Search results

I know "underpromise and overdeliver" is a thing, but I think I would've preferred timescales rooted a bit more in reality..

Deliberate discrimination against those of us in Warks, clearly /s :D That's why my 50mph road on the way to Leamington was downgraded by HS2 to a 30mph as well! But no, locally people aren't super impressed. I had to endure a dental check-up a few weeks back in Kenilworth and was discussing...

You've let them win if you decide to just give up and do that, sets a terrible precedent Despite living nowhere near this station, I'm happy with the expenditure as a taxpayer; it's the principle here that's important.

Disappointed they put the Chinese brands first in the list of participating retailers :p

I think wanting your retailer to do it for you, instead of having to waste copious amounts of time re-typing in journey details and uploading E-Tickets, would be quite reasonable. I would stress that there are probably more technical constraints here than non-technical ones, such as CAPTCHAs...

I'm pretty sure the minute you do that sort of thing online, you need a license from the Gambling Commission that they probably only give out to the National Lottery operator :lol: Too bad they stopped selling tickets in-person

Ha, maybe Raileasy should give out a free Railcard for getting a "pleasing" total like that :lol:

Yep We will try and fix it at some point, it's just not necessarily an easy one to sort. Really, the fares engine is better placed to be communicating this sort of information through to the frontend. Reasonably new, yes. Raileasy requested that all the boundary zone locations be assigned...

It doesn't try and account for the complexities of zonal tickets and their specific split requirements, which obviously do differ in the NRCoT from "ordinary" tickets; the logic is aimed at the 99.9% case instead. If you're buying a BZ ticket you probably know the conditions yourself.

Agree; and this mirrors my (and colleagues') experience when we were in Liverpool. The main issue that they have with online purchases definitely seems to be with uncollected ToD only.

And where's the requirement to do this in the spec? 1744281803 Ah; yes, we do that check too. It's just about group members and the physical destination of the leg. Nothing to do with checking for that particular operator. It's not relevant here because the destination is Liverpool Lime St.

Then TfW need to change the data in RCS, don't they? I would rather they didn't because we're now arguing in favour of a considerably worse passenger experience (for what benefit?), but that's the logical conclusion of the argument you're making here.

I didn't discuss that fare in my post. Do you think it makes any sense at all that we should be retailing E-Tix for the Any Permitted fare, and not the cheaper fare - when it's exactly the same service that can be used with both tickets?

E-Tickets are accepted in practicality by Merseyrail, I've been to Liverpool and tried it myself. It's what passengers want; the sooner train operators understand this, the better. I see no issue with this behaviour; the £14.20 Any Permitted ticket from Chester to Liverpool Stations is valid...

Was it? I didn't think it was ever a legal entity. Edit: oh, they just renamed an NR company to make it GBRTT?

Can't tell you much either..! Hopefully it'll be approved at some point.

We sell this online, don't we? I'd argue we could achieve this if Ranger / Rovers were more readily retailable online, however the industry seems to be afraid of E-Ticket fulfilment in this area.

I don't see any immediate blockers. The ticket terms and conditions recognise a customer might want to purchase it later down the line. I'd imagine it'd overwhelmingly be "not enough demand for such functionality so as to justify the engineering work". E-Tickets will be free to fulfil for this...

On A4 paper? If we're talking about the data, then yes, I agree. It is "issuing" mTickets :p It makes a mockery of the whole thing though really, doesn't it?

Trip Planning & Reports thread?