One ticket selling site for all operators after GBR?

[bakerstreet]

There is probably a chance that the current situation whereby most operators have their own ticket selling sites may end once GBR becomes effective.

But, given no one site seems to offer everything and that some sites provide attractive reasons to choose their portal (like ‘Money Back Guarantee’ - GTR, fee free ‘Advance’ changes irrespective of the travel with confidence scheme - CrossCountry, Nectar Points - (SWR/GWR) etc I would be rather sad to see only one official ticket selling site after GBR.

It would stifle creativity, reduce the urgency for the site to work correctly, might make it more difficult to purchase some tickets and when the site goes down there would be no backup

On the assumption that third party ticket selling sites (like TrainSplit) will continue, fingers crossed, do you think there should be a site for each individual operator as now, or all operator sites closed in favour of just one official GBR ticket selling site?

What would you gain, what would you lose?

I know that one GBR site would be ‘simple’ but regulars know that ‘simple’ is not always better on the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Simple is definitely better. It is only enthusiasts who are skilled enough to play a complex system who favour keeping one.

Yes, there should be a single official site and app, though a third party API could be offered like airlines do.

 

[Western Sunset]

If you Google "National rail", the Trainline crops up first with the heading "Book and find train tickets - UK national rail information". I even got caught out at first, thinking it was the National Rail site.
So I think we have one already...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DfT has already indicated that long-distance operators will have "more freedom" over their offering, so that might mean they retain their separate retail sites.
Contracts of 5 years and more are apparently being negotiated with some incumbents (eg Avanti).
GBR is still something of a mirage until its organisation and systems are defined.
You can also be fairly certain that Wales and Scotland will do at least some things differently.

It may be worth noting that SNCF might be one company, but it has several brands and retail sites.
Their regional TER sites are substantially different to the long-distance site Voyages-SNCF.com, selling largely different products.
Their latest wheeze is to rebrand OUI.sncf to SNCFConnect.
SNCF Connect: Move with ease (oui.sncf)

 

[cuccir]

Having a single GBR portal would be a good thing, but this doesn't stop independent third parties from innovating and creating their own platforms. Trainline being the obvious brand in this field but there are a lot of others who have set up their own platforms, with greater or lesser succes. I'd expect that to be able to continue.

 

[pdeaves]

Having a single GBR portal would be a good thing, but this doesn't stop independent third parties from innovating and creating their own platforms. Trainline being the obvious brand in this field but there are a lot of others who have set up their own platforms, with greater or lesser succes. I'd expect that to be able to continue.

I agree. I see no need or desire for the 'single guiding mind' to put the dampers on independent sites. Indeed, such sites may have more freedom to come under the overall banner if they want to.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Pragmatically, the minimum that is needed is replacing the 'buy ticket' button on the National Rail site that then takes you to one of the TOC sites with one that takes you straight in to a national sales site. Any TOC or third party who wanted to carry on running their own sales site could do so.

There is of course the point that the National Rail site is in need of a rebuild (not just in terms of the front end - we seem to grumble regularly about the quality of information provided so it looks as if the database needs redesigning as well) but arguably that would be an opportunity to better integrate a sales function.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. I see no need or desire for the 'single guiding mind' to put the dampers on independent sites. Indeed, such sites may have more f reedom to come under the overall banner if they want to.

I think providing an API for independent sites is worthwhile, and as I mentioned above airlines do. However, having each TOC contract its own site is nothing but a confusing waste of money, so there should only be one site paid for by the overall system.

If a private business wishes to do their own (e.g. Trainline, Trainsplit, or the business-oriented ones) I see no reason why they should not provided the charges for providing and accessing the API reflect the cost of providing and managing their access to it.

 

[robbeech]

I suspect they would look to Trainline to provide such a thing themselves, which is a horrific thought. It’s user interface in its most simple form is excellent but it goes strongly downhill from there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect they would look to Trainline to provide such a thing themselves, which is a horrific thought. It’s user interface in its most simple form is excellent but it goes strongly downhill from there.

Most TOC sites and apps are badged Trainline anyway (and even NRE is a fork from the Trainline code, albeit years ago so now very different). In any case, not necessarily - the LNER site is already Government owned (alongside LNER) so why not that one?

 

[robbeech]

the LNER site is already Government owned (alongside LNER) so why not that one?

Fair point. This would make more sense I guess, and would be much preferred by most people in the know.

 

[paul1609]

Most TOC sites and apps are badged Trainline anyway (and even NRE is a fork from the Trainline code, albeit years ago so now very different). In any case, not necessarily - the LNER site is already Government owned (alongside LNER) so why not that one?

I believe that (based on pre-covid figures) that Southeastern is actually the biggest ex toc operated by the government by fares income so why not that one?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe that (based on pre-covid figures) that Southeastern is actually the biggest ex toc operated by the government by fares income so why not that one?

Because the GTR sales sites are garbage - they lack features and don't work properly with anything complex.

Things like free changes/refunds are a policy matter, not a website matter.

 

[Wallsendmag]

One size definately doesn't fit all when it comes toTOC sites. Commuter TOCs don't handle long distance journeys well for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One size definately doesn't fit all when it comes toTOC sites. Commuter TOCs don't handle long distance journeys well for example.

Indeed, but there's no reason a well-specced GBR site couldn't handle both. Deutsche Bahn manages it - and that's using a development of HAFAS*, a system that goes back over 20 years now!

* HaCon-Fahrplanauskunftssystem - HaCon (the supplier) timetable information system

 

[30907]

Indeed, but there's no reason a well-specced GBR site couldn't handle both. Deutsche Bahn manages it - and that's using a development of HAFAS*, a system that goes back over 20 years now!

* HaCon-Fahrplanauskunftssystem - HaCon (the supplier) timetable information system

My first thought, too - but it has taken many years to get anywhere near handling the complexities of local tariffs, and some fares have to be bought on a separate DBRegio section.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My first thought, too - but it has taken many years to get anywhere near handling the complexities of local tariffs, and some fares have to be bought on a separate DBRegio section.

Fair point. But as none of the UK planner based sites sell PTE products that isn't quite the same issue as it is in Germany.

To be fair NRE picks up most things including where a Rover or Ranger is cheaper than a point to point ticket, it just doesn't sell anything.

 

[JonathanH]

Because the GTR sales sites are garbage - they lack features and don't work properly with anything complex.

Lacking features and not dealing with anything complex ticks the box for keeping things simple though, no matter how much we might not think it is the right way forward.

I would imagine that the number one piece of feedback rail companies get about ticket purchase facilities is to keep them as simple as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lacking features and not dealing with anything complex ticks the box for keeping things simple though, no matter how much we might not think it is the right way forward.

I would imagine that the number one piece of feedback rail companies get about ticket purchase facilities is to keep them as simple as possible.

Of course if you simplify the fares too...

 

[Chris999999]

If you only have a single website selling tickets then it would need to be 100% correct which is extremely unlikely to be achieved. With multiple websites you can always use an alternative when you cannot get the correct result from a particular seller.

Can you imagine the chaos if the Avanti website was the only ticket seller?

 

[MattRat]

Logically, yes, in practice, probably not. This is the government we are talking about....

 

[Adam Williams]

Yes, there should be a single official site and app, though a third party API could be offered like airlines do.

It sounds like you're proposing a single journey search/ticket fulfilment API to replace the various industry systems that exist currently? Am I interpreting that correctly? If not, what are you proposing the API is for?

What would you see this API's scope being? Who would decide on its functionality? How would third-parties be consulted during the development process? Would third-party retailers be forced to use this API for tasks such as e.g. performing journey searches and generating e-Tickets? What if it didn't support more interesting use-cases/features or was just worse than what the third parties had developed themselves - would that stifle innovation? How would availability/reliability be maintained?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It sounds like you're proposing a single journey search/ticket fulfilment API to replace the various industry systems that exist currently? Am I interpreting that correctly? If not, what are you proposing the API is for?

What would you see this API's scope being? Who would decide on its functionality? How would third-parties be consulted during the development process? Would third-party retailers be forced to use this API for tasks such as e.g. performing journey searches and generating e-Tickets? What if it didn't support more interesting use-cases/features or was just worse than what the third parties had developed themselves - would that stifle innovation? How would availability/reliability be maintained?

No, I think you are reading too much into it.

What I mean is that all TOC contracted booking sites plus the NRE site would be withdrawn (and National Rail Contracts would not include provision of online sales channels), replaced by one single "official" GBR information and sales site, connected to the back-ends as they are now.

Any other third party accesses would remain in place as they are now, so private, for profit sites like Trainline and Trainsplit could continue as now, provided they were at least covering their costs in terms of providing the access they have (and if not you'd just increase the fees charged to them).

By "an API" I just mean the access they have now, not something new.

 

[Adam Williams]

No, I think you are reading too much into it.

What I mean is that all TOC contracted booking sites plus the NRE site would be withdrawn, replaced by one single "official" GBR information and sales site, connected to the back-ends as they are now.

Any other third party accesses would remain in place as they are now, so private, for profit sites like Trainline and Trainsplit could continue as now, provided they were at least covering their costs in terms of providing the access they have (and if not you'd just increase the fees charged to them).

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

I'd personally argue there are a number of fees already levied for services like RARS and LSM (as well as the cost of the third party investor license itself) that should more than cover the actual costs of the access in place at present, so hopefully no increases in fees.

 

[mike57]

I'd argue that people would rather have one 'GBR' site, as long as it was well designed, and always offered the lowest fare for a particular journey. TOCs could then have their own sites to promote special offers, which would be advance tickets, and they could pay to promote those sites on the 'GBR' site if they wished. Third party sites would be allowed to continue. You then start simplifying fares, first to would be TOC specific NON advance tickets, which always seem to be a cause of confusion. Next you remove some of the glaring anomalies which result in split tickets being significantly cheaper in some cases, and make sure that all legitimate fares (off peak, any time, day return, advance etc) are available to be purchased from and to any stations on the network. From there do away with the concept of 'single' and 'return', a return journey is completed using two singles, which each cost half the return fare. Post covid the 'off peak'/'peak' situation may also need looking at. Try and keep it revenue neutral throughout.

These changes would not all happen at once, little steps are better. Sort one problem, make sure its properly sorted then move on to the next. Having one 'GBR' site would make this easier to deliver. If TOCs want to fill empty seats then they sell special deal advance ticket via their own web site. 'GBR' offers the standard advance fares that are currently available. Trainline, Split Ticket etc either contunue or fail, if they can add value they will survive, if not then they will go.