• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Questions for people who have used e-tickets

What do you think of e-tickets ?


  • Total voters
    308
Status
Not open for further replies.

Wallsendmag

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2014
Messages
5,133
Location
Wallsend or somewhere in GB
Do they actually, if issued on bog-roll, have a record in a database that is the ticket, and the piece of barcoded bog roll is just a reference to it? I'm not sure, I didn't think they did, because it would make things a bit harder when issuing them on lines with poor mobile signal if they did.
There is no issue database record it's a blacklist rather than a whitelist, the barcode is there so that when scanned the ticket can be added to a "We've seen this ticket at this location " database , if that location is the origin or destination there is a journey commenced, journey complete message.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is no issue database record it's a blacklist rather than a whitelist, the barcode is there so that when scanned the ticket can be added to a "We've seen this ticket at this location " database , if that location is the origin or destination there is a journey commenced, journey complete message.

Is that how all e-tickets work, then? If so I rather stand corrected.

I'd imagine at some point it will move across to being genuinely "the ticket is a record in the database, the bit of paper just a reference to it".
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
So to answer the question that started this sub-discussion (which for some reason it isn't letting me quote), stations don't issue e-tickets currently as far as I'm aware.
Well in that case they're telling porkies clearly because eticket is the term they've used.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Lots do in reality. It's just that you'd like to think that.

The only e-tickets that only work in an app that I know of are those issued by GWR. Every other e-ticket is sent as a PDF as well as being available in an app. Some TOCs sell things they call e-tickets that are actually m-tickets and not e-tickets.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
The only e-tickets that only work in an app that I know of are those issued by GWR. Every other e-ticket is sent as a PDF as well as being available in an app. Some TOCs sell things they call e-tickets that are actually m-tickets and not e-tickets.
Have you been following? TransPennine Express also call tickets "eticket" and then lock them to one app on one device.

Grand Central and Greater Anglia are known to be doing something similar although I haven't used their retail services personally.

To put it another way: it's common practice.

Furthermore, the fact that you've decided to call it an mticket but Greater Anglia (or whomever) have decided to call it an eticket will be of no relevance or assistance to a consumer who feels misled and wants their money back.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
GA only offer m-tickets, not e-tickets.
In the opinion of Bletchleyite, perhaps.

How do I refund or change my e-ticket?
E-tickets cannot be refunded or changed.
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/contact-us/faqs/tickets#faq327817


Furthermore, the fact that you've decided to call it an mticket but Greater Anglia (or whomever) have decided to call it an eticket will be of no relevance or assistance to a consumer who feels misled and wants their money back.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
They aren't fraudsters. There's a certain logic in pushing people buying tickets on a mobile device to default to m tickets, but it would be nice if there was a way to override it.
What that logic is escapes me, perhaps you can clarify? M-tickets seem to offer no advantage over e-tickets for the customer, nor for the operator providing they have a reliable means of scanning and verifying them against a central database (possible problem on routes with poor mobile coverage?). And it seems to me the confusion between the two would generate a lot of hassle for the operator handling complaints. Or perhaps you were thinking of m-tickets versus paper tickets?

There is no issue database record it's a blacklist rather than a whitelist, the barcode is there so that when scanned the ticket can be added to a "We've seen this ticket at this location " database , if that location is the origin or destination there is a journey commenced, journey complete message.
I don't understand this. If it is as you suggest then each bog-roll ticket must be uniquely identifiable in the database, but others have said that these tickets only encode the journey details not a unique ticket identifier. Can anyone say definitely which of these is correct - or are there two sub-types of bog-roll ticket?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I had my second e-ticket experience last week. My first one had been smooth enough. I used an app (TrainPal - for the discounts). However, preparing the app for the barriers at Ipswich, the app just crashed band refused to restart.

Thankfully, a phone restart sorted it. What would happen in the situation if I couldn't get the app to start?
For complete clarity, the answer is that the train companies can ask you to pay for a new ticket at full price, or, where they've complied with the rules, to pay a Penalty Fare. In England and Wales at least, if you're asked to pay, you've no choice but to do so or risk a criminal record.

It's also a possibility that the company might threaten to prosecute you for a breach of Byelaw 18, which they could do regardless of whether you agreed to pay a second fare due. Northern used to do this all the time, and offer to close the matter for a settlement of £80 plus fare due. This approach seems to be on the decline, and a Penalty Fare of twice the correct fare is more likely. (NB that Penalty Fares issued in a compliant manner are also unlikely, but that doesn't get you out of it unless you can articulate that case on an appeal)

A contact later with customer relations might or might not yield you a refund or credit. The Charter of the company in question might formalise this part of the process, as LNER's does. If your railcard app broke, you could use the procedure in NRCoT for a refund for a forgotten railcard to gain a refund of the Penalty Fare or other extra fare paid.
 
Last edited:

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
3,724
There are several different things here that are perhaps confusing people.

1. How tickets are defined as being able to be fulfilled in the Retail Control Service (RCS) data
2. How TOCs have chosen to set up their flows (i.e. whether as eTicket, or m-ticket - or possibly both)
3. How retailers (both TOC and third party) have chosen to implement the fulfilment process
4. What retailers (both TOC and third party) actually call the different types of barcode ticket

1. Fulfilment methods
Retail Control Service (RCS) is an industry data feed used by TIS suppliers to determine how a ticket type (such as SDS) from an origin to a destination (e.g. YRK to KGX) for a given route code (e.g. 00000) can be fulfilled. There are numerous fulfilment types, such as ToD, smartcard, PTR (paper picket roll - sometimes referred to on here as "bog roll"), eTicket and m-ticket. From memory I think CCST is assumed, rather than explicitly stated. All TIS suppliers should use RCS, though one does not (though it makes no real difference to the outcome in this case as thy have their own version which is very similar). There is an explicit distinction between eTicket and m-ticket in this data.

2. Set up of flows in RCS data
For those flows that can be set up as in RCS data either eTicket or m-ticket, the following is a broad summary:
- SE, c2c and Merseyrail are not doing either eTickets or m-tickets on their flows, preferring smartcard fulfilment
- ScotRail are not doing either eTickets or m-tickets on their internal flows, but are supporting x-border flows that involve other TOCs
- Greater Anglia only added m-ticket fulfilment for their flows
- everyone else added eTicket fulfilment for their flows, though not all flows / products are yet enabled (and some can't be, e.g. where they cross London)

3. Implementation of eTickets / m-tickets on websites and apps
Different TOCs have implemented eTickets in different ways, even though there is a single RSP standard for this. This is clearly confusing people (unsurprisingly). The way an eTicket should be implemented I have explained in a previous post in this thread. I agree that it would be better if there was proper consistency (just as there is with CCST tickets (*almost!)). For how things should work, you are better off looking at a third party retailer (such as Trainline - I have no affiliation with them) and you will see that the method of getting eTickets is consistent across all TOCs. It's just that some TOCs (such as GWR and TPE) have done non-standard implementations.

4. Naming
Yes, it would definitely be better if retailers (whether TOC or third party) could follow naming convention. This should at least reduce customer confusion. The names probably need revisiting in any case, but that's different matter.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Thank you, very interesting. Would you please explain this one sentence, it may just be me of course but I don't understand it? Thank you.
I think what it means is that there's an assumption that any ticket can be printed in Credit Card Sized Ticket format.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
I think this is the fourth time I've explained this to you: no they're not. Mtickets have to be activated, but these don't.
In your opinion. Etickets have to be available for download and printing as PDF but those aren't. Greater Anglia are liars defrauding passengers IMO. The regulator should slap them for this (as well as all the other broken franchise pledges and misinformation). I thought etickets had become much worse since I used to use them on Crosscountry but then someone (maybe yorkie?) explained GA were selling mtickets and calling them etickets. Now I buy etickets from other retailers when available but cannot for GA journeys.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If you want to get "proper" e-tickets via a mobile app and are buying walk-up, buy from the Trainline app. On the day there are no fees. For any e-ticket enabled flow you will get a proper PDF e-ticket by e-mail plus a replica of it in the app (no activation).

I don't quite get why the TOC branded Trainline apps aren't just a skinned version of this. Maintaining multiple different ones must be a faff.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,874
I think what it means is that there's an assumption that any ticket can be printed in Credit Card Sized Ticket format.
I agree with that interpretation but it is clearly possible to exclude CCST fulfilment for ticket types so some form of selecting the option must exist.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,874
I don't understand this. If it is as you suggest then each bog-roll ticket must be uniquely identifiable in the database, but others have said that these tickets only encode the journey details not a unique ticket identifier. Can anyone say definitely which of these is correct - or are there two sub-types of bog-roll ticket?
The only barcodes that do not contain the full and uniquely identifiable ticket details are those on CCST which are not going to be scanned and recorded on a database for anything other than usage statistics. All Paper Roll tickets have a barcode with a ticket number which works in exactly the same way as the barcode on an e-ticket or m-ticket.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't understand this. If it is as you suggest then each bog-roll ticket must be uniquely identifiable in the database, but others have said that these tickets only encode the journey details not a unique ticket identifier. Can anyone say definitely which of these is correct - or are there two sub-types of bog-roll ticket?

I think what he's saying is that the ticket does have a unique identifier (just like a credit card size one does), but that there is no central database of those identifiers and what tickets they refer to, but rather just a database of where given ticket IDs have been used. That is, a usage is uploaded, but the sale itself isn't.

This is rather a halfway house, hopefully we will move to e-tickets being in a single database in full, as that gives rise to lots of new passenger-friendly options such as being able to amend or refund a ticket at any sales channel, for a central Delay Repay clearing house, for reprints if you lose it (cancelling the existing one in the database) etc, as well as some crime-prevention ones like being able to cancel a ticket that is reported to have been purchased using a fraudulent card transaction.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The only barcodes that do not contain the full and uniquely identifiable ticket details are those on CCST which are not going to be scanned and recorded on a database for anything other than usage statistics. All Paper Roll tickets have a barcode with a ticket number which works in exactly the same way as the barcode on an e-ticket or m-ticket.

I think what he's saying is that the ticket does have a unique identifier (just like a credit card size one does), but that there is no central database of those identifiers and what tickets they refer to, but rather just a database of where given ticket IDs have been used. That is, a usage is uploaded, but the sale itself isn't.
Only one of you can be right...
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,874
This is rather a halfway house, hopefully we will move to e-tickets being in a single database in full, as that gives rise to lots of new passenger-friendly options such as being able to amend or refund a ticket at any sales channel, for a central Delay Repay clearing house, for reprints if you lose it (cancelling the existing one in the database) etc, as well as some crime-prevention ones like being able to cancel a ticket that is reported to have been purchased using a fraudulent card transaction.
It isn’t necessary to have a record of all tickets issued to make changes. It is simply necessary to add the details of the changed ticket to the database to show that it has been changed or cancelled. The purpose of the database is to record usage and changes, not issues. The ticket, in the case of PRT, or sales transaction will provide all the details of the issue.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It isn’t necessary to have a record of all tickets issued to make changes. It is simply necessary to add the details of the changed ticket to the database to show that it has been changed or cancelled. The purpose of the database is to record usage and changes, not issues. The ticket, in the case of PRT, or sales transaction will provide all the details of the issue.

But as I said if you also record issues you have the advantage that it becomes true e-ticketing, allowing for things like reprints and amendments at any sales channel without even needing to hold the ticket in any form. Same as airlines.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
But as I said if you also record issues you have the advantage that it becomes true e-ticketing, allowing for things like reprints and amendments at any sales channel without even needing to hold the ticket in any form. Same as airlines.
Presumably, although this may have been the customer's priority, it wasn't theirs.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
In your opinion.
Apologies, I should have used clearer wording.

Bletchleyite's definition of mtickets is that they must be activated. The ticket I got from TransPennine Express had no concept of activation. Therefore it didn't match his definition of mticket, despite being protected from copying and locked to one account and device.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I agree with that interpretation but it is clearly possible to exclude CCST fulfilment for ticket types so some form of selecting the option must exist.
I agree, I've travelled with a ticket that was 'e-ticket only', bought in a sale from the CrossCountry website.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I don't quite get why the TOC branded Trainline apps aren't just a skinned version of this. Maintaining multiple different ones must be a faff.
Isn't it obvious why train companies are incentivised to add extra restrictions to the ticket format? Because if people don't comply with the restrictions they place upon the tickets, the train companies are permitted to require them to pay again.

I'm not saying that's what was done deliberately, but customers making innocent, minor errors is financially in their interests (and those of comission-based onboard sales staff).

The same thing went on with print at home tickets that weren't clearly printed, or goes on today with bizarre and esoteric restrictions like Groupsave vs Group Save, interleaved time restrictions and TOC restrictions that are abbreviated to meaninglessness e.g TFWRSONLY.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Isn't it obvious why train companies are incentivised to add extra restrictions to the ticket format? Because if people don't comply with the restrictions they place upon the tickets, the train companies are permitted to require them to pay again.

I'm not saying that's what was done deliberately, but customers making innocent, minor errors is financially in their interests (and those of comission-based onboard sales staff).

The same thing went on with print at home tickets that weren't clearly printed, or goes on today with bizarre and esoteric restrictions like Groupsave vs Group Save, interleaved time restrictions and TOC restrictions that are abbreviated to meaninglessness e.g TFWRSONLY.
Oh, and another thing. Trainline will let you have a refund for the £10 charge, or an amendment in the case of an Advance. Others, such as Greater Anglia as I quoted above, get away with not allowing that.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
In your opinion. Etickets have to be available for download and printing as PDF but those aren't. Greater Anglia are liars defrauding passengers IMO. The regulator should slap them for this (as well as all the other broken franchise pledges and misinformation). I thought etickets had become much worse since I used to use them on Crosscountry but then someone (maybe yorkie?) explained GA were selling mtickets and calling them etickets. Now I buy etickets from other retailers when available but cannot for GA journeys.
Does anyone have more information about this? I've not booked anything with Greater Anglia but if they are issuing m-tickets as e-tickets then this is incorrect. Does anyone have any screenshots showing this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top