TfW fare errors

[ForTheLoveOf]

There have long been cheap fares, including Anytime Day Returns (SDRs), from Craven Arms to Swansea, routed 'via Llandovery', for use on the Heart of Wales Line. Recently Transport for Wales (TfW) introduced free fares for children under 16 across much of their network.

Normally free/flat fares are implemented by adding a new ticket type, with a nominal/flat fare of 5p/£1 etc., to existing cluster-to-cluster fares. TfW have done exactly this in the case of Craven Arms to Swansea, for both route 'Any Permitted' and 'via Llandovery', as shown below in a screenshot from BR Fares.



Unfortunately TfW then went and set specific point-to-point under-16s fares from Craven Arms to Swansea, route 'via Llandovery'. Doing this causes the cheap 'via Llandovery' SDR etc. to be overriden and thus hidden.

It appears TfW did not consider that point-to-point fares override all relevant cluster-to-cluster fares where there is a match of route - even if the fare types are not the same.

Sometimes the opposite issue can occur - non-matching routes leading to fares overrides not happening. Rugeley Trent Valley to Rugeley Town passengers are given the choice of route 00000 ('Any Permitted') or 01000 (variously blank, dot, or 'Any - Permitted').

00000 fares are very expensive for what is merely a 1¼-mile journey - ranging from £8.40 for a single to £19.20 for an Anytime Return. 01000 fares are much more typical (£2.50-£3.10).

This issue occurs because the 01000 fares are intended to override the 00000 fares. But because they are different routes according to the data (even though they are both equally valid), both sets of fares are available for sale. I have verified this to be the case even at the ticket machine at the station!

This is an issue which has cropped up in a number of instances, as a result of the RDG's measures to try and abolish 'Any Permitted'. This has lead to many fares being rerouted to 'Any - Permitted'. But now the plan has been seemingly abandoned halfway through, it leads to some flows having a route of 00000, and others with 01000 - and that means lots of instances of fares overrides breaking where there is a discrepancy between the two.

Has anyone encountered any other instances of broken overrides?

 

[kieron]

Flows are defined by origin, destination and route code (as well as some other things such as validity date which aren't relevant here). What TfW have done here is to create some flows which comprise only of "under 11/under 16" fares. From what I can see, they have created a number of "via Llandovery" flows for these tickets, and have also created (00096) "not via Cardiff" ones for journeys between the Ebbw Vale line and stations between Newport and Lydney.

As the TfW web site says the origin and destination need to match those of a paying adult, I think these tickets are supposed to exist for every flow (or, at least, every origin/destination pair) which can be used with a TfW train. There shouldn't be any reason to create new flows for them.

For the other things you mentioned in your post, the problem is that we can't tell what the people who implemented a change to the fare database wanted to do.

 

[infobleep]

I don't know if this is the same thing or if I've mentioned this before on here. Back on 18 May 2018, I was buying a ticket from Guildford to Sandhurst. The choices were . [dot] or any permitted.

The . [dot] tickets were more expensive.

See the screenshots. I can't include them all as some photos are too large.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

For the other things you mentioned in your post, the problem is that we can't tell what the people who implemented a change to the fare database wanted to do.

You can't always be sure, but in the case of Rugeley Trent Valley to Rugeley Town I would be very surprised if the intention had been to sell an Anytime Return for £19.20 between these two stations.

I don't know if this is the same thing or if I've mentioned this before on here. Back on 18 May 2018, I was buying a ticket from Guildford to Sandhurst. The choices were . [dot] or any permitted.

The . [dot] tickets were more expensive.

See the screenshots. I can't include them all as some photos are too large.
View attachment 79858View attachment 79859View attachment 79860

Yes, this seems to be the same issue. In that particular case there is now no longer a difference in price, GWR seemingly having lowered the price of the override fare to match the fare for the flow in general. There is now only a difference in terms of the restriction applying to the CDR/S, in the direction towards Guildford, the override fare being marginally more generous in allowing departures from 08:30 vs 08:45.

It's still a confusing, cluttered mess for ordinary passengers, the vast majority of whom will be thoroughly uninterested in the vagaries of the rail industry's fare route 'reforms'.

 

[alistairlees]

The implementation of child flat fares for 5p / 10p in Wales is a mess. What have TfW Rail done? Created some ticket types (TCS and CTS) that require implementation of rules specific to these ticket types, as the rules cannot be supported in the fares data structure.

Result: no online booking engine can sell them correctly, without investing in changes to the booking engine (the changes need to be at both the data / logic level, and also at the UI level, as TfW Rail have created three new categories of customer: children under 11; children from 11 to 15 inclusive; and adults from 18 upwards (there must be an accompanying 'adult'). Implementing the UI changes will make the UI worse for the ~99% of people who won't be doing a journey wholly in Wales.

Further result: customers get charged more than was intended, unless they buy from a TfW Rail booking office.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The implementation of child flat fares for 5p / 10p in Wales is a mess. What have TfW Rail done? Created some ticket types (TCS and CTS) that require implementation of rules specific to these ticket types, as the rules cannot be supported in the fares data structure.

Result: no online booking engine can sell them correctly, without investing in changes to the booking engine (the changes need to be at both the data / logic level, and also at the UI level, as TfW Rail have created three new categories of customer: children under 11; children from 11 to 15 inclusive; and adults from 18 upwards (there must be an accompanying 'adult'). Implementing the UI changes will make the UI worse for the ~99% of people who won't be doing a journey wholly in Wales.

Further result: customers get charged more than was intended, unless they buy from a TfW Rail booking office.

You couldn't make it up.

It's difficult to think of an easy solution to this issue beyond requiring people to detail the exact age of any passengers aged 0-15. I'm sure TfW Rail Services (i.e. Amey) did not decide to implement the two different free fares for 5-10 year olds, and 11-15 year olds, because they were trying to be difficult. That bit was no doubt dictated by TfW (i.e. the government entity).

 

[alistairlees]

It's difficult to think of an easy solution to this issue beyond requiring people to detail the exact age of any passengers aged 0-15. I'm sure TfW Rail Services (i.e. Amey) did not decide to implement the two different free fares for 5-10 year olds, and 11-15 year olds, because they were trying to be difficult. That bit was no doubt dictated by TfW (i.e. the government entity).

You are correct as to the commissioning entity. It doesn't change anything.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You are correct as to the commissioning entity. It doesn't change anything.

The distinction here is that TfW put forward a complex system. TfWRS then made a pig's breakfast of implementing that complex system. This thread is about the latter more than the former.

 

[alistairlees]

The distinction here is that TfW put forward a complex system. TfWRS then made a pig's breakfast of implementing that complex system. This thread is about the latter more than the former.

Even if TfW Rail had implemented the fares correctly, so that no issues with fare overrides had occurred, the problems that I described - that the fares feed data structure does not support this, that hardcoding is necessary, and that the UI would need changes that would be complex and most likely a worsening for ~99% of people - would be exactly the same.