Is there scope for one supplier and a common policy for all GBR retail facilities?

Moderator note: Split from

So does this thread mean that within GBR each ‘division’ will continue to have its own, bespoke, retailing policy?

Is there no scope for ‘commonality’ (let alone a ‘simplified and streamlined’ National fares system)?

Dr Hoo said:

So does this thread mean that within GBR each ‘division’ will continue to have its own, bespoke, retailing policy?

Is there no scope for ‘commonality’ (let alone a ‘simplified and streamlined’ National fares system)?

Click to expand...

The description previously offered by the government about GBR at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railways-bill/railways-bill-tickets-and-retail suggests things will become more common.

In January 2025, the government announced that GBR would sell tickets as part of the government’s plans to provide a railway fit for Britain’s future. This will replace the numerous websites and ticketing apps run by all of the current DfT contracted train operators, which will no longer be required.

Click to expand...

But as GBR doesn’t exist yet, presumably the existing TOC structure under DFTO continues to procure such things as there’s no one else who can?

"One supplier"

...the words eggs and baskets spring to mind.

You can have a common specification (even for service components) for all suppliers to give seamless ticketing.

You can buy nuts 'n bolts from different suppliers that fit together.

WAO

Peter Mugridge said:

"One supplier"

...the words eggs and baskets spring to mind.

Click to expand...

This isn't really relevant when it comes to in-person ticketing because you can only use the TVM or booking office at the station you have just rocked up at, you can't use the ticketing services at a station miles away. Thus you only gain resilience with online ticketing options.

That being the case, economies of scale are more valuable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2026 ==

JamesT said:

But as GBR doesn’t exist yet, presumably the existing TOC structure under DFTO continues to procure such things as there’s no one else who can?

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to think that's why it is, though I do think DfTO should take on some of that role and let more overarching contracts, certainly for online retail.

Peter Mugridge said:

"One supplier"

...the words eggs and baskets spring to mind.

Click to expand...

Agreed -but if they are made an offer they can't refuse-----?

Dr Hoo said:

Moderator note: Split from

Southeastern on-site ticketing contract goes to Worldline

Summary below as per Find a Tender II.1.4) Short description The scope of the contract comprises the following lots: LOT 1 – Supply and Installation of Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs): Provision, delivery, and installation of fully functional Ticket Vending Machines across designated...

www.railforums.co.uk

So does this thread mean that within GBR each ‘division’ will continue to have its own, bespoke, retailing policy?

Is there no scope for ‘commonality’ (let alone a ‘simplified and streamlined’ National fares system)?

Click to expand...

No, it's too early to know the finer details of GBR procurement strategies.

In any case for the procurement in that thread, the original tender notice included:

The framework agreement awarded to the preferred bidder(s) will include a term of up to 8 years, and allow other DfT Operator Limited subsidiaries to call-off from.

Click to expand...

More public procurement notices are including such language allowing sister TOCs to call off on frameworks setup by a primary TOC within the DfT Operator umbrella. The lot values would cover 2 to 3 times the number of units for Southeastern to be called off for other operators, whether it will happen or not is another question.

Bletchleyite said:

This isn't really relevant when it comes to in-person ticketing because you can only use the TVM or booking office at the station you have just rocked up at, you can't use the ticketing services at a station miles away. Thus you only gain resilience with online ticketing options.

That being the case, economies of scale are more valuable.

Click to expand...

The one supplier issue is more that it could kill off the competitive market. At the end of the deal the winning supplier can name their price as everyone else will have stopped serving the market. While there's ways to tackle that, consolidating off the shelf software systems seems the easier way to unlock initial cost savings. Then can develop a strategy for integrated hardware for TVMs/information systems at stations and in the meantime do bigger orders in fewer procurements to drive cost competition for each tender.

Bletchleyite said:

I'm inclined to think that's why it is, though I do think DfTO should take on some of that role and let more overarching contracts, certainly for online retail.

Click to expand...

DfT Operator did issue the Pre-market engagement for GBR Online Retail:

This preliminary market engagement exercise is being conducted by DfT Operator Limited (DFTO) on the basis described in this notice and in the accompanying documents.

Click to expand...

GBR Online Retail will serve as the direct digital sales channel for GBR, supporting the FTR Programme's objectives by delivering a streamlined, accessible, and inclusive ticketing experience. Passengers will benefit from clear fare choices, simplified ticketing across digital and physical formats, and personalized journey information. The platform is designed to integrate railcards, concessions, and support services, ensuring inclusivity from launch.

GBR's ticketing website will combine the existing 14 rail operator websites and apps into one - with the previous websites ceasing to function. The solution will integrate with industry initiatives such as Fares Reform and Delay Repay, accelerate new product development, and support innovative customer propositions.

Click to expand...

An NR region (or similar) already has sufficient economies of scale. Singer supplier dependency would be an unnecessary risk.