Matters of fact:
1. Where a term is not defined, it is interpreted in it's ordinary meaning (Whiteley v. Chappel 1868, extended to contract law in Watson v. Phipps 1985). For the term 'journey', it seems fairly apparent that this ordinarily means "the act of traveling from one place to another" in this context. By extension, in two separate documents where the term 'journey' is used without further definition, it will carry identical meaning.
2. NRCoC 19. states: "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and [...] (b) the train you are in calls at the station where you change from one ticket to another [a&c omitted for clarity]"
3. Advance ticket terms and conditions state: "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey."
4. Advance ticket terms and conditions state: "You must be at the departure station shown on your ticket[...] If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."
5. Each ticket is evidence of a contract, to which the T&C's are the NRCoC, the ticket T&C's and any TOC T&C's. There appears to be no reason why this contract cannot be modified though the use of multiple tickets to form a single contract if the T&C's allow/demand.
Issues:
1. We can take 'journey' to have the same meaning, and therefore points 2 & 3 imply that you can continue travelling providing you obeyed the minimum interchanges etc. However, the use of NRCoC 19 in this context is questionable, as the wording of b) implies switching of tickets on the same train, rather than during an interchange (of course, this opens a whole new can of worms). The intention of the conditions appears to be to allow multiple tickets on one train, rather than to allow switching of tickets at a station (as this would naturally be valid under the switching of tickets idea), but as a result does not make it clear as to if switching at a station can constitute a single journey.
2. Point 4 also implies, that as part of the tickets T&Cs, an advance ticket will be invalid if the first train is missed for any reason. Clearly this is badly defined, as one could miss a train due to security alerts, the train leaving/ locking doors early or anything, and the ticket is supposedly invalidated. However, it is not really at question if it is missed under normal circumstances. It would read that the "first train on which you are booked" is the one leaving from your ticket's departure station, and therefore even if the journey is valid, the tickets T&C's are not met if you miss the train due to an earlier part of the contract. This clearly conflicts with the point 3 from the same T&Cs if it can be taken to being a single journey (see NRCoC 19. interpretation concerns above).
To be honest, it's just not clear. It can be interpreted either way, but one cannot explicitly allow it given the problems above. It therefore seems to be that if given the wording a consumer could interpret it to mean it is valid, then it is likely a court would support them, but there is doubt over this.
