Yes. Customers travelling with split tickets are to be treated as if they were travelling with just one ticket, just with component conditions on travel.
Ha! Yes I hadn't even thought of that!It may well have happened multiple times in the past, but first time I've seen where "new York to London ticket" has a completely different meaning to "New York to London ticket".
Aren't words wonderful at times.
I really don't think this can be allowed to go un-challenged. There are two problems:
Without any meaningful difficulty - by providing new tickets if they can't get ticket acceptance. In the absence of a member of staff to do this they can authorise the customer to buy themselves a new ticket and expense it.
Surely that's redundant. If the train is already cancelled when you pay, you can't claim anything in terms of re-routing or alternative arrangements. Nor would you need anything.
I think it's more an arse covering exercise. Say the first off-peak train from Nowheresville to Big Town is cancelled. (Oversimplified, given we all know restrictions apply to the ticket rather than the train.)
I think the correct thing to do is ask the customer to specify which service they want to travel on. If they give a train that's still running sell the normal correct ticket for that. If they give one that's cancelled, apologise and explain that it's cancelled and why (if that's known). They can choose to buy a ticket for a different one, at the usual price, with information about the different options if they want it, and if they're not satisfied with that they need to be given contact details for customer service, where they can raise a complaint case if they choose.
The idea of the cancelled train policy is to remedy the impact of the cancelled train. Are you really suggesting that it might be appropriate to sell an off-peak ticket for a cancelled train on the basis that cancelled train policy means customers can now travel on the 'peak train'? The policy is for journeys already booked prior to the cancellation coming into effect. It does not create a lifting of restrictions or price easement for trains either side.
Customers need not wait hours. If they already bought a ticket, cancelled train policy will help them to travel without further cost. If they have not already bought a ticket, they need to buy a ticket that is valid for the train they wish to travel on. If the last 'off-peak train' before a peak period is cancelled, and the customer only wants to pay the off-peak price, then of course they have to wait for the next 'off-peak train'. Some may see that as penalising customers but it really isn't.
The supermarket analogy - another classic from the RF hall of fame...
This is quite nonsensical, and frankly, rather desperate.
Why do you think this should or would be a discretionary decision that a single operator makes?
Whereas in any customer focussed industry given it's their failure not the passenger they would just let the passenger travel on the off-peak fare rather than enforcing the peak fare if the last applicable train is cancelled.
Other than perhaps the Sleeper, this comparison really doesn't work; are any train companies planning reservations compulsory trains, to make this comparison a valid one?
Is it possible that, rather than abandoning the policy, the shop you're talking about has withdrawn the filter coffee? Unfortunately, not all branches of Pret offer filter coffee, and the ones that don't wouldn't reduce the price. Apologies for the coffee sidetrack.
It's more use up in the North to be honest. For example both LNER and TPE run York to Edinburgh (TPE change at Newcastle, at least in the previous timetable).
My primary concern about this whole thing. That said, I have found most LNER and TPE Staff to be very helpful and understanding anyway in disruption
I haven't, especially not TPE. I had to intervene on one occasion quite recently between Manchester and Manchester Airport where they were trying to Penalty Fare someone who'd been affected by Northern cancellations.
Nice to extract a negative from something so obviously positive.
It absolutely is a positive step. But, pointless publicising that SouthEastern is included when there is zero alternative to use under the plans (and even when, presumably, this goes nationwide, the vast majority of stations and routes have no other operator anyway)
