New edition of the National Rail Conditions of Travel effective 2 April 2024

[ainsworth74]

I was recently on a walk in my local area and whilst I was walking a dodgy looking individual beckoned me over and shoved some files into my hand*. Imagine my surprise when I opened them and discovered that it was a new version of the NRCoT which is to take effect from Tuesday 2 April 2024!

Please find a copy of the new NRCoT attached along with a staff brief and change document highlighting changes between this version and the previous version of the NRCoT. From a quick scan there appear to be three major changes (though it appears that this is being trailed as being broadly minor cosmetic changes):

1. Published timetable of the day is being dropped as a concept, no more references to it being available by 2200 the day before or similar and instead has been replaced by (Condition 32.1): "Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination station, as compared to the arrival time shown in the timetable in place on the day that you travel." followed by an this "Information Box" (which recall is not supposed to be a contractually binding term but clarification):

Compensation for delays is based on the timetable in place on the day of travel, as displayed on National Rail and Train Company journey planners and on information screens at stations. Where a replacement timetable is in place on the day that you travel, for example because of pre-planned engineering work, emergency repairs or because of forecast poor weather, compensation will be based on that replacement timetable. Train Companies will always publish information about any required timetable changes as soon as it is possible to do so.​

2. The Admin Fee for refunding a walk-up ticket is being reduced to £5 from the current £10. It remains £10 for season tickets and for things like changing APs (Condition 29.2).

3. There is also some changes to the wording of getting a refund in the event that you start a journey and have to abandon it. Now there appears to be a requirement that you must return to the point of origin in order to claim a refund (Condition 30.1): "You are also entitled to a refund under these Conditions if you begin your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of your service and you return to your point of origin." Previously there was no explicit requirement it simply said that you could return to your point of origin and still claim a refund.

There may be other things in there that I've not seen as I've only skimmed it so by all means post any other findings or thoughts below!

*This may or may not be an accurate summary of events

 

[CarrotPie]

I noticed in 9.5.2 it says (paraphrasing) that travelling on a route for which your ticket isn't valid incurs merely an excess, rather than a PF (penalty fare). Does this apply only to tickets that are, say "NOT VALID ON HS1", or does it apply to going, say, Halling-Paddock Wood-London Bridge-Rochester, and if it does, how is the excess calculated?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I was recently on a walk in my local area and whilst I was walking a dodgy looking individual beckoned me over and shoved some files into my hand*. Imagine my surprise when I opened them and discovered that it was a new version of the NRCoT which is to take effect from Tuesday 2 April 2024!

Please find a copy of the new NRCoT attached along with a staff brief and change document highlighting changes between this version and the previous version of the NRCoT. From a quick scan there appear to be three major changes (though it appears that this is being trailed as being broadly minor cosmetic changes):

1. Published timetable of the day is being dropped as a concept, no more references to it being available by 2200 the day before or similar and instead has been replaced by (Condition 32.1): "Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination station, as compared to the arrival time shown in the timetable in place on the day that you travel." followed by an this "Information Box" (which recall is not supposed to be a contractually binding term but clarification):

Compensation for delays is based on the timetable in place on the day of travel, as displayed on National Rail and Train Company journey planners and on information screens at stations. Where a replacement timetable is in place on the day that you travel, for example because of pre-planned engineering work, emergency repairs or because of forecast poor weather, compensation will be based on that replacement timetable. Train Companies will always publish information about any required timetable changes as soon as it is possible to do so.​

2. The Admin Fee for refunding a walk-up ticket is being reduced to £5 from the current £10. It remains £10 for season tickets and for things like changing APs (Condition 29.2).

3. There is also some changes to the wording of getting a refund in the event that you start a journey and have to abandon it. Now there appears to be a requirement that you must return to the point of origin in order to claim a refund (Condition 30.1): "You are also entitled to a refund under these Conditions if you begin your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of your service and you return to your point of origin." Previously there was no explicit requirement it simply said that you could return to your point of origin and still claim a refund.

There may be other things in there that I've not seen as I've only skimmed it so by all means post any other findings or thoughts below!

*This may or may not be an accurate summary of events

So, in other words, a revised timetable can now be published at any time, 0200, 0400, 0900, at the end of driver roll-out and they are a couple short so immediately cancel some trains off all the systems. Perhaps even after you have commenced your journey, so long as it is displayed on the 'arrival' screen at your destination that counts as 'published'!

 

[Watershed]

So, in other words, a revised timetable can now be published at any time, 0200, 0400, 0900, at the end of driver roll-out and they are a couple short so immediately cancel some trains off all the systems. Perhaps even after you have commenced your journey, so long as it is displayed on the 'arrival' screen at your destination that counts as 'published'!

Indeed. This exemplifies how nonsensical the new definition is - "the timetable is whatever we say it is". Quite how anyone could believe such a term contractually effective is beyond me. I would be astounded if a lawyer had been involved in the drafting.

The new definition purports to allow the railway to determine - in its sole discretion - whether or not it is in breach of contract (recall that Delay Repay constitutes liquidated damages). Delay Repay cannot be relied upon anymore to any extent.

And remember, these changes are only "minor" and merely serve to "clarify". If that's a minor clarification I'd shudder to think what a "major" change or one intending to effect a material variation would involve...

I noticed in 9.5.2 it says (paraphrasing) that travelling on a route for which your ticket isn't valid incurs merely an excess, rather than a PF (penalty fare). Does this apply only to tickets that are, say "NOT VALID ON HS1", or does it apply to going, say, Halling-Paddock Wood-London Bridge-Rochester, and if it does, how is the excess calculated?

The railway would probably argue for the term to be interpreted in the former manner. However, the wording of the NRCoT says nothing to limit the off-route excess provisions to scenarios where there is an alternative fare route (for the same station to station combination) that is valid for the route taken.

That being said, whilst it's certainly an interesting topic, nothing is changing in this respect with the latest edition of the NRCoT - so I think it's best you create another thread (perhaps quoting these posts) if you'd like to discuss it further

 

[Kite159]

So, in other words, a revised timetable can now be published at any time, 0200, 0400, 0900, at the end of driver roll-out and they are a couple short so immediately cancel some trains off all the systems. Perhaps even after you have commenced your journey, so long as it is displayed on the 'arrival' screen at your destination that counts as 'published'!

Northern will be happy with less money to pay out, open to so much abuse with "replacement" timetables getting introduced during the day "Ah the train which was due to run those services broke down so we put out a replacement timetable saying they won't run"

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Indeed. This exemplifies how nonsensical the new definition is - "the timetable is whatever we say it is". Quite how anyone could believe such a term contractually effective is beyond me. I would be astounded if a lawyer had been involved in the drafting.

The new definition purports to allow the railway to determine - in its sole discretion - whether or not it is in breach of contract (recall that Delay Repay constitutes liquidated damages).

And remember, these changes are only "minor" and merely serve to "clarify". If that's a minor clarification I'd shudder to think what a "major" change or one intending to effect a material variation would involve...

Presumably it would be 'relatively easy'* to write the following piece of computer code: WTT time (Working Time Table) + current forecast delay = NPT (new published timetable), enter NPT into all public facing systems. There you go, all Delay Repay claims voided. What about cancellations you say: Train A-B-C is now to terminate at B, enter B into all public facing systems as the destination, remove all reference to C. What do you mean it said C on the front when you boarded, no you're completely mistaken, you must have imagined it. Which is what happens now when people try to claim but are denied Delay Repay because their booked train 'doesn't exist'. Even when they have a reservation for it!

So far as I am concerned, the contract is made when I buy the ticket. Some vague 'we might run a train at the time we originally suggested but if we don't tough' is not acceptable. It cuts both ways though, surely I should have similar rights to a full refund if I am unable to fulfill my side of the contract by not travelling - without notice, so long as I always publish information about any required timetable changes travel plans as soon as it is possible to do so.

* for a railway experienced computer coding person

 

[Hadders]

What constitutes a replacement timetable?

Say GTR decide to cancel a load of services one evening at short notice does that constitute a replacement timetable? Or is it just a few cancelled services?

 

[Watershed]

What constitutes a replacement timetable?

Say GTR decide to cancel a load of services one evening at short notice does that constitute a replacement timetable? Or is it just a few cancelled services?

Who knows! The only section of the NRCoT that provides any further detail is the contents of the "Information" box. But of course, the start of the NRCoT reminds readers that "these panels and footnotes are for explanations only and do not form part of a Train Company’s contract with you." Therefore, allegedly we shouldn't take the "Information" box into account when intepreting the contract.

Of course that is nonsense because the "Information" boxes, even if ostensibly non-contractual, would likely be used in Court to interpret what the rail industry meant when it wrote ambiguous terms.

It would appear the rail industry has been taking notes from politicians, in spinning this change from a clear (even if unfavourable) definition to an ambiguous one as "clarification"!

 

[py_megapixel]

I think "published timetable of the day" was a perfectly fine concept - the problem was that they never actually published one!

Glad to see the admin fees being reduced, though £5 is still a bit steep.

 

[Hadders]

The list of Train Companies in Appendix A includes:

Abellio Greater Anglia
Abellio East Midlands
Serco Caledonian Sleeper

Interestingly a quick look at Companies House website suggests that Abellio Greater Anglia and Abellio East Midlands are still the official company names of names of Greater Anglia and EMR despite Abellio becoming Transport UK (Operations) Ltd.

The Scottish Sleeper service is operated by Caledonian Sleeper Limited. The previous operator Serco Caledonian Sleeper is no longer a train operating company so I am surprised to see it listed in Appendix A.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think "published timetable of the day" was a perfectly fine concept - the problem was that they never actually published one!

Glad to see the admin fees being reduced, though £5 is still a bit steep.

It was a reasonable concept for walk-up travel but allowance should have been made for those enticed to buy tickets in Advance of that by cheaper prices or even at the same price as walk-up but with the ability to reserve a seat well ahead of travel for comfort. Whether 2200 was a reasonable time is another matter but at least there was a cut-off time. Remove that time cut-off and there is no ability to know what the 'published timetable' is or will be. Committing to delivering a promised action seems to be so out of favour nowadays.

 

[Haywain]

Presumably it would be 'relatively easy'* to write the following piece of computer code: WTT time (Working Time Table) + current forecast delay = NPT (new published timetable), enter NPT into all public facing systems.

Only if you are planning on retiming pretty much the entire national network and have agreed with the unions to rearrange train crew shifts at short notice.

 

[Skie]

Indeed. This exemplifies how nonsensical the new definition is - "the timetable is whatever we say it is". Quite how anyone could believe such a term contractually effective is beyond me. I would be astounded if a lawyer had been involved in the drafting.

The new definition purports to allow the railway to determine - in its sole discretion - whether or not it is in breach of contract (recall that Delay Repay constitutes liquidated damages). Delay Repay cannot be relied upon anymore to any extent.

Does raise the question of how will the delay repay claim process work for the TOCs that have the more advanced systems that let you choose a specific service, and will they have access to every iteration of "the timetable" when they assess your claim? If they do decide to play silly buggers and change the timetable multiple times in a day, how on earth will they even check what one was in place for your claim? A cynical person would expect them to use the timetable most favourable to them when checking the claim.

 

[py_megapixel]

It was a reasonable concept for walk-up travel but allowance should have been made for those enticed to buy tickets in Advance of that by cheaper prices or even at the same price as walk-up but with the ability to reserve a seat well ahead of travel for comfort. Whether 2200 was a reasonable time is another matter but at least there was a cut-off time. Remove that time cut-off and there is no ability to know what the 'published timetable' is or will be. Committing to delivering a promised action seems to be so out of favour nowadays.

22:00 was certainly far too late for the cut-off time but the bigger problem was that there never was a document called "Published Timetable of the Day" published at 22:00, thus rendering the whole thing a bit meaningless. The interpretation usually assumed on this forum was that it meant whatever was showing on NRE at precisely 22:00, but because of the nature of the system being "live", that meant the only way you could know for sure was by actually checking NRE at precisely 22:00, which I don't think is at all reasonable.

 

[embers25]

Last week my train the next morning was showing as running at 2135, cancelled at 2145 to 2210 and then running again at 2210. So if I'd gone to bed at 2209 I'd have assumed it was cancelled and I would get a full refund (which hopefully I would have against the 2200 timetable). However, with this change, even when cancelled I'm expected to get up early just in case they change their mind and run it. That is ridiculous when the next train is over an hour later than time of the morning.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

22:00 was certainly far too late for the cut-off time but the bigger problem was that there never was a document called "Published Timetable of the Day" published at 22:00, thus rendering the whole thing a bit meaningless. The interpretation usually assumed on this forum was that it meant whatever was showing on NRE at precisely 22:00, but because of the nature of the system being "live", that meant the only way you could know for sure was by actually checking NRE at precisely 22:00, which I don't think is at all reasonable.

2200 was the time officially given so, lately, I have been waiting until that time before I booked my (walk-up) tickets for the following morning*. On the basis that having looked after the cut-off time I had every reasonable expectation that the professional, competent, customer focussed railway would be capable of delivering that timetable only a few hours later, subject to exceptional events against which they should Delay Repay me.

2200 was indeed too late, especially if catching a very early morning train or having other arrangements (meetings, taxis, flights and so on) to then rearrange as a result of a revised timetable. 2200 one 'clear day' between publication and implementation (ie 2200 Monday for the Wednesday timetable), would be my minimum but whatever cut-off you apply will not suit some people / circumstances.

T-12 is perhaps too far out for minor changes but a fee-free refund is available under Condition 30.1 if your train is cancelled, delayed or re-timed after your have booked.

It is the idea that, at the drop of a hat and without cost or consequence, a person can simply abandon their rail-based itinerary and make either other arrangements or not travel at all which irks me greatly. Yes some travel is discretionary, some people have cars available, some can afford a long-distance Uber etc. but others can't and rely on the published timetable (ie May and December) having some certainty to it. Otherwise why bother having a timetable at all, just run whatever, whenever (from the public facing point of view).

A formal 'Published Timetable of the Day' would have been better and everyone would know where they stood with regards to later cancellations / delays etc. It is either in the soup de jour or it isn't.

*I find it easier to buy 'splits' the night before rather than adding ticket purchase to the list of things to get done before I set out in the morning.

 

[AM9]

3. There is also some changes to the wording of getting a refund in the event that you start a journey and have to abandon it. Now there appears to be a requirement that you must return to the point of origin in order to claim a refund (Condition 30.1): "You are also entitled to a refund under these Conditions if you begin your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of your service and you return to your point of origin." Previously there was no explicit requirement it simply said that you could return to your point of origin and still claim a refund.

This (in bold) is surely not always possible, if major disruption occurs during the journey and it is impractiacal to conclude it, it may also be equally impractical to return to the point of origin (e.g if an event causes a total line blockage - say a dewirement, there may be no services returning to the origin either. Therefore it would be impossible to demonstrate that the ticket hadn't been used for travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This (in bold) is surely not always possible, if major disruption occurs during the journey and it is impractiacal to conclude it, it may also be equally impractical to return to the point of origin (e.g if an event causes a total line blockage - say a dewirement, there may be no services returning to the origin either. Therefore it would be impossible to demonstrate that the ticket hadn't been used for travel.

What it doesn't say is that you have to return there by rail, though, nor that it has to happen immediately (e.g. it could be the next morning following a hotel stay)?

If you continue it the next day you've not abandoned it, surely. That only leaves changing your destination as an awkward outlier (which I've done once, and I went to the booking office and got the original ticket non-issued and a replacement issued just to the part way place, but it must be an unusual requirement because most people don't just go on rail journeys for the sake of a rail journey without really thinking about where they are going and are thus willing to change destination on a whim).

 

[realemil]

3. There is also some changes to the wording of getting a refund in the event that you start a journey and have to abandon it. Now there appears to be a requirement that you must return to the point of origin in order to claim a refund (Condition 30.1): "You are also entitled to a refund under these Conditions if you begin your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of your service and you return to your point of origin." Previously there was no explicit requirement it simply said that you could return to your point of origin and still claim a refund.

Does this mean that you can travel back to the origin “free” of charge, or is a ticket required to be purchased to return to your origin after abandoning the journey?

Is there anything protecting somebody abandoning their journey, buying the return, then claiming a refund on both tickets under this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does this mean that you can travel back to the origin “free” of charge, or is a ticket required to be purchased to return to your origin after abandoning the journey?

Is there anything protecting somebody abandoning their journey, buying the return, then claiming a refund on both tickets under this?

If you abandon due to disruption (rather than because of your own fault) you can return back free of charge. Presumably when refunding on these grounds if your home station is gated they'd be looking out for a scan on the "wrong" ticket?

The difficulty is in where people have effectively changed their destination, but that's something that is mostly only of concern to enthusiasts - "normal" people don't decide to have a couple of days in Preston instead if they've failed to make it to Edinburgh. However 29.2 seems to handle that.

 

[AM9]

If you abandon due to disruption (rather than because of your own fault) you can return back free of charge. Presumably when refunding on these grounds if your home station is gated they'd be looking out for a scan on the "wrong" ticket?

The difficulty is in where people have effectively changed their destination, but that's something that is mostly only of concern to enthusiasts - "normal" people don't decide to have a couple of days in Preston instead if they've failed to make it to Edinburgh. However 29.2 seems to handle that.

But if (as I said earlier) there is a total line blockage, there might not be any trains to return on, so then the passenger will need to pay for soem other mode (bus/cab) to get back to where they started and be out of pocket - in the case of a cab, maybe quite considerably. And I'me not seeing that as a niche situation nor likely only applicable to an enthusiast.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If you abandon due to disruption (rather than because of your own fault) you can return back free of charge. Presumably when refunding on these grounds if your home station is gated they'd be looking out for a scan on the "wrong" ticket?

The difficulty is in where people have effectively changed their destination, but that's something that is mostly only of concern to enthusiasts - "normal" people don't decide to have a couple of days in Preston instead if they've failed to make it to Edinburgh. However 29.2 seems to handle that.

I could imagine having a ticket from, say, London (Kings Cross) to Haymarket, being disrupted, deciding to stay somewhere nearby called Edinburgh, then returning to my origin and claiming a refund!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I could imagine having a ticket from, say, London (Kings Cross) to Haymarket, being disrupted, deciding to stay somewhere nearby called Edinburgh, then returning to my origin and claiming a refund!

I suspect people doing things like that are why it's been made more explicit. That certainly isn't a reasonable course of action (buying the ticket to Haymarket and ending short is a sensible decision to avoid LNER's price increase trial, but trying to refund it on the basis of an Edinburgh-Haymarket cancellation that you never intended travelling on is fraud).

But if (as I said earlier) there is a total line blockage, there might not be any trains to return on, so then the passenger will need to pay for soem other mode (bus/cab) to get back to where they started and be out of pocket - in the case of a cab, maybe quite considerably. And I'me not seeing that as a niche situation nor likely only applicable to an enthusiast.

It doesn't say by train, does it? Nor does it say immediately, but perhaps it should say "as soon as is reasonably possible" or something.

I guess it wasn't a major issue before, you'd just use your return half to go back and then refund the lot.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I suspect people doing things like that are why it's been made more explicit. That certainly isn't a reasonable course of action (buying the ticket to Haymarket and ending short is a sensible decision to avoid LNER's price increase trial, but trying to refund it on the basis of an Edinburgh-Haymarket cancellation that you never intended travelling on is fraud).

I should have said 'visit for a couple of hours' rather than 'stay' which perhaps implied overnight and therefore onward travel to Haymarket, albeit disrupted, would have been entirely reasonable. Preston instead of Edinburgh was one extreme, Haymarket instead of Edinburgh the other, but there must be lots of day trips where you could suffer disruption at the far end of the planned itinerary, turn-back short, have a nice day out at that turn-back point, and return to your origin. I've certainly done that but without attempting to claim any refund. Sticking to the west coast, say Preston instead of Lancaster, or Oxenholme (for Kendal / Windermere) or Penrith.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I should have said 'visit for a couple of hours' rather than 'stay' which perhaps implied overnight and therefore onward travel to Haymarket, albeit disrupted, would have been entirely reasonable. Preston instead of Edinburgh was one extreme, Haymarket instead of Edinburgh the other, but there must be lots of day trips where you could suffer disruption at the far end of the planned itinerary, turn-back short, have a nice day out at that turn-back point, and return to your origin. I've certainly done that but without attempting to claim any refund. Sticking to the west coast, say Preston instead of Lancaster, or Oxenholme (for Kendal / Windermere) or Penrith.

I think it's down to whether the journey was genuinely abandoned. Nobody at all would abandon a journey at Edinburgh and completely forget about the purpose of it (other than enthusiasts*) and go home because they couldn't go to Haymarket. But someone might do that if they couldn't get past Lancaster, say, but then they might not as you say.

As mentioned, 29.2 deals with partial refunds if you don't make the full journey but don't abandon it either, though with Advances it's kind-of messy as technically it's not allowed to do that.

* e.g. a track basher wanting to cover that specific bit.

 

[Haywain]

Returning to your point of origin isn't always realistic. Let's say, for example, you have been away to the north east of Scotland for a few days and have a ticket from Abredeen to London and your journey is heavily disrupted at Edinburgh, you are not going to want to return to Aberdeen. More likely you will get a flight or a coach to continue back to London. The idea that you are not due a refund in such circumstances is ludicrous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Returning to your point of origin isn't always realistic. Let's say, for example, you have been away to the north east of Scotland for a few days and have a ticket from Abredeen to London and your journey is heavily disrupted at Edinburgh, you are not going to want to return to Aberdeen. More likely you will get a flight or a coach to continue back to London. The idea that you are not due a refund in such circumstances is ludicrous.

You could have a partial refund under 29.2, though, because you made a journey to Edinburgh rather than London. Question is how to make that work with an Advance - it's easy enough to work out what the cheapest relevant walk-up for the journey made was.

 

[MikeWM]

It strikes me that everything was rather more straightforward when the 'timetable' of what services 'ought' to be running, was something you could pick up in a printed format, or peruse on a poster at the station.

Getting rid of printed timetables and trying to make everyone rely on journey planners makes this sort of thing much easier to get away with. Perhaps it is entirely coincidental that all this indeterminate nonsense we now have over what 'should' be running has arrived almost immediately after the demise of (most) printed timetables, but I suspect it isn't a coincidence at all. Else eg. why not say that the timetable to compare against on 'normal' days is that published in the eNRT, or that published on the relevant TOC's website, as opposed to this 'whatever they feel like running' rubbish?

 

[Haywain]

You could have a partial refund under 29.2, though, because you made a journey to Edinburgh rather than London. Question is how to make that work with an Advance - it's easy enough to work out what the cheapest relevant walk-up for the journey made was.

That suggests that it is fine to contract to provide a service and only provide 25% of it, and still charge for the 25%!

 

[OscarH]

Ridiculous, a blatant cash-grab to avoid paying out on disruption (whether compensation or a refund). Reduction of the admin fee in some cases isn't going to go far to roll the turd in glitter.