Specified train & connections meaning

[Tazi Hupefi]

That's certainly one way of putting it

The issue is that for a small number of front line staff who do actually use it, their mobile work devices (phones, tablets etc) do not use a consistent IP, so it's impossible to whitelist it. At other TOCs they have network settings that result in a consistent IP.

 

[Haywain]

Perhaps, but you're going to struggle to rely on any information contained within iKB from a customer perspective. It's an internal resource and cannot possibly form part of any contract, implied or otherwise. Access to it is supposed to be firewalled / IP restricted, albeit there's some issues with that. The information could be altered or completely removed without any warning whatsoever.

At best, you can use it to assess what should probably happen in a specific situation.

So that's carte blanche for staff to ignore it, as well as ignoring the public facing information in NRCoT? Very customer friendly.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

So that's carte blanche for staff to ignore it, as well as ignoring the public facing information in NRCoT? Very customer friendly.

They're not ignoring it in most cases - they're simply not aware that it exists, which is often reinforced by management staff who have also never heard of whatever is being raised as an issue. I

Most of the time it turns out that iKB or other similar resources simply haven't been updated and results in what is written there conflicting with what staff are taught and asked to do.

 

[OscarH]

The issue is that for a small number of front line staff who do actually use it, their mobile work devices (phones, tablets etc) do not use a consistent IP, so it's impossible to whitelist it. At other TOCs they have network settings that result in a consistent IP.

That really shouldn't be a hard problem to solve, a proxy to the iKB hosted on a machine with a whitelisted IP, which applies the TOCs chosen SSO in front of it, it didn't take very long to do. That said (a) IP whitelisting is an absolute joke in 2024, and (b) the comms around it have been shocking even for people that can provide a list of static IPs

(I'm not complaining it stays open anyway, so long may this situation continue)

 

[30907]

Please don't waste your money.

I won't

Just specify a longer connection at Leeds when booking,

Which means (from Saltaire) committing to the previous train 30min earlier

or book as two separate tickets.

Which is sometimes cost-effective as I get WY senior discount, but otherwise a nuisance.

 

[Hadders]

Perhaps, but you're going to struggle to rely on any information contained within iKB from a customer perspective. It's an internal resource and cannot possibly form part of any contract, implied or otherwise. Access to it is supposed to be firewalled / IP restricted, albeit there's some issues with that. The information could be altered or completely removed without any warning whatsoever.

At best, you can use it to assess what should probably happen in a specific situation.

One would hope that internal staff guidance matches customer facing rules and requirements but then we are talking about the railway…

Interestingly, the GTR easement we’ve been talking about on here has been updated recently, so it isn’t a case of it being outdated or something that was posted by a Pricing Manager who retired 20-years ago and is no longer applies.

I don’t praise GTR too often but in this case they’re taking a really pragmatic approach, as are LNER.

Well done to them, if only other train companies could act in this sort of way.

 

[Helen44]

Tell me - is there any merit in me complaining about the charge, given how that the rules are so untransparent?

When I look at the original booking, yes it does say that I had a reservation on the 14:26, but when I look at the tickets/terms and conditions that I would be accessing whilst travelling, they can absolutely be read to say I wasn’t expected to get the specified train.

In normal contract law, you can’t make something so ambiguous that the contract holder can’t understand it. So why can the train companies do this with tickets?

 

[Starmill]

What do the T&Cs state?

But you previously claimed you knew what they said, here:

This nonsense about non-reservable legs being open to interpretation is a continuation of legacy ticketing which the current T&Cs make no allowance for.

Sounds a lot like you're making things up as you go along to me, but trying to present them as facts.

 

[FaresGuru22]

But you previously claimed you knew what they said, here:

Sounds a lot like you're making things up as you go along to me, but trying to present them as facts.

The T&Cs do not state that you can travel on alternative trains. What am I making up? Where does it say anything about reservable vs non reservable trains in the T&Cs? All the public content relating to Advance tickets suggests you need to travel by the booked itinerary. This is Transport Focus' view too. Clearly TOCs need to clarify what exactly the intention is for these tickets. And clearly GTR's view differs from that of others, so might be one where ambiguity persists, or where the additional guidance needs formally publishing.

 

[BRX]

Tell me - is there any merit in me complaining about the charge, given how that the rules are so untransparent?

When I look at the original booking, yes it does say that I had a reservation on the 14:26, but when I look at the tickets/terms and conditions that I would be accessing whilst travelling, they can absolutely be read to say I wasn’t expected to get the specified train.

In normal contract law, you can’t make something so ambiguous that the contract holder can’t understand it. So why can the train companies do this with tickets?

If you have the energy, I think you should complain as a matter of principle. I agree with what you say. If it's ambiguous then you shouldn't be penalised for that.

 

[JonathanH]

If you have the energy, I think you should complain as a matter of principle. I agree with what you say. If it's ambiguous then you shouldn't be penalised for that.

Is it really ambiguous? The ticket is issued with a "mandatory reservation coupon" and is valid "only with reservations".

 

[BRX]

It's "only valid on booked LNER services and required connecting services".

What does "booked" mean? I think this should be defined more clearly but most people would take it to be a service on which they had a reserved seat.

How are we to interpret "required connecting services"? Required by who or what?

If those services are to be the ones that are stated on an itinerary then say that in the T&Cs.

If your position is that a reasonable assumption is that any services listed on an itinerary are mandatory, then would you not agree that there would be no need to distinguish between "booked" services and "connecting" services in that condition text.

The fact that ticket conditions distinguish between "booked" and "connecting" services, in my opinion, implies that they are somehow treated differently when it comes to the ticket conditions. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a consumer to think that the legs that aren't in the "booked" category are "unbooked" and therefore non-mandatory.

 

[OscarH]

Is it really ambiguous? The ticket is issued with a "mandatory reservation coupon" and is valid "only with reservations".

I will say that the industry really needs to rethink it's messaging now that so many TOCs without seat reservations are doing "reservations". To a normal person then a reservation means they have a reserved seat, not either a reserved seat or some random *s that don't even guarantee you a seat but are still a reservation.

 

[Starmill]

The T&Cs do not state that you can travel on alternative trains. What am I making up? Where does it say anything about reservable vs non reservable trains in the T&Cs?

Have you actually read them now? Given you decide to enter the discussion presenting your interpretation as fact and then admitted you hadn't read them I rather feel the need to ask.

Is it really ambiguous? The ticket is issued with a "mandatory reservation coupon" and is valid "only with reservations".

If the meaning were in doubt, then it'd have to be interpreted in whatever way were the most favourable towards the consumer. I'm not really sure it is in doubt though.

 

[trainophile]

My Northern train (third and final leg of my journey) from Wigan Wallgate this afternoon was cancelled, with nearly an hour to wait for the next one. Instead of waiting in the station I had a wander round the town, and didn’t go into the station until 40 minutes after my timed train, and the ticket still worked the barriers.

Makes a bit of a mockery of giving a specific train in the first place.

 

[Starmill]

They're not ignoring it in most cases - they're simply not aware that it exists

To be fair that's the same thing when it comes down to it.

 

[FaresGuru22]

Have you actually read them now? Given you decide to enter the discussion presenting your interpretation as fact and then admitted you hadn't read them I rather feel the need to ask.

What a valuable contribution that is. Can apparently read between the lines on T&Cs but not human interaction.

I asked the question to understand which publicly accessible T&Cs are being referred to in the interpretations presented.

Bizarre state of affairs when nobody can concretely say in a few words what an Advance ticket actually is and here it is clear as day in the T&Cs. It seems all trains would need to be reservable for industry to be able to clarify, and even then GTR do their own behind the scenes thing. Bonkers. If flexibility is the intention on a connecting leg, maybe split tickets really are the right way to go, no ambiguity with an advance on a reservable train plus a flexible for a non-reservable train. Leg-based fares, now I'm sure I've heard that somewhere.

 

[OscarH]

It seems all trains would need to be reservable for industry to be able to clarify, and even then GTR do their own behind the scenes thing. Bonkers. If flexibility is the intention on a connecting leg, maybe split tickets really are the right way to go, no ambiguity with an advance on a reservable train plus a flexible for a non-reservable train. Leg-based fares, now I'm sure I've heard that somewhere.

Really, in the wake of every TOC and their dog deciding they need reservable local services, it would be best to bin this counted place vs no reservation fun, and just expand the GTR/LNER easements to a wider list (eg Northern coming off LNER) and actually publish it clearly in the NRCoT rather than it being an internal secret. (the list should also be in a proper digital format, unlike pretty much all of the free-hand NRE currently, which retailers can properly display to show what is and isn't flexible when booking)

 

[voyagerdude220]

I know of one passenger making the exact journey, but in reverse from Skipton to kings cross, a few weeks back whose advance ticket was £73.80. She was 2 hours late for her train and was trying to buy a whole new ticket when I came across her. I stopped her doing this and excessed her advance - and this cost her 80 pence to turn her ticket into the flexible single (£74.60).

Aside from (as already mentioned) this being incorrect action to excess an expired Advance ticket as it should have been discarded and the passenger requested to buy a brand new ticket, even if the Advance was for a later train, I was under the impression that it isn't permitted to excess a TOC specific ticket (or on this case I'm assuming it's LNER & Connections) to an Any Permitted fare.

Or to put it simpler- If pax had say a Northern only ticket (not necessarily Advance, say Off Peak Day Return) it couldn't just be excessed to the equivalent Any Permitted.

I do wonder sometimes how much revenue training some TOC Conductors get. Where I work I recently suggested a customer took a different route to what they booked to avoid disruption, but the Conductor (who I needed to talk to about an unrelated matter) who they asked on the platform told them no, on the basis they had seat reservations on their intended route, despite the alternative also being valid and them holding a perfectly valid Off Peak route Any Permitted ticket (being used at Off Peak times).
When I asked the Conductor they claimed he thought it was an Advance despite clearly being marked as an Any Permitted Off Peak Return.

 

[Starmill]

Bizarre state of affairs when nobody can concretely say in a few words what an Advance ticket actually is and here it is clear as day in the T&Cs.

I can sympathise with that. If you were to ask me why, I'd say you probably would have received more constructive responses if your posts had been a little less personal.

For example:

What a valuable contribution that is. Can apparently read between the lines on T&Cs but not human interaction.

To summarise, most replies (including mine and @yorkie) have opined that the ticket almost certainly had a reserved service on the Leeds to Skipton leg, and as such, the reservation is mandatory, as in all cases where not explicitly stated otherwise.

 

[dodecahedron67]

I've heard through the grapevine that it is TPE policy to do this, but it's not documented (maybe I will contact someone to see if they can change that...)

We have a lot of discretion available to use as we wish is the official line on this and ticketing in general on TPE

 

[Haywain]

I was under the impression that it isn't permitted to excess a TOC specific ticket (or on this case I'm assuming it's LNER & Connections) to an Any Permitted fare.

Or to put it simpler- If pax had say a Northern only ticket (not necessarily Advance, say Off Peak Day Return) it couldn't just be excessed to the equivalent Any Permitted.

Such tickets can be excessed in that way but they retain the TOC restriction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aside from (as already mentioned) this being incorrect action to excess an expired Advance ticket as it should have been discarded and the passenger requested to buy a brand new ticket, even if the Advance was for a later train, I was under the impression that it isn't permitted to excess a TOC specific ticket (or on this case I'm assuming it's LNER & Connections) to an Any Permitted fare.

Or to put it simpler- If pax had say a Northern only ticket (not necessarily Advance, say Off Peak Day Return) it couldn't just be excessed to the equivalent Any Permitted.

You absolutely can, it just retains the TOC restriction. In some cases that would of course render it a pointless exercise, but not all.

 

[Helen44]

If the meaning were in doubt, then it'd have to be interpreted in whatever way were the most favourable towards the consumer. I'm not really sure it is in doubt though.

It feels like the meaning is in doubt…given that this thread has gone on for at least 83 posts.

The ticket I see on the app when I’m travelling gives me a specific seat for the LNER train, says it’s valid for “booked LNER train & required connecting services”, and then says “no specified seat” and “no seat reserved” on the local train.

This relies on the average person knowing that
A) you can have a reservation without actually having a seat (I believe the phrase “counted place reservation” is probably meaningless to most people)
B) that “required connections” doesn’t refer to the fact that you’re required to change trains to get to your destination. It actually means “booked connections” (a perfectly good phrase!)
C) the phrase “booked LNER train” is not an example of an “exception that proves the rule”. Just because the ticket only specifies that the LNER train is booked, doesn’t mean that the other train is not booked.

 

[jamiearmley]

Aside from (as already mentioned) this being incorrect action to excess an expired Advance ticket as it should have been discarded and the passenger requested to buy a brand new ticket

As long as I meet as a base standard that the NRCoT and the conditions of ticket issue provide, and I don't ever do anything which contravenes the rights of the passenger ,- on my train the correct action is the one that's in the best interests of customer service. It's an authority that I have as a train guard - and one I use wisely.

, I was under the impression that it isn't permitted to excess a TOC specific ticket (or on this case I'm assuming it's LNER & Connections) to an Any Permitted fare.

You are absolutely correct. You may excess a TOC only ticket to another type : say off peak to anytime, or single to return. You can't excess away the TOC restriction to any permitted.

Your comment seems to imply that you think that an Advance ticket is a TOC - restricted ticket. I know that you cannot possibly have meant to imply this, however. We know that an Advance ticket is a service-specific ticket, and you can excess such tickets to any permitted at will.

In any event, in the example I quoted, there was no change of TOC, just a change of validity.

I do wonder sometimes how much revenue training some TOC Conductors get.

I really hope that wasn't aimed at me.

I agree, the training given to conductors is poor. Knowledge is also shrinking as conductors retail fewer tickets, and therefore are exposed less to unusual and niche ticketing oddities . That notwithstanding, I'm confident that I can hold my own against the best.

 

[voyagerdude220]

I really hope that wasn't aimed at me.

No it wasn't.
Having said that, I don't feel excessing an expired Advance ticket to be a wise move, given it being incorrect in terms of ticketing "rules" and presumably a "desperate" member of LNER Revenue staff could have withdrawn the tickets and issued a TIR given the Advance ticket was altered after the date and time of travel.

Admittedly in this day and age of TOCs issuing penalty fares etc. very frequently, I wouldn't do such a "favour" to a customer in your scenario, had the customer come to my Ticket Office with an expired Advance ticket, as I wouldn't want them to run the risk of being issued a penalty fare or being issued a TIR as a result of me bending the rules.

Admittedly it might not be a problem, but I wouldn't want the customer potentially being penalised as a result of me trying to do them a favour.

(If I was somehow able to obtain authority say from LNER in your scenario and they were willing to assure me that they would accept the excess and not penalise the customer then yes I'd happily do it.)

 

[jamiearmley]

No it wasn't.
Having said that, I don't feel excessing an expired Advance ticket to be a wise move, given it being incorrect in terms of ticketing "rules" and presumably a "desperate" member of LNER Revenue staff could have withdrawn the tickets and issued a TIR given the Advance ticket was altered after the date and time of travel.

Admittedly in this day and age of TOCs issuing penalty fares etc. very frequently, I wouldn't do such a "favour" to a customer in your scenario, had the customer come to my Ticket Office with an expired Advance ticket, as I wouldn't want them to run the risk of being issued a penalty fare or being issued a TIR as a result of me bending the rules.

Admittedly it might not be a problem, but I wouldn't want the customer potentially being penalised as a result of me trying to do them a favour.

(If I was somehow able to obtain authority say from LNER in your scenario and they were willing to assure me that they would accept the excess and not penalise the customer then yes I'd happily do it.)

I think then that this may be one of the areas where the Guard has the advantage : once I've authorised travel by issuing the excess, then travel is authorised and that's the end of it.

Recharges/penalty fares/travel incident reports may happen : but will be overturned on investigation / complaint.

The same applies when I issue a handwritten authority to travel/deviation from booked route/travel on alternative TOC etc. Or even a note authorising the passenger to travel with no ticket at all.

And the same applies when I'm passed a note from a ticket office, stamped and dated. Often I look at these notes and quietly shake my head, but I accept without question because a decision has been made and authority given.

Anyway, we deviate.

Although I should say that my full fare recharges far outnumber any 'unwise decisions' I choose to make - but each is on merit, and I stand by that.

 

[FaresGuru22]

Your comment seems to imply that you think that an Advance ticket is a TOC - restricted ticket. I know that you cannot possibly have meant to imply this, however. We know that an Advance ticket is a service-specific ticket, and you can excess such tickets to any permitted at will.

Not debating your comment on excesses here. But the first note as to what an advance ticket is; it is both a service-specific ticket and a TOC-specific ticket. The trouble is, there are arguments here for hidden flexibility, meaning it isn't a service-specific ticket and therefore isn't TOC-specific either. Either way, I don't think it can be one but not the other. Though I'm sure there will still be those who argue to switch from one TOC's non-reservable to a different TOC's non-reservable - still not 'service-specific, not TOC-specific'.

 

[redreni]

Not debating your comment on excesses here. But the first note as to what an advance ticket is; it is both a service-specific ticket and a TOC-specific ticket. The trouble is, there are arguments here for hidden flexibility, meaning it isn't a service-specific ticket and therefore isn't TOC-specific either. Either way, I don't think it can be one but not the other. Though I'm sure there will still be those who argue to switch from one TOC's non-reservable to a different TOC's non-reservable - still not 'service-specific, not TOC-specific'.

The ticket we are talking about isn't TOC-specific, though, because it allows travel on other TOCs' trains. It would be impossible to reach the destination on the ticket without travelling on other TOCs' trains.

If you ask most people, I doubt there would be many who think it fair that the rail industry can sell you a ticket for a specific train, cancel that train and still be picky about which alternative train you take in order to try to reach your destination in the face of that failure to perform the contract. Is there any reason why there couldn't be a system where, if the booked train is cancelled, any other TOC that accepts the ticket and conveys the passenger to their destination can keep a record of having done so and sort out the money side of things with the TOC that cancelled its train later, without burdening the passenger with matters of revenue apportionment? That is a problem internal to the industry.

 

[Tester]

The ticket we are talking about isn't TOC-specific, though, because it allows travel on other TOCs' trains. It would be impossible to reach the destination on the ticket without travelling on other TOCs' trains.

If you ask most people, I doubt there would be many who think it fair that the rail industry can sell you a ticket for a specific train, cancel that train and still be picky about which alternative train you take in order to try to reach your destination in the face of that failure to perform the contract. Is there any reason why there couldn't be a system where, if the booked train is cancelled, any other TOC that accepts the ticket and conveys the passenger to their destination can keep a record of having done so and sort out the money side of things with the TOC that cancelled its train later, without burdening the passenger with matters of revenue apportionment? That is a problem internal to the industry.

I fear that you are mistaking the railway for an organisation which cares.

Of course it can be done - the Germans manage it without difficulty, as their equivalent of an advance simply and automatically becomes an anytime in such circumstances.

So it isn't an accident