The "morality" of not sharing loophole tickets publicly

[A Challenge]

I'm clear in my own mind they are both clear "errors" which in an ideal world BOTH need to be fixed. I'd be sorry for those taking advantage of the ridiculous circuitous routeing for a farthing losing that gig, but there we are. Errors are errors

You know as well as I do that if I wrote an Email to the RDG pointing out that a ticket A - B is valid on a circuitous route via C but not on the sensible route via D, only one of those changes would be made, and it wouldn't result in an increase in validity.

In the original case, of tickets no longer being valid via Woking, this seems a particularly short-sighted move of an overreaction, even if I don't know the specifics of the anomoly for this particular case, due to the extra time and loss of journey opportunities it will add to many journeys.

 

[Jason12]

Ah, I think I understand now; your aim is to remove good value fares from use, and you are frustrated that you are struggling to find some of them, to submit them for amending, and you are dissatisfied that people who don't want routes to be abolished are not helping you to disclose them?

If I've misunderstood, I apologise; please do correct me if so.

Yes, you've misunderstood. I'm not aiming to remove so-called "good value" fares from use. I want everyone to be able to purchase them though. The current arrangement is that the "good value" fares can stay as long as they're not made available to everyone.

 

[Deafdoggie]

advise against doing anything that is not supported by journey planners; this could be problematic.

I think, possibly, the poster meant the journey is A-C via B. But it might be cheaper to go via, and split at, X, Y & Z. They aren't on the journey planners as a route A-C, but with split tickets, you can, of course, take any route as long as the train calls there. This can sometimes be cheaper, if a little longer.

 

[plugwash]

The anomalies available on air travel are far, far greater in scope than exist on the National Rail system in Great Britain.

However they are often harder to exploit, because airlines generally forbid skipping segments of a journey.

 

[yorksrob]

All the while we have an industry, backed by Government, whose primary aim is to increase revenue at the expense of passengers, it makes no sense to advertise anomolies that help passengers to get a good deal, directly to them on a public forum.

 

[yorkie]

In fact I have written to RDG on the subject, pointing out that that as map BM is present in the data for Smethwick to Warrington, Walsall to Warrington and Tyseley to Warrington, it's not being present in Birmingham to Warrington looks like an unintended omission. I also mention how journey planners behave because of that omission. I have not had a response let alone an admission that the error exists or any suggestion of a desire to fix it.

Writing to RDG probably won't get the issue passed onto the right person; customer services (or other staff who check feedback inboxes), are not always great at this.

If you want the right person to read it, the best thing to do is to create a thread on here, with a really clear title, and this will be picked up on.

I cannot guarantee that the change will be made, but there is a very good chance it will be.

I'm clear in my own mind they are both clear "errors" which in an ideal world BOTH need to be fixed. I'd be sorry for those taking advantage of the ridiculous circuitous routeing for a farthing losing that gig, but there we are. Errors are errors.

I don't see how the above post is compatible with the one below:

Yes, you've misunderstood. I'm not aiming to remove so-called "good value" fares from use. I want everyone to be able to purchase them though. The current arrangement is that the "good value" fares can stay as long as they're not made available to everyone.

It's not a convincing argument to say that a good value fare should be fixed but then say you are not aiming for that to happen.

Good value fares are open to everyone; there is nothing to stop anyone finding out the price and restrictions applicable to any ticket, and also finding out what routes are permitted on that ticket.

The average person does not wish to find out detailed information but it's all available, to anyone who wants it. It's far more open than bus/air fares are!

How would you propose that the existence of anomalies and loopholes is made to everyone but also remain in place?

Notwithstanding the fact they are available to everyone, and putting aside the problems with the confusing wording, if you somehow announced to "everyone" (and I'd be interested to how how you'd achieve that!) that a particular fare undercut the cost of another fare, I don't see how there would be any way of letting everyone (is that every person who uses trains in the UK?) know about it before it was withdrawn. If you have a proposal for how this could be achieved, I'd be very interested to hear it.

However they are often harder to exploit, because airlines generally forbid skipping segments of a journey.

Harder to exploit if your aim is to do part of the journey at the price of the full thing, yes. But travel enthusiasts may see the longer journey itself as the bonus; travelling via a convoluted route may be seen as a bonus. It depends on what people want to do, of course.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It's not at all complex. I have access to the DTD and with some quite simple code have built a list of fares from A to B, which are valid from X to Y. Where the A to B fare is less than X to Y, that's an anomaly. It's a brute force search and it takes hours on my 15 yr old laptop, but it reveals a list of anomalies a mile long.

Have you posted this code on GitHub or somewhere similar?

 

[zero]

Yeah, I don't understand Jason12's argument either. I have never met anyone on this forum in person and have no plans to attend any events at the moment, but I have found and used "loophole" fares on my own.

Perhaps what I've found is commonly known and discussed at the fares workshops, or maybe I'm the only one who has found them, I wouldn't know.

I don't think that makes me a "closed group" and immoral for not posting anything I find.

 

[realemil]

Have you posted this code on GitHub or somewhere similar?

Not sure publicising the code would be a good idea - as somebody who coded a similar program, it’s the last thing I’d do.

 

[yorkie]

Not sure publicising the code would be a good idea - as somebody who coded a similar program, it’s the last thing I’d do.

In order to be genuinely useful it would need to do a check to ensure the fare is actually valid for the journey.

If someone has made such a program, I know of employers who would be interested....

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I have found anomalies in the routeing guide which are of the scale of the 'via point' bug, though each limited to just one or two flows, where it's clearly the case the wrong map combination has been entered into the permitted routes record for a particular pair of routeing points. I struggle with the justification that this should be kept a closely guarded secret, lest the nasty pricing managers take it away (by applying the clearly intended map combo to the data) In my book, it's an error and it ought to be fixed.

This is revoltingly self-righteous. If you believe it is wrong to use a cheaper ticket combination which may available by mistake of the TOC or site, then by all means do not use it. Meanwhile, it is the right of the consumer to book whatever ticket is offered them on a train ticket booking site, and you do not have any place to tell anyone otherwise. Any itinerary offered when booking that ticket may be followed, and it outlines this is the National Rail Conditions Of Travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of the "via point" ones are due to an oversimplistic implementation of the rules for routed tickets, which I suspect is well known about.

As I understand it, the way it is meant to work for tickets with a geographic route is that that route limits the user to the subset of the Permitted Routes which go via that point. Only if there are no such routes is the calculation split in two, with the Permitted Routes being those from the start to the via point and from the via point to the destination.

With most planners, the second rule is always applied, so you get both sets of routes.

This creates anomalies like Bletchley to Warwick route Coventry being valid via Birmingham despite being cheaper than Bletchley to Birmingham Any Permitted. (I think I'm fine posting this one as it was discussed extensively here; it's an odd one in that I think via Birmingham is the obvious route, and so I'd be looking to offer a fare via Birmingham at a slightly higher price and route that one Not Birmingham rather than Coventry.

 

[yorkie]

Some of the "via point" ones are due to an oversimplistic implementation of the rules for routed tickets, which I suspect is well known about.

As I understand it, the way it is meant to work for tickets with a geographic route is that that route limits the user to the subset of the Permitted Routes which go via that point. Only if there are no such routes is the calculation split in two, with the Permitted Routes being those from the start to the via point and from the via point to the destination.

With most planners, the second rule is always applied, so you get both sets of routes.

The rule is that you calculate the permitted routes independently for the split route check.

These are then added to the through routes (if there are any).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The rule is that you calculate the permitted routes independently for the split route check.

These are then added to the through routes (if there are any).

Do you have a reference saying this? The online Routeing Guide instructions seem to say nothing on it other than where London is involved.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Not sure publicising the code would be a good idea - as somebody who coded a similar program, it’s the last thing I’d do.

Yeah, but you're not the one who's spent three pages arguing that it's wrong to keep these things a secret.

 

[akm]

Well this has stirred up a hornets' nest. I was just saying it mildly irritated me, I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition...

but then no one ever does, after all surprise is etc etc

 

[jrh2254]

Some light relief : Govt headline from 2011 : "Simplified Train Fares To Be Further Simplified Into One Price For All Tickets" ​

This was a headline 2 years after the previous simplification. I cant remember how many simplifications there have been since 2011 !!

 

[Watershed]

Yes, you've misunderstood. I'm not aiming to remove so-called "good value" fares from use. I want everyone to be able to purchase them though.

But you admit that this is not what will happen if they are widely publicised. So whilst we might all want people to be able to use good value fares, it's just not realistic.

The information is out there for people to look up; if they want to travel for less, in many cases they can do so with a little effort and research. If they're happy to pay the "normal" public rate, why should we stop them?

 

[yorkie]

Do you have a reference saying this? The online Routeing Guide instructions seem to say nothing on it other than where London is involved.

It's in the instructions issued to retailers but it was also stated in a letter from RDG which a forum member received.

I will try to find the thread and the letter. I think it may have been @bb21 who got it but I may be misremembering. It was a long time ago. I will aim to edit this post by this evening if I can find the link, bear with me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's in the instructions issued to retailers but it was also stated in a letter from RDG which a forum member received.

I will try to find the thread and the letter. I think it may have been @bb21 who got it but I may be misremembering. It was a long time ago. I will aim to edit this post by this evening if I can find the link, bear with me.

Cheers.

 

[philthetube]

Sorry Jason, but it seems to me that your issue is a belief that it is wrong for anyone else to have what you cannot have, despite others putting effort into finding these and you not bothering.

You need to think about this. Be happy, not jealous.

 

[realemil]

If someone has made such a program, I know of employers who would be interested....

Well challenge set then. Let’s see if that’s possible

 

[yorkie]

Well challenge set then. Let’s see if that’s possible

We're going to run a free fares data workshop; I've posted here if that is of interest: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fares-data-workshop.225712/

We can cover the fares data, the routeing guide data, or both, depending on what those attending would like to include.

Edit: just to add it is brilliant to meet new forum members; it's absolultely not a closed shop and I look forward to meeting you and anyone else who would like to join us! I've replied to your post on that thread

 

[miklcct]

The rule is that you calculate the permitted routes independently for the split route check.

These are then added to the through routes (if there are any).

I believe this is the reason of a few Southern loophole tickets to exist.

The ticket is A-B routed X, where all permitted routes of A-B which are via X are priced as intended. However, some of the permitted A-X routes, not part of permitted A-B routes, undercut the fares of other operators, and because of this rule the fare is valid on a route which isn't valid if not because of the "via" point.

 

[BingMan]

Train Company Pricing Managers watch this forum like hawks and there is a history of ‘loophole’ tickets or pricing anomalies being closed down once they have been exposed.

The best way to find out about good value fares is to attend a forum meal or fares workshop, as these things are frequently discussed at them.

But surely Train Pricing Managers in mufti attend forum meals and fares workshops.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But surely Train Pricing Managers in mufti attend forum meals and fares workshops.

I suspect @yorkie etc have enough inside industry information to know who those people are and so to ensure they aren't invited

 

[Haywain]

I suspect @yorkie etc have enough inside industry information to know who those people are and so to ensure they aren't invited

I thought such events were open to all.

 

[Watershed]

But surely Train Pricing Managers in mufti attend forum meals and fares workshops.

No they don't; they tend not to be that dedicated to their jobs!

In any case everyone is normally asked whether they have a conflict of interest before any anomalies are discussed. Of course it's possible someone could lie but this hasn't happened until now.

 

[Hadders]

I thought such events were open to all.

Many people who work in the industry attend. You’d be more than welcome.

 

[Jason12]

Sorry Jason, but it seems to me that your issue is a belief that it is wrong for anyone else to have what you cannot have, despite others putting effort into finding these and you not bothering.

You need to think about this. Be happy, not jealous.

Then it seems to me that you can't read.

If you search for so-called "good value" fares, what you find include many which are due to clear and obvious errors, mistakes, typos, slapdash coding, etc. An example I mentioned being map combos which permit wildly circuitous routes which were clearly never intended by the fare setter. To those "in the know", these errors in the routeing guide can be exploited to save money, as long as they aren't publicised.

You will also find clear and obvious errors, typos, etc, etc which prevent legitimate routes being permitted. I have mentioned a missing map combo in that regard as well and there are others. But there are also the hideous "unpublished restrictions" for many restriction codes - BT is a prime example - where journey planners are prevented from offering legitimate fares for a whole host of journeys. Again, those "in the know" understand the errors in the "unpublished restrictions" and that despite the fare not being offered by journey planners, it's nevertheless valid for travel.

I would like - no, actually I expect - the industry to fix the issues which prevent legitimate routes and legitimate fares being offered to ordinary customers who are not "in the know", but simply make an enquiry via the NRE, train company or third party retailer's journey planners. But it's really difficult to argue for that kind of error to be fixed while aother kind of error is being kept a closely guarded secret and treated as a protected species.