From 27-09-24
FAO: Richard Pill, CEO, British Regional Transport Association (BRTA)
Dear, Mr. Pill,
That there is a formal distinction between LNER's Simpler Fares pilot and LNER's introduction of Single-Leg Pricing needs to be understood.
The Simpler Fares pilot (launched in January, 2024) and LNER’s introduction of Single-Leg Pricing (introduced in June, 2024) are completely separate and distinct entities which should not be treated synonymously. LNER's introduction of Single-Leg Pricing is not part of the Simpler Fares pilot; the Simpler Fares pilot is not part of the introduction of Single-Leg Pricing.
They are separate and distinct entities. If LNER were to fully abort the Simpler Fares pilot, and were to fully revert to the how things stood on the day before the Simpler Fares pilot came into effect, Single-Leg Pricing would still exist on LNER, because Single-Leg Pricing was introduced separately and distinctly from the Simpler Fares pilot, and does not form part of the Simpler Fares pilot's remit and provisions.
I am not certain that this distinction is widely appreciated, even by industry observers.
(DURATION OF THE PILOT SCHEME):
The duration of the Simpler Fares pilot is suspiciously long, it is a two-year pilot. Not only on the railways, but in society in general, trials/pilots are typically of a period of up to six months. Even a period of one year would be considered long.
It feels that H.M. Government mandated such a lengthy duration in order to engineer a situation whereby it is a fait accompli that the provisions of the pilot will become permanent.
Two years are a very long time, far longer than pilots typically are. After such a long period of time, provisions have become 'baked-in', leaving it difficult to unpick, disentangle and revert. After such a long period of time, the ordinary member of the general public becomes accustomed to things, and somewhat forgets that things were not always previously thus.
Now that the Simpler Fares pilot has been extended to more stations, it feels as though the Department of Transport is consolidating efforts to ensure the aforementioned fait accompli.
The chosen duration of the Simpler Fares pilot is suspiciously long, and that should not be disregarded.
........................
It is a conventional wisdom that people are put off rail travel because fares are complicated. It's a myth.
On a gloriously-sunny day, no one, since time began, has ever been asked by their friend/wife/husband/girlfriend/nextdoor neighbour if they'd like to go for a day out to the seaside, and replied:
"That's a great idea, Jennifer. I'd absolutely love to go to the seaside today, but fares are complicated, so I'll stay at home".
They might decline the invitation because fares are expensive, but not because fares are complicated. People being put off by fares being complicated is just a conventional wisdom which gets parroted without evidence, and without evidence even being requested.
Anon
FAO: British Regional Transport Association
Monday the 2nd. of September, 2024
Dear Mr. Pill,
RE: LNER’s and the Labour Government's announcement that LNER's Simpler Fares pilot will, in October of 2024, be extended to additional railway stations
In despite all of the glaringly obvious sticks-out-like-a-sore thumb evidence that all of this simplification is a terrible thing, which actually increases travelling costs and decreases convenience, politicians have been seduced by the word 'simplification', and have allowed LNER (LNER is the worst culprit by far) and c2c to get away with fares-and-ticketing changes which are profoundly detrimental. Single-Leg Pricing and simplification are, and persistently and consistently have been, profoundly bad for the travelling public, but the blinkered or naïve politicians have let this all happen unopposed rather than challenging the Government.
Usually, when the powers-that-be put forward proposals for changes to fares-and-ticketing on public transport, or ANY proposal on public transport, non-Ministerial politicians and their allies will forensically scour the proposals for any the-Devil-is-in-the-detail negative implications of the proposals, and will relentlessly hound the powers-that-be until those the-Devil-is-in-the-detail negative implications are recognised and addressed.
The authorities have been able to get away with all manner of detrimental implementations because politicians and many members of the general have been seduced by the word 'simplification' and have been too obsessed by the fact that Returns cost only slightly more than Singles; obsessed by the belief, the huge misconception that millions of citizens are put off of rail travel for no other reason than that Rail Fares In This Country Are Complicated.
People are not put off by fares being complicated; they are but off by fares being expensive.
Those politicians who would usually fight against negative changes/negative proposed changes have been seduced and distracted by sleight-of-hand red-herring distractions.
These changes and simplifications are a terrible thing, something which needs to be fought against. A problem is that there are two battles needing to be fought:
(i). the battle against these negative changes;
(ii). the battle to get our elected representatives in Parliament and the devolved regional and national bodies to realise that there is a battle which needs to be fought.
The proposals for ticket-office closures were defeated because so very many recognised a problem, rallied around, got vocal, spread the word far; mobilised and lobbied.
What will it take for those public representatives who support all of this to finally realise that these changes on the railways (particularly exemplified by LNER, but appearing elsewhere, too) are awful and highly detrimental?
Labour has been waxing lyrical about intending to reduce travelling costs and increase convenience, yet one of the very first specific actions regarding the railways which Labour has taken is to increase fares and decrease convenience.
LNER is government-owned, under the Operator of Last Resort, which is part of state apparatus, under the auspices of the Department of Transport, therefore the decision to extend the scheme would have been (and can only be) taken with the approval of H.M. Government, and could not have happened without Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh's ultimate authorisation. H.M. Government has knowingly and wilfully increased fares in despite of everything which Labour has said in recent months and recent weeks.
Return fares, Super Off-Peak fares, Day Singles, Day Returns, Off-Peak fares, railcard discounts, to-boundary-zone fares: simplification puts them all at risk (and LNER already has de jure vanquished or de facto vanquished almost all of them), these so-called 'complicated' things which simplification has simplified away are actually what facilitate the availability of cheaper options. If you take a sledgehammer to the behemoth you bring down the cheaper options which lurk within the behemoth.
Already, fares-and-ticketing changes on LNER have massively increased fares and travelling costs, and reduced convenience and reduced flexibility; the October of 2024 extension of the Simpler Fares pilot makes it even more so on all counts.
For round-trip travel, Single-Leg Pricing means that two tickets have to be purchased where previously you only had to buy one ticket; therefore, you have to carry out two transactions when previously you only had to carry out one: that is a loss of convenience and a loss of flexibility.
In some cases, it is a de facto abolition; in some cases, it is a de jure abolition: the June of 2023 introduction of Single-Leg Pricing and the February of 2024 introduction of the Simpler Fares pilot have, in some cases, abolished open tickets, in other cases made open tickets and turn-up-and-go tickets so prohibitively expensive as to effectively render open tickets as no longer available: that is a loss of convenience and a loss of flexibility.
The abolition of all but the (ultra expensive) Anytime Single—even the Anytime Day Single has been abolished—means that turn-up-and-go tickets, tickets which allow for breaks-of-journey, have been made to become so prohibitively expensive that they have effectively been removed—a de facto abolition. One no longer has the wonderful option of making breaks-of-journey: that is a loss of convenience and a loss of flexibility.
These damaging fares-and-ticketing changes on LNER and c2c need to be reversed. The retention of Return fares, Day fares, Super Off-Peak and the full range of turn-up-and-go fares needs to be protected; where any of these things have been abolished already, they need to be reinstated.
Single-Leg Pricing is the Emperor's New Clothes; the abolition of Singles is not required to resolve the current situation with Returns costing much the same as a Single. Keep Returns, and keep them at the current price, then halve the price of Singles. Halving the price of fare X does not necessitate the abolition of fare Y. Price is not the only factor, Returns offer convenience, security and certainty.
How can anyone sincerely argue that these changes on LNER (and, to a lesser extent, the changes on c2c) are beneficial to the travelling public financially or practically, or both?
(additional material). Detrimental implementations by H.M. Government on LNER, 2 and elsewhere on the railway network
That there is a formal distinction between LNER's Simpler Fares pilot and LNER's introduction of Single-Leg Pricing needs to be understood.
The Simpler Fares pilot (launched in February, 2024) and LNER’s introduction of Single-Leg Pricing (introduced in June, 2024) are completely separate and distinct entities which should not be treated synonymously. LNER's introduction of Single-Leg Pricing is not part of the Simpler Fares pilot; the Simpler Fares pilot is not part of the introduction of Single-Leg Pricing.
They are separate and distinct entities. If LNER were to fully abort the Simpler Fares pilot, and fully revert to the how things stood on the day before the Simpler Fares pilot came into effect, Single-Leg Pricing would still exist on LNER, because Single-Leg Pricing was introduced separately and distinctly from the Simpler Fares pilot, and does not form part of the Simpler Fares pilot's remit and provisions.
I am not certain that this distinction is widely appreciated, even by industry observers.
(DURATION OF THE PILOT SCHEME):
The duration of the Simpler Fares pilot is suspiciously long, it is a two-year pilot. Not only on the railways, but in society in general, trials/pilots are typically of a period of up to six months. Even a period of one year would be considered long.
It feels that H.M. Government/Department of Transport/Rail Delivery Group mandated such a lengthy duration in order to engineer a situation whereby it is a fait accompli that the provisions of the pilot will become permanent. Two years are a very long time, far longer than pilots typically are. After such a long period of time, provisions have become 'baked-in', leaving it difficult to unpick, disentangle and revert. After such a long period of time, the ordinary member of the general public becomes accustomed to things, and somewhat forgets that things were not always previously thus.
Now that the Simpler Fares pilot has been extended to more stations, it feels as though the Department of Transport is consolidating efforts to ensure the aforementioned fait accompli.
The chosen duration of the Simpler Fares pilot is suspiciously long, and that should not be disregarded.
Anon.
Any support we suggest you:
1. write/email your MP
2. Join BRTA and be a volunteer
3. help with getting a better deal for all rail users - quantity and quality experiences and value for money, people before profit.
Enquiries via richard.brta@gmail.com
.jpeg)
