Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Most people buy their tickets either from the TOCs (which won't exist) or Trainline (widely disliked by enthusiasts). So I think a replacement is needed.
Having a national rail service and not having the option of buying tickets from it directly online would be perverse.
What you're replacing is the TOC sites - why pay for 10 contracts when you can have one for far less money? It'd need a bit more server capacity, but as most tickets are e-tickets or ToD it wouldn't need substantially more staff than a smaller scale site does now.
Trainline can continue to exist if it wants, and people can pay its fees or choose not to, just like you can buy an air ticket from Expedia or similar or you can just buy it from the airline. It does have a quite good UI and does simple splitting, so whether people continue to use it will depend on the features of the new site. The LNER one is almost a Trainline clone, but some of the others are just rubbish.
What you're replacing is the TOC sites - why pay for 10 contracts when you can have one for far less money? It'd need a bit more server capacity, but as most tickets are e-tickets or ToD it wouldn't need substantially more staff than a smaller scale site does now.
Trainline can continue to exist if it wants, and people can pay its fees or choose not to, just like you can buy an air ticket from Expedia or similar or you can just buy it from the airline. It does have a quite good UI and does simple splitting, so whether people continue to use it will depend on the features of the new site. The LNER one is almost a Trainline clone, but some of the others are just rubbish.
The problem you're going to have with most TOC retail sites and trying to repurpose them is that they're narrowly focussed on retailing for their own services, and almost pretend the rest of the rail network doesn't exist.
You see this with LNER and GroupSave, their booking confirmations saying something like "There is limited unreserved seating in coach C in Standard and E or M in First Class" when you book a Northern service, the obsession with presenting Advances front and centre etc. Other TOC sites provide seat selection, but only for their own trains etc etc.
The problem you're going to have with most TOC retail sites and trying to repurpose them is that they're narrowly focussed on retailing for their own services, and almost pretend the rest of the rail network doesn't exist.
You see this with LNER and GroupSave, their booking confirmations saying something like "There is limited unreserved seating in coach C in Standard and E or M in First Class" when you book a Northern service, the obsession with presenting Advances front and centre etc. Other TOC sites provide seat selection, but only for their own trains etc etc.
That's true, but an advantage with the DfT TOCs is that only one of them has a fully featured booking engine (LNER) - the rest of them are just basic ones. So if you move Northern, TPE and Southeastern onto the LNER one you're not actually losing anything for those three, and you may gain some things like it might not be too hard to put TPE onto the seat selector.
The LNER one does have LNER-biased help text but that's easily fixed.
The only thing I find really annoying about it (I've used it a few times lately due to Monzo cashback) is that it doesn't have a proper built in means of requesting refunds, you have to go to a separate, quite faffy website.
That's true, but an advantage with the DfT TOCs is that only one of them has a fully featured booking engine (LNER) - the rest of them are just basic ones. So if you move Northern, TPE and Southeastern onto the LNER one you're not actually losing anything for those three, and you may gain some things like it might not be too hard to put TPE onto the seat selector.
The LNER one does have LNER-biased help text but that's easily fixed.
The only thing I find really annoying about it (I've used it a few times lately due to Monzo cashback) is that it doesn't have a proper built in means of requesting refunds, you have to go to a separate, quite faffy website.
Would you care to elaborate why? Some on this Forum have a habit of just saying "you're wrong" (and you're not normally one of them so I'm surprised by your reply, to be honest!), but better discussion results from explaining the reasons why someone is.
Would you care to elaborate why? Some on this Forum have a habit of just saying "you're wrong" (and you're not normally one of them so I'm surprised by your reply, to be honest!), but better discussion results from explaining the reasons why someone is.
In what way are the booking engines of Northern, TPE and Southeastern not "fully featured" but "just basic"? All of them need to meet the same accreditation standards.
In what way are the booking engines of Northern, TPE and Southeastern not "fully featured" but "just basic"? All of them need to meet the same accreditation standards.
They offer the standard features required for accreditation. They don't offer extras like seat selection or standalone reservations, for instance. LNER's also offers those features, so if you moved those three onto LNER and rebranded it GBR nothing would be lost. Whereas if you moved LNER onto a Trainline or Worldline white label you would need to develop those features or accept them being lost.
To address the other points:
- If you've got a seat selector for one 80x TOC it isn't going to be a horribly difficult thing to do to add other 80x to it as well - it will have time and cost, but you needn't do it from day one. TPE doesn't have a seat selector (it did before COVID but it doesn't any more) so if it doesn't have one on a different platform nothing is lost.
- If you want a refund of a walk-up ticket on the LNER app you can't do it via the app itself, it links to a website where you have to faff about retyping stuff like booking reference - I actually did this a month or so ago so I can confirm it true. They also took ages to do the refund unlike Trainline who are fairly quick.
- Help text is just in string tables and can be easily edited - it's not zero effort but it's not exactly difficult either (if they've hard coded it into the actual code, then they're not very good developers - but even there it's hardly that difficult to change it).
So it's a bit like Trainsplit being built on top of Raileasy, i.e. LNER own the user-facing bits but someone else's back end does the fulfilment itself?
Yes exactly.
Softwire have built them a backend, which is a load of Lambdas, to handle the business logic for all the customer functionality, fronted by the app. The TIS bit is a 'black box' API they interface with, provided by Vix (if MrJeeves is correct upthread).
The website is some kind of janky CRM that's been around since East Coast days. I think it's on Windows VMs, but I could be wrong. It didn't sound particularly nice to work on.
- If you want a refund of a walk-up ticket on the LNER app you can't do it via the app itself, it links to a website where you have to faff about retyping stuff like booking reference - I actually did this a month or so ago so I can confirm it true. They also took ages to do the refund unlike Trainline who are fairly quick.
Meanwhile I can counter this because I have had (two separate sets of) E-Tickets bought through LNER, submitted a refund and had it auto-confirmed in under one minute...
I don't think anyone should be attributing the Vix mention to me! I had totally forgotten Vix provided the APIs that interact with Silverrail, honestly
I have retrospectively added them to my table now, though!
The website is some kind of janky CRM that's been around since East Coast days. I think it's on Windows VMs, but I could be wrong. It didn't sound particularly nice to work on.
Wonder if this sparks the beginning of the end for RDG's fiefdom of industry systems?
No real reason for them to exist in a GBR world; certainly not as a proxy for IT contracts (eg. with Squills, Worldline, Fujitsu, ATOS etc.)
I can imagine they may go back to being an "ATOC" to represent the non-GBR entities, but I really hope they do not manage to insert themselves as a vital cog in the GBR tech stack.
I think you completely misunderstand RDG's services role. It is not some kind of add-on organisation for central services such as tech provision - it is the central service function. As ATOC, it was funded via the TOCs, but as the TOCs become GBR then RDG functions will be absorbed into the GBR overhead services. Who on earth do you think is going to manage existing and new contracts? The people doing it now, but within a new organisational structure.
Under the arrangements that implemented the 1993 Railways Act, RSP basically replaced BR Business systems. I expect everything that RSP does and all its contracts will be vested in GBR. After all with multiply retailers I expect they will still be a central Settlement system (Lennon) plus a fares system and a reservation system, that third party retailers like Trainline will rely on.
I expressed myself poorly; this is what I was advocating for.
The worst outcome, in my opinion, would be RDG continuing to exist and operate outside of the GBR structure.
I've always thought of ATOC as exactly that - an industry mouthpiece which advocates for the privatised TOCs - with the RSP stuff as a secondary concern.
I expressed myself poorly; this is what I was advocating for.
The worst outcome, in my opinion, would be RDG continuing to exist and operate outside of the GBR structure.
I've always thought of ATOC as exactly that - an industry mouthpiece which advocates for the privatised TOCs - with the RSP stuff as a secondary concern.
I suspect Rail Partners will become the spokesperson for the rail private sector.
ATOC/RDG has a number of industry cross-TOC functions and has never been just a private sector lobby group.
All those functions will go to GBR.
Rail Partners is shutting down after the last of the DfT money runs out in March. RSP Ltd had the contracts for back office systems with a variety of suppliers. ATOC Ltd (different from the association), is the employer of all the RDG staff that work on RSP services and Rail staff Travel, etc. It also oversees the schemes that bind the operators together (known as Network Benefits). Such as the Railcard Schemes. Without RDG staff GBR would struggle to understand how to disentangle the current contractual arrangements.
Thanks @Andrew1395 - that's useful to understand.
Do you imagine that RSP will remain largely unchanged inside GBR? Many of the functions that are duplicated across TOCs right now (delay repay, ticketing websites) would seem ripe for consolidation inside that organisation.
Or do you forsee a different approach?
Most people buy their tickets either from the TOCs (which won't exist) or Trainline (widely disliked by enthusiasts). So I think a replacement is needed.
Having a national rail service and not having the option of buying tickets from it directly online would be perverse.
Phone Apps and e-tickets are fine if you use one TOC predominantly and install that TOC's App, but I'm not installing a different App for each TOC I might use. Having one "national" App makes e-tickets much more convenient.
Phone Apps and e-tickets are fine if you use one TOC predominantly and install that TOC's App, but I'm not installing a different App for each TOC I might use. Having one "national" App makes e-tickets much more convenient.
Phone Apps and e-tickets are fine if you use one TOC predominantly and install that TOC's App, but I'm not installing a different App for each TOC I might use. Having one "national" App makes e-tickets much more convenient.
You can buy tickets for any TOC on any TOC's app. With the one rider that some of the apps won't do the archaic M-ticket format and thus fulfil anything that would require that to paper instead.
I suspect people not understanding that is one reason Trainline does so well.
Phone Apps and e-tickets are fine if you use one TOC predominantly and install that TOC's App, but I'm not installing a different App for each TOC I might use.
It's actually much easier with an eTicket because you could send it by email or WhatsApp or similar rather than handing over a physical ticket. The only downside is that they are not available for all journeys. But this risks getting off-topic.
It's actually much easier with an eTicket because you could send it by email or WhatsApp or similar rather than handing over a physical ticket. The only downside is that they are not available for all journeys. But this risks getting off-topic.
Thanks @Andrew1395 - that's useful to understand.
Do you imagine that RSP will remain largely unchanged inside GBR? Many of the functions that are duplicated across TOCs right now (delay repay, ticketing websites) would seem ripe for consolidation inside that organisation.
Or do you forsee a different approach?
The act of parliament to create GBR is to vary the 1993 Act not to repeal it. One issue will be the transition and the role of open access operators. That will involve the transfer of ownership of ATOC, RSP and the other RDG legal entities. The contracts with third parties, etc.
There will be consolidation, as there was when TOCs moved between holding groups. e.g all the First Group TOCs would evolve to use the same suppliers.
in effect RSP work will become part of a “GBR Business Systems“ alongside the Network Rail back office arrangements. For example Lennon relies on the Network Rail service provider that generates unique location codes. lots of systems are interdependent, share interfaces, and support staff.
Evolution (if the politicians leave it alone for a decade or two) rather than revolution.
Mind you GBR having its own online retailing offer is a useful tool when pointing out the very low proportion of rail products sold face to face from a booking office. It’s presence supports questioning what those staff, could be doing instead, and what you could use the space for to improve the bottom line. Especially an in-house online retail platform, with no fees, and which is better integrated into Passenger Assist and customer support functions on train and stations.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The holders of the shares in the RDG businesses were not prepared to hand them over to GBRTT. Quite rightly they saw them as useful negotiating cards to hold on to while negotiations on restructuring the industry were ongoing. Now the governments policy is to let all the franchise contracts expire and overtime consolidate/nationalise the Great British Passenger Railway. So RDG will dissolve into GBR. Once 13 of the shares in the RDG entities (like RSP), in in the hands of the government then they will become Subsidiaries of DOHL. The tricky bit is negotiating around all the minority protection in the ATOC schemes. Created by the lawyers at privatisation. Once DOHL has say 85%,(and it varies), of the voting on the schemes it cannot be stopped from making changes, even if those changes are not in the business interest of the company holding the remaining 15%. Of course you can use money today to get everyone to “delegate” scheme and company rights and powers to an executive like GBRTT
It's important to note that the reason existing (independent) retailers are not properly integrated into services like Passenger Assist today is because RDG have said "no, you're not allowed to use this service". Not because of a lack of willingness to offer a better experience to vulnerable or disabled passengers.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
