Trainline to be investigated for not including fees in prices

[dk1]

Is that because you think they will not have a judgement made against them? Or that you're confident they'll win a lucrative contract to be the retailer of choice for GBR?

Personally, I would be saying that neither outcome should be at all likely, and I'd be wanting to dump any shares sharpish, however given the (lack of) competence of the parties involved, you could actually be right.

I don't think I'd want to hold shares in such a company out of principle, though.

Yes it’s looking rather iffy. Will probably give it a wide berth although I must say i have invested a fair bit in organisations I’m not overly comfortable with over the years if it makes me some money.

 

[JaJaWa]

Trainline is just yet another example of 'en****tification'.

They launched online ticket purchasing before any TOC did so this doesn’t really make sense

 

[TUC]

Potentially, and i well remember a former colleague who worked on the launch of Trainline back in 1998 telling the tale of just how many unforeseen fulfilment costs there were.

Presumably though, the fulfilment costs are no greater than for retailers who don't charge a fee?

 

[yorkie]

Presumably though, the fulfilment costs are no greater than for retailers who don't charge a fee?

No retailer can possibly hope to coming anywhere closer breaking even without either charging a booking fee, or providing awful outsourced support (or both!) unless they are able to either be subsidised, bankrolled or - in the case of Trainsplit - massively undercut the TOCs and take a share of savings.

 

[styles]

As noted earlier, Seatfrog have already been investigated. https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/26643/download is correspondence between the regulator and them about how they show prices.

They've been investigated by the ORR yes. But I think the CMA would take an interest if enough complaints went in.

 

[yorkie]

As noted earlier, Seatfrog have already been investigated. https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/26643/download is correspondence between the regulator and them about how they show prices.

Seatfrog is still engaging in drip pricing, however ORR aren't intelligent enough to understand what's actually going on with Seatfrog.

Incidentally, I know of people who have been given refunds of their fees from Seatfrog, so Seatfrog clearly know they are doing wrong and are keen to avoid any individual judgements against them. They know the ORR is as effective as a chocolate fireguard, and they're probably guessing that a class action claim against them might not be financially viable.

My advice for anyone who uses Seatfrog is to keep all your receipts and create a log of all overcharging incidents, and wait until any judgement is made against Trainline, and then submit a demand for all charges to be refunded.

 

[styles]

Like them or loathe them Trainline has been very successful. Many people believe they are the only webite or app where you can buy train tickets.

They do have a very user friendly interface, liked by many people.

And they have been the first to roll out a number of features which have then been adopted by other retailers.

They're not my go-to retailer but mainly because I do journeys where split tickets can save a lot of money, and Trainline's split ticketing algorithm is probably the poorest on the market.

I can see why they are popular, and they're clearly very good at marketing.

Now TrainPal on the other hand...

Mind you, even TrainPal look competent compared to Emirates Skywards Rail and ScotRail at the moment.

 

[Davester50]

So odd isn’t it? I’ve asked people including family and they seem oblivious or just say the app is on my phone.

Their whole "Save 43% on average" from their adverts were quite a pull in their earlier days
Except it seemed to me to be comparing buying advance purchase tickets with more expensive on the day tickets, and not that they were any cheaper - they weren't. You could still get those tickets from the station, or TOC. And there was the trainline fee on top!

It's a name that's done well, based on earlier misleading adverts.

The ASA has investigated them previously.
Previous ASA complaint

A television advert featuring people singing and dancing on a train has been ruled misleading by the UK’s advertising watchdog.

The Advertising Standards Authority found the Trainline’s advert, broadcast in May, did not sufficiently substantiate its claims, following six complaints from members of the public.

Dancers in the advert carried placards stating “save 43% on average” and “save up to 6pm the day before travel”, claims which were questioned by viewers.

The ASA upheld the complaint, despite onscreen text appearing briefly that said: “Advance fares and selected routes only. Subject to availability.”

The watchdog found that the Trainline had breached six advertising codes.

“We considered that the information that explained the basis of the savings claims was not sufficiently clear,” said the ASA in its official statement.

“The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told thetrainline.com to ensure in future that their ads included clear information that explained the basis of their savings claims.”

The Trainline has since amended the advert, which continues to air and can be viewed on its website.

A spokeswoman for the rail booking company said: “We were disappointed to find it the subject of a small number of complaints.

“Following the ASA’s ruling we have amended the ads currently on air and, whilst the headline savings message does not change, they now contain further information to explain the basis of our claims.”

 

[35B]

Presumably though, the fulfilment costs are no greater than for retailers who don't charge a fee?

They aren't. But the point is not that they are, but just how material those fulfilment costs are - something that we easily forget

 

[Watershed]

No retailer can possibly hope to coming anywhere closer breaking even without either charging a booking fee, or providing awful outsourced support (or both!) unless they are able to either be subsidised, bankrolled or - in the case of Trainsplit - massively undercut the TOCs and take a share of savings.

It can be done without cutting corners if you have a sufficient volume of sales but yes, for smaller sales volumes the financials are difficult as there's lots of high upfront and fixed recurring costs.

 

[yorkie]

It can be done without cutting corners if you have a sufficient volume of sales but yes, for smaller sales volumes the financials are difficult as there's lots of high upfront and fixed recurring costs.

I'm not convinced; if, that is, the support is going to be genuinely good, knowledgeable, UK based and highly responsive and if a third party site has to bear all the costs (and isn't able to attribute any of those costs to providing sites/services to TOCs).

It's not just about not cutting corners, but dealing with unexpected occurences, strike/industrial action or other events that can result in mass cancellations, edge cases, etc in a timeley and customer-focussed manner.

 

[mickey]

Like them or loathe them Trainline has been very successful. Many people believe they are the only webite or app where you can buy train tickets.

They do have a very user friendly interface, liked by many people.

I once asked a friend who worked there why they were so successful, and was told it’s because most people think they are the official site/app for buying tickets. I can believe that, particularly given how heavily they advertised and how much brand recognition it created. How many people remember QJump, who were for a while the only major competitor?

I wouldn’t want to be working there now. They’ve been struggling for a while, and from what I gather poorly managed… the share price fall this week would have been close to catastrophic.

 

[TUC]

They aren't. But the point is not that they are, but just how material those fulfilment costs are - something that we easily forget

If they were that significant then presumably we wouldn't have seen so many competitors enter the market?

 

[styles]

If they were that significant then presumably we wouldn't have seen so many competitors enter the market?

Anecdotally I think a lot of people enter the market offering zero fees/commission, hook people in, then add it on later.

Uber is the classic example of this. They used angel investment funds to subsidise cab fares, got hundreds of millions of people hooked, then when the capital investment ran dry they jacked up their fares. They're currently offering all sorts of discounts on rail fares and I'm in no doubt that these will disappear at some point, once they've hoodwinked loads of people into using their app.

You can see this in TrainPal. Their whole schtick was offering split tickets and no fees. Guess what though, some years down the line and they charge fees now.

 

[saismee]

When people show me the apps on their phone and I see TrainPal, Trip, Omio, and Trainline, but their ticket is from TrainPal/Trip my first thought is: "Why would you use either of those over Trainline?"

I think Trainline is the least terrible of the major third-party ticketing sites. They do a lot of things right (though many wrong), but I wouldn't trust Trip, and especially wouldn't trust Omio, with my money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2026 ==

Uber is the classic example of this. They used angel investment funds to subsidise cab fares, got hundreds of millions of people hooked, then when the capital investment ran dry they jacked up their fares. They're currently offering all sorts of discounts on rail fares and I'm in no doubt that these will disappear at some point, once they've hoodwinked loads of people into using their app.

When a passenger was struggling to get Uber to display their ticket, I mentioned that they probably shouldn't use Uber because it's a terrible app for train tickets. They're response was "I know it's terrible but they give so much cashback."

 

[Hadders]

I wouldn’t want to be working there now. They’ve been struggling for a while, and from what I gather poorly managed… the share price fall this week would have been close to catastrophic.

They're a tech company that sells train tickets. Whichever way you look at it they've been very successful.

I wouldn't be too worried about the share price - share prices tend to ebb and flow. Clearly there will be some changes to rail ticket retailing with GBR coming but I expect them to pivot and adapt to that.

 

[styles]

When a passenger was struggling to get Uber to display their ticket, I mentioned that they probably shouldn't use Uber because it's a terrible app for train tickets. They're response was "I know it's terrible but they give so much cashback."

Yep.

Same with TrainPal and their Railcard discounts. Sure, saving a tenner on your annual Railcard is great, but in order to activate it on TrainPal you need to buy a qualifying ticket first, and their app is so bad at offline mode that you can find yourself on trains unable to show the Railcard at all.

 

[35B]

If they were that significant then presumably we wouldn't have seen so many competitors enter the market?

They’re better understood now - and also reduced because there is so much less postage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 08:35 ==

They're a tech company that sells train tickets. Whichever way you look at it they've been very successful.

I wouldn't be too worried about the share price - share prices tend to ebb and flow. Clearly there will be some changes to rail ticket retailing with GBR coming but I expect them to pivot and adapt to that.

They have been, but a friend works there and they are a) fearful of what may happen with GBR and b) having to adapt significantly to expand into Europe.

 

[camperdown9]

With everything in the travel industry you always have to look at the final cost.

 

[GoneSouth]

Delay Repay is claimed from the TOC, thus it is utterly irrelevant which retailer you use. I have never had an issue with a disruption refund from Trainline, and they charge lower fees for refunds by choice than most.

Remember some TOC sites are Trainline under contract.

So Trainline are getting triple bubble.

• Percentage of ticket fare
• Their unnecessary booking fee
• Licensing of their product to other retailers

Have I understood that correctly?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 09:11 ==

As a frequent trainline user, ecstatic at this. The fact theyve been able to get away with hiding the booking fees until you’re just about to pay is appalling. Horrendous company and whatever punishment they’re due has been a long time coming

It’s a very good product but I REALLY object to their fees. They’re not selling me anything I can’t buy elsewhere without the fee. I’ve tried to tell other people this but they just assume wrongly that Trainline is the official National rail ticketing app.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the numerous other reasons I loathe Trainline is the fact that they seem to have full spectrum domination - like 118 118 did for Directory Enquiries. Everybody I know uses them due to brand recognition, not quality of service.

I'm not sure that's true. I use it because it has a nice user interface. I'm not willing to pay fees to do that, but as most of my tickets are bought on the day I'm not charged any.

 

[JamesT]

So Trainline are getting triple bubble.

• Percentage of ticket fare
• Their unnecessary booking fee
• Licensing of their product to other retailers

Have I understood that correctly?

Not all of those apply every time. The booking fee may not be there on the licenced products, and as noticed they don't charge for on the day in app purchases.

It’s a very good product but I REALLY object to their fees. They’re not selling me anything I can’t buy elsewhere without the fee. I’ve tried to tell other people this but they just assume wrongly that Trainline is the official National rail ticketing app.

They're merely charging what the market will bear. If the fee-free competitors were better, I'm fairly sure they would eat the cost to their profits and drop it.

Though you say unnecessary, I do wonder how profitable it would be to sell tickets without a booking fee. I know the split ticketing sites do more, but would the member for Raileasy be prepared to say if they would break even if they didn't charge their share of saving fee? Even with that, their accounts show operating profits are only ~1% of sales.

 

[GoneSouth]

The fact remains that every product they sell is available fee free elsewhere. Wise up people.

If they didn’t charge fees I might use them. I see them as the Ticketmaster of the rail world, gauging every possible cent.

Also if I have to make a delay repay claim with a TOC then I may as well have bought the ticket from them in the first place.

With GBR the government is presumably in charge of ticketing for the asset it owns so hopefully we will see some of Trainline’s more odious practices outlawed.

 

[Adam Williams]

I know the split ticketing sites do more, but would the member for Raileasy be prepared to say if they would break even if they didn't charge their share of saving fee?

I think it's been covered before from one of Raileasy's directors (and that was before the commission went down, it's now even worse!) - but yes, I don't think it'd be remotely sustainable without cross-subsidy or a booking fee. Take a look at this thread here

 

[stevieinselby]

No retailer can possibly hope to coming anywhere closer breaking even without either charging a booking fee, or providing awful outsourced support (or both!) unless they are able to either be subsidised, bankrolled or - in the case of Trainsplit - massively undercut the TOCs and take a share of savings.

From what I remember, 9% of the ticket price is allocated as commission to the seller. For a company the size of Trainline, that could easily be enough to render the company profitable. Compare that to TOCs that have staffed ticket offices, with the costs of running physical premises with people working in there selling a few tickets every hour, and online retailing looks like a much better bet! It certainly isn't clear to me that they couldn't possibly hope to break even without scamming people by charging extra fees.

 

[alistairlees]

From what I remember, 9% of the ticket price is allocated as commission to the seller. For a company the size of Trainline, that could easily be enough to render the company profitable. Compare that to TOCs that have staffed ticket offices, with the costs of running physical premises with people working in there selling a few tickets every hour, and online retailing looks like a much better bet! It certainly isn't clear to me that they couldn't possibly hope to break even without scamming people by charging extra fees.

Oh come on, that was over 15 years ago. It's now 4.5% for third party retailers.

The real question is not whether the 4.5% that's given to third party retailers is right or wrong. But do the TOCs when they are selling tickets operate within 4.5% or do they spend a lot more than 4.5% on selling tickets? And, if so - where does that money come from? And what else could it have been spent on?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh come on, that was over 15 years ago. It's now 4.5% for third party retailers.

The real question is not whether the 4.5% that's given to third party retailers is right or wrong. But do the TOCs when they are selling tickets operate within 4.5% or do they spend a lot more than 4.5% on selling tickets? And, if so - where does that money come from? And what else could it have been spent on?

Given that a number of TOCs use Trainline to sell their tickets, either it's viable for Trainline not to charge fees or the TOC is paying them the equivalent of the fees to ensure it's profitable for them...

 

[Watershed]

Given that a number of TOCs use Trainline to sell their tickets, either it's viable for Trainline not to charge fees or the TOC is paying them the equivalent of the fees to ensure it's profitable for them...

I think we can be fairly sure that Trainline (and other retailers) are not providing their website/app etc. services to the TOCs for free!

The exact arrangement will depend on the contract in question, but generally speaking the TOC is the retailer and thus receives the commission and pays the direct costs associated with the sale (payment provider fees, LENNON/LSM/eTVD insertion fees, eTicket issuance fees etc.).

In turn the TIS (Ticket Issuing System) provider will tend to receive some combination of an annual/monthly fee for providing and maintaining the system, and/or a per-transaction fee, and/or a percentage of the sale. Depending on who provides after-sales support, the cost of that may be borne by the TOC, another contracted-out third party (e.g. First Customer Contact) or the TIS provider.

So making exact comparisons is difficult because the costs and income are split between lots of parties when TOCs are selling tickets online or via an app, whereas they are all integrated for TIS providers that sell directly to the public.

 

[35B]

From what I remember, 9% of the ticket price is allocated as commission to the seller. For a company the size of Trainline, that could easily be enough to render the company profitable. Compare that to TOCs that have staffed ticket offices, with the costs of running physical premises with people working in there selling a few tickets every hour, and online retailing looks like a much better bet! It certainly isn't clear to me that they couldn't possibly hope to break even without scamming people by charging extra fees.

On what basis do you assert that any percentage of the retail price is enough for a profit? The cost structure of an online retailer business is still there, although different.

 

[stevieinselby]

On what basis do you assert that any percentage of the retail price is enough for a profit? The cost structure of an online retailer business is still there, although different.

Why such an aggressive and accusatory tone?
I said "could be", not "is".
A previous poster had said that an online retailer couldn't possibly make a profit without charging extra fees, and I was pointing out why that was not necessarily the case.