... and still people claim this is a great thing which should be rolled out nationwide.
That's something you've personally made up though. Nobody else is claiming that's what is happening. You haven't presented any evidence that there's a decision being made on this trade-off, rather than simply using it as an opportunity to attempt to increase yield.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's something you've personally made up though. Nobody else is claiming that's what is happening. You haven't presented any evidence that there's a decision being made on this trade-off, rather than simply using it as an opportunity to attempt to increase yield.
British Rail clearly assumed that introducing the Saver ticket as a compulsory return (and therefore making the single more than 50% of the price of the return) would increase revenue more than simply cutting single fares, which they could have done instead.
Even on those operators people doing triangular or multi-modal journeys or are penalised, especially if one of the singles they need is not priced by them.
Obviously most train companies outside the UK don't offer returns, so are they ripping off the passengers by inevitably charging more for a return than would be the case if singles were priced at more than 50% of a return? Reply here:
feel free to create a thread if you'd like to discuss this further. Should railways outside the UK routinely offer discounted return fares, funded by raising the price of single fares? For the most part, there is very little difference between singles and returns in the UK, meaning that going...
Nearly nobody will be getting a 45% cut. Nearly everyone who travels frequently will be paying the 4.5% rise. And people who use Off Peak tickets will be getting an enormous rise of between a third and half.
I think we can be confident in saying it's simply being done to squeeze more money out of people, to make them pay for the costs imposed on the industry by the pandemic.
I’m unsure what you’re trying to argue here, are you trying to argue LNER are lying when they say it is revenue neutral?
Otherwise there are winners and losers. Winners are those travelling one-way, or travelling in the peak one way and off-peak in the other. Losers are those travelling in the shoulder peak both ways. Swings and roundabouts. Single leg pricing is fairer, you pay for what you use.
I’d agree that peak time restrictions out of London are extracting the Michael, but that’s the same even with the old Off-Peak ticket, which was staggeringly bad value for the additional validity it gave. £80 to leave at 6pm instead of 7pm? I’d rather get food and wait.
)
