LNER’s ‘Simpler Fares’ pilot: the results are in

Tuesday 10th November 2026

The Department for Transport has published a review it commissioned from consultants, Systra, into LNER’s two current fare pilots – ‘Single Leg Pricing’ and the so-called ‘Simpler Fares’.

The good news is Single Leg Pricing comes out of the review much more positively than the Simpler Fares trial which for yours truly, as a fairly regular passenger on the East Coast Main Line, comes as no surprise at all.

Single Leg Pricing, where return tickets were withdrawn in favour of having just single tickets, began as long ago as January 2020, initially limited to certain destinations (London KIng’s Cross, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh) with an expansion in June 2023 to cover all stations on the East Coast Main Line served by LNER including passengers buying ‘through tickets’ to/from destinations all over the country. So, for example, for a journey from my local station, Hassocks (in Sussex), to Leeds I’d need to buy a single ticket to Leeds and a single home again rather than the previous arrangement of a return ticket but crucially the new single tickets were priced at half the former return ticket price so any discount previously enshrined in the return was retained in the new arrangements. And even better, the flexibility the new arrangement provided meant passengers could travel from London to, say Leeds then on to York by bus perhaps and return to London from York. It also meant passengers could mix and match a fixed timed journey with a cheaper ‘Advanced ticket’ for an outward leg but buy a flexible single for the return. Even First and Standard Class journeys could be mixed and matched.

That’s why it’s no surprise it’s found favour with passengers as confirmed by the Systra review. 53% of passengers agreed that buying separate singles gave them more flexibility over when to travel and 18% said they were travelling more frequently (with 5% less frequently) with 49% saying they would travel more frequently if Single Leg Pricing was introduced nationally, and only 3% less frequently.

The underlying message from the research was passengers recognise the benefit of more sensibly priced single tickets, but some resented losing the convenience of a return ticket.

Anyone upset at not being able to buy a return ticket from their origin station could just buy a single out and a single back at the same time and have the return facility they previously would have had. No losers and potential new winners enjoying the freedom it offers without, as previously having to pay a premium when single tickets were priced at more than half the return fare. OK, there’s the inconvenience of buying two transactional tickets if using a ticket vending machine or on line, but that’s a minor inconvenience.

Overall it’s a win win.

Systra’s report does contain a reference to the impact on revenue and revenue per passenger, but impressive results such as an increase of 42%, with journeys and average revenue per passenger up by 19% care given a strong ‘health warning’ that such changes “reflect wider market conditions and cannot all be attributed to reform”.

In its second fares ‘pilot’, LNER rolled out its ‘Simpler Fares’ scheme in February 2023 which, as I blogged at the time, was “taking us for fools” with its claim “our Simpler Fares pilot aims to make buying tickets even easier and give customers a better experience with just three ticket types.”

One of those three ticket types was the Anytime Single which everyone knows is just an anomalous over-priced ‘own-goal’ of a ticket beloved by the media wanting negative headlines about expensive ‘rip-off’ train tickets and only ever existed for expense account business travellers. Who else would shell out £401.60 (£661.80 First Class) for a return London to Newcastle journey?

The other two ‘Simpler Fares’ ticket types were journey specific Advance Fares with a newly introduced “simpler” option of buying a “Flex Single” which entails shelling out £20 more for the benefit of being able to rebook a journey up to 70 minutes before or after the departure time of the original journey specific ticket.

The upshot of this new ‘simplicity’ was, aside from the overpriced Anytime Single, passengers travelling from, say, King’s Cross to Edinburgh were restricted to buying either a journey specific ticket or the aforementioned 70 minute variation.

At the time of introduction, LNER made much of the fact that what it called ‘confusing tickets’ were being withdrawn in the cause of ‘simplicity’ and ‘rationalisation of ticket types’. These were the flexible off-peak and super off-peak tickets preferred by passengers such as myself who don’t want to be restricted to a specific timed journey (or even a 70 minute variation) but enjoy the flexibility of being able to travel as and when I want (albeit not before 09:06 leaving King’s Cross on Mondays to Thursdays – as an example of a ‘peak’ restriction) including breaking my journey on the way – something Advanced tickets, restricted to a specific journey, don’t allow.

However, it wasn’t the case that LNER withdrew all off-peak/super off-peak tickets as was implied when the ‘pilot’ was promoted, as these have continued to be available for journeys along the East Coast Main Line where other Train Companies offer alternatives (eg between King’s Cross and York) and, of course, from stations across the country, for example, from Hassocks to Newcastle I’ve continued to enjoy the flexibility of buying a super off-peak single which only restricts me from not leaving King’s Cross prior to 09:06 and not between 14:59 and 18:59 on Mondays to Thursdays (Fridays 14:59 and 18:15).

The second part of the Systra research into the ‘Simpler Fares’ pilot found just 32% of passengers considered it fair or very fair, against 47% who considered it unfair or very unfair. As far as a potential roll out of the LNER scheme nationwide Systra found 19% thought they would travel more frequently, while 35% anticipated travelling less frequently.

Lying behind these results Systra found almost half considered it unfair to charge different prices according to how busy trains are. This is a much more fundamental objection than simply finding the ticket range confusing.

As far as passenger satisfaction goes, Systra found “overall satisfaction” with the LNER journey increased under both Single Leg Pricing (63% before, rising to 71% after) and ‘Simpler Fares’ (64% before, rising to 70% after) but make the important point that as only 32% considered Simpler Fares fair, passengers can be reasonably satisfied with their train journey while, at the same time, disliking the underlying pricing arrangements. It’s worth bearing this in mind when proponents of how great the LNER pilot is (because overall passenger satisfaction has increased) will chose to ignore the point that a more significant number of passengers regard the pricing as unfair.

Distinguishing between Single Leg Pricing and ‘Simpler Fares’ analysed in the report is important because the former changes the relationship between the price of a single and a return journey and corrects something passengers could readily recognise as an anomaly (when singles in some circumstances can be almost the same price as a return) but ‘Simpler Fares’ changes the relationship between the price and the time at which someone travels. It introduces a more dynamic pricing system which passengers may perceive as arbitrary or unfair, even if it is intended to make better use of capacity.

The latter is particularly important. A rail passenger might reasonably expect to pay less for booking early, but may be less comfortable with the idea the same journey costs more simply because the train is expected to be busy.

I’m hugely grateful to blog reader Paul who has kindly sent me the results when he asked ChatGPT to review Systra’s report (from which the above analysis is derived) as well as asking if the conclusions of the report point towards any alternative ideas for the much promised roll out of ‘fares reform’ nationally.

As Paul notes, “it pretty much articulates what I would have suggested: that the real problem is the complexity and inconsistency of the rules. In other words, four ticket types with simple, consistent rules can be simpler than three ticket types with complex rules.”

So here’s what ChatGPT reckons should be done, based on LNER’s pilots and Systea’s latest research…..

1. An alternative that has already been put forward: retain returns, but correct single fares

I found a particularly relevant proposal in written evidence submitted to the Railways Bill Public Bill Committee in January 2026. It makes a distinction that is easily overlooked: Single Leg Pricing does not require the abolition of return tickets. The proposal is to:

Retain return tickets as an option.
Reduce the price of a single to approximately half the equivalent return.
Ensure that buying two singles never costs more than buying a return.
Allow passengers to mix and match different ticket types for the outward and return legs.

The argument is that this achieves the principal objectives of Single Leg Pricing without removing the convenience of buying one return ticket.

The submission also argues for retaining useful products such as Super Off-Peak, Day Returns and flexible walk-up fares.

The Government’s October 2026 Railways Bill factsheet now describes a future system in which returns would be priced consistently with two singles. That is an important indication that retaining returns is compatible with the Government’s broader reform objectives.

2. A different approach to simplification: standardise the rules, not necessarily the products

I think this is potentially the more important alternative. Rather than remove ticket types, simplify the system around a small number of nationally consistent categories.

For example:

Proposed product	What passengers would get
Advance	Cheapest fares, tied to a specific train, with prices and availability clearly displayed.
Off-Peak	A flexible ticket usable on any train within clearly published off-peak periods.
Anytime	Fully flexible travel, without time restrictions.
Day Single / Day Return	Retained for shorter journeys, with straightforward validity and break-of-journey rules.
Return	Available as one purchase, with the price no greater than the equivalent two singles.

The important change would be to standardise the rules governing these tickets across the network, rather than eliminate products which offer passengers useful choices.

For example:

Consistent definitions of peak and off-peak travel.
Clear, nationally consistent rules for break of journey.
Consistent treatment of railcard discounts.
No situation where two singles cost more than an equivalent return.
A straightforward way of combining different fare types for outward and return journeys.

This would remove a great deal of the complexity passengers encounter without necessarily removing the flexibility they value.

3. Reconsider the use of demand-based pricing

The other possibility is to separate fares simplification from demand management. The LNER Simpler Fares trial combined two changes:

Simplifying the range of ticket products.
Introducing prices which vary according to expected demand and train loading.

The survey suggests that passengers were considerably less comfortable with the second change.

I would therefore consider an alternative in which:

Off-peak periods are clearly defined and published.
Advance tickets offer incentives to book early.
Cheaper fares are available on quieter trains.
There are safeguards against unexpectedly high fares on busy services.
The price structure is sufficiently predictable that passengers can understand why one train costs more than another.

This would still allow the railway to manage demand without making the basic pricing system feel arbitrary.

The Government’s October 2026 policy document already points towards some of these ideas: more cheaper advance fares, lower prices at quieter times, returns priced consistently with two singles, and fewer confusing ticket options.

4. What does the evaluation itself suggest?

There are some useful pointers in the report’s own concluding chapter, section 9.3.

Systra identifies several features worth carrying into future ticketing products:

Improving passengers’ understanding of ticket flexibility and restrictions.
Making information easier to find and understand.
Explaining the assurances attached to new products, particularly where these affect perceptions of fairness.
Recognising that different markets, particularly longer and shorter journeys, may respond differently.
Taking account of split-ticketing when evaluating the effects of new products.

It does not recommend a specific alternative fares structure, but these findings are consistent with simplifying the rules and improving transparency rather than simply removing ticket categories.

5. What I would take forward as an alternative proposal

I would frame this as a three-part approach:

A. Retain the useful choices

Keep Advance, Off-Peak and Anytime fares, including appropriate Super Off-Peak and Day Return options. Retain returns as a convenient purchase.

B. Simplify and standardise

Establish consistent national definitions, restrictions and conditions. Make it easier to understand what a ticket permits, regardless of operator or route.

C. Make pricing fairer and more transparent

Ensure singles are sensibly priced relative to returns, preserve cheaper fares for quieter services and advance booking, and introduce safeguards against excessive demand-based pricing.

The approach would need to be tested for its revenue implications, but it would avoid assuming that eliminating ticket types is the only way to simplify the system.

6. One particularly important point

I would be wary of equating the number of available fares with the complexity experienced by passengers.

A system with four clearly differentiated products and consistent rules might be much easier to understand than one with three products whose prices and availability vary in ways passengers find difficult to predict.

Equally, a system with fewer ticket types is not necessarily better if passengers lose the ability to make a break of journey, travel flexibly or obtain a cheaper fare.

My conclusion: the LNER evaluation provides grounds for reconsidering the direction of fares simplification, rather than abandoning the objective. The alternative worth exploring is a simpler, nationally consistent structure which preserves useful passenger choices, retains return tickets and makes pricing more predictable.

There is also a potentially useful distinction for a Railfuture discussion: simplification should mean making it easier to find and understand the right fare, not necessarily reducing the number of fares available.

That seems to me a constructive proposition to put to the Department for Transport and, eventually, Great British Railways.

Seen it. Said it. Sorted.

Well done ChatGPT for this, and my thanks once again to Paul for all his help.

Roger French

Blogging timetable”: 06:00 TThS