Oddities with LNER bookings

[Deerfold]

I've noticed recently that LNER emails have what at first appears to be useful advice about whether you've a booked seat, but on closer inspection is misleading.

Any train that has no booked seat gives advice on finding a seat based on an LNER train.

Whilst I know my Northern service has no carriage M (and that there were never any real reservations on that train) this looks likely to confuse the unfamiliar traveller, though that's who it seems to be aimed at. The advice to try a different journey (in this case on an advance limited to that train) looks designed to worry people.

 

[Watershed]

I've noticed recently that LNER emails have what at first appears to be useful advice about whether you've a booked seat, but on closer inspection is misleading.

Any train that has no booked seat gives advice on finding a seat based on an LNER train.

Whilst I know my Northern service has no carriage M (and that there were never any real reservations on that train) this looks likely to confuse the unfamiliar traveller, though that's who it seems to be aimed at. The advice to try a different journey (in this case on an advance limited to that train) looks designed to worry people.

Yet another example of a problem with the LNER journey planner. It seems that LNER are incapable of realising there might be other operators with different reservations policies out there...

The advice around trying another journey is particularly poor in the context of an Advance ticket - there's a risk that people will board another train and be forced to buy a new ticket, pay a Penalty Fare or even be prosecuted.

 

[Haywain]

I've noticed recently that LNER emails have what at first appears to be useful advice about whether you've a booked seat, but on closer inspection is misleading.

Any train that has no booked seat gives advice on finding a seat based on an LNER train.

Whilst I know my Northern service has no carriage M (and that there were never any real reservations on that train) this looks likely to confuse the unfamiliar traveller, though that's who it seems to be aimed at. The advice to try a different journey (in this case on an advance limited to that train) looks designed to worry people.

You are quite right to say that it is, or can be, misleading and it is something that is being worked on to improve the customer experience. It's one of a number of problems cause by counted places and mandatory reservations.

 

[Deerfold]

You are quite right to say that it is, or can be, misleading and it is something that is being worked on to improve the customer experience. It's one of a number of problems cause by counted places and mandatory reservations.

That's part of the problem, but the carriage letters will be wrong for any other operator. Unless it can be sorted out properly, it seems to be worse than giving no advice.

 

[Haywain]

That's part of the problem, but the carriage letters will be wrong for any other operator.

Yes, as I said we know it can be misleading which is why we are working on doing better.

 

[Deerfold]

Yes, as I said we know it can be misleading which is why we are working on doing better.

Is it possible to remove it until you have something that isn't worse than nothing?

 

[Haywain]

Is it possible to remove it until you have something that isn't worse than nothing?

That's not my decision but you have to remember that it isn't "worse than nothing" for LNER journeys and we sell rather a lot of those.

 

[Watershed]

That's not my decision but you have to remember that it isn't "worse than nothing" for LNER journeys and we sell rather a lot of those.

This is utterly symbolic of what's wrong with LNER's attitude to retailing, I'm afraid. Misleading customers is 100 times worse than not giving other customers a little bit of information that might, or might not, be helpful.

 

[Starmill]

This is utterly symbolic of what's wrong with LNER's attitude to retailing, I'm afraid. Misleading customers is 100 times worse than not giving other customers a little bit of information that might, or might not, be helpful.

The problem could have been avoided with a moment's thought if the message had read "On LNER trains, there is..." from the outset, while a more suitable solution is found for the long term.

 

[Deerfold]

That's not my decision but you have to remember that it isn't "worse than nothing" for LNER journeys and we sell rather a lot of those.

Even when I book an LNER journey, I almost always have a connecting journey and get this message for the connecting train which is only valid at that time on that ticket, but it advises me to catch a different one.

It's not worse than nothing for LNER *only* journeys, but it is for any with counted place or unreserved tickets for any other operator. Presumably LNER wouldn't be happy with a retailer selling advance tickets for their trains but with advice to catch a different train.

 

[Haywain]

Even when I book an LNER journey, I almost always have a connecting journey and get this message for the connecting train which is only valid at that time on that ticket, but it advises me to catch a different one.

It's not worse than nothing for LNER *only* journeys, but it is for any with counted place or unreserved tickets for any other operator. Presumably LNER wouldn't be happy with a retailer selling advance tickets for their trains but with advice to catch a different train.

I don't disagree but it's still not in my control.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't disagree but it's still not in my control.

I realise it's not your fault, but it's not a good look for LNER. It seems to be taking a long time to change something misleading for what may even only be a small minority of customers (I only spotted it recently, but realise it's been in my emails since July). I know if we were misleading any of our customers, the first step would be to remove the line if we were not able to immediately make it useful or neutral for all.

 

[Watershed]

I realise it's not your fault, but it's not a good look for LNER. It seems to be taking a long time to change something misleading for what may even only be a small majority of customers. I know if we were misleading any of our customers, the first step would be to remove the line if we were not able to immediately make it useful or neutral for all.

Indeed, and if I were in @Haywain's shoes I certainly wouldn't be attempting to defend it!

 

[Wallsendmag]

Indeed, and if I were in @Haywain's shoes I certainly wouldn't be attempting to defend it!

I don't think he is, there are things we can do quickly and things we can't do quickly ,for whatever reason this fell into the latter catagory but last week was moved into the first catagory.

 

[andythebrave]

I got this message in late August for a journey from Glasgow to Biggleswade. It was somewhat disconcerting (you may have to stand for part of your journey) as it appeared that this applied to the LNER part of the trip. It took some looking into to determine that the Thameslink part was now counted place and that was what was being referred to.

 

[TUC]

Isn't it possible for a filter to be applied so that the message does not appear for any legs of a journey that do not have a LNER 'tag' next to them? That sounds a very commonplace type of filter to use.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't think he is, there are things we can do quickly and things we can't do quickly ,for whatever reason this fell into the latter catagory but last week was moved into the first catagory.

I understand generating a new phrase that's always accurate and useful may take a while.

However, replacing it with the old one simply stating there was no reservation on this service should be very quick and easy.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't think he is, there are things we can do quickly and things we can't do quickly ,for whatever reason this fell into the latter catagory but last week was moved into the first catagory.

Was surprised to see, having booked a non-LNER trip today, that it's still suggesting I travel on another service (which would invalidate my ticket as it's an advance) or book a seat in carriages that don't exist for the non-LNER service I've booked.

I though 6 weeks might have been enough for LNER to as least suppress the incorrect messages, even if they can't put out a new one.

 

[Starmill]

I though 6 weeks might have been enough for LNER to as least suppress the incorrect messages, even if they can't put out a new one.

It's difficult to believe that it's something LNER consider a priority if this is the timescale for such a small change.

 

[Deerfold]

I've mentioned it on Twitter. I don't think they really understood why it was a problem that they're recommending people catch a different train with an advance ticket, but they've promised to pass it on to someone.

edit: No, they're really not understanding the problem - I checked they'd ask about the non-existent carriages and they told me their services did have those carriages.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Coming soon to a website near you, honest. It may seem a simple change but unfortunately it isn't so it's had to be slotted into the next available web update which is not as soon as we'd like it to be.

 

[Deerfold]

Pleased to report that LNER no longer suggest you use another train as there is no booked seat.

However they do now mark the reservation as optional. Not sure that's how Northern see them. They are correctly marked as mandatory on their own journeys.

I did check - tickets bought for December were correctly marked as Mandatory Reservation.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Pleased to report that LNER no longer suggest you use another train as there is no booked seat.

However they do now mark the reservation as optional. Not sure that's how Northern see them. They are correctly marked as mandatory on their own journeys.

I did check - tickets bought for December were correctly marked as Mandatory Reservation.

As i still work for LNER today I'll say thankyou

 

[Deerfold]

Given it says "Optional Reservation" and has an irrelevant link to find details of when it's valid, there's not much to tell people they must stick to that train.