"Appropriate" connecting trains

[jawr256]

I'm curious to know how it is decided whether a train is an "appropriate" connecting train for a TOC & CONNECTIONS advance ticket.

Here's a potentially extreme example:
With the right inputs, I can get trainsplit.com to offer me a £8.90 (16-25 railcard) VTWC & Connections advance ticket for Preston to Glasgow Central via the Cumbrian Coast and Kilmarnock (see attached example itinerary). The only VT leg of that itinerary is the first one, from Preston to Lancaster.

I can see the logic in the booking system - that the journey a) follows a permitted route, b) has a VT leg, and c) the non-VT operators have not prevented their legs from being used on VT+Connections tickets.

However, if I were to book this ticket I think I'd struggle to justify my choice of connections as "appropriate" (especially given the obvious direct VT trains from Preston to Glasgow), other than appealing to the itinerary issued with the ticket - these non-VT legs typically don't offer reservations.

What are your thoughts on whether an example like this would be acceptable?

 

[Merseysider]

What are your thoughts on whether an example like this would be acceptable?

“Acceptable”?

If you book a ticket and are given an itinerary, then following that itinerary is what you should do (and of course validates the journey).

Northern guards on the Cumbrian Coast see quite a few unusual tickets from time to time - the loco-hauled services are very popular amongst enthusiasts.

 

[Mojo]

Northern guards on the Cumbrian Coast see quite a few unusual tickets from time to time - the loco-hauled services are very popular amongst enthusiasts.

I had the guard question a Carlisle to London West Coast Advance once. I specified on the Toc journey planner to travel via St Bees so I could travel on the locohauled service. I can't remember what he said, but I said something along the lines of "I thought you have to travel on the services you book on with an Advance ticket" and he then moved on.

 

[methethpropbut]

Also another subtle point is that your reservation will be for Preston - Lancaster only instead of Preston - Glasgow, even though in both cases the journey on your ticket would be Preston - Glasgow.

 

[embers25]

I had the guard question a Carlisle to London West Coast Advance once. I specified on the Toc journey planner to travel via St Bees so I could travel on the locohauled service. I can't remember what he said, but I said something along the lines of "I thought you have to travel on the services you book on with an Advance ticket" and he then moved on.

On a Milton Keynes to Bedworth advance VTWC+Connections I used via Tamworth, Sheffield, Newcastle, Carlisle, Barrow, Lancaster and Nuneaton (during the ticket anomaly period) the only guard that didn't query my ticket was the Cumbrian Coast guard who just said "We get a lot of weird tickets on this line but this one takes the biscuit! Hope you're enjoying your day!"

 

[yorkie]

Yes it is acceptable.

RDG want to stop people having the right to travel via the Cumbrian Coast for a through journey from Preston to beyond Carlisle, but at present it is a permitted route, so it can be offered.

Make use of the Cumbrian Coast while you can, as if the DfT consent to RDG's request, it may cease to be a permitted route in future; the excuse is that reducing permitted routes makes it "simpler" for customers, and therefore that is somehow a good thing.

 

[gray1404]

What is their problem with that route? It seems reasonable.

 

[Starmill]

To me, an appropriate connecting train sounds like any train or trains or which form part of an itinerary that follows a permitted route and that adheres to the relevant minimum connection times. If you search on NRE, you will be presented with 'appropriate connecting trains'.

I can't imagine what else it could be.

 

[gray1404]

And there is a little bit of flexibility involved in that too. For example, if I wanted to go with a train or two in hand on a train that didn't offer reservations to ensure I made my long distance connection. Likewise, if I arrived off my long distance service and discovered my local connection was rammed and I wanted to wait 30 minutes for the next one to ensure I got a seat that would be fine - provided I didn't have an onward reservation. What I am saying is, if you know what you are doing, it is fine to exercise some freedom provided you do not fall foul of the rules. However, I think for anyone new to railway ticketing the rule of thumb should be to stick to the itinerary provided when you book your ticket.

 

[Deafdoggie]

the excuse is that reducing permitted routes makes it "simpler" for customers, and therefore that is somehow a good thing.

As a mere lay person-and passenger-I would say it makes it simpler to include more routes. the more restrictive, the more complex. Obviously within common sense, but any route that includes travel between preston and carlisle should include all through lines. Whilst the 'average passenger' may not wish to go that way, and the faster direct trains make more sense to most people, I don't see why they have to be. All that will happen is that more people have to split tickets to go that way. I really don't see how or why that is making things simpler.

 

[yorkie]

As a mere lay person-and passenger-I would say it makes it simpler to include more routes. the more restrictive, the more complex. Obviously within common sense, but any route that includes travel between preston and carlisle should include all through lines. Whilst the 'average passenger' may not wish to go that way, and the faster direct trains make more sense to most people, I don't see why they have to be. All that will happen is that more people have to split tickets to go that way. I really don't see how or why that is making things simpler.

Exactly!

I just hope the DfT aren't hoodwinked into believing what they've been told.