LNER fare rises and single leg pricing on many flows, from 11 June

[Haywain]

LNER have announced that they will be removing most return tickets from 11 June as part of the widening of single leg pricing. A bit more detail, but not too much, on the LNER website.

Simpler Tickets. Better Value​

We're making it easier to buy the cheapest ticket for your journey.
From 11 June, after a successful trial, we're removing return tickets from most LNER journeys. Our simplified tickets will make it easier to find the best value ticket for your journey.
This new simplified ticket structure will allow customers to buy a single ticket for each leg of their journey. By removing the outdated practice where a single ticket can cost just a little less than a return ticket, giving customers better value fares, a return journey would never cost more than two single tickets.
Single tickets will also help reduce overcrowding, making more seat reservations available for those that want one
Please note, you will still see and be able to purchase return tickets available for other train operators, as well as a small number of LNER journeys.

Edit: For clarity, the changes were implemented on 11 June and discussed from page 8 onwards; broadly speaking, this involved:

• the price of to/via London Super Off Peak Single (SSS) fares reducing to around half the price of the old Super Off Peak Return (SSR) fares, plus 4%.
• the price of other Off Peak Single (SVS) fares was amended in line with the Super Off Peak fares described above, i.e. to around half the price of the old Off Peak Return (SVR) fares, plus 4%
• the to/via London Off Peak Return (SVR) fares were abolished; customers travelling at those times now need to purchase Anytime Single (SOS) fares
• some day return fares also saw a move to single leg pricing, with price rises for return journeys, but not all.
• fare increases were in addition to the annual fare rise, which took place in March.

 

[Watershed]

LNER continue to perpetuate the myth that single leg pricing is simpler and better value. They must have a strange definition of "simpler", given you'll now need to undertake two transactions rather than one if you don't know when you'll be returning. And they must have a strange definition of "better value", given that they'll be abolishing Off-Peak fares for flows with a Super Off-Peak fare. This will allow them to charge far more for shoulder-peak travel, as their Advance pricing will no longer be constrained by the existence of an Off-Peak fare. Better value for LNER, perhaps!

Of course the truth is that it's just a bare-faced attempt at raising revenue, dressed up as something that's being done to be customer friendly.

There's no good reason they couldn't just have kept the current return tickets for those who value the flexibility they offer, whilst introducing half-priced singles. That has been the situation for years on Anytime tickets, as well as for Super Off-Peak tickets when bought as part of a return journey.

They're being rather quieter about the fact that they'll have to keep return fares for the shorter distance flows that they price, because they won't want to price singles at half the cost of a day return - that would open up far too many opportunities for splitting.

There's also the issue that if you want to break your journey overnight on your return journey, you'll have to buy a combination of tickets - adding even more complexity and likely costing a lot more. But they have cited removing the ability for people to reuse return portions (which is essentially an admission that their revenue protection isn't good enough) as the reason for this.

It'd be interesting to see what their estimates are of the effect of this change on revenue. They'd almost certainly refuse to release that information under FoI, no doubt citing purported commercial confidentiality - but we can be fairly sure it won't be negative, otherwise the Treasury wouldn't have signed off on this.

 

[RJ]

Simplification won’t be the driver for this, but is being pushed as a benefit.

There benefits for LNER - it will reduce fraudulent reuse of return portions and fraudulent Delay Repay claims and generally makes it more expensive for anyone who isn’t doing a one way journey.

I don’t see the benefits as a passenger - it represents a price increase. During the trial, I found SSR flows that were cheaper than buying two Super Off Peak Singles and it removes the benefit of being able to break a journey for a few days without splitting tickets for a higher overall price. Losing the Off Peak option as well also made it a lot more expensive to travel in the afternoon, although I found ways around that that the typical passenger wouldn’t.

 

[robbob700]

LNER continue to perpetuate the myth that single leg pricing is simpler and better value.

Single leg pricing is certainly simpler - you pay for each journey made rather than paying for 2 journeys even if you are only going 1 way (with singles priced at nearly the same price as a return). All other countries I have visited price public transport in that way and air fares are as well. Whether it is better value depends on the pricing policies adopted by LNER (effectively UK government), but it is almost certainly better value for those buying single journeys or a "round robin" trip. It also means that you don't have to buy a return ticket (just in case) when you are not sure whether you are going to get a lift back.

 

[Haywain]

All other countries I have visited price public transport in that way and air fares are as well.

That may be the case with budget airlines but it certainly isn't for 'full fare' airlines.

 

[Watershed]

Single leg pricing is certainly simpler - you pay for each journey made rather than paying for 2 journeys even if you are only going 1 way (with singles priced at nearly the same price as a return). All other countries I have visited price public transport in that way and air fares are as well. Whether it is better value depends on the pricing policies adopted by LNER (effectively UK government), but it is almost certainly better value for those buying single journeys or a "round robin" trip. It also means that you don't have to buy a return ticket (just in case) when you are not sure whether you are going to get a lift back.

That's not a matter of simplicity though - it's a question of price/value. And as is already the case with Anytime tickets generally, and Super Off-Peak tickets bought as part of a return journey, you could just as well price the singles at half of a return without abolishing the return.

Whilst some airlines and routes are priced on a single leg basis, almost all airlines still price long haul flights on a return basis and charge you more for a one-way flight!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That may be the case with budget airlines but it certainly isn't for 'full fare' airlines.

It is for almost all European flights now including the likes of BA. Not yet long haul though.

Interestingly the FAQ seems to contain some dud information, including suggesting Anytimes etc can only be changed 5 minutes before departure, which is rubbish.

Overall I remain in favour of this idea. Even more so if they'd be nice and bin the £10 admin fee so changing a return day isn't a cost.

 

[JonathanH]

They're being rather quieter about the fact that they'll have to keep return fares for the shorter distance flows that they price, because they won't want to price singles at half the cost of a day return - that would open up far too many opportunities for splitting.

Do we know that, or is it an opportunity for a price hike on those flows?

 

[yorksrob]

On a particular occasion recently, I found the single fare good value - when I needed a single fare.

As others have said, there are occasions when a return ticket is better value.

If the powers that be were really interested in customer value and simplicity, why not retain the current return fares and have the single as half the price ?

The reality is that I automatically mistrust any fares reform pushed by the Government.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a particular occasion recently, I found the single fare good value - when I needed a single fare.

As others have said, there are occasions when a return ticket is better value.

If the powers that be were really interested in customer value and simplicity, why not retain the current return fares and have the single as half the price ?

The reality is that I automatically mistrust any fares reform pushed by the Government.

Because it's partly funded by reducing the fraudulent reuse of return halves.

 

[yorksrob]

Because it's partly funded by reducing the fraudulent reuse of return halves.

Surely the majority of returns must get clipped/swallowed by barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the majority of returns must get clipped/swallowed by barriers.

In my experience gatelines I use are open more often than not.

 

[yorksrob]

In my experience gatelines I use are open more often than not.

I'll have to see whether I get entangled with the evening peak restrictions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll have to see whether I get entangled with the evening peak restrictions.

Those are one key advantage. No faffing with excesses, no having to buy an Anytime Return if you're coming back peak, just buy a single when you work out what you're doing. Because of a fares quirk that means two singles are cheaper than a return when travelling at least one way in the peak from Bletchley to Euston I'm already used to it.

One of the best things about it is no faffing with route excesses or paying too much if going out and back by different routes. Just buy the relevant ticket(s) once you've decided what you're going to do.

And if you go to a booking office and ask for a day return, you'll just be sold the two singles which is functionally identical, plus you can use them in the wrong order if you want, or refund only one of them if you get a lift, or swap them with others, or whatever.

It's only a mild pain if you don't know your day of return, which must be a fairly unusual use case in the wider public.

 

[miklcct]

That's great.

I'd rather trade the flexibility of overnight break of journeys against not being overcharged while doing one-way / triangular journeys and not having to commit to using the same route for outward and return journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's great.

I'd rather trade the flexibility of overnight break of journeys against not being overcharged while doing one-way / triangular journeys and not having to commit to using the same route for outward and return journeys.

Sometimes it'll be better for overnight BoJ too if it's on the outward journey, as you'll only need to split one way, not both, and so will pay a little less.

As long as same day BoJ is allowed (i.e. popping out for a fag or a McDs), which it de facto is anyway whatever the restrictions say, then there isn't a great loss.

That's great.

I'd rather trade the flexibility of overnight break of journeys against not being overcharged while doing one-way / triangular journeys and not having to commit to using the same route for outward and return journeys.

Same. This will save me money overall, even if I do end up paying the odd admin fee if I do unexpectedly change a return day due to e.g. unexpected illness.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Given I can't see it on their website, are they cutting singles to be half the return fare then? Or are people making a return journey going to have to pay more than they currently do?

 

[trainstrainstr]

Market research showed 61% of customers supported the SLP trial period being extended and generally indicated that SLP surpassed the old far structure in terms of flexibility, and ease of selecting ticket choices.

It was always intended to make life simpler, of course there is an element of revenue generation in there but it's swings and roundabouts. It will be cheaper for some, potentially not for others. It started because customer feedback indicated that the existing fares system was overly complex and outdated.

You know what? It's baffling how everyone jumps to the worst conclusions about LNER. Let's get this straight: there are no wicked goblins lurking behind desks, plotting schemes to squeeze every penny out of you. Sometimes, it's simply a bunch of people with big ideas, striving to innovate and make things better.

 

[Haywain]

there are no wicked goblins lurking behind desks,

I don't know, I could come up with a couple of names!

 

[yorksrob]

Market research showed 61% of customers supported the SLP trial period being extended and generally indicated that SLP surpassed the old far structure in terms of flexibility, and ease of selecting ticket choices.

It was always intended to make life simpler, of course there is an element of revenue generation in there but it's swings and roundabouts. It will be cheaper for some, potentially not for others. It started because customer feedback indicated that the existing fares system was overly complex and outdated.

You know what? It's baffling how everyone jumps to the worst conclusions about LNER. Let's get this straight: there are no wicked goblins lurking behind desks, plotting schemes to squeeze every penny out of you. Sometimes, it's simply a bunch of people with big ideas, striving to innovate and make things better.

It's not so much LNER per se that we mistrust !

If it's a fares reform, one would prefer it to be on average "cost neutral" to passengers rather than disadvantageous.

 

[Haywain]

If it's a fares reform, one would prefer it to be on average "cost neutral" to passengers rather than disadvantageous.

If it's cost neutral on average, it will be disadvantageous to some.

 

[yorksrob]

If it's cost neutral on average, it will be disadvantageous to some.

But that's still better than disadvantageous on average !

In terms of the trial, are there any statistics available as to whether passengers are paying more or less on average with the change ? This is the key piece of info I think

 

[furlong]

It just replaces one sort of complexity with a different sort of complexity. For some people it'll be simpler, while for other people it'll be more complicated. Surveys giving percentages should be taken with a pinch of salt. LNER claims it'll reduce overcrowding - that can only mean the price of travelling on some specific busy trains will increase which will push some people towards using road travel instead (in both directions). Similarly some people who are fraudulently reusing return portions of tickets on a significant scale may now shift away to the roads, reducing revenue but at least also reducing fraud. (If you don't get the overall system and pricing right, less fraud can paradoxically lead to less revenue.) Once everything has settled down and people have adjusted their behaviour, it's anyone's guess whether LNER will take more or less revenue than before but I certainly wouldn't assume the answer is 'more' if people who are already paying the railway the maximum they feel able to now have to pay more but instead take their custom elsewhere and give it nothing. The trials must have given them some confidence though.

 

[trainstrainstr]

I don't know, I could come up with a couple of names!

Well, most of the goblins I know of have left.....

But that's still better than disadvantageous on average !

In terms of the trial, are there any statistics available as to whether passengers are paying more or less on average with the change ? This is the key piece of info I think

If you want to ask that question, it's important to be more specific. Being too vague will only lead to vague answers. Or maybe I don't mean vague, but maybe too generalised with the question? Consider the specific legs of journeys and timings involved. There are various factors at play that influence the cost. So you'd want to compare the same journey before and after SLP. I'm crap at stats and data though so I might be wrong with all those statements.

I do think they've considered demand. LNER, being a revenue-generating organisation, aims to optimise journeys with high demand. They may offer cheaper tickets for routes with low demand. This strategy has a dual effect. It can potentially increase their profit on high-demand journeys, but if passengers start shifting to the lower demand routes, it benefits the passengers while not being as lucrative for LNER in terms of revenue. However, it does help distribute the passenger load, which is why they're addressing overcrowding concerns. Maybe?

 

[RJ]

Market research showed 61% of customers supported the SLP trial period being extended and generally indicated that SLP surpassed the old far structure in terms of flexibility, and ease of selecting ticket choices.

It was always intended to make life simpler, of course there is an element of revenue generation in there but it's swings and roundabouts. It will be cheaper for some, potentially not for others. It started because customer feedback indicated that the existing fares system was overly complex and outdated.

Anybody can get a price for a journey with relative ease. The system is what it is - voluntarily digging deeper to reduce that price is an option that usually resorts in the system being labelled as complex.

I regularly travel from London to Newcastle, sometimes the SVR is the most appropriate ticket, sometimes it’s the SSR. More often than not I use the break of journey right on the return to London. This innovation of single leg pricing only makes it more expensive to do that. Hence why I bought tickets that weren’t part of the SLP trial.

Out of curiosity, why are LNER so keen on withdrawing the flexibility of an open return ticket? If fraud is an element then surely on board ticket checks and scans should take care of most of that.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Market research showed 61% of customers supported the SLP trial period being extended and generally indicated that SLP surpassed the old far structure in terms of flexibility, and ease of selecting ticket choices.

It was always intended to make life simpler, of course there is an element of revenue generation in there but it's swings and roundabouts. It will be cheaper for some, potentially not for others. It started because customer feedback indicated that the existing fares system was overly complex and outdated.

You know what? It's baffling how everyone jumps to the worst conclusions about LNER. Let's get this straight: there are no wicked goblins lurking behind desks, plotting schemes to squeeze every penny out of you. Sometimes, it's simply a bunch of people with big ideas, striving to innovate and make things better.

The trial was for a limited range of journey opportunities. I would imagine that the 'wicked goblins' carefully selected those journey opportunities for the trial to try and ensure a favourable outcome in their subsequent market research. That only 61% were in favour is not a fantastic result!

The June roll out is still less than the full range of journey opportunities as fares not set by LNER will still be available alongside an unspecified number of LNER fares.

From the LNER website here.

Simpler Tickets. Better Value​

We're making it easier to buy the cheapest ticket for your journey.
From 11 June, after a successful trial, we're removing return tickets from most LNER journeys. Our simplified tickets will make it easier to find the best value ticket for your journey.
This new simplified ticket structure will allow customers to buy a single ticket for each leg of their journey. By removing the outdated practice where a single ticket can cost just a little less than a return ticket, giving customers better value fares, a return journey would never cost more than two single tickets.
Single tickets will also help reduce overcrowding, making more seat reservations available for those that want one
Please note, you will still see and be able to purchase return tickets available for other train operators, as well as a small number of LNER journeys.

How will single leg pricing help reduce overcrowding?

Oh dear: here

For a comfortabel ride, make sure to reserve a seat if you do decide to travel on a different train.

It's not the only error.

Does anyone have access to the fares data to determine how many journeys which may involve use of LNER trains, or run along the LNER route are actually priced by LNER? Secondly how many LNER priced fares are being retained eg as returns with 'overpriced close to the return fare' singles?

I look forward to the national roll out of this, in future paying £4.25 (half the current return fare) instead of £7.70 single. Bring it on. No, it aint gonna happen is it!

As regards period returns, currently valid for one month, if a passenger now has to buy two singles and needs to change the second single aka the return portion, will they have to pay the £10 fee?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I do find some of their wording very odd.
E.g "a return journey would never cost more than two single tickets" - well of course. Even now that is the case!

 

[yorksrob]

Well, most of the goblins I know of have left.....



If you want to ask that question, it's important to be more specific. Being too vague will only lead to vague answers. Or maybe I don't mean vague, but maybe too generalised with the question? Consider the specific legs of journeys and timings involved. There are various factors at play that influence the cost. So you'd want to compare the same journey before and after SLP. I'm crap at stats and data though so I might be wrong with all those statements.

I do think they've considered demand. LNER, being a revenue-generating organisation, aims to optimise journeys with high demand. They may offer cheaper tickets for routes with low demand. This strategy has a dual effect. It can potentially increase their profit on high-demand journeys, but if passengers start shifting to the lower demand routes, it benefits the passengers while not being as lucrative for LNER in terms of revenue. However, it does help distribute the passenger load, which is why they're addressing overcrowding concerns. Maybe?

The trial was done on a specific and quite limited range of flows, so it should be possible to calculate whether passengers are paying more on average for those flows than previously.

Infact, I would be surprised if this wasn't part of the trial assessment.

 

[trainstrainstr]

Out of curiosity, why are LNER so keen on withdrawing the flexibility of an open return ticket? If fraud is an element then surely on board ticket checks and scans should take care of most of that.

LNER are being pushed to be frontrunners in fares reform, often biz head ideas sound wonderful and innovative but your average consumer just wants a fairly priced ticket that does the job....

 

[yorkie]

Are they getting rid of alll Off Peak fares into London, like they did with Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh to London, thus pushing the users of those tickets onto more costly Anytime or Advance fares?

End of the line for return rail tickets

Story in the Telegraph today, not yet available online but it has made the front page (amongst the lettuce and the balloon): RETURN tickets are to be scrapped as Rishi Sunak gives the green light to long awaited reforms of railways, Mark Harper, the Transport Secretary, will announce plans...

www.railforums.co.uk