Trainsplit no longer offering "return to old site"

[trainophile]

On my Mac (using Safari) the bar at the top that allowed me to return to the old format seems to have disappeared, at least on my saved icon. Have managed to buy what I wanted in the old way on my iPhone, but disappointed that it seems we're now stuck with the newer interface, that personally I don't like much. I expect I'll get used to it.

I wonder what other users think. Not everything is an improvement.

 

[Farigiraf]

On my Mac (using Safari) the bar at the top that allowed me to return to the old format seems to have disappeared, at least on my saved icon. Have managed to buy what I wanted in the old way on my iPhone, but disappointed that it seems we're now stuck with the newer interface, that personally I don't like much. I expect I'll get used to it.

I wonder what other users think. Not everything is an improvement.

You can still access it with this link

 

[trainophile]

You can still access it with this link

Wow thank you. Bookmarked.

 

[OscarH]

There was some discussion here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/trainsplit-old-format.298799/

But the short answer is the banner is gone because it's not really new anymore, but you'll be able to continue using the old site for the foreseeable future, there is no plan to turn it off anytime remotely soon.

Similarly, the classic version of the forum site is still available if you bookmark it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why use train split anyway ?

Use the forum ticketing site ?

It's the same thing. The Forum site is just a branded version that I believe (might be wrong) pays the Forum a small sum on sales.

 

[robbeech]

I’d assume feedback is really important, so what specifically are you finding you can’t do with the new one?

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

It's the same thing. The Forum site is just a branded version that I believe (might be wrong) pays the Forum a small sum on sales.

Which is why it’s nice to use the forum one as the additional money can be used for the upkeep etc.

 

[trainophile]

I’d assume feedback is really important, so what specifically are you finding you can’t do with the new one?

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


Which is why it’s nice to use the forum one as the additional money can be used for the upkeep etc.

Familiarity I suppose. I'm not in the first flush of youth and can't be doing with things changing all the time!

I'll have a look on the forum's site but it struck me as being more like "new" Trainsplit than the one I've come to know and love.

Edit: Well blow me down, I've just clicked on the forum's "original" site and it's the same as the link posted above. Wow my new life starts here! Sorry it's taken me so long.

 

[yorksrob]

I've used trainsplit a few times.

I've noticed that the new site doesn't offer the splits that the old one does. Infact I seem to have better results using the old site !

 

[MrJeeves]

I've noticed that the new site doesn't offer the splits that the old one does. Infact I seem to have better results using the old site !

It's quite literally an identical backend system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's quite literally an identical backend system.

The back end is the same but it does present things very differently. Personally while I do use the new one I find it can sometimes be quite confusing in presentation, you have to wade through all manner of silly mid-priced options nobody would ever choose to find the cheapest, the fastest and the fewest changes, those being the ones most people will want. I tend to find I have to use a lot of secondary criteria to filter it down to a level where it is genuinely possible to compare.

With a bit of knowledge one can add good secondary criteria to find cheap options, e.g. I've suggested before adding "calls at Atherstone" to force the use of WMT from Crewe to Euston, which often saves a packet and doesn't always come up. I seem to remember the old version might have filtered this sort of stuff a bit better at presentation level?

(I'll still use it regardless, the seat selector remains a killer app for me!)

 

[MrJeeves]

Meanwhile the old site limits you to up to 16 options (4 out, 4 return) for a return journey, hiding many options you might want.

I'd much rather view a full list and be able to whittle it down using filters to things I would actually want, and it encourages me to use advanced options to start with to limit the breadth of my query to itineraries I'd like.

They each have benefits and drawbacks in how they present journeys, but one categorically does not show splits that the other doesn't.

 

[yorksrob]

It's quite literally an identical backend system.

In that case, if I'm putting in the same requirements and coming up with different results, the new site seems to be less intuitive than the old version.

 

[Adam Williams]

In that case, if I'm putting in the same requirements and coming up with different results, the new site seems to be less intuitive than the old version.

Or the old format is perhaps not the "gospel" some people on this forum seem to think it is?

I say that as the person that wrote the grid's filter logic. It was, and very much still is, a compromise - when you only have 4x4 cells you can fill you have to come up with a way to work out what to prioritise and what to hide behind the Timeline view instead. We got complaints all the time about "hiding" results. People would click all of Best Value, Fastest and Cheapest to try and ensure they hadn't missed any results. And even then, it would still be possible for some results to be hidden from all 3 different views and only visible via Timeline > View All Results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People would click all of Best Value, Fastest and Cheapest to try and ensure they hadn't missed any results.

Personally I clicked between those to assess their value rather than to see if anything was missed. It was more a case of "look at the cheap ones, are the cheap options cheap enough for me to pick them even if inconvenient", then "look at the fast ones, are the fast options fast enough to make them worth a higher price or is one of them also unusually cheap"?

You can still do that from the list there is now but the very large number of them makes it fairly challenging on longer journeys, with lots of "noise" (midpriced ones with lots of changes, usually - almost nobody would choose those) coming up too.

I didn't particularly like the Timeline, but I do see sense in a curated view as the old version has even if in addition to a full view.

It is of course very challenging to present this sort of data, but I do wonder if there's a better option somewhere between the two.

To give you one example for a journey I did actually purchase, looking at Hull to Bletchley on 1st March, we are given the Hull Trains service at 1633 (direct to Kings Cross), over to Euston then WMT arriving 2030 for £64.48, that's the one I actually picked (well, I didn't quite, I only booked it to Kings Cross so I can use a flexible ticket for the last bit, but it's a good example here ). We are also given a Northern service to Doncaster at 1627 connecting onto the same Hull Trains service, introducing a massive risk and a faffy added change into the journey to save...76 pence Sterling.

Unless someone was deliberately looking to purchase an itinerary that would have a high chance of resulting in a chunk of Delay Repay, nobody in their right mind would do that, and selling it to a random member of the public would probably result in dissatisfaction with the railway when the connection was inevitably cancelled or very tight. I'm really not sure that one should be shown at all, it's just noise. And I find the new Trainsplit shows an awful lot of this kind of stuff which just makes finding the good stuff harder as it makes the display really cluttered.

 

[yorksrob]

Or the old format is perhaps not the "gospel" some people on this forum seem to think it is?

I say that as the person that wrote the grid's filter logic. It was, and very much still is, a compromise - when you only have 4x4 cells you can fill you have to come up with a way to work out what to prioritise and what to hide behind the Timeline view instead. We got complaints all the time about "hiding" results. People would click all of Best Value, Fastest and Cheapest to try and ensure they hadn't missed any results. And even then, it would still be possible for some results to be hidden from all 3 different views and only visible via Timeline > View All Results.

First of all - well done for creating an excellent website !

For me though, the earlier version seems to work better - fairly unscientifically - most of the splits I use I've used for donkeys.

My example. I went onto the website - turned out to be the new version. Wakefield to Hednesford. Just came up with the £80 something off peak return. When I switched to the old version, it came up with the split at Derby for £50 something quid.

 

[Adam Williams]

I can't see any searches at all between Wakefield and Hednesford in the logs in the last 48 hours.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't see any searches at all between Wakefield and Hednesford in the logs in the last 48 hours.

No, it was within the last week (might have been Normanton).

 

[Adam Williams]

No, it was within the last week (might have been Normanton).

We have now found your searches in the logs.

We do not split if you perform an Open Return search because it is difficult to clearly convey how much a particular split might limit your options on the return. It might be that one particular split is only valid on one possible return itinerary. Most people doing an open return search want the flexibility that a through-fare provides. All of your searches on the new site were Open Return searches, so you have been comparing apples with oranges.

If you had performed the search as a normal return search (as you did on the old site, which does not support Open Returns or changing your ticket selection at all) you would've got exactly the same splits back on the new site:



As @MrJeeves set out earlier, they are both using the same backend API and the same journey planner.

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, thanks for the explanation.

I'd assumed an open return option would be needed to produce non-advanced options.

For me, I'm generally looking for a series of non-advanced returns, even if via a particular route.

I'll try and remember for next time.

Part of me thinks that if someone's going on "trainsplit" they'll specifically be looking for split tickets rather than through fares, but that'll be down to your customer base.

 

[Adam Williams]

Ah, I see the confusion - yeah, we have a filter option to cut out Advances today:



but you could definitely do it one day via an upfront Advanced Option as well (which would be preferable for not hitting the reservation system at all).

 

[bananas]

I agree the default view on the old site is more annoying. What I really miss on the new site is the timeline view itself. I really like to visually see which trains are overtaking which others, how big the gaps in duration (or even just departure/arrival times) are between different-priced trains, without needing to do any mental maths on numerically written-out times.

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, I see the confusion - yeah, we have a filter option to cut out Advances today:

View attachment 198636

but you could definitely do it one day via an upfront Advanced Option as well (which would be preferable for not hitting the reservation system at all).

Ah, thanks, that sounds like what I'd be looking for.