• 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!

First Great Western WebTIS fault

Status
Not open for further replies.

barrykas

Established Member
Joined
19 Sep 2006
Messages
1,579
Here's a new one on me:
  1. Go to the First Great Western WebTIS page
  2. Enter a journey such as Southend Central (SOC) to London Zones 1-6 (0035) with 2 Adults as the number of passengers
  3. Spot the mistake in the fares that you get offered
Upon querying this with FGW's web support team, the passenger involved was told that it was their fault for buying the tickets in question, not FGW's!

Note that this error only appears on FGW's site, not any other WebTIS implementation as far as I can tell.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,798
Location
Yorkshire
There is a cheaper fare on the East Coast site, and the only off peak fare on FGW is routed "via Barking", which is daft as the validity is a Travelcard (valid as far as Harold Wood, Upminster etc) and from Southend to the Zone 6 boundary & return.

Barking is in Zone 4.

The routeing therefore applies to Southend to the boundary part of the journey, but you can't get from Southend to Upminster via Barking without doubling back - unless you go via Wickford ;)

Anyway, it's Atos, what do you expect? ;) They often make mistakes, and Private Eye reported that last year you could get a ticket from anywhere to anywhere with an itinerary & reservations via anywhere!
 

greatkingrat

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2011
Messages
2,764
Am I missing something? FGW and EC are both giving the same results which look correct as far as I can see.

I agree the via Barking fare is rather pointless, but that is not an issue with the sites.
 

barrykas

Established Member
Joined
19 Sep 2006
Messages
1,579
Oh...My mistake. East Coast is exhibiting the same fault, which is that they're both offering a Family Travelcard (shown as Off-Peak Fam TC). Said ticket is not valid unless you're travelling with at least 1 Child...The Chiltern, London Midland and Red Spotted Hanky implementations correctly suppress said ticket.
 

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,152
Location
Switzerland
I don't believe that offering a Family Travelcard for 2 adults is correct. This mistake has been around for at least a year.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,798
Location
Yorkshire
Oh...My mistake. East Coast is exhibiting the same fault, which is that they're both offering a Family Travelcard (shown as Off-Peak Fam TC). Said ticket is not valid unless you're travelling with at least 1 Child...The Chiltern, London Midland and Red Spotted Hanky implementations correctly suppress said ticket.
Ah, I see. That fare is shown on the EC site when I look, but not on the FGW site. So maybe it's been fixed on the FGW site.

When passengers purchase tickets that are not intended for sale, or with itineraries that are not normally "valid", then the tickets are still considered valid with the itineraries provided.
 

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,152
Location
Switzerland
The FGW site does offer a Family Travelcard for 2 adults doing a return journey from Southend to London.
 

barrykas

Established Member
Joined
19 Sep 2006
Messages
1,579
When passengers purchase tickets that are not intended for sale, or with itineraries that are not normally "valid", then the tickets are still considered valid with the itineraries provided.

Somehow I doubt a London Underground RPI would be so amenable, though what I found outrageous was the Web Support team suggesting the passenger should pay for their retail error!

Suffice to say, the correct replacement tickets were issued, at no cost to the passenger...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top