BRFares incorrect restriction texts

[Bletchleyite]

Question...is the person who maintains brfares.com in here?

It appears to me that the restriction text is incorrect for all the WMT Super Off Peak tickets and possibly others (e.g. LG). The short text and electronic restrictions are correct.

Any chance of this being fixed? Sadly my failure to check this properly against nationalrail.co.uk has cost me a fiver in bus fares (the train I wanted to catch was shown, with LG, off-peak at MKC but not Bletchley, but was in fact off-peak at both so I could have just gone to/from there).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Question...is the person who maintains brfares.com in here?

It appears to me that the restriction text is incorrect for all the WMT Super Off Peak tickets and possibly others (e.g. LG). The short text and electronic restrictions are correct.

Any chance of this being fixed? Sadly my failure to check this properly against nationalrail.co.uk has cost me a fiver in bus fares (the train I wanted to catch was shown, with LG, off-peak at MKC but not Bletchley, but was in fact off-peak at both so I could have just gone to/from there).

I'm unsure why you relied on an unofficial third party data source to make your own travel arrangements, when it's well known that you can simply look this up to make sure the restriction text is up to date!

This is definitely a known issue but in terms of priorities I think it's probably below other potential improvements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm unsure why you relied on an unofficial third party data source to make your own travel arrangements, when it's well known that you can simply look this up to make sure the restriction text is up to date!

This is why I'm merely expressing exasperation over the fiver rather than attacking. It was my fault for relying on it....however....

This is definitely a known issue but in terms of priorities I think it's probably below other potential improvements.

I disagree. Any public facing website should not knowingly display incorrect information, whether professional or voluntary. If the restriction texts are known to be wrong, as a minimum a message should be added indicating this.

What I'd do as a "minimum effort" thing is simply to remove the text and provide the user a link to nationalrail.co.uk/<code>. I shall certainly be doing this before any journey in future - but I do think correcting this needs to be a priority over any additional feature development (or simply removing it).

Of course the offending restriction was shown as being stricter than it actually is, so all it did cost me is a couple of bus fares (which to be fair saved me a walk). Had it been wrong the other way, I could feasibly have been in the position of being prosecuted. Yes, that means I should have checked - but remember that the site isn't just used by people who know the railway...

 

[dtaylor84]

This is definitely a known issue but in terms of priorities I think it's probably below other potential improvements.

I'm not sure what other potential improvements could be higher priority than ensuring the existing functionality is not actively harmful...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This is why I'm merely expressing exasperation over the fiver rather than attacking. It was my fault for relying on it....however....



I disagree. Any public facing website should not knowingly display incorrect information, whether professional or voluntary. If the restriction texts are known to be wrong, as a minimum a message should be added indicating this.

What I'd do as a "minimum effort" thing is simply to remove the text and provide the user a link to nationalrail.co.uk/<code>. I shall certainly be doing this before any journey in future - but I do think correcting this needs to be a priority over any additional feature development (or simply removing it).

Of course the offending restriction was shown as being stricter than it actually is, so all it did cost me is a couple of bus fares (which to be fair saved me a walk). Had it been wrong the other way, I could feasibly have been in the position of being prosecuted. Yes, that means I should have checked - but remember that the site isn't just used by people who know the railway...

You'd never be in the position of being prosecuted for breaching a time restriction.

If people use BR Fares who don't understand fares in detail, I'd have liked to have thought that the warning text on the homepage:

Note: Not all the fares shown on this site are available to the general public. The ticketing system is not simple, and some amount of prior knowledge is needed in order to use the site effectively.

would suffice. Seemingly not - we get people on this section of the forum complaining about listed fares not being sold for ticket offices when that's correct (e.g. trying to buy an SVH on its own), and we get people complaining that it's not up to date with the restriction text.

I'm not saying it's an optimal solution, and adding an additional disclaimer might help, but I think it's fine for now.

NB I am not the developer of BR Fares!

 

[yorkie]

Had it been wrong the other way, I could feasibly have been in the position of being prosecuted.

The correct action for rail staff who encounter a passenger on a time restricted ticket at an invalid time is to charge the excess up to the cheapest valid ticket (e.g. Super Off Peak up to Off Peak).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure what other potential improvements could be higher priority than ensuring the existing functionality is not actively harmful...

Well, quite. If the information is unreliable (as distinct from being technical in application, which is what the line referred to by @yorkie refers to), the easiest thing to do would be to remove it until it can be relied upon. As if it can't be relied upon, it has no value whatsoever.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Well, quite. If the information is unreliable (as distinct from being technical in application), the easiest thing to do would be to remove it until it can be relied upon. As if it can't be relied upon, it has no value whatsoever.

It has value to me in terms of providing a short-term archive of restriction code texts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has value to me in terms of providing a short-term archive of restriction code texts.

If it stated that its purpose was to be a historical archive of restriction code texts....

 

[yorkie]

The data is not supposed to change frequently; the fact some train companies do this could be questioned, but you'd need to ask the relevant companies.

And then there's the fact the human-readable text is not included in the data feed; you could ask Rail Delivery Group why this is the case
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/15313/retail-market-review-sep14-brfares.pdf

...the human-readable restriction text is not even included in the data feed...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The data is not supposed to change frequently; the fact some train companies do this could be questioned, but you'd need to ask the relevant companies.

And then there's the fact the human-readable text is not included in the data feed; you could ask Rail Delivery Group why this is the case
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/15313/retail-market-review-sep14-brfares.pdf

That certainly makes his life difficult!

That being the case if I were him (I know I'm not!) I'd remove it and replace with a link to nationalrail.co.uk where the correct text can (generally) be found, and if it *is* wrong there is a good case that it should apply as noted there anyway.

I will of course check next time and save my fiver! (It's fairly unusual for a restriction to get *less* strict - but it seems that that is what has happened here by way of WMT doing a standardisation exercise on Super Off Peak restrictions)

 

[Paul Kelly]

The problem is with the data source, really - ever since it was launched in 2012, BRfares.com has taken the human-readable restriction text from the Avantix Traveller fares CDs. Back in the day, there was a proper effort made to keep these up-to-date but in the last few years the quality has really started to suffer. I think the real lapse in quality may coincide with RDG re-letting the contract for maintaining the fares database away from Atos/Worldline in mid-2017 - they still maintain the Avantix Traveller CD, but if they're not also maintaining the fares database then I presume TOCs aren't supplying the information to them to keep it up-to-date.

The good news is that the National Rail Enquiries source of restriction text data is now available as an API feed. This didn't even exist as a separate source of restriction text data when BRfares.com was launched, and then for a couple of years it appeared to me to be less accurate, but it certainly seems to be properly maintained these days. So it's firmly on the to-do list to make it the source of data that BRfares.com uses - you can expect that in the next month or so.

 

[mmh]

I'm unsure why you relied on an unofficial third party data source to make your own travel arrangements, when it's well known that you can simply look this up to make sure the restriction text is up to date!

This is definitely a known issue but in terms of priorities I think it's probably below other potential improvements.

Don't be silly. The brfares site is incredibly useful, but has been shown on here to be out of date for months. Why do people use it? Because it's quoted on this forum all the time.

It's a wonderful idea, but one that's only useful if it's kept up to date. Incorrect information is often worse than no information at all.

If it's not going to be updated it should, sadly, be retired. Perhaps if the maintainer is unable to update it, they could hand it over to someone who could.

 

[mmh]

The problem is with the data source, really - ever since it was launched in 2012, BRfares.com has taken the human-readable restriction text from the Avantix Traveller fares CDs. Back in the day, there was a proper effort made to keep these up-to-date but in the last few years the quality has really started to suffer. I think the real lapse in quality may coincide with RDG re-letting the contract for maintaining the fares database away from Atos/Worldline in mid-2017 - they still maintain the Avantix Traveller CD, but if they're not also maintaining the fares database then I presume TOCs aren't supplying the information to them to keep it up-to-date.

The good news is that the National Rail Enquiries source of restriction text data is now available as an API feed. This didn't even exist as a separate source of restriction text data when BRfares.com was launched, and then for a couple of years it appeared to me to be less accurate, but it certainly seems to be properly maintained these days. So it's firmly on the to-do list to make it the source of data that BRfares.com uses - you can expect that in the next month or so.

Thank you for the explanation. Perfectly understandable, as someone whose job used to be writing programs to parse data feeds I have a lot of empathy!

 

[JB_B]

...
The good news is that the National Rail Enquiries source of restriction text data is now available as an API feed.

Is that part of WCMTWS ( What can i do with my ticket Webservice ) - or a different feed?

 

[yorkie]

Don't forget, booking engines go by the electronic data, which is updated daily. The human readable text is an irrelevance as far as a booking site is concerned.

 

[Paul Kelly]

but has been shown on here to be out of date for months

Just to be clear, it is only the human-readable restriction text that is out of date, for certain restriction codes only, where TOCs have not supplied the updates in time to be incorporated in the January Avantix Traveller CD. All the other information - ticket types, prices, railcard discounts, electronic restriction data etc. is updated every day. As will be the restriction text too, soon.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Is that part of WCMTWS ( What can i do with my ticket Webservice ) - or a different feed?

I'm not sure but I think it may be different. Getting access to it involves interacting with a human and signing a paper contract (but no money changes hands), if that gives any clues.

 

[JB_B]

Don't forget, booking engines go by the electronic data, which is updated daily. The human readable text is an irrelevance as far as a booking site is concerned.

That's a good point - "correct" is a relative term. However, @Bletchleyite is not being unreasonable in hoping to rely on the NRE extended restriction text as definitive.

I've deliberately avoided looking into the detail of restrictions in the fares data (it's not simple) and I'd naively imagined that the extended human readable restriction text was generated directly from the underlying .RST data - it's interesting to know that's not the case and the output is, at least partly, (human?)-intermediated.

 

[JB_B]

I'm not sure but I think it may be different. Getting access to it involves interacting with a human and signing a paper contract (but no money changes hands), if that gives any clues.

OK - thanks - it's not immediately obvious what's required to sign up to the NRE feeds (as opposed to the Network Rail and RDG feeds) - I'll take another look.

 

[Starmill]

It has been pointed out quite a few times, both by this contributor and others, that the restriction code text on Brfares.com is often not current. This is (or was, at least) an unavoidable consequence of train companies who wish to make changes between fares setting rounds. Bletchleyite has been present in these discussions on several occasions. Perhaps a touch more thinking and listening and a touch less relying on the way you've always done it would go down well.

Whenever I've quoted a time restriction on the forum I've used National Rail Enquiries, since that resource has been available. I have also pointed out, including to Bletchleyite, that NRE frequently contradicts Brfares.com, including for some very common restriction codes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has been pointed out quite a few times, both by this contributor and others, that the restriction code text on Brfares.com is often not current. This is (or was, at least) an unavoidable consequence of train companies who wish to make changes between fares setting rounds.

It is avoidable...if it risks being incorrect, perhaps best not to publish it. BRFares could instead maybe link directly to the code on NRE?

FWIW I’m very thankful for BRFares generally, I just think that by publishing something you do need to be sure it is correct, and if it isn’t don’t publish it, and not rely on disclaimers.

I think the snipe, which I snipped, was unnecessary, by the way.

(Edited as I felt my original post was perhaps a little too scathing, which was not the intention.)

 

[Paul Kelly]

As of last night BRFares.com now shows the NRE version of the detailed restriction text, which seems to be generally accepted to be the most up-to-date and "official".

 

[TUC]

I'm unsure why you relied on an unofficial third party data source to make your own travel arrangements, when it's well known that you can simply look this up to make sure the restriction text is up to date!

This is definitely a known issue but in terms of priorities I think it's probably below other potential improvements.

Many of us rely on third party data sources to make travel arrangements, in the form of non-TOC booking sites.

BRFares is a lot more helpful in terms of key information all in one place about fare and code options than anything NRE or the TOCschave come up with.

Long live diversity and competition.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Many of us rely on third party data sources to make travel arrangements, in the form of non-TOC booking sites.

BRFares is a lot more helpful in terms of key information all in one place about fare and code options than anything NRE or the TOCschave come up with.

Long live diversity and competition.

I certainly don't mean to devalue it - BR Fares is an invaluable tool. But it is dangerous to make decisions that have contractual implications on the basis of a third party source!

 

[dtaylor84]

As of last night BRFares.com now shows the NRE version of the detailed restriction text, which seems to be generally accepted to be the most up-to-date and "official".

Fantastic news, thanks for all the hard work.

 

[30907]

Fantastic news, thanks for all the hard work.

And so say all/most of us

 

[SickyNicky]

I certainly don't mean to devalue it - BR Fares is an invaluable tool. But it is dangerous to make decisions that have contractual implications on the basis of a third party source!

But Indigo2 had no choice. The restriction text used by BRfares came from Avantix Traveller. This source is no longer up to date, leaving the only source left the NRE API. And of course, that's in accordance with industry policy, which is to have one authoritative source of data.

The data from the API is the same data used by the NRE web site, and thus is the same as the URL printed on your ticket. So I think it's probably contractually secure to use it.

 

[alistairlees]

Avantix Traveller has never really been up to date, as it's a CD that's issued three times a year. So long as TOCs only made changes at the time of each fares round, and they were published in sufficient time to be added to the Avantix Traveller CD and for that to be distributed. However, as changes now happen at other times too, this has increasingly shown up the issues with Avantix Traveller.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Many of us rely on third party data sources to make travel arrangements, in the form of non-TOC booking sites.

BRFares is a lot more helpful in terms of key information all in one place about fare and code options than anything NRE or the TOCschave come up with.

Long live diversity and competition.

That's funny because a lot of the TIS rely on NRE