Can Everyone use Split Tickets?

[Royston Vasey]

I am purely arguing from the ethical perspective that all that can be done to ensure access to the cheapest valid rail ticket for a journey should be dodone.

Not sure you can claim the ethical high ground here having window shopped Trainsplit and never paid them for it.

 

[Topological]

Not sure you can claim the ethical high ground here having window shopped Trainsplit and never paid them for it.

I am quite happy to say I am not seeking the ethical high ground on that one. Or on any other shop I have window-shopped in my life.

But two wrongs do not make a right. I am happy with my claim that the cheapest fare should be available to all as a default.

On your specific example, btw, i outlined a potential interface earlier where customers (or the vendor if an in person transaction) would see all departure and arrival times together with an icon that shows when split tickets are needed to obtain the price quoted. The individual could then either from the display, or through discussion with the vendor, choose accordingly.

 

[oxfordray1]

I am quite happy to say I am not seeking the ethical high ground on that one. Or on any other shop I have window-shopped in my life.

But two wrongs do not make a right. I am happy with my claim that the cheapest fare should be available to all as a default.

On your specific example, btw, i outlined a potential interface earlier where customers (or the vendor if an in person transaction) would see all departure and arrival times together with an icon that shows when split tickets are needed to obtain the price quoted. The individual could then either from the display, or through discussion with the vendor, choose accordingly.

I find your hypocrisy on this rather disappointing.

You seem to have an issue with Trainsplit that is entirely bewildering. And use this issue as a starting point rather than construct a case from first principles.

Further, I do not find that you have clearly articulated your thoughts on this matter. I do not believe there is an issue with my literacy or reading comprehension.

 

[Topological]

I find your hypocrisy on this rather disappointing.

You seem to have an issue with Trainsplit that is entirely bewildering. And use this issue as a starting point rather than construct a case from first principles.

Further, I do not find that you have clearly articulated your thoughts on this matter. I do not believe there is an issue with my literacy or reading comprehension.

Hypocrisy in what way? Do you mean because I obtain the cheapest fare when travelling using all available information? Throughout I advocate for all to have that.

Secondly, I have no issue with trainsplit. I have posted many times that it is a brilliant idea and service. As a business it is daft because the product is essentially information that can then be used to buy from someone else. There is a pure reliance on people being "moral" or too lazy to put the tickets through a vendor that wont take the 15%.

My thoughts are consistently as follows:

1. Split fares should be shown to all
2. There is a problem of digital exclusion in the uk
3. Digital exclusion disproportionately affects vulnerable groups in society
4. It is for the railway to set prices / capacities etc.

Point 1 requires all vendors to either (a) use trainsplit, or (b) have an additional platform. There are a few posters disputing 2 and 3 despite the government taking that very seriously. Finally I am still asked to find solutions to 4 as an industry outsider.

 

[Energy]

Secondly, I have no issue with trainsplit. I have posted many times that it is a brilliant idea and service. As a business it is daft because the product is essentially information that can then be used to buy from someone else. There is a pure reliance on people being "moral" or too lazy to put the tickets through a vendor that wont take the 15%.

And it must be working as they haven't changed to ads yet.

 

[Topological]

And it must be working as they haven't changed to ads yet.

Yes

Because the other vendors do not offer it. Hence this "should all vendors offer split ticketing" being in speculative discussion.

IF the government did decide that split tickets should be offered by default then the business model immediately disappears. Although I believe it is possible to generate a rival tool, it may be that there is intellectual property preventing such. I have not received any clarity on that question. Therefore presuming that the data needed can be webscraped, and that the business is reliant on the 15% for revenue, then if it is ok I will say it is not the sort of idea that would do well with a serious business investor.

On behalf of all who use the website (morally or otherwise) I am glad that it does exist.

 

[Energy]

Because the other vendors do not offer it.

Trainline do.

Hence this "should all vendors offer split ticketing" being in speculative discussion.

This isn't should all vendors offer it - that's a very quick yes but it won't happen. This is can everyone use it.

IF the government did decide that split tickets should be offered by default then the business model immediately disappears.

But they won't.

Although I believe it is possible to generate a rival tool, it may be that there is intellectual property preventing such.

Others can and have. Trainpal definetley uses it's own algorithm and Trainline might.

Therefore presuming that the data needed can be webscraped, and that the business is reliant on the 15% for revenue, then if it is ok I will say it is not the sort of idea that would do well with a serious business investor.

And they will notice when a lot of web requests come from the same IP.

 

[Topological]

Trainline do.

This isn't should all vendors offer it - that's a very quick yes but it won't happen. This is can everyone use it.

But they won't.

Others can and have. Trainpal definetley uses it's own algorithm and Trainline might.

And they will notice when a lot of web requests come from the same IP.

Thanks for all the clarifications.

Thanks too for seeing my point that all vendors should offer it. I will remain optimistic that the government will come round to the point. I genuinely thought this would be a very quick thread because of that.

On the technical side, it is not my specialism so I will leave that one. Sounds like free access requires either mandating, or the issuing of licences.

 

[Magdalia]

My thoughts are consistently as follows:

1. Split fares should be shown to all
2. There is a problem of digital exclusion in the uk
3. Digital exclusion disproportionately affects vulnerable groups in society
4. It is for the railway to set prices / capacities etc.

Point 1 requires all vendors to either (a) use trainsplit, or (b) have an additional platform. There are a few posters disputing 2 and 3 despite the government taking that very seriously. Finally I am still asked to find solutions to 4 as an industry outsider.

Thanks for this.

I have only contributed to this because of my concerns about points 2 and 3 on your list, with particular reference to the over 65s. I'm reassured that the government recognises that digital exclusion has an impact here and takes it seriously.

 

[yorkie]

My proposal is no more or less unfunded than the already existing platform that would enable everyone to have split tickets. Others can conclude on this aspect as I am frankly sick of the hypocrisy on display.

How on earth are non-rail people supposed to produce funding proposals?

I am purely arguing from the ethical perspective that all that can be done to ensure access to the cheapest valid rail ticket for a journey should be done.

Is it unethical that people can get any product cheaper from one website rather than another retail outlet, or does this only apply to rail? Or have I misunderstood?

And it is somehow ethical to obtain information from a cheaper supplier and purchase, at the same price using the same methods, from a supplier who originally wanted to charge you more? Or have I misunderstood?

As for a "funding proposal", I am not asking for or expecting anything detailed, for example if you simply said you believe general taxation should be raised to fund both the shortfall in fares income and also the building of additional trains, track capacity etc, then I would accept that answer. I would be happy to pay more taxes for this, but I am not sure the general electorate would; what do you think? Or do you have some other way in which this would be funded? Or do you propose simply making the changes without any funding and then create a crisis situation which could be dealt with later, without planning for it? Or something else?

Hypocrisy in what way? Do you mean because I obtain the cheapest fare when travelling using all available information? Throughout I advocate for all to have that.

There is nothing hyopcritical in doing that and it's absolutely clear from @oxfordray1 's measured response that is not what they were suggesting.

Secondly, I have no issue with trainsplit.

If that's true, why is it that, having found the cheapest combination of tickets from Trainsplit, you proceed to search for each ticket as a separate journey from a website that originally wanted to charge you more for the through journey, rather than pay the exact same amount if you did the same from Trainsplit?

I totally understand people wanting to avoid the share of saving fee with Trainsplit and doing a search for each individual journey through the same site, but to obtain the information from Trainsplit and then book with a retailer who originally intended to charge you more seems very underhand an unethical to me.

Of course it's totally valid and legal to do that, but how can someone who does this create a moral/ethical argument in this area after having done that, and expect to have any support?

I have posted many times that it is a brilliant idea and service.

But not brilliant enough for you to put your purchases through it.

As a business it is daft because the product is essentially information that can then be used to buy from someone else.

If it's a daft business, is there anything you suggest the company could do differently?

There is a pure reliance on people being "moral" or too lazy to put the tickets through a vendor that wont take the 15%.

This makes no sense; Trainsplit itself won't take the 15% if you do that!

My thoughts are consistently as follows:

• Split fares should be shown to all

You won't be able to force this, for the reasons stated in this thread.

• There is a problem of digital exclusion in the uk

No-one is excluded from train travel, nor from split ticketing.

• Digital exclusion disproportionately affects vulnerable groups in society

You stated earlier that "My personal hope would be that a really major player (e.g. Google) carried the information like Google does for flights"; can you inform us how Google complies with your vision in relation to digital exclusion?

• It is for the railway to set prices / capacities etc.

Which is exactly what "the railway" has done.

Point 1 requires all vendors to either (a) use trainsplit, or (b) have an additional platform.

I refer you to posts above; what I think you meant to say is (a) use the supplier who provides the service to Trainsplit (did you read the posts by @lkpridgeon above?) or (b) develop their own? In terms of (a), there is no way the Government is going to mandate this. In terms of (b) I doubt anyone else will come up with anything as good as Trainsplit; companies with a lot of money behind them have been trying to do this for several years!

There are a few posters disputing 2 and 3 despite the government taking that very seriously.

Do you deny that people have been doing split ticketing since the steam age?

Finally I am still asked to find solutions to 4 as an industry outsider.

See above.

Yes

Because the other vendors do not offer it. Hence this "should all vendors offer split ticketing" being in speculative discussion.

Other vendors do offer split ticketing; just not as good as Trainsplit's, because the supplier to Trainsplit has a better system than any other supplier. If any vendors want to use that supplier, there is nothing to stop them switching to it.

IF the government did decide that split tickets should be offered by default then the business model immediately disappears.

A significant proportion of the farebox income disappears; your plan for that seems to be to not plan for it and just let that income disappear without any replacement?

Although I believe it is possible to generate a rival tool, it may be that there is intellectual property preventing such. I have not received any clarity on that question.

Anyone is free to develop their own split ticketing service; indeed several do exist. The services provided by TrainPal (which I think may use Evolvi/SilverRail?) and Trainline (Hafas by Hacon) and by the Raileasy.co.uk website (which is not run by Raileasy and is run by a company called Atomised) all do offer split tickets, just either not as comprehensively or not as quickly (in terms of generating the results), or both. You can make your own if you wish!

Therefore presuming that the data needed can be webscraped

Webscraped from where? What are you suggesting exactly? This sounds dodgy to me!

and that the business is reliant on the 15% for revenue, then if it is ok I will say it is not the sort of idea that would do well with a serious business investor.

The amount of commission for online ticket sales is tiny; costs are considerable including Lennon insertion fees, TOD collection fees, server costs, staff costs and more! Rail ticket selling is loss making unless there is either a booking fee (such as Trainline charge) or some other way to raise income.

On behalf of all who use the website (morally or otherwise) I am glad that it does exist.

But not glad enough that you will buy from it!

Thanks for all the clarifications.

Thanks too for seeing my point that all vendors should offer it. I will remain optimistic that the government will come round to the point. I genuinely thought this would be a very quick thread because of that.

Yes people who aren't familiar with any given subject may think a particular suggestion is quick, because they are not aware of the barriers and nuances.

On the technical side, it is not my specialism so I will leave that one.

Yes, that is clear! What is frustrating is that you do not appear to be listening to people who are experts in this field.

Sounds like free access requires either mandating, or the issuing of licences.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.

Thanks for this.

I have only contributed to this because of my concerns about points 2 and 3 on your list, with particular reference to the over 65s. I'm reassured that the government recognises that digital exclusion has an impact here and takes it seriously.

But you have no practical suggestions for how your desires can actually be achieved.

In any case, no-one is being excluded from travelling by train and no-one is being excluded from split ticketing.

 

[Topological]

I though it was pretty clear how the entry of a free to use split ticketing service would help online and offline. The service has to be online because there needs to be access to a central database to sell advances. For complete clarity:

• Online - User logs and and uses
• Offline - User goes to someone who can use (e.g. ticket office, other in person vendor)

In both cases the actual booking is fundamentally the same, just as it is with any ticket retailer now. The only difference is that everyone is accessing split tickets whether online or offline.

Presently, the offline option is not formally there. I think it should be.

Again, I do not want the moral high ground.

 

[yorkie]

I though it was pretty clear how the entry of a free to use split ticketing service would help online and offline. The service has to be online because there needs to be access to a central database to sell advances. For complete clarity:

• Online - User logs and and uses
• Offline - User goes to someone who can use (e.g. ticket office, other in person vendor)

In both cases the actual booking is fundamentally the same, just as it is with any ticket retailer now. The only difference is that everyone is accessing split tickets whether online or offline.

Presently, the offline option is not formally there. I think it should be.

Sounds great in theory; would be lovely if this would happen.

I agree with you that in an ideal world the railway would be boosting capacity, with more stock, longer trains, longer platforms, reduced headways, etc and the lowest combination of fare consistently offered to entice people to use the service.

But, to be clear, there is no funding for this to happen, is there?

Again, I do not want the moral high ground.

Given you admit to using Transplit to obtain the best price, then gave retailers who wanted to charge you a higher fare your custom by searching for each ticket as a separate journey, when you could have done the same with Trainsplit but chose not to, evidently not!

 

[Topological]

Sounds great in theory; would be lovely if this would happen.

I agree with you that in an ideal world the railway would be boosting capacity, with more stock, longer trains, longer platforms, reduced headways, etc and the lowest combination of fare consistently offered to entice people to use the service.

But, to be clear, there is no funding for this to happen, is there?

Given you admit to using Transplit to obtain the best price, then gave retailers who wanted to charge you a higher fare your custom by searching for each ticket as a separate journey, when you could have done the same with Trainsplit but chose not to, evidently not!

But again, if access to Trainsplit was universal and everyone did buy from Trainsplit then the same problems emerge?

No one should expect industry outsiders to solve the capacity problem. I suspect the solution involves a combination of raising prices and increased revenues being ploughed back into the railway. What exactly happens depends on the price elasticity of demand of the various groups of rail customers.

For completeness, I give retailers who charge me the lowest price my custom - I force them to offer me the lowest price by using information obtained from Trainsplit. I am sure the retailers I use would prefer I did not look at the information before purchasing.

 

[skyhigh]

For completeness, I give retailers who charge me the lowest price my custom - I force them to offer me the lowest price by using information obtained from Trainsplit.

But.... why?

Trainsplit still gets some income from selling you the tickets even if you put the splits manually in your basket to avoid the share of savings fee.

Rewarding the retailer who doesn't bother to offer the lower price just seems perverse to me. Why not buy the tickets from Trainsplit?

 

[Topological]

But.... why?

Trainsplit still gets some income from selling you the tickets even if you put the splits manually in your basket to avoid the share of savings fee.

Rewarding the retailer who doesn't bother to offer the lower price just seems perverse to me. Why not buy the tickets from Trainsplit?

I see, so what you are saying is I could open a second window and then put the tickets through individually? Presumably that would then still be a single transaction for the purposes of delay repay?

I am not particularly wedded to GWR for actually buying tickets, I will try the trainsplit basket suggestion next time.

That helps me, and plenty of others like me, but does not really solve the overall challenge of making sure people buying offline can get the same deal.

 

[Energy]

Presumably that would then still be a single transaction for the purposes of delay repay?

Split ticketing still considers them as separate tickets.

 

[Topological]

Split ticketing still considers them as separate tickets.

GWR it is then. Sorry

Although I did note @yorkie assisting someone on the fares advice earlier about split tickets at Manchester Piccadilly. (Hopefully the merge function will work)

Even better, if you can book it as one journey, that would make things even easier in the event of disputes; unless there is some reason why it can't be done as one journey, the forum's site should offer the cheapest combination of tickets for the journey from Blackpool South to Chesterfield. If the forum's site isn't doing so, please let me know the details and I'll take a look.

From the thread: Using Two Advance Tickets to Complete a Journey

To be honest the whole thing gets complicated. Is the advice that I should use the RailUK ticket site mentioned there, is that a different site?

 

[yorkie]

But again, if access to Trainsplit was universal and everyone did buy from Trainsplit then the same problems emerge?

Yes, if everyone bought from Trainsplit the rail industry would lose millions of pounds of revenue.

But that's not how it works in reality; Trainsplit is I believe actually growing the market and adding value to the industry, not abstracting it.

I know it's not quite the same thing, but consider this: you could say if everyone travelling from London to Edinburgh decided to travel with Lumo, then in theory LNER would have no London to Edinburgh passengers, and in theory this would be causing revenue loss to LNER. But in reality that's not happening, nor is there any prospect of that happening.

No one should expect industry outsiders to solve the capacity problem.

I am not asking you to solve any problems; I am asking you to recognise that your proposals would create a problem which would cost money to resolve. That's all.

I suspect the solution involves a combination of raising prices and increased revenues being ploughed back into the railway. What exactly happens depends on the price elasticity of demand of the various groups of rail customers.

Let's be clear, you are actually proposing fare increases?

For completeness, I give retailers who charge me the lowest price my custom

No you don't; Trainsplit provides a cheaper quote than other retailers, yet you give those other retailers - who wanted to charge you more money - your custom.

You do this even though the methodolgy you are using (searching for each ticket as a separate journey) means the price would be exactly the same if you used Trainsplit or those retailers.

- I force them to offer me the lowest price by using information obtained from Trainsplit.

Yes, you use the information obtained from Trainsplit (effectively manually scraping it) to book each as a separate journey, to avoid the share of saving fee on Trainsplit and avoid the premium charged by the TOCs.

Cynically, even though the price would be the same, you then use a TOC site rather than Trainsplit.

I am sure the retailers I use would prefer I did not look at the information before purchasing.

They TOCs know that price sensitive customers such as yourself do split ticketing and accept it; the pricing is deliberate. It's a yield management technique. Have you researched market based pricing and yield management techniques?

I see, so what you are saying is I could open a second window and then put the tickets through individually?

That is exactly what you are doing, isn't it? Only you are using a TOC - who wanted to charge you even more money - instead of Trainsplit, who were offering to charge you a lot less.

As I have said many times (have you read my posts? I'm beginning to wonder) if you are going to do this, the morally right thing to do would be to use Trainsplit.

If you are claiming you didn't realise that you could do this on Trainsplit, I don't see how that is believeable and in any case I've said this many times above!

Presumably that would then still be a single transaction for the purposes of delay repay?

Delay Repay goes by journeys, not transactions.

However for a smoother Delay Repay experience, it can be advantageous to book the journey as a through journey using a split ticketing site; this means you have one through itinerary (as evidence of the contract and the timings as booked at the time of travel) and all tickets in one handy PDF (one page per ticket). This can be especially useful if trains get cancelled or re-timed after booking but before the day of travel.

The next best thing, if you are not prepared to pay the share of savings fee, is to book each as a separate journey but all in one transaction. Note for journeys involving a lot of tickets, probably no retailer will allow the entire journey to be booked in one transaction.

I am not particularly wedded to GWR for actually buying tickets, I will try the trainsplit basket suggestion next time.

That helps me, and plenty of others like me, but does not really solve the overall challenge of making sure people buying offline can get the same deal.

How would you ensure that people can access the same deals for all products and services offline as could be booked online?

Also, you mentioned Google earlier but didn't answer my question regarding how they provide for digitally excluded people; I'd be interested to hear an answer, if you have one?

From the thread: Using Two Advance Tickets to Complete a Journey

To be honest the whole thing gets complicated. Is the advice that I should use the RailUK ticket site mentioned there, is that a different site?

The forum's site is the same as Trainsplit except the forum gets to keep a proportion of the revenue; it helps to fund forum activities such as hosting fees and other running costs as well as fares workshops and other events. For example, a group of forum members recently walked a part of the Waverley Line and the forum paid for the meals of those who drove members to/from the start/finish points of the walk.

 

[Topological]

I am still seeking clarification on this one, because I will confess things became slightly muddy with the post from @Energy

Trainsplit want 15%, so clearly that is out as an option.

If I use a TOC site the fares are all on one transaction and therefore the same booking reference, which makes life very easy with delay repay.

So what I would like clarity from someone on is

Cynically, even though the price would be the same, you then use a TOC site rather than Trainsplit.

If there is a way to get a single booking code which will work for delay repay and not pay the 15% then I am happy to buy from any site.

We can come back to the theory later.

That is exactly what you are doing, isn't it? Only you are using a TOC - who wanted to charge you even more money - instead of Trainsplit, who were offering to charge you a lot less.

As I have said many times (have you read my posts? I'm beginning to wonder) if you are going to do this, the morally right thing to do would be to use Trainsplit.

If you are claiming you didn't realise that you could do this on Trainsplit, I don't see how that is believeable and in any case I've said this many times above!

Delay Repay goes by journeys, not transactions.

However for a smoother Delay Repay experience, it can be advantageous to book the journey as a through journey using a split ticketing site; this means you have one through itinerary (as evidence of the contract and the timings as booked at the time of travel) and all tickets in one handy PDF (one page per ticket). This can be especially useful if trains get cancelled or re-timed after booking but before the day of travel.

The next best thing, if you are not prepared to pay the share of savings fee, is to book each as a separate journey but all in one transaction. Note for journeys involving a lot of tickets, probably no retailer will allow the entire journey to be booked in one transaction.

How would you ensure that people can access the same deals for all products and services offline as could be booked online?

Also, you mentioned Google earlier but didn't answer my question regarding how they provide for digitally excluded people; I'd be interested to hear an answer, if you have one?

GWR will always give me whatever I ask on a single booking with a single collection code for the TVM. So that is the benchmark.

I have answered the point about Google* offering the split price, but in case you missed it:

I though it was pretty clear how the entry of a free to use split ticketing service would help online and offline. The service has to be online because there needs to be access to a central database to sell advances. For complete clarity:

• Online - User logs and and uses
• Offline - User goes to someone who can use (e.g. ticket office, other in person vendor)

In both cases the actual booking is fundamentally the same, just as it is with any ticket retailer now. The only difference is that everyone is accessing split tickets whether online or offline.

Presently, the offline option is not formally there. I think it should be.

Again, I do not want the moral high ground.

You had replied to that one, so I guess like me you forget what you have said half the time because there is so much else going on in the world.

 

[yorkie]

I am still seeking clarification on this one, because I will confess things became slightly muddy with the post from @Energy

Trainsplit want 15%, so clearly that is out as an option.

If I use a TOC site the fares are all on one transaction and therefore the same booking reference, which makes life very easy with delay repay.

If you split each ticket into a separate journey, this does not make life easier for Delay Repay.

Having everything one transaction can help you if you need to change the tickets, as some (not all) retailers charge one admin fee for the whole transaction, in which case you only need to pay once if you have loads of separate 'journeys' on the transaction, but it makes absolutely no difference for Delay Repay purposes.

So what I would like clarity from someone on is



If there is a way to get a single booking code which will work for delay repay and not pay the 15% then I am happy to buy from any site.

A booking reference does not do anything for Delay Repay; you need to upload the relevant tickets.

Some TOCs would allow you to upload the entire PDF containing all tickets. There are some TOCs who do want each individual ticket uploading separately. Those TOCs who want separate tickets on their form may well accept an email containing the full itinerary and a PDF containing all tickets instead as clearly for a journey of many tickets it is easier to do it that way. It really depends on the TOC.

We can come back to the theory later.


GWR will always give me whatever I ask on a single booking with a single collection code for the TVM. So that is the benchmark.

These days most journeys are available as e-tickets; if you make a lot of cross-London journeys, e-tickets are going to be a bit longer to wait for yet. Collection codes for TVMs are on the way out.

But to answer the question, a collection code generally relates to all tickets on one transaction. There was a time when Trainline-based sites gave one TOD code per journey, but I think that may no longer the case; perhaps someone who uses such sites (e.g. Northern) for multiple journeys can confirm?

I have answered the point about Google* offering the split price, but in case you missed it:



You had replied to that one, so I guess like me you forget what you have said half the time because there is so much else going on in the world.

That didn't answer my question; you earlier mentioned that you wanted to see a similar service to Google Flights:

My personal hope would be that a really major player (e.g. Google) carried the information like Google does for flights...

My question is how does Google provide a version of this for digitally excluded people?

You had replied to that one, so I guess like me you forget what you have said half the time because there is so much else going on in the world.

I've not forgotten; I think you misunderstood my question. Hopefully it's clearer now?

...GWR will always give me whatever I ask on a single booking ...

You've not planned a journey such as Yorkshire to Cornwall then

GWR are quite generous in allowing 8 journeys in one transaction but for longer distance journeys on XC, the optimal combination will be over 8 and likely into double figures.

 

[Topological]

If you split each ticket into a separate journey, this does not make life easier for Delay Repay.

Having everything one transaction can help you if you need to change the tickets, as some (not all) retailers charge one admin fee for the whole transaction, in which case you only need to pay once if you have loads of separate 'journeys' on the transaction, but it makes absolutely no difference for Delay Repay purposes.

A booking reference does not do anything for Delay Repay; you need to upload the relevant tickets.

Some TOCs would allow you to upload the entire PDF containing all tickets. There are some TOCs who do want each individual ticket uploading separately. Those TOCs who want separate tickets on their form may well accept an email containing the full itinerary and a PDF containing all tickets instead as clearly for a journey of many tickets it is easier to do it that way. It really depends on the TOC.

These days most journeys are available as e-tickets; if you make a lot of cross-London journeys, e-tickets are going to be a bit longer to wait for yet. Collection codes for TVMs are on the way out.

But to answer the question, a collection code generally relates to all tickets on one transaction.

That didn't answer my question; you earlier mentioned that you wanted to see a similar service to Google Flights:

My question is how does Google provide a version of this for digitally excluded people?


I've not forgotten; I think you misunderstood my question. Hopefully it's clearer now?

It seems there may be some confusion.

The offline option is that I go to an office. In the office there is a person with a computer. The person with a computer puts in the journey I want. The computer then says the split option. The person tells me about the options. I choose the best for me. I book.

If Google (or a third party willing to provide for free) provide the service then that office does not need to have any connection to the railway.

Alternatively, if the service is provided by the railway itself then the office would need a connection to the railway. Currently a ticket office has a connection to the central database for booking. Therefore is an example of an online service provided without the need for the customer accessing the internet.

Either way the "office" in my little story is a physical place. Therefore the customer does not need the internet any more / or less / than they do when visiting a ticket office today.

There are half way houses where I do not have a computer, but the office does and I can use it. This is like the TVM. I put in what I want, the computer shows me through an appropriate interface, I make my decision and book. Again I did not have the internet at home, but have been able to access the best deal.

 

[yorkie]

It seems there may be some confusion.

The offline option is that I go to an office. In the office there is a person with a computer. The person with a computer puts in the journey I want. The computer then says the split option. The person tells me about the options. I choose the best for me. I book.

If Google (or a third party willing to provide for free) provide the service then that office does not need to have any connection to the railway.

Have I misunderstood? It reads to me that you are advocating for both a service similar to Google flights, which is not available for people who are "digitally excluded", while also advocating for an end to "digital exclusion"? Is that correct? If not, please clarify.

Alternatively, if the service is provided by the railway itself then the office would need a connection to the railway. Currently a ticket office has a connection to the central database for booking. Therefore is an example of an online service provided without the need for the customer accessing the internet.

Either way the "office" in my little story is a physical place. Therefore the customer does not need the internet any more / or less / than they do when visiting a ticket office today.

There are half way houses where I do not have a computer, but the office does and I can use it. This is like the TVM. I put in what I want, the computer shows me through an appropriate interface, I make my decision and book. Again I did not have the internet at home, but have been able to access the best deal.

Are you saying everyone would be able to access a machine such as a TVM, or are you also advocating for staff at each station too? If a "digitally excluded" person wishes to travel from a station such as Sugar Loaf, what is your proposal to cater for that?

Anyway as I said earlier, it all sounds wonderful. Let's say it should happen. Do you propose that the funding be put in place for this, or do you think we should just reduce the prices, not increase capacity, and let railway managers deal with the resulting overcrowding and funding crisis? Or is your proposal that the more affordable fares would increase, so that the overall change would be "revenue neutral", i.e. Manchester to London Anytime revenue loss would be offset by the increase in fares such as Manchester to Milton Keynes and Milton Keynes to London?

 

[Topological]

Have I misunderstood? It reads to me that you are advocating for both a service similar to Google flights, which is not available for people who are "digitally excluded", while also advocating for an end to "digital exclusion"? Is that correct? If not, please clarify.

Are you saying everyone would be able to access a machine such as a TVM, or are you also advocating for staff at each station too? If a "digitally excluded" person wishes to travel from a station such as Sugar Loaf, what is your proposal to cater for that?

I am saying that whichever service, from whichever provider, is available to everyone because there are offices which help people to access where they otherwise could not. The Google thing is because it is a company who has previously taken a clever small website (for planning public transport journeys across multiple modes in that case) and embedded it into the "Directions" function on Google. Let's not get hung up on the fact it is Google, because it could literally be any provider who runs the service. The only key is public access (which Trainsplit has) and no fees.

In terms of TVM, that is the solution where the station has one. Obviously it does not work in Sugar Loaf where there is no TVM. However, the digital exclusion agenda would see internet accessibility promoted in places like Sugar Loaf (Wales are actually doing very well with this agenda). Therefore whatever solution was found for Sugar Loaf would be available. I suspect we are pushing it if we are assuming the hub suddenly appears at Sugar Loaf station.

However, some may say you are being deliberately obtuse because clearly no one can buy a ticket offline at Sugar Loaf (or other unmanned stations) anyway. So in that specific example it would be a case of the guard on the train offering the split options. But before we get into the loop of time, recall that the number of tickets we are talking about here is a low number and most journeys from Sugar Loaf (or similar) would not be candidates for splits anyway. The challenge of selling tickets on the train is no bigger/smaller than it is now. We can go more into the on train options later.

It seems that the current situation is someone at Sugar Loaf needing to buy a ticket (without access to the internet) cannot buy a split ticket for the journey they are making. IF a solution is found it benefits them. IF there remain some outliers then finding a solution is an ongoing task. Finally split ticket prices should be available to all.

 

[yorkie]

I am saying that whichever service, from whichever provider, is available to everyone because there are offices which help people to access where they otherwise could not. The Google thing is because it is a company who has previously taken a clever small website (for planning public transport journeys across multiple modes in that case) and embedded it into the "Directions" function on Google....

Google Flights is available to everyone, including people you refer to as "digitally excluded", is that right?

If I've misunderstood please clarify.

Anyway yes your idea sounds great from a theoretical point of view.

But I am still unsure if you are expecting this to be funded by increasing the cost of the better value / shorter distance tickets, or increasing government subsidy or if the plan is to just reduce the income to railways, increase patronage and let railway managers get on with the inevitable funding and capacity crisis?

 

[Topological]

Google Flights is available to everyone, I clouding people you refer to as "digitally excluded", is that right?

If I've misunderstood please clarify.

Anyway yes your idea sounds great from a theoretical point of view.

But I am still unsure if you are expecting this to be funded by increasing the cost of the better value / shorter distance tickets, or increasing government subsidy or if the plan is to just reduce the income to railways, increase patronage and let railway managers get on with the inevitable funding and capacity crisis?

Google flights requires the same hubs that any online free to use ticketing option would.

Google flights was used as an example of where Google have gone further to integrate prices as well as times for a mode of transport. I could have chosen Hotels as well. I could have chosen flight comparison sites such as Kayak, but Google has a greater usage than specialist sites so I chose Google.

It would be nice if a media outlet took up the case for universal accessibility, but I doubt they will.

Just because railway managers get away with charging higher prices to uninformed people does not mean they always should get away with it. My plan is essentially the same as the one of the people who set up Trainsplit. Which, lest we forget would have the same impact IF it achieved 100% market share (which presumably the people who set it up would like).

 

[yorkie]

Google flights requires the same hubs that any online free to use ticketing option would.

Google flights was used as an example of where Google have gone further to integrate prices as well as times for a mode of transport. I could have chosen Hotels as well. I could have chosen flight comparison sites such as Kayak, but Google has a greater usage than specialist sites so I chose Google.

It would be nice if a media outlet took up the case for universal accessibility, but I doubt they will.

Thanks for confirming what I thought; it just seems odd to me that you are simutaneously calling for online tools while also calling for an end to "digital exclusion".

Just because railway managers get away with charging higher prices to uninformed people does not mean they always should get away with it. My plan is essentially the same as the one of the people who set up Trainsplit. Which, lest we forget would have the same impact IF it achieved 100% market share (which presumably the people who set it up would like).

Yes you've said this before; I refer you to the replies above.

I think we're done here now, unless there is anything new to add?

 

[Topological]

I knew we would get there in the end.

I do hope that the government will be successful with their digital exclusion initiatives, there are so many benefits.

So now we just need a platform upon which displaying split options is the default for online booking, TVMs, on train sales where current regulations allow on train sales, and ticket offices*. (* Ticket offices being substitutable for any physical space in which tickets may be bought with assistance)

 

[pokemonsuper9]

If you split each ticket into a separate journey, this does not make life easier for Delay Repay.

I can second this, Northern delay repay seems to be taking ages for my claim (3 split tickets), I've been waiting since the 17th June

So now we just need a platform upon which displaying split options is the default for online booking, TVMs, on train sales where current regulations allow on train sales, and ticket offices

I feel like if we're going for something like that they might as well just decrease the ticket prices to be the cheapest you can get by splitting (although Advances might be annoying there), and I definitely don't see that happening.

 

[yorkie]

I can second this, Northern delay repay seems to be taking ages for my claim (3 split tickets), I've been waiting since the 17th of Last Month.

I feel like if we're going for something like that they might as well just decrease the ticket prices to be the cheapest you can get by splitting (although Advances might be annoying there), and I definitely don't see that happening.

Agreed. It would need to be funded; the cart cannot be put before the horse. The funding needs to be agreed before fares can reduce. I'd love to see fares reduce to the current level of the lowest combination of fares for any given journey, we all would!

I knew we would get there in the end.

I do hope that the government will be successful with their digital exclusion initiatives, there are so many benefits.

So now we just need a platform upon which displaying split options is the default for online booking, TVMs, on train sales where current regulations allow on train sales, and ticket offices*. (* Ticket offices being substitutable for any physical space in which tickets may be bought with assistance)

Yes this is up there with many of the threads that get posted in this section; they'd all be great to have, and I'd love to be able travel from Hull to Edinburgh via Market Weighton, Ripon and Hawick, with a newsagent issuing the cheapest combination of cheap fares for the journey. It would be great!

But, back in the real world, at present the Government has made it absolutely clear that any changes would be "revenue neutral", and that no additional funding is going to be put in place.

Until that fundamental obstacle has been resolved, there is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of the existing high value fares all being undercut by cheaper fares.

If that obstacle can be overcome and additional funding can be made available, then maybe the proposals in this thread, for the cheapest combination of fares to be offered by all retail channels, could happen!

But until that day, this remains a dream. A dream the current Government are determined not to allow happen.

 

[Mag_seven]

I think we are now going round in circles here so we will now draw this one to a close.

thanks all