It may depend on which booking engine you use and the way it interprets the fares database. There is some ambiguity on this flow. Virgin have a flow defined between cluster T122:
Code:
0435 LIVERPOOL STNS 1227 CONGLETON 2513 FLINT 2871 MACCLESFIELD
0438 MANCHESTER STNS 1243 CREWE 2599 BOLTON. 4487 WREXHAM GENERAL
0445 WARRINGTON STNS 2291 RUNCORN. 2771 STOCKPORT.
0446 WIGAN STATIONS 2412 CHESTER. 2774 WILMSLOW
and cluster T127:
Code:
2437 HOLYHEAD. 2471 BANGOR (GWYNEDD)
which is routed VIRGIN TRNS ONLY and contains the following fares:
Code:
FIRST CLASS
FCS ADVANCE 1ST VA 1ST SINGLE ADULT: £20.00 CHILD: £10.00
PCF COMP FIRST 1ST SINGLE ADULT: 5p
STANDARD CLASS
VDS ADVANCE VR STD SINGLE ADULT: £9.50 CHILD: £4.75
PCS COMP STANDARD STD SINGLE ADULT: 5p
However they very confusingly also have an additional flow defined directly between Crewe and Holyhead, also routed VIRGIN TRNS ONLY, which contains the following fares:
Code:
FIRST CLASS
TVS TRAVELLER 1ST SINGLE ADULT: 5p CHILD: £5.00
PCF COMP FIRST 1ST SINGLE ADULT: 5p
STANDARD CLASS
PCS COMP STANDARD STD SINGLE ADULT: 5p
It is not defined anywhere which one should take precedence and may depend on the programmer decoding the fares information. The software I have written overrides the first flow because the second one is defined more precisely, and thus also misses out the advance fares like WebTIS does. This is definitely the right way to do things for a lot of circumstances, e.g. fares between Headingley and York are defined both as part of a cluster-to-cluster flow for surrounding stations (the two clusters also contain Leeds and York respectively and the flow is priced by Transpennine Express), but also directly between the two stations (flow priced by Northern), and it is correct that this more precisely-defined flow "wins out". In this Virgin case it is more ambiguous and also complicated by the fact that the fares in the second flow are defined as "non-derivable fares". I don't agree with the way Avantix does it; I think Virgin's data is wrong (and they need to remove the second flow seeing the fares are already defined in the first) - but the reasoning behind that is wayyyy too complex to start to describe here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Although that wouldn't explain the standard advance appearing and the first advance not...