Yet more weird Grand Central behaviour

[mikeg]

The problem of not being able to nook interravailable tickets on Grand Central has been solved. However has anyone had trouble booking 3v restricted tickets even at times when they're clearly valid if GC are part of the suggested itinerary?

Instead anytime tickets are suggested even in the afternoon or evening. This again is leading to overcharging of customers....

I've done some further digging and emailed GC and also tweeted a couple of ticketing app providers. It appears this is even happening on a weekend. Surely this is illegal?

 

[yorkie]

GC do not consistently comply with relevant legislation, contractual agreements etc.

I can only assume they take the view that very few passengers would actually take legal action, and if that occured they could attempt to settle.

Or maybe they are just incompetent?

A class action lawsuit against them may not be worthwhile as they are only a small operator; GC perhaps realise this or maybe lack the knowledge, experience or intelligence to realise the risks.

It's best to avoid them wherever possible, but for people who live at the smaller stations on the route, I can see why using this dreadful company may seem a good idea.

 

[Haywain]

has anyone had trouble booking 3v restricted tickets

Can you give examples of such tickets?

I've done some further digging and emailed GC and also tweeted a couple of ticketing app providers. It appears this is even happening on a weekend. Surely this is illegal?

What law do you believe is being broken?

 

[mikeg]

Can you give examples of such tickets?

What law do you believe is being broken?

An example is Thirsk to Inverness

Fares regulations cap the price of fares at off peak times. The SVR is a regulated fare. By charging more than this at a time when the SVR is valid, surely they are in breach of fare regulations?

It's best to avoid them wherever possible, but for people who live at the smaller stations on the route, I can see why using this dreadful company may seem a good idea.

I try to do just this. But my parents live in Thirsk and it's the only cheap way to do an overnight stay starting on a Sunday, so I regret to say today I'm traveling GC (and walking across York from the arriva bus stop - I'm very price sensitive you see)

Otherwise if it's a day trip I split at Sherburn in Elmet and if the trip starts another day I get the bus.

 

[thedbdiboy]

An example is Thirsk to Inverness

Fares regulations cap the price of fares at off peak times. The SVR is a regulated fare. By charging more than this at a time when the SVR is valid, surely they are in breach of fare regulations?

I'm afraid that is to misunderstand the nature of Fares Regulation which is not part of consumer law or statute. It is contractual obligation when setting (not selling) certain fares that applies to TOCs that are under contract to DfT/TfW/Scotrail or other body. Grand Central are not part of that so it does not apply. Consumer Law applies, and the test would be whether you were misled - so if the GC sales process states or implies that the fare you have bought is the cheapest available that is a breach; but there is no offence of selling their own product at more than another TOC is charging. If that were the case then you would have people suing Tesco because the grapes were cheaper in Aldi....

 

[Haywain]

Fares regulations cap the price of fares at off peak times. The SVR is a regulated fare. By charging more than this at a time when the SVR is valid, surely they are in breach of fare regulations?

Fares regulations are not law, so even if there is a breach it doesn't make it illegal.

 

[mikeg]

Wow that's news to me and a reminder of how flimsy our protections on the railway are. For clarification they're not selling their own product at a higher price, rather someone else's - in this case LNER's.

 

[Haywain]

To be clear, what you are saying is that it appears that GC are blocking the route Any Permitted Off Peak Single on their services (for the Thirsk to Northallerton segment) but allowing the similarly routed Anytime Single.

 

[Adam Williams]

There is not nearly enough oversight of what operators do with RARS in terms of discriminating against passengers based on ticket type / route code / discount status code / retailer.

The problem of not being able to nook interravailable tickets on Grand Central has been solved

GC should've been fined for this, IMO. Particularly given how long it took to resolve.

 

[mikeg]

To be clear, what you are saying is that it appears that GC are blocking the route Any Permitted Off Peak Single on their services (for the Thirsk to Northallerton segment) but allowing the similarly routed Anytime Single.

Correct

 

[kieron]

What actually happens if you try to book a ticket like that? I just tried a couple of examples (Thirsk-Alnmouth single and Thirsk-Goole return) which seemed to work fine.

In each case, nre.co.uk found itineraries for off peak tickets, and passed me through to sites (Southern and TPE, as it happens) which reserved seats for the GC trains. I didn't go any further as the site asked me to log in.

 

[Haywain]

What actually happens if you try to book a ticket like that? I just tried a couple of examples (Thirsk-Alnmouth single and Thirsk-Goole return) which seemed to work fine.

In each case, nre.co.uk found itineraries for off peak tickets, and passed me through to sites (Southern and TPE, as it happens) which reserved seats for the GC trains. I didn't go any further as the site asked me to log in.

I looked at this on the LNER site and it will book the Anytime single (THI-INV) on the GC train with a counted place reservation. It doesn't show the Off Peak as an option.

 

[Adam Williams]

Fare for 8191 (Thirsk)->8649 (Inverness)

SVS vs SOS availability for Thirsk to York on a GC service (09/10/2023 [GC852000]) is clearly set up to artificially suppress availability in RARS with the former off-peak ticket type code:



This is then combined with fake "compulsory reservations" flag in the timetable data, et voila - the customer is made to pay more for travelling on Grand Central trains even at a time at which their ticket (priced by LNER) is valid. No accredited journey-planner based retailer is permitted to retail the SVS if the customer has selected a GC service.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

clearly set up to artificially suppress availability in RARS with the former off-peak ticket type code

...

et voila

It may be obvious to you, but for the non-experts here:

What, exactly, is RARS?

How do booking engines use RARS in conjunction with the data from various sources contained in your screenshots?

Apart from the underlying class of travel, is there ever a legitimate need for an operator to make the availability of a reserved seat contingent on specific ticket types?

Are there any ways other than ticket type, in which an operator can control the way booking engines determine availability of a reserved seat or counted place?

 

[Adam Williams]

...


It may be obvious to you, but for the non-experts here:

What, exactly, is RARS?

How do booking engines use RARS in conjunction with the data from various sources contained in your screenshots?

RARS is the current "Rail Availability & Reservation Service". It manages seat bookings and availability (quotas for Advance tickets, as well as the ability to book flexible tickets on "mandatory reservation" services) for rail services in Great Britain.

It's a commercial off-the-shelf system that Rail Delivery Group purchased and have had some work done on top of to make it more suitable for GB use.

Inventory and pricing managers at train operators are responsible for using RARS for yield management for their services. Some train operators use software to partially or fully automate some of this.

Booking engines must consult RARS when selling tickets that are quota-controlled (Advances) or when selling tickets in conjunction with services that are in the timetable as "mandatory reservations". Only when there is availability, can most retailers sell these types of tickets. A practice that began during the pandemic, many train operators now lie about their trains actually being run with compulsory reservations in the timetable data.

Apart from the underlying class of travel, is there ever a legitimate need for an operator to make the availability of a reserved seat contingent on specific ticket types?

In my view, no. In the view of operators, "it allows innovation!" (e.g. Seatfrog, Standard Premium - which is of course a bodge in the fares data, these tickets are considered Standard Class)

Are there any ways other than ticket type, in which an operator can control the way booking engines determine availability of a reserved seat or counted place?

My understanding is that operators can use any of the following pieces of information to discriminate during availability and booking requests: from station, to station, route code, passenger discount (i.e. which railcard they have), retailer, sales channel (TVM, ticket office, web application).

 

[alistairlees]

...


It may be obvious to you, but for the non-experts here:

What, exactly, is RARS?

Rail Availability and Reservation System

How do booking engines use RARS in conjunction with the data from various sources contained in your screenshots?

Apart from the underlying class of travel, is there ever a legitimate need for an operator to make the availability of a reserved seat contingent on specific ticket types?

No

Are there any ways other than ticket type, in which an operator can control the way booking engines determine availability of a reserved seat or counted place?

Status Code (Adult / Child / Railcard). Accessible needs. Permitted selling location (more related to ticket types than specific seats)

 

[Haywain]

The problem of not being able to nook interravailable tickets on Grand Central has been solved.

Clearly, it has not.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Rail Availability and Reservation System

Many thanks, but you have suggested the availability of valid but lower priced tickets is being artificially suppressed. I'm trying to understand exactly how data under the sole control of a single operator can restrict the way inter-available tickets will be offered by booking engines and why any competently designed system would allow such a possibility. Spelling out the acronym is only moderately helpful.

 

[Adam Williams]

Many thanks, but you have suggested the availability of valid but lower priced tickets is being artificially suppressed. I'm trying to understand exactly how data under the sole control of a single operator can restrict the way inter-available tickets will be offered by booking engines and why any competently designed system would allow such a possibility. Spelling out the acronym is only moderately helpful.

If the itinerary contains a GC train (which is marked as "compulsory reservations"), then the booking engine must consult Grand Central's reservation system instance to ensure there is availability on their service for each fare candidate when pricing up the itinerary.

 

[Watershed]

Many thanks, but you have suggested the availability of valid but lower priced tickets is being artificially suppressed. I'm trying to understand exactly how data under the sole control of a single operator can restrict the way inter-available tickets will be offered by booking engines and why any competently designed system would allow such a possibility. Spelling out the acronym is only moderately helpful.

For an accredited retailer to sell tickets in conjunction with an itinerary containing a train marked as "reservations compulsory" in the timetable data, there must be seats available on the relevant train(s) - even if the ticket in question is a walk-up ticket.

This a requirement that forms part of the industry accreditation rules; retailers would not be allowed to sell tickets if they didn't follow it, so it's not a question of competent design - it's a matter of industry rules.

The availability of seats is determined using the response to a RARS query, which in turn derives from data controlled by the relevant operator. Each operator can choose how to determine the availability of reservations.

Obviously when the query is in relation toi an Advance ticket type, there are limits as to the number of reservations that can be made for each tier - so in essence, there is "discrimination" by ticket type. That's been normal practice for Advances ever since their existence (it's the mechanism of quota control).

What's much less common - but has seemingly happened here - is for a TOC to discriminate on the basis of walk-up ticket type or route code. By doing so, they have sole control over what retailers show as the cheapest available ticket type. There will very rarely be legitimate reasons for doing so and (as may be the case here) doing so could constitute a breach of consumer law.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

the booking engine must consult Grand Central's reservation system instance to ensure there is availability on their service

Many thanks again. Things are becoming clearer.

So a query from the booking engine to GC's reservations system has to include ticket type, as opposed to simply class of travel?

If so, I would presume, as booking engines have to send queries to many operator's instances of such reservation systems, that this is common to them all?

Even though, as you have said, there is no legitimate reason for the availability of a reserved seat/counted place to be contingent on ticket type, as opposed to class of travel?

That would appear to be either a sloppy spec or sloppy implementation of a reservations system for an environment where operators are encouraged to be innovative, yet must accept the inter-availability of certain tickets. So sloppy in fact, that it almost invites operators to become innovative where the data they control allows it?

 

[Watershed]

So a query from the booking engine to GC's reservations system has to include ticket type, as opposed to simply class of travel?

Yes - as per my above response (which I posted just before you made yours), this has always been a requirement, largely because it's how Advance ticket availability is controlled.

If so, I would presume, as booking engines have to send queries to many operator's instances of such reservation systems, that this is common to them all?

There aren't separate reservations systems by operator - RARS is used for all TOCs (there's a new replacement system, RARS2, which is gradually being rolled out but in this respect it works in the same way). The same RARS query or response can include availability for multiple TOCs' services.

Even though, as you have said, there is no legitimate reason for the availability of a reserved seat/counted place to be contingent on ticket type, as opposed to class of travel?

There are legitimate grounds for doing so with Advances, but not for walk-up tickets.

That would appear to be either a sloppy spec or sloppy implementation of a reservations system for an environment where operators are encouraged to be innovative, yet must accept the inter-availability of certain tickets. So sloppy in fact, that it almost invites operators to become innovative where the data they control allows it?

It's probably just that the specification wasn't written with the possibility of TOCs falsely marking trains as "reservations compulsory" in mind.

 

[Adam Williams]

There aren't separate reservations systems by operator - RARS is used for all TOCs (there's a new replacement system, RARS2, which is gradually being rolled out but in this respect it works in the same way).

My understanding is that, under the hood, each operator/TOC gets its own instance of Sqills S3 Passenger and there's some "magic" on top of all this...

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Thanks @Watershed.

There aren't separate reservations systems by operator

I had assumed that as @Adam Williams described GC's system as an instance, that would be the case.

My understanding is that, under the hood, each operator/TOC gets its own instance of Sqills S3 Passenger and there's some "magic" on top of all this...

So the possibility of unspecified "magic" may allow even more innovative and lucrative operator specific implementations of what should be a simple query?

It's probably just that the specification wasn't written with the possibility of TOCs falsely marking trains as "reservations compulsory" in mind.

As it's been described, an operator simply setting a "reservations compulsory" flag for their service won't cause the issue described. As I now understand it, that flag just requires the booking engine to query the availability of a reserved seat. It's the fact that the result of that query can be contingent on ticket type and specifically, in the OP's example, that a reserved seat is shown to be available with an Anytime ticket, but not available with an Off Peak ticket even though both tickets would be valid on that service.

If that is a fair summary of the situation, it seems to me that instead of playing whack-a-mole with GC, the "fix" is to patch the implementation of RARS so that no operator can exploit ticket type or any other proxy in the way described. As long as the exploit exists, simply expecting all operators to play fair because rules, etc is naive.

 

[Adam Williams]

If that is a fair summary of the situation, it seems to me that instead of playing whack-a-mole with GC, the "fix" is to patch the implementation of RARS so that no operator can exploit ticket type or any other proxy in the way described. As long as the exploit exists, simply expecting all operators to play fair because rules, etc is naive.

I would completely agree with this take.

 

[Haywain]

I had assumed that as @Adam Williams described GC's system as an instance, that would be the case.

Adam means that each train operator manages its own trains within the system.

 

[Hadders]

LNER get up to these sorts of shenanigans too.

You can't purchase a Super Off Peak ticket at the weekend between Stevenage and Kings Cross despite the ticket being routed Any Permitted because seat reservations appear to be blocked for the Super Off Peak tickets at weekends. Other ticket types are absolutely fine and available for sale.

The ticket is of course perfectly valid on LNER trains.

This has been going on for years.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Adam means that each train operator manages its own trains within the system.

Thanks @Haywain. I understand each operator will have to manage reservations data for its own trains.

The question is whether all operators who are obliged to accept inter-available tickets are using an instance of the same system, or have some adapted it to include their own creative "magic"?

LNER get up to these sorts of shenanigans too.

During Covid restrictions Avanti made all of their services "reservations compulsory". An unintended consequence of that turned out to be that an Anytime Short Return (SHR) was suddenly unavailable on a host of journeys involving Avanti using online booking sites. Some, such as Stoke on Trent to Warrington via Crewe, which can only be made with a leg on Avanti, wern't available at all. Booking engines offered out and back singles at a higher total fare, with the required reservations on the Avanti legs. When I queried it with Avanti the explanation was that the SHR ticket type was managed by Northern and the data associated with it effectively rejected reservations on any leg, but they would contact Northern to get changes made. It took quite the to and fro of correspondence with Avanti, but the changes were eventually made.

 

[OscarH]

It's a commercial off-the-shelf system that Rail Delivery Group purchased and have had some work done on top of to make it more suitable for GB use.

For some definition of "more suitable"...

 

[Adam Williams]

LNER get up to these sorts of shenanigans too.

You can't purchase a Super Off Peak ticket at the weekend between Stevenage and Kings Cross despite the ticket being routed Any Permitted because seat reservations appear to be blocked for the Super Off Peak tickets at weekends. Other ticket types are absolutely fine and available for sale.

I think I can reproduce this one too.

Route '.' (Any Permitted) Super Off-Peak CBA fare set by Thameslink/Great Nothern...



Exactly the same train for the same segment, more expensive Off-Peak, route '.' (Any Permitted) fare... magically, it's got availability!



And of course, GR144700 (like all LNER services) has the "Compulsory Reservations" flag set so this is more than just denying passengers seats, it denies retailers from selling completely valid itineraries against these tickets.

---

How many passengers have been overcharged due to this sort of nonsense?