TrainSplit v2

[SickyNicky]

Wow thanks! I can see the whole family using this. Will it look just like the new site? The old site didn't work very well on my husband's phone.

The app has been designed from the ground up. It will look completely different. But I think you'll like it.

I know the old site didn't work well with mobiles. The new site should be much better, though.

 

[julieandjack]

The app has been designed from the ground up. It will look completely different. But I think you'll like it.

I know the old site didn't work well with mobiles. The new site should be much better, though.

Haha! "But I think you'll like it" - you sound like Steve Jobs there. Why is it different if this new format is so easy to use? :roll:

 

[SickyNicky]

Haha! "But I think you'll like it" - you sound like Steve Jobs there. Why is it different if this new format is so easy to use? :roll:

The web site is restricted on how many journeys it can offer because it needs to work at any resolution. But with an app you have so many more options, so we can show many options, including loads of alternative itineraries and different routes.

 

[julieandjack]

The web site is restricted on how many journeys it can offer because it needs to work at any resolution. But with an app you have so many more options, so we can show many options, including loads of alternative itineraries and different routes.

Ok thanks. I thought it would be the other way around. Well as long as it isn't too difficult to use.

 

[infobleep]

The web site is restricted on how many journeys it can offer because it needs to work at any resolution. But with an app you have so many more options, so we can show many options, including loads of alternative itineraries and different routes.

So often apps offer less than the Web Sites they mimic, National Rail Enquiries, Southern (in the past at least) and so on.

It's great that your going to be bucking the trend. I look forward to playing with it and seeing what weird and wonderful itineraries it finds.

 

[BigCj34]

It's handy that the site can factor in possession of regional railcards for trips that go outside of the railcard zone (e.g. a Devon and Cornwall will apply the discount for split tickets within the Devon and Cornwall area even if going to Bristol), but not all railcards are covered, including the Dales railcard and Heart of Wales to name a few.

 

[gray1404]

Is it possible to make train split only offer walk up tickets? I want to split my tickets on a journey but not be tied to advances.

 

[SickyNicky]

Is it possible to make train split only offer walk up tickets? I want to split my tickets on a journey but not be tied to advances.

Just click on the "flexible" icon at the top right of the fares grid.

 

[talldave]

Eltham to Gravesend Off Peak Return: Old trainsplit gives the direct ticket at £8.10, new trainsplit gives a split with total cost £9.70

 

[yorkie]

Eltham to Gravesend Off Peak Return: Old trainsplit gives the direct ticket at £8.10, new trainsplit gives a split with total cost £9.70

I don't think this is an issue with Trainsplit; NRE says there are no return fares available.

The CDR appears to be missing according to many booking engines.

 

[talldave]

I don't think this is an issue with Trainsplit; NRE says there are no return fares available.

The CDR appears to be missing according to many booking engines.

The desktop site for NRE offers the £8.10 fare.

I thought trainsplit v1 and v2 would be using the same source data, in which case it would be an algorithmic issue, but perhaps not?

 

[Paul Kelly]

TrainSplit v2 uses an entirely separate journey planning system to TrainSplit v1.

All booking engines ultimately use the same source of fares data, but it is in constant flux as updates are sent out every night. The times at which the updates are sent varies a lot (generally between 10pm at night and some time the following afternoon) and on top of this, different journey planners and sites all have their own schedules as to when they update to the latest data.

So if an error in the data is introduced in a nightly update (as seems to be the case here), it's quite possible for different sites to be showing the effects of the error at different times as and when they update and/or revert to different versions of the fares data.

 

[Iggy12a]

I need to travel to Crystal Palace from PMS on Thursday for a day's training course. Brfares shows me the cheapest option is a Super Off Peak Day return at £18.20 via not London.
I thought I would just see what TrainSplit comes up with.
Strangely it does not seem to find any through fares, and the best it comes up with is a Super Off Peak from PMS to Norwood Junc at £18.20, plus an Anytime Day return from Norwood Junc to Crystal Palace at £4.20, making £22.40 in total.
Why doesn't it find the £18.20 fare all the way to Crystal Palace?

 

[Paul Kelly]

I presume you're looking at travel on Southern via Horsham and Gatwick - that's not a permitted route. Even though the NOT VIA LONDON fares are priced by Southern and clearly intended for use that way, the only mapped routes for Portsmouth Group to Crystal Palace require that you travel via London. (You can also go via Guildford and West Croydon as that's the shortest route.)

 

[Iggy12a]

I presume you're looking at travel on Southern via Horsham and Gatwick - that's not a permitted route. Even though the NOT VIA LONDON fares are priced by Southern and clearly intended for use that way, the only mapped routes for Portsmouth Group to Crystal Palace require that you travel via London. (You can also go via Guildford and West Croydon as that's the shortest route.)

Yes, that was the route I was thinking of taking.
But if I use the gwr.com website to search for tickets, it does find the £18.20 fare. Not only does it give me a departure at 9:16 from PMS changing at East Croydon and Norwood Junction arriving Crystal Palace at 11:26, it also brings up a 9:24 departure, just changing at Clapham Junc and arriving Crystal Palace at 11:32.

I do not understand how to read mapped routes (perhaps I should go on the next course), but I did think that online route planners interpreted them, so that I did not have to. How can gwr.com give an unmapped route?

 

[yorkie]

I do not understand how to read mapped routes (perhaps I should go on the next course), but I did think that online route planners interpreted them, so that I did not have to. How can gwr.com give an unmapped route?

I don't think anyone from Atos Worldline is going to give a conclusive answer to that question, so all we can really say is that the Atos Worldline WebTIS sites offer some itineraries for journeys that are often reasonable but not technically permitted. This cropped up only a few days ago.

I am very interested to read of such differences of interpretation, so please do keep them coming (if anyone is concerned that it may highlight an anomaly that they do not wish a train company to close, you can of course send me a PM).

 

[JB_B]

I presume you're looking at travel on Southern via Horsham and Gatwick - that's not a permitted route. Even though the NOT VIA LONDON fares are priced by Southern and clearly intended for use that way, the only mapped routes for Portsmouth Group to Crystal Palace require that you travel via London. (You can also go via Guildford and West Croydon as that's the shortest route.)

This is an interesting question which has made me rethink how mapped routes via (yellow_pages) LONDON work.

Until today I'd assumed that this required two separate sets of maps - one set of mapped routes from the origin routeing point to LONDON group (G01) and one set LONDON group (G01) to the destination routeing point. (And using these together would obviously a require a ticket to be valid via London.)

However, the routeing guide actually says this...

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.


( see http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nrg_detail.pdf )

I think for Portsmouth group to Crystal Palace group..

1. Gives CW+LB, CW+LF, PD and SW

2. Gives BR, FC and FT

No overlap between 1 and 2 so ..

3. yields 12 different map combinations (where no map is repeated) including CW+LF+BR which gives you the not-London mapped route that the OP requires.

So I think it is a mapped route ( unless, as usual, I've missed something?)

 

[Paul Kelly]

ATOC have said in the past (in a well-documented response to Clive Feather, which I can't find a link to right now) that a "NOT LONDON" ticket may be used via London in cases where the only route shown by the routeing guide is LONDON. In fact this might be a good journey to test that out on.

However I don't think anybody has ever come to the firm conclusion that you can put together the to & from London mapped routes and trace on them a route that doesn't go via London, although there has been loads of discussion on this forum (and at fares workshops and forum meets!) about the subject in the past. And I used to believe it was a sensible interpretation too, but it can lead to some rather silly routes where you head off away from London on a map combination that is intended to only be used towards London. Sorry about the lack of concrete examples.

 

[furlong]

Qu.5: What are the permitted routes where a ticket is routed "not London"; in particular, what if the only route given in the Guide is "London"?

In this case, you can use the ticket via London. The routes "London" and "not London" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Source.

 

[roversfan2001]

"not via London means you can't go via London, unless you can."

 

[JB_B]

Source.

Thanks for the link. I think Clive's question would be relevant for something like Slough -> Colchester -here only LONDON appears in each yellow pages entry and the only route traceable on the combined maps (RG+SO) is via London Group.

That case can be distinguished from Portsmouth -> Crystal Palace. Again, only LONDON appears in the relevant yellow pages entries but the combinations of the inbound and outbound maps give you lots of mapped routes - both via and not via London Group.

 

[JB_B]

ATOC have said in the past (in a well-documented response to Clive Feather, which I can't find a link to right now) that a "NOT LONDON" ticket may be used via London in cases where the only route shown by the routeing guide is LONDON. In fact this might be a good journey to test that out on.

However I don't think anybody has ever come to the firm conclusion that you can put together the to & from London mapped routes and trace on them a route that doesn't go via London, although there has been loads of discussion on this forum (and at fares workshops and forum meets!) about the subject in the past. And I used to believe it was a sensible interpretation too, but it can lead to some rather silly routes where you head off away from London on a map combination that is intended to only be used towards London. Sorry about the lack of concrete examples.

Thanks - my previous understanding of how it worked was based on para 3.4.7 of http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1192130

Does that represent the settled consensus amoung forum members? Do booking engines apply the rules this way?


My reading now (could be wrong) is that the yellow pages entries specifies list of maps and map combinations - they don't specify routes. The routeing guide is quite sloppy over language but it's clear that the use of the term "routeing code" in steps 6 and 7 of the instructions ( http://iblocks-rg-publication.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nrg_instructions.pdf ) actually refers to the map or map combination - not a fares route.

LONDON in this context is just shorthand for a further set of map combinations - the product of the entries from origin rp to London Group and London Group to destination rp (excluding repeated maps). Nowhere in does it say that routes traced on these additional map combinations must pass through London Group.


I now appreciate that this question was been discussed extensively many years ago [Thanks, Yorkie]. The conservative interpretation breaks some obviously reasonable routes - does the liberal interpretaion introduce anything particularly outrageous?

 

[talldave]

TrainSplit v2 uses an entirely separate journey planning system to TrainSplit v1.

All booking engines ultimately use the same source of fares data, but it is in constant flux as updates are sent out every night. The times at which the updates are sent varies a lot (generally between 10pm at night and some time the following afternoon) and on top of this, different journey planners and sites all have their own schedules as to when they update to the latest data.

So if an error in the data is introduced in a nightly update (as seems to be the case here), it's quite possible for different sites to be showing the effects of the error at different times as and when they update and/or revert to different versions of the fares data.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

My top wishlist item for Trainsplit would be a brfares style "reverse" button, for when you want to tackle a journey plan as two singles rather than a return.

Also, are Travelcards included in the mix yet? I did a random Gravesend to City Thameslink, Off Peak via London with Gold Card test and got a split that costs more than a Gold Card Gravesend Travelcard and, weirdly, more than the straightforward return fare listed on brfares (which Trainsplit v1 offers).

 

[Paul Kelly]

does the liberal interpretaion introduce anything particularly outrageous?

The one that definitively changed my mind on it was Oxford (OXF) to Stafford (STA) via Worcester Shrub Hill and Smethwick Galton Bridge. Not an entirely unreasonable route if you want to avoid Birmingham; it's about 14 miles longer than the route taken by the through OXF-STA trains via Coventry.

The mapped routes for OXF-STA are either map RF, or LONDON. Map RF allows travel via Banbury to Leamington Spa, and then various options around the West Midlands to get to Stafford. No option for going via Worcester.

Oxford to London available maps are:
GC (via Bicester & High Wycombe to Marylebone)
LH (via Reading to Paddington)
RB+WX (via Reading to Waterloo)

London to Stafford maps are:
GC+CM (from Marylebone via Coventry & Birmingham)
GC+WS (from Marylebone via Birmingham & Wolverhampton or Coventry & Nuneaton)
RG+RF (from Paddington via Reading & Birmingham)
SF (from Euston direct via West Coast Main Line with deviations via Northampton and various West Midlands lines permitted)

One of the options that comes up if you join all these together without requiring travel via London is LH+GC+CM.

As LH is the London to Hereford map it's possible to trace "the wrong way" back from Oxford to Worcester. You can then change to map GC. Since 14th June this year map GC has ended at Smethwick Group. However it previously had a link from Smethwick Group to Worcester Group (following the route taken by the occasional Chiltern trains that extend from Birmingham to Kidderminster). You could then trace one link on map GC (again in the "wrong" direction) from Worcester Group to Smethwick Group, then change to map CM for tracing the final leg from Smethwick - Wolverhampton - Stafford.

This it was only on map CM that you were tracing in the direction intended by a map, and the entire route went nowhere near London but could be traced on a to & from London map combination!

 

[JB_B]

The one that definitively changed my mind on it was Oxford (OXF) to Stafford (STA) via Worcester Shrub Hill and Smethwick Galton Bridge. Not an entirely unreasonable route if you want to avoid Birmingham; it's about 14 miles longer than the route taken by the through OXF-STA trains via Coventry.

The mapped routes for OXF-STA are either map RF, or LONDON. Map RF allows travel via Banbury to Leamington Spa, and then various options around the West Midlands to get to Stafford. No option for going via Worcester.

Oxford to London available maps are:
GC (via Bicester & High Wycombe to Marylebone)
LH (via Reading to Paddington)
RB+WX (via Reading to Waterloo)

London to Stafford maps are:
GC+CM (from Marylebone via Coventry & Birmingham)
GC+WS (from Marylebone via Birmingham & Wolverhampton or Coventry & Nuneaton)
RG+RF (from Paddington via Reading & Birmingham)
SF (from Euston direct via West Coast Main Line with deviations via Northampton and various West Midlands lines permitted)

One of the options that comes up if you join all these together without requiring travel via London is LH+GC+CM.

As LH is the London to Hereford map it's possible to trace "the wrong way" back from Oxford to Worcester. You can then change to map GC. Since 14th June this year map GC has ended at Smethwick Group. However it previously had a link from Smethwick Group to Worcester Group (following the route taken by the occasional Chiltern trains that extend from Birmingham to Kidderminster). You could then trace one link on map GC (again in the "wrong" direction) from Worcester Group to Smethwick Group, then change to map CM for tracing the final leg from Smethwick - Wolverhampton - Stafford.

This it was only on map CM that you were tracing in the direction intended by a map, and the entire route went nowhere near London but could be traced on a to & from London map combination!

That's an interesting one - thanks.

I think that would only be classed as outrageous if you're still making the implicit assumption that LONDON (as a yellow pages entry) means you must go via (or near) London.

There's no requirement to be heading in particular direction when tracing mapped routes - so there is no "wrong way" in the sense of direction of travel ( although of course you need to use the maps in the specified order).

I'm tempted to argue that putting LONDON in both entries could be seen as just an economical way of specifying LH+GC+CM (amongst others) as a mapped route (avoiding clogging up the yellow pages with superfluous map combinations.)

Since the GC map change I'm not surprised NRE aren't showing OXF->Worcester->STA as a valid.

Do you (or does anyone) have a live example which would seem totally wrong - so I can cross check with NRE and raise with RDG if required?

 

[OwlMan]

...................1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

The instructions do say permitted routes TO LONDON ( not permitted routes to Watford, Reading etc) and permitted routes FROM LONDON (not Watford etc) and combine 1 with 2 (not combine part of 1 with part of 2). It would not say TO & FROM London unless it is intended that you travel through London.

 

[JB_B]

The instructions do say permitted routes TO LONDON ( not permitted routes to Watford, Reading etc) and permitted routes FROM LONDON (not Watford etc) and combine 1 with 2 (not combine part of 1 with part of 2). It would not say TO & FROM London unless it is intended that you travel through London.

I see what you mean - but the example on F9 shows that by "permitted route" what they actually mean a map or map combination ( not a 'route' in the sense of a specific ordered list of routeing points.) It's maps/map combinations that they're joining to get additional combinations not specific routes.

The "to London" or "from London" part is just telling you where to look for the input map/map combinations in the yellow pages.

 

[paul1609]

Is the v2 of train split going to be available to potential affiliates in the future. I notice that the rail forums link still appears to be the original version?

 

[SickyNicky]

Is the v2 of train split going to be available to potential affiliates in the future. I notice that the rail forums link still appears to be the original version?

It's available and being used by affiliates now, with more switching all the time. There's no reason why the forum shouldn't change immediately - if a suitable mod is reading, all you need to do is ask!

 

[BigCj34]

It would be handy if the site displayed the journey times! I sometimes get a bit excited when I see a super cheap fare only to realise it takes twice as long when I realise the arrival time. It just saves a bit of arithmetic when subtracting the dparture time form the arrivals.