ATOC response - Splitting costs rights

[First class]

I do intend to seek clarification, but will consult a legal professional before doing so.

Does Condition 43 not put the onus on ANY TOC to prevent customers from being stranded in ANY situation? I would say that in my example, (stranded passengers at Liverpool), that Merseyrail "reasonably could" (and should have) provide assistance as defined in Condition 43.

43. Help from Train Companies if you are stranded
If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail
Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination and the
Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination
by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can,
either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you.

 

[Ferret]

First Class, it's an arguable point! You could say that they should provide a taxi to Southport and endorse tickets for travel the next day for instance.

The counter argument to that is that Merseyrail had discharged their contractual duty to get the pax to Liverpool and anything after that is none of their business, which includes the Liverpool-Euston contract that the same pax had entered into. Again - until it's tested in Court, we could argue either way!

 

[OwlMan]

ATOC state in their latest leaflet - National Rail Guide to tickets on page 12(see http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/National Rail Guide to Tickets - June 2010.pdf for a copy)

Travelling on the correct train
• If you buy an Advance ticket you must use that ticket
on the train services specified. However, if you miss
this service because your connecting train was delayed
you will be able to travel on the next service provided
by the same train company without penalty.

This does seem to state that you can catch the next train if delayed on your connection.

On their "www.bestvaluefares.co.uk" website ATOC state:

Advance Tickets

What are they?
Advance tickets are single (one-way) tickets offering big discounts on many longer distance journeys. As the name suggests, these tickets must be booked in advance of your journey and are subject to availability.

Is it for me?
If you are able to plan ahead, Advance tickets can offer fantastic value for money. There are limited numbers of Advance tickets, so generally speaking, the earlier you book, the cheaper the ticket – with many tickets going on sale around 12 weeks in advance. Advance fares are usually for longer distance journeys and are sold as single fares, but can be mixed and matched with other Advance, Off-Peak or Anytime Single fares to get the best value tickets for your journey.

I have highlighted the part that is of interest.

ATOC state here that Advance tickets can be mixed & matched with non-advanced tickets to get the best value for your JOURNEY

Therefore tickets can be mixed and matched for your journey (website quote); and if the connection is delayed you can catch the later train (leaflet)

Peter

 

[First class]

Just received a very strange email from ATOC out of the blue:

Dear First Class,

I’ve seen the conversation thread on http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=37341 and just wanted to assure you that the response was drafted in consultation with senior people at ATOC. Neither Tony (my predecessor) or myself would reply to an enquiry such as yours without seeking the views of such colleagues first – it is important that we do not give information that contradicts the stance of ATOC or its members.

With regard to the actual discussion thread that follows I found it useful, and have shared it with senior colleagues to help inform future decisions that are made concerning the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Kind regards,

John Horncastle
Customer Relations Manager
ATOC

 

[Ferret]

First Class, that's interesting! I trust they paid particular attention to what Greenback said about situations where no Advance fare is available

Peter - that quote may well refer to combining an advance one way with an off peak single to come back the other way. It doesn't get past HHF's point about the condition of the Advance ticket about what happens if you miss your train for any reason. It's all as clear as mud quite frankly - can it be right that somebody is stranded without recourse? Legally, it may be, but I'd rather it wasn't!

 

[b0b]

Page 1 uses the word 'ticket'; condition 19 extends the rights for a journey to one or more 'tickets'. If it doesn't do this, then what does it do?

All condition 19 does is give you additional rights if you use 2 or more tickets - not the combined rights of all the tickets, or the same right of the single ticket which covers the entire journey.

I know this might seem an unpopular opinion.

 

[dan_atki]

the original intention of condition 19 must have been to cover the case of using two or more tickets for different parts of a journey on a single train - the fact that it says "the train [singular] you are in calls at..." is a pretty strong indication of that.

Well obviously, if you're on more than one train then they would call there to allow you to change trains!

You may use a combination of tickets to make a journey on a single train service provided that at each point on the journey you can produce a ticket valid at that point, and at each point where you change from one ticket to another one of the following holds: (a) both tickets are zonal tickets covering adjacent areas, (b) the train stops at the station where you change from one ticket to the other or (c) one of the tickets is a season ticket and the other is not.

Almost but it's not about the changeover point (except condition b)) that is important - in the case of c) it clearly specifies 'other ticket(s) is/are not'. In the case of more than two tickets, there is more than one changeover point - they're superfluous to knowledge if only one of 3+ tickets is a season.

 

[yorkie]

All condition 19 does is give you additional rights if you use 2 or more tickets - not the combined rights of all the tickets, or the same right of the single ticket which covers the entire journey.

I know this might seem an unpopular opinion.

The question is quite simple. Do the "rights" regarding onward travel, accommodation etc apply to the "journey" or to the "ticket"?

If they apply to the ticket, then someone who has a London-St Neots season, and a St Neots-Peterborough day ticket, on a non-stop London-Peterborough train that breaks down at Huntingdon, could be refused onward travel from Huntingdon. Right?

If they apply to the journey (which is, IMO, the only logical interpretation) then there is no issue.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have a question about all of this. So the least favourable interpretation of the NRCoC (for the passenger) basically says that if your travelling on two advances or a 'normal' ticket and an advance and due to an earlier delay on the railway you miss the connection your basically stuffed and have to buy a new ticket, right?

So what about this then, I want to go from Hull to Kings Cross and purchase an Advance ticket which is East Coast + Connections the itinerary I'm given says to catch the (times made up) 10:00 Northern service to Doncaster (unreserved) arriving at 10:45 to catch the 11:00 EC service to KGX (reserved for a specific train). So should the Northern train be delayed by 20mins and I miss my connection what happens then? I have a Hull to KGX ticket but I am reserved on a specific train from Doncaster, so can I travel on the next available train or am I sunk and therefore have to buy a new ticket?

I apologise if the answer is blindingly obvious but ticketing is not my strength and I was curious what the answer would be in this situation.

 

[yorkie]

I have a question about all of this. So the least favourable interpretation of the NRCoC (for the passenger) basically says that if your travelling on two advances or a 'normal' ticket and an advance and due to an earlier delay on the railway you miss the connection your basically stuffed and have to buy a new ticket, right?

I don't see that interpretation at all. If you are delayed while travelling, you may "complete your journey" on later trains. The only interpretations that can be against the passenger on multiple tickets is either if the claim is made that two or more tickets do not constitute "one journey" (this is false, IMO) or the claim that this 'easement' is 'trumped' by the rule that you have to be at the origin in time to catch the train (I do not agree with that, as otherwise what is the point of the easement, and it would be ludicrous for the TOCs to blame the customer for a delay on the Railway!)

So what about this then, I want to go from Hull to Kings Cross and purchase an Advance ticket which is East Coast + Connections the itinerary I'm given says to catch the (times made up) 10:00 Northern service to Doncaster (unreserved) arriving at 10:45 to catch the 11:00 EC service to KGX (reserved for a specific train). So should the Northern train be delayed by 20mins and I miss my connection what happens then? I have a Hull to KGX ticket but I am reserved on a specific train from Doncaster, so can I travel on the next available train or am I sunk and therefore have to buy a new ticket?

I apologise if the answer is blindingly obvious but ticketing is not my strength and I was curious what the answer would be in this situation.

If you have one ticket, no-one is going to deny that you are allowed to travel on a later train. If you have more than one ticket, some people will try to wriggle out of it due to the reasons stated above. It is harder for them to wriggle out of it if you split at stations where you do not change trains/TOCs (e.g. Hull-Retford + Retford-London changing at Doncaster), although I still believe they are wrong to wriggle out of it.

That doesn't guarantee that if you are on one ticket TOCs won't mistreat you and try to fob you off to other TOCs though, see this for example (on one ticket).

I've never had a problem with split tickets being treated as one journey, including getting taxis back due to delays.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The question is quite simple. Do the "rights" regarding onward travel, accommodation etc apply to the "journey" or to the "ticket"?

If they apply to the ticket, then someone who has a London-St Neots season, and a St Neots-Peterborough day ticket, on a non-stop London-Peterborough train that breaks down at Huntingdon, could be refused onward travel from Huntingdon. Right?

If they apply to the journey (which is, IMO, the only logical interpretation) then there is no issue.

....If you are delayed while travelling, you may "complete your journey" on later trains. The only interpretations that can be against the passenger on multiple tickets is either if the claim is made that two or more tickets do not constitute "one journey" (this is false, IMO) or the claim that this 'easement' is 'trumped' by the rule that you have to be at the origin in time to catch the train (I do not agree with that, as otherwise what is the point of the easement, and it would be ludicrous for the TOCs to blame the customer for a delay on the Railway!)....

No-one (certainly not me anyway) is suggesting that two or more tickets can not be used for a journey under condition 19, or that the conditions of the 'Advance' fare trump each other (actually thats not entirely true, but you will never admit to it), or that anyone is blaming anyone else (the reason for the delay is irrelevant).

Both conditions apply equally, one (delays while travelling) will be met with a valid 'Advance' ticket, the other (missed the first booked train) invalidates the 'Advance' ticket (until you buy a new ticket).

The NCoC applies to contracts/agreements, not tickets or journeys, if we are being picky, but I think we can say the that, as the ticket is proof of the contract/agreement, that it applies to that, indeed, the NCoC assumes that is the case in it's wording (by refering to the ticket in many conditions)....

INTRODUCTION

When you buy a ticket to travel on the National Rail Network you enter into an agreement with the Train Companies whose trains you have the right to use. That agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the stations or within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought. These Conditions are also part of that agreement and they apply to all domestic (noninternational) journeys by scheduled passenger trains of the Train Companies on the National Rail Network....

....1. Your contract

A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each Train Company whose trains you have the right to use....

As for the London-Peterborough example, First Capital Connect (FCC) would have to get the passenger to Peterborough unless the ticket from Huntingdon is an 'Advance' fare and you were not travelling on the train you had been booked on. EC do not have to do anything (as you do NOT have the right to use EC for any part of that journey beyond Stevenage, although they may let you use their services if they wish) unless FCC are 'unable' to help, which would come under condition 43 (unless the ticket from Huntingdon is an 'Advance' fare and you were not travelling on the train you had been booked on), but I guess that's another discussion entirely.

 

[Greenback]

I think Ainsworth was trying to highlight the argument HHF has put forward about missing the first booked train.

On his Hull - Kings Cross journey, Ainsworth has described an EC + Conenctions ticket. This is one ticket, but the first booekd train is the 1100 from Doncaster. How is this different from the situation with holding two tickets? If someone has a Hull -Doncaster season ticket, why should they pay again to travel over a part of the route they have already paid for?

HHF, would the position be that if my train was late into Doncaster and I had Ainsworth's ticket I'd be alright, but if I was using a monthly season ticket I would have to buy a new ticket for the Doncaster - London segment? Is this a reasonable interpretation of the NCoC, and, if so, was this the intention of the rules?

If not, why is the position different with a SDS rather than a season?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

On the through ticket, the first RESERVED train is from Doncaster, but the first BOOKED train is from Hull. The '+Connections' bit means he doesn't have to take his connecting train if another can be shown, on a valid travel itinerary, to connect with the reserved train of the TOC displayed on the ticket.

In short terms, yes, on a through ticket you'd be fine (you should get the ticket endorsed though).

If the Hull-Doncaster part was a season (or a walk-up fare) and you missed the train from Doncaster (which would then be the first booked train), you would have to buy a new ticket as you did not arrive at your origin station (as printed on your ticket) in good time and missed the first booked train.

I believe it is a reasonable condition of the ticket and, as a consequence, the NCoC(because it is a condition you agreed to when you bought the ticket), I cannot say if it is the intention though, as I did not write it.

 

[Greenback]

Your argument is consistent! But it does seem to rely on using the term 'booked' in a rather different way from it;s usual meaning when discussing these topics, as you have used it in post #41. What context, if any, is the term ' booked train' used in the NCoC?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I don't believe the term is used in the NCoC, only the conditions of the ticket, although at this moment in time I do not have access to a copy of the NCoC to check.

My use of the term 'booked' refers directly to the conditions of the Advance ticket. Unless routed '+Connections', you must only use the booked services, this means non-reserveable services are still booked services, even if they cannot be proven as such. If it exists, a good example would be Looe to London 'rte FGW only' (I suspect it is actually 'rte FGW+Connections'), Looe to Par non-reserveable, Par to Paddington reserved, but both booked because otherwise you cannot use it to get to Par to board the reserved service to London.

 

[yorkie]

I think the condition about being on the first booked train is clearly not an issue when you are delayed. It is pretty obvious that if you are delayed you can complete your journey, and I am pleased that the conditions do state you can complete your journey. If anyone interprets that in a way that is anti-passenger, then they are risking a lot of bad publicity. The media had a go at EC over not allowing a passenger to finish short, and I can bet you the media will have a go at any TOC who attempts to blame a passenger for a delay on a train and refuses to honour the journey. I do hope that HHF doesn't have this policy in a real situation, otherwise his Customer Relations department will have a PR disaster on their hands.

 

[paul1609]

I don't believe the term is used in the NCoC, only the conditions of the ticket, although at this moment in time I do not have access to a copy of the NCoC to check.

My use of the term 'booked' refers directly to the conditions of the Advance ticket. Unless routed '+Connections', you must only use the booked services, this means non-reserveable services are still booked services, even if they cannot be proven as such. If it exists, a good example would be Looe to London 'rte FGW only' (I suspect it is actually 'rte FGW+Connections'), Looe to Par non-reserveable, Par to Paddington reserved, but both booked because otherwise you cannot use it to get to Par to board the reserved service to London.

Can you get a Looe to London ticket via Par?
Its about 15 miles in the wrong direction.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Can you get a Looe to London ticket via Par?
Its about 15 miles in the wrong direction.

Oooops, Par is for the Newquay branch isn't it, silly me, I meant Liskeard, not Par. My bad.

I think the condition about being on the first booked train is clearly not an issue when you are delayed. It is pretty obvious that if you are delayed you can complete your journey, and I am pleased that the conditions do state you can complete your journey....

How can the condition about the first booked train clearly not be an issue? If it is a condition of the ticket, it is an issue. It is pretty obvious you were not at the origin station (as printed on your ticket) in good time and missed the first booked train (the reason is not important), yet you choose to ignore that, one condition can't "trump" another remember.

....If anyone interprets that in a way that is anti-passenger, then they are risking a lot of bad publicity. The media had a go at EC over not allowing a passenger to finish short, and I can bet you the media will have a go at any TOC who attempts to blame a passenger for a delay on a train and refuses to honour the journey. I do hope that HHF doesn't have this policy in a real situation, otherwise his Customer Relations department will have a PR disaster on their hands.

Ah, when all else fails, rely on the media, customer is always right, etc, etc. Note how SWT did not back down in the face of the media for a breach of contract on the part of the customer, a near identical example to that of EC.

Is your arguement now based on what popular opinion is and how everyone reacts to it, rather than the conditions that apply to the ticket which are agreed upon when the ticket is sold?

 

[yorkie]

How can the condition about the first booked train clearly not be an issue? If it is a condition of the ticket, it is an issue.

So is "If you are delayed while travelling, you may complete your journey"

It is pretty obvious you were not at the origin station (as printed on your ticket) in good time and missed the first booked train (the reason is not important), yet you choose to ignore that, one condition can't "trump" another remember.

I'd love to see that in court "The customer chose to ignore the condition by not being at the station, due to the railway delaying their train. As a result of this delay we caused them, we demanded a new £200 ticket, but the customer refused, we are therefore prosecuting the customer for evasion of their fare"

Yeah, dream on!

Ah, when all else fails, rely on the media, customer is always right, etc, etc.

Go on, try it! See what management say when they have a PR disaster on their hands because you interpreted the NCoC in a way that is absurd and provocative toward all genuine customers.

Note how SWT did not back down in the face of the media for a breach of contract on the part of the customer, a near identical example to that of EC.

Correction: The customer backed down and paid up!

Is your arguement now based on what popular opinion is and how everyone reacts to it, rather than the conditions that apply to the ticket which are agreed upon when the ticket is sold?

Well I've already stated it is a condition of the ticket that you may complete your journey, however unreasonable conditions cannot be enforced. It is the policy of TOCs such as East Coast to not charge people in certain cases of breaching conditions that are not enforceable and that they know would result in the TOC being ridiculed in the media.

It was EC policy not to charge the Prof. I know some people don't like that, but they have to get over it!

As for SWT, that was on a Megatrain ticket, and the company is less likely to be worried about PR being owned by Stagecoach (look up Brian Souter's reputation) and being a London & South East area commuter TOC, and the customers paid up.

 

[blacknight]

Well I've already stated it is a condition of the ticket that you may complete your journey, however unreasonable conditions cannot be enforced. It is the policy of TOCs such as East Coast to not charge people in certain cases of breaching conditions that are not enforceable and that they know would result in the TOC being ridiculed in the media.

It was EC policy not to charge the Prof. I know some people don't like that, but they have to get over it!.

There as been no change in EC policy following the case of proffessor, they made a one off exception on grounds of a "genuine mistake" whatever one of those is?.
All T&Cs still apply as regards AP tickets on East Coast at present.

 

[Greenback]

EC will never publicly admit that they have a policy of backing down. It isn't in their interests because at the moment staff can ching every traveller they see and if the behaviour is challenged, EC will relent. Many people won't bother to challenge EC, either through the media or otherwise, and will simply pay up, especially if the sum involved is relatively small.

Using the term 'genuine mistake' is a ploy by the TOC so that they do not have to publicly conced that they have a policy of backing down from trying to enforce unreasonable and unenforceable restrictions! Yorkie has provided examples of EC backing down previously so I don't really see how this occasion can be a one off!

 

[blacknight]

I emailed ATOC because I witnessed Merseyrail refuse to provide onward transport after a 40 min delay to one of their services.

A group of passengers held a Southport-Liverpool SDS and a Liverpool-London Advance (for the last train). They would have arrived on time (with 40 mins to spare) had the Merseyrail train not broken down. As a result of that delay, they missed the last train to London, (and any connections anywhere remotely that way), Merseyrail said that because it wasn't a through ticket, (and the delay was under an hour), they were not responsible and told them they couldn't provide taxis/hotels etc... as a result, they were stuck in Liverpool overnight and they claimed they had no other money etc.

Obviously I disagreed with that decision and asked management to reconsider but was basically told I was incorrect so I emailed ATOC with a general query trying to get an 'official' response.

I was under the opinion that Condition 19 and 43 protected these passengers.

Split ticketing is a bit like getting Third Party Fire & Theft cover on your car, yes you are insured but not fully covered in all circumstances.
Yes you would be authorised to travel on next service but the next service might be the following morning.
Amazing how many people travel these days without any cash or cards & exactly what defines a stranded passenger & those who should have to self fund either taxi or overnight hotel.
If you buy a through ticket it may cost more than a split ticket but then Fully Comp insurance costs more than Third Party insurance but least you know you are covered in all instances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Using the term 'genuine mistake' is a ploy by the TOC so that they do not have to publicly conced that they have a policy of backing down from trying to enforce unreasonable and unenforceable restrictions! Yorkie has provided examples of EC backing down previously so I don't really see how this occasion can be a one off!

I think what is of interest in case of East Coast & the proffessor is when ticket are purchased by companies for their employees, then who is responsible for reading of T&Cs & passing that information on to passenger. Should East Coast & other TOC's now have to issue a 28 page guide to T&C applicabe to AP tickets to prevent such genuine mistakes happening in the future.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, that's something I have raised previously in regard to the Prof. As the tickets were bought by the University, there was no reason for him to have known the T&C's. And if they were passed on to him, I would guess it would be limited to 'you must catch the trains shown on your ticket'.

To most people, however, and the media, it is unreasonable and ridiculous to charge someone a large amount of money for getting off a train early. This is why it is EC's unspoken policy to give in.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So is "If you are delayed while travelling, you may complete your journey"....

So you agree that both are conditions of an Advance ticket? Now we are getting somewhere....

....I'd love to see that in court "The customer chose to ignore the condition by not being at the station, due to the railway delaying their train. As a result of this delay we caused them, we demanded a new £200 ticket, but the customer refused, we are therefore prosecuting the customer for evasion of their fare"

Yeah, dream on!

Go on, try it! See what management say when they have a PR disaster on their hands because you interpreted the NCoC in a way that is absurd and provocative toward all genuine customers....

....Oh dear, that didn't last long!

I don't think I am interpreting the NCoC or the conditions of the ticket in an absurd or provocative way, just saying it as it is.

....Correction: The customer backed down and paid up!....

The passengers in the SWT case agreed to pay what they had to pay under the conditions of the ticket, the NCoC and the Penalty Fares scheme, before getting in contact with the media.

The fact they didn't pursue it into court could be evidence of backing down, but then you have to wonder why they wouldn't pursue it if it is as clear cut as you insist. I'm sure there are lawyers and such, who would jump at the chance of easy money.

....Well I've already stated it is a condition of the ticket that you may complete your journey, however unreasonable conditions cannot be enforced....

What is unreasonable about requiring a passenger to be at the station in time for the train they agreed to use? What is unreasonable about charging them for using another service that is not part of the agreement?

 

[jon0844]

The industry ought to start saying that they only sell point-to-point tickets (like Ryanair) if they want to go down the route of not having any responsibility for knock-on effects of delays with people having bought separate tickets.

There's nothing to stop them doing that, but they should make it very clear. Perhaps they should offer an extra surcharge for insurance, say £1 per journey, to cover you missing your next train, or being forced to sleep in the station (or more likely, kicked out onto the street when it closes).

Do we want the railway industry to go the way of the low-cost airlines? I thought we had a system where people bought tickets and, as long as they complied with the minimum connection times, would be protected.

 

[blacknight]

The industry ought to start saying that they only sell point-to-point tickets (like Ryanair) if they want to go down the route of not having any responsibility for knock-on effects of delays with people having bought separate tickets.

In general they already do go to a ticket office to buy a tiket & they will sell a through ticket unless the passenger specifically asks for a split ticket option. If passenger makes choice to make a split ticket journey they have to take personal responsibility for their own action if something goes amiss
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the condition about being on the first booked train is clearly not an issue when you are delayed. It is pretty obvious that if you are delayed you can complete your journey, and I am pleased that the conditions do state you can complete your journey. If anyone interprets that in a way that is anti-passenger, then they are risking a lot of bad publicity. The media had a go at EC over not allowing a passenger to finish short, and I can bet you the media will have a go at any TOC who attempts to blame a passenger for a delay on a train and refuses to honour the journey. I do hope that HHF doesn't have this policy in a real situation, otherwise his Customer Relations department will have a PR disaster on their hands.

OP was about missing last train of the night & being "stranded" on split ticket & while you might be able to use next service this may involve a night on bench seat outside the station as next service could be next day.

 

[cuccir]

Split ticketing is a bit like getting Third Party Fire & Theft cover on your car, yes you are insured but not fully covered in all circumstances.
Yes you would be authorised to travel on next service but the next service might be the following morning.
Amazing how many people travel these days without any cash or cards & exactly what defines a stranded passenger & those who should have to self fund either taxi or overnight hotel.
If you buy a through ticket it may cost more than a split ticket but then Fully Comp insurance costs more than Third Party insurance but least you know you are covered in all instances.

But it doesn't say that anywhere in the condition of the NCoC regarding split tickets. If it did (and I think the comments above about ATOC reading this thread might mean that they will soon say this!) then there wouldn't be an issue. But as things stand, how is someone reading that condition meant to deduce that they have these reduced rights?

 

[Greenback]

What is unreasonable about requiring a passenger to be at the station in time for the train they agreed to use? What is unreasonable about charging them for using another service that is not part of the agreement?

It is not unreasonable, except when a passenger is using another rail service to get there. Putting the question another way, is it reasonable that I, as a season ticket holder, should have to buy another, full price ticket, if my service is cancelled or delayed?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Thats not the same thing though is it, there is no comparison. The issue here is quite specific to Advance fares.

 

[Greenback]

It is exactly the same thing if I am using my season to reach the first station as shown on my advance ticket.

As an annual holder, I can buy an advance ticket from Llanelli, and pay again for the section to Swansea which is covered by my season, or I can buy an advance from Swansea. I tend to do the latter from principle, it doesn;t actaully save more than 50p niormally, but for other people with longer distance seasons there might be more of a difference!

So, if I want to catch an ATW train on a day off from work that is delayed by 25 mins due to frozen points at Carmarthen, thus missing my 20 minute connection in Swansea, by your interpretation of the rules I have msised my first train and therefore need to buy a new ticket, whcih would be full fare (ie not at advance prices!). Is this reasonable?

Sorry if my previous post was badly worded!