My friend, you are the one with simply incorrect information. The timetable changes are due to industrial action, as such, the procedures RE compensation etc which apply during strikes, apply in this instance.
And your source for this is...?
Some train companies may
pretend that an industrial dispute gets them out of all of their obligations, but this is nothing more than a bare assertion with no legal basis. As the saying goes, don't take legal advice from your opponent! Their obligations are exactly the same as if the train were cancelled for any other reason.
For example, NRCoT 28.2 (as referenced earlier) provides:
Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.
Which part of that paragraph are you suggesting exempts train companies from this obligation?
Article 16(b) of the PRO provides:
Where it is reasonably to be expected that the delay in the arrival at the final destination under the transport contract will be more than 60 minutes, the passenger shall immediately have the choice between:
...
(b) continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
Whilst Article 18(3) provides:
If the railway service cannot be continued anymore, railway undertakings shall organise as soon as possible alternative transport services for passengers.
Again, where are you seeing an exemption from this obligation? To the contrary, the
European Court of Justice has held that the PRO's obligations stand even in the case of 'force majeure' circumstances. ScotRail's self-imposed industrial dispute is, in any event, far from constituting 'force majeure', not that this particularly matters.
And as a matter of contract law,
@diy_dude has a contract to travel from York to Dundee by means of their Advance ticket. ScotRail have no right to unilaterally terminate the contract; any clause that
purported to allow them to do this (not that one exists) would likely fall foul of consumer law.
With respect, I would suggest that you avoid making definitive statements such as this unless you are absolutely sure of what you are saying, and have the necessary sources to back it up. It is not helpful to
@diy_dude to be given incorrect information on their rights.