Mobile/e-Ticket for return journey ending/starting at U1 LONDN

[confusedticket]

Hi all,

Just joined to ask a question that I just cannot find the answer too! Hopefully this is in the right place?

I had a train ticket issued by Egencia (company booking system) for an open return to London St Pancras. My national rail portion terminated at Waterloo and so I travelled to St Pancras via the underground, each time showing the TfL staff my ticket and being waved through.

On the return leg, I was refused access to the underground at St Pancras because TFL do not accept barcodes… I spoke to multiple staff members and also a “supervisor” who all refused to let me make the journey to Waterloo.

I was asked to go up to the ticket office and speak to National Rail to get a printed copy of my ticket, which NR told me was not possible.

I eventually gave in a paid using contactless to get to Waterloo… but I can’t help but feel like this shouldn’t have been the case?

For context, I also had a return journey on EMR from St Pancras under a separate booking.

 

[paul1609]

Where was the origin/ destination of your ticket out of Waterloo?

 

[confusedticket]

Where was the origin/ destination of your ticket out of Waterloo?

It was booked as Basingstoke to St Pancras return.

The ticket actually says Basingstoke to 338 U1 LONDN

Have attached for clarity

 

[OscarH]

This should not have been issued as an eTicket. Usually this happens when the TOC has set the fare as eticketable incorrectly in the data (some retailers have a safety check to block eTickets on journeys involving the tube to account for this as rail data is notoriously poorly maintained), but that doesn't seem to be the case here - it doesn't look enabled in the data to me.

Its possible that their interpretation of the spec has led them to do something unusual with a certain type of group location? But that's a shot in the dark guess

The 338 is a giveaway something is wrong. I'm not actually sure what the 338 is a reference to.

 

[paul1609]

Was an itinary issued for your journey?

 

[confusedticket]

This should not have been issued as an eTicket. Usually this happens when the TOC has set the fare as eticketable incorrectly in the data (some retailers have a safety check to block eTickets on journeys involving the tube to account for this as rail data is notoriously poorly maintained), but that doesn't seem to be the case here - it doesn't look enabled in the data to me.

Its possible that their interpretation of the spec has led them to do something unusual with a certain type of group location? But that's a shot in the dark guess

The 338 is a giveaway something is wrong. I'm not actually sure what the 338 is a reference to.

I suspected that might have been the case, as you said I couldn’t find any information on what 338 referred to…

Was an itinary issued for your journey?

It was indeed - attached!

 

[alistairlees]

What was the fare please? It will be on the reverse of the ticket.

You will need to claim any compensation from your company, and they can sort it out with egencia.

The ticket is really completely wrong and I don’t know where the 338 is from either.

Also there is no such place as “ London St Pancras LI”

 

[CyrusWuff]

What was the fare please? It will be on the reverse of the ticket.

You will need to claim any compensation from your company, and they can sort it out with egencia.

The ticket is really completely wrong and I don’t know where the 338 is from either.

And for a little bit more info, could we get the first two characters from the ticket reference (also called a UTN) beneath the barcode? That will identify who provides the booking engine. I have my suspicions as to who it probably is, but a confirmation would be handy.

 

[Haywain]

Also there is no such place as “ London St Pancras LI”

St Pancras Low Level? Some data sources refer to the Thameslink platforms in that way.

 

[confusedticket]

What was the fare please? It will be on the reverse of the ticket.

You will need to claim any compensation from your company, and they can sort it out with egencia.

The ticket is really completely wrong and I don’t know where the 338 is from either.

Also there is no such place as “ London St Pancras LI”

Thanks,
I believe (looking at the characters in an online checker), it's actually LL - but one upper, one lower, so Ll.

As for the fare... I can't seem to find it!

The reverse of the ticket reads:

Ticket Details:
This ticket can only be used at certain times, for details ask staff or go to nre.co.uk/US
Information relating to compensation in the event of disruption can be found here
Issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of travel and CIV
For refund information contact the retailer of your ticket
Ticket Number SR<removed> Price £29.80
Purchased on 19 January 2024 NRS Booking Reference N/A

And for a little bit more info, could we get the first two characters from the ticket reference (also called a UTN) beneath the barcode? That will identify who provides the booking engine. I have my suspicions as to who it probably is, but a confirmation would be handy.

First 2 letters show as "SR" under the barcode.

 

[Adam Williams]

The 338 is a giveaway something is wrong. I'm not actually sure what the 338 is a reference to.

I suspect that that's some internal identifier they have for the fare location which they fall back to if they can't find a CRS or appropriate group CRS...

338 is indeed very very close to the row_number() I get if I sort by UIC and look for that fareloc record in Raileasy's location table

First 2 letters show as "SR" under the barcode.

Gotta say I'm surprised it's that bad if it starts with SR. Perhaps they're not providing all of the stack though?

 

[OscarH]

I'm pretty sure it's this fare: https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=BSK&dest=0785&rlc=YNG&rte=635&tkt=SVR

St Pancras Low Level? Some data sources refer to the Thameslink platforms in that way.

Indeed though I think it's not the correct data to use here

 

[confusedticket]

That looks to be the one!

Only other bit of information I have is getting a “Seek assistance 5X” message when scanning at Waterloo to return to Basingstoke. Person at the gate checked the ticket and said it was fine? Googling suggests it might be to do with using an off peak ticket during on peak? But I was leaving Waterloo at 7pm

 

[OscarH]

That looks to be the one!

Only other bit of information I have is getting a “Seek assistance 5X” message when scanning at Waterloo to return to Basingstoke. Person at the gate checked the ticket and said it was fine? Googling suggests it might be to do with using an off peak ticket during on peak? But I was leaving Waterloo at 7pm

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that. The gateline programming on Cubic gates is pretty limited, and all kinds of valid things are rejected for one reason or another

 

[CyrusWuff]

I suspect that that's some internal identifier they have r the fare location which they fall back to if they can't find a CRS or appropriate group CRS...

Gotta say I'm surprised it's that bad if it starts with SR. Perhaps they're not providing all of the stack though?

Just tried it on Chiltern's web TIS (which uses SR as the backend) and it offered me an e-ticket as well. Query URL: https://buy.chilternrailways.co.uk/...NT_CARD"}]&ls=LS_1_3&ls=LS_2_5&p=PRICE_P_2_43

Tried LNER too, which only offered TOD or postal fulfilment, as expected.

I was expecting to see TL there though, based on past experience.

 

[alistairlees]

I don't think there's much more we can say here. The ticket was incorrectly issued as an eTicket. You have no chance of getting your contactless fare reimbursed by TfL, whatever the itinerary says. Seek redress from your employer, as I suggested above.

 

[confusedticket]

Thanks all, was purely interested in what on earth was going on

Fare shows up on a few sites such as Trainline and does show as an e ticket, but Trainline errors whilst adding to checkout


I assume the fare is technically incorrect too? As if it is indeed St Pancras Low Level, that wouldn't be reachable by underground. Interestingly, the only other route I can see is Thames link which would terminate at St Pancras on the low level platforms I guess?

 

[OscarH]

I was expecting to see TL there though, based on past experience.

Though you'd almost hope TL (TT?) were less likely - if you're going to be economical with the official rules as they are you'd expect they'd be careful about making damn sure certain locations never got offered (whether that's the reality I don't know though)

 

[CyrusWuff]

Though you'd almost hope TL (TT?) were less likely - if you're going to be economical with the official rules as they are you'd expect they'd be careful about making damn sure certain locations never got offered (whether that's the reality I don't know though)

My bad. Got their identifier mixed up! I did indeed mean Trainline.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

The 338 is a giveaway something is wrong. I'm not actually sure what the 338 is a reference to.

338 is the fake CRS for Underground zone 1 that it used to be possible to use at nationalrail.co.uk. I think these codes were created by SilverRail and not anybody at RDG or its ancestors, as they are not in any official data sources

 

[AlbertBeale]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that. The gateline programming on Cubic gates is pretty limited, and all kinds of valid things are rejected for one reason or another

If this ticket used a railcard discount, that might be the reason. I routinely get tickets spat out at Waterloo mainline if they're discounted.

Thanks all, was purely interested in what on earth was going on

Fare shows up on a few sites such as Trainline and does show as an e ticket, but Trainline errors whilst adding to checkout


I assume the fare is technically incorrect too? As if it is indeed St Pancras Low Level, that wouldn't be reachable by underground. Interestingly, the only other route I can see is Thames link which would terminate at St Pancras on the low level platforms I guess?

But wouldn't a ticket to Zone 1 be valid on Thameslink as well as the Underground? (Not that it would be a sensible route from Waterloo to St P.)

 

[furlong]

However, to refuse travel amounted to a breach of contract and you certainly should be complaining to TfL as well and seeking compensation for the breach from them. The ticket should have been accepted for travel and any issuing technicalities handled out-of-band. (E.g. withdraw it and reissue it in an alternative acceptable form - perhaps their documented procedure was that the ticket office you were directed to was meant to do this for them in these situations?) The passenger should not get dragged into internal bickering like this - whatever happened to putting the customer first? You might also bring a breach of the Consumer Regulations into this by being wrongly persuaded you needed a new ticket when you didn't, which lets you complain to the ORR as well as London TravelWatch.

 

[OscarH]

338 is the fake CRS for Underground zone 1 that it used to be possible to use at nationalrail.co.uk. I think these codes were created by SilverRail and not anybody at RDG or its ancestors, as they are not in any official data sources

Interesting! A fake fake CRS if you will (as there's already am official set of fake CRS codes)

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

But wouldn't a ticket to Zone 1 be valid on Thameslink as well as the Underground?

Yes, that would work. From some places I see fares explicitly to St P via Thameslink but London Thameslink, a "Maltese Cross" (but not in this case) or anything valid in zone 1 would be fine.

Interesting! A fake fake CRS if you will (as there's already am official set of fake CRS codes)

Yes! The fake Underground stations and the fake fake search groups. I think 338 and the other zone 1 combinations are more or less the same as 182, the fake fake London group. Still works in some journey planners that use IPTIS or used to, and these codes could also appear when getting a sale referred from nationalrail.co.uk, I think, so had to be supported. Their use on NRE seems to have ended when they could accept postcodes in the search.

 

[island]

However, to refuse travel amounted to a breach of contract and you certainly should be complaining to TfL as well and seeking compensation for the breach from them.

This would be a waste of time. There is no possibility whatsoever of TfL paying "compensation"; at best the contactless fare might be refunded.

 

[TUC]

Even if there is no chance of a refund from TFL it is poor form by their gateline staff to not use their discretion and let the passenger through on that was, even if incorrectly issued, a ticket which was clearly sold as including U1 travel.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Even if there is no chance of a refund from TFL it is poor form by their gateline staff to not use their discretion and let the passenger through on that was, even if incorrectly issued, a ticket which was clearly sold as including U1 travel.

That ticket is a mess, it looks odd to me so a TfL bod would most likely think it's a fake ticket.

Just tried it on Chiltern's web TIS (which uses SR as the backend) and it offered me an e-ticket as well. Query URL: https://buy.chilternrailways.co.uk/search?origin=GBBSK&destination=GBQQS&outboundTime=2024-02-15T14:30:00&outboundTimeType=DEPARTURE&adults=1&children=0&inbound=true&inboundTimeType=DEPARTURE&inboundTime=2024-02-16T20:00:00&railcards=[{"Code":"UK_YOUTH","Number":1,"Type":"DISCOUNT_CARD"}]&ls=LS_1_3&ls=LS_2_5&p=PRICE_P_2_43

Tried LNER too, which only offered TOD or postal fulfilment, as expected.

I was expecting to see TL there though, based on past experience.

Strange as LNER use SilverRail as well

 

[CyrusWuff]

That ticket is a mess, it looks odd to me so a TfL bod would most likely think it's a fake ticket.


Strange as LNER use SilverRail as well

Given how Chiltern's site mangles the query (QQS for St Pancras and UK_YOUTH for the 16-25 Railcard), I'm not particularly surprised by the result!