Delay repay with GWR

[tivoli]

Today my granddaughter travelling from London Paddington to Teignmouth was on a train late into Exeter and missed her connection. The planned connection time was 8 mins, in practice the train from Exmouth was also running late so the connection time was actually 5 mins. It was not enough time for her to orient herself and get to the connecting train. Is this delay a basis for a claim?

 

[_toommm_]

Absolutely - assuming you connected at Exeter St. David's, the minimum connection time is 6 minutes, so if you did indeed have 8 minutes connection time then you're well within your rights to claim delay repay.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yes: it looks as if you are meant to allow six minutes for a connection at Exeter St David's, so the journey as booked was valid. The journey as it actually happened didn't leave enough time for your granddaughter to make her connection so (assuming that the next train to Exmouth got her there more than 15 minutes after the booked time) she can claim.

 

[tivoli]

Thank you for the fast replies. I had in mind that 5 minutes was the allowed connection time, so thought it might be borderline, thanks again for the guidance.

 

[najaB]

Thank you for the fast replies. I had in mind that 5 minutes was the allowed connection time, so thought it might be borderline, thanks again for the guidance.

Even if was five minutes what matters is the planned connection time, not what actually happened on the day due to late running trains.

 

[tivoli]

For the record, GWR have declined claim stating 5/6 minutes as connection time. I have appealed based on the planned connection time of 8 minutes. We shall see.

 

[najaB]

For the record, GWR have declined claim stating 5/6 minutes as connection time. I have appealed based on the planned connection time of 8 minutes. We shall see.

What trains did your daughter intend to catch?

 

[tivoli]

The booked train was 13.15 from Paddington, due EXD 1555, then connection to Teignmouth at 1603 due to arrive 1621.

Paddington train arrived EXD 1605, late running connection left at 1611, not enough time to find her way around an unfamiliar station and change platform.

 

[najaB]

The booked train was 13.15 from Paddington, due EXD 1555, then connection to Teignmouth at 1603 due to arrive 1621.

I make 1555 to 1603 an eight minute connection, eight being greater than six.

Assuming that this Sunday's timetable is the same as on the 4th, BRTimes.com agrees that it is a valid connection: http://www.brtimes.com/#!board?stn=EXD&date=20190818&con=1913&con_public=1910&con_toc=GW&back=#!train?uid=C26159&seg=0&date=20190818

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Paddington train arrived EXD 1605, late running connection left at 1611, not enough time to find her way around an unfamiliar station and change platform.

1605 to 1611 is six minutes - which is the minimum time for a connection at Exeter St David's. So it looks to me that the railway are right.

 

[BC]

But with the other train also delayed? Someones going to have to take extra time to go looking for a new train and will naturally go and ask for authorisation for a later train... is that reasonable?

 

[najaB]

1605 to 1611 is six minutes - which is the minimum time for a connection at Exeter St David's. So it looks to me that the railway are right.

The actual arrival time doesn't matter, it's the planned time that is used to determine if the connection is valid or not.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The actual arrival time doesn't matter, it's the planned time that is used to determine if the connection is valid or not.

Agreed that the connection is valid - but the passenger didn't make the connection, whether as booked (8 minutes - in excess of the 6 minutes required at Exeter St David's) or as actually happened (6 minutes - matches the required time). So who was at fault for the passenger missing the connection? I think it can be argued that it is not the railway. And delay repay is there to give compensation for the railway's failures.

 

[Starmill]

1605 to 1611 is six minutes

What is the relevance of this? At the time that they paid for their journey, the passenger agreed to make a journey with a connection time of eight minutes. If 'the railway' gives them less time and they can make it in less, great. If they cannot make it, and are delayed in their arrival at their destination by a qualifying period of time as a result, they are entitled to compensation. Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

And delay repay is there to give compensation for the railway's failures.

This seems to be something you have thought up, but even so, the train arrived late at Exeter St Davids. ​

 

[800002]

Is there a reasonable assumption that could have been made in this case that arriving so late the connecting service would have been missed. By the time it was established that the connecting train was also delayed (still on the platform at time of arrival, possibly being held*) it may have been just about to long to get there?

I notice though that the public arrival was 1555 with a working time arrival of 1556H giving a whole 30 seconds in addition of the stated 6 minute minimum interchange time. (I know, not really relevant, but worth noting).

* 2T22 (the OP's connecting service) arrived 2 late and departed 8 late, so was 6 minutes overtime at Exeter SD.

 

[najaB]

So who was at fault for the passenger missing the connection? I think it can be argued that it is not the railway.

As you may know, I'm not a fan of "but nobody told me" type defenses, but this is one situation where the railway should take it on the chin.

A "normal" person on finding their train arriving five minutes late isn't going to assume that the train on platform X is the delayed connection that they planned to get. Absent clear instructions from the guard on the arriving train they are likely to go looking for a departure boad, timetable, or booking office. So it's not hard to believe that the OP's daughter "wasted" the connection time just trying to figure out what was going on.

GWR would be better off giving her the benefit of the doubt and keeping a happy passenger rather than playing hardball.

 

[furlong]

Exeter can be one of those stations where you do need several minutes of connection time even if you know where you're going if you happen to get off at the wrong end of the train and the platform is crowded full of a train load of people queueing to make their way over the inadequate bridge at the other end.

 

[800002]

Exeter can be one of those stations where you do need several minutes of connection time even if you know where you're going if you happen to get off at the wrong end of the train and the platform is crowded full of a train load of people queueing to make their way over the inadequate bridge at the other end.

Have the connection times been reviewed in the light of the running of longer trains, I wonder?

 

[Starmill]

The attempted defence of 'there was enough time' by GWR is similar to the attempted defence that some companies are known to use 'there was another train that could have got you to your destination sooner'. On one memorable occasion when my train from Preston to Manchester Piccadilly was cancelled, there were two subsequent trains available, one via Chorley and one via Wigan North Western. Both were running late, and it was unclear to me which would arrive first. I asked the staff at Preston, but they just said there is no way to know which train will arrive in Manchester first - I am inclined to agree with them. I took the first to depart from Preston and hoped for the best, but this became further delayed en route, and the other service was the one that actually arrived first. I lodged my claim and it was rejected on the basis that I could theoretically have arrived only 29 minutes late by taking the second departure from Preston. I had actually arrived 41 minutes late. I argued the point and eventually the compensation was paid.

Theoretical delays are just that: theoretical. While the customer ought to ask for advice from railway staff wherever possible, and follow it, compensation should then be considered in line with their actual delay, not the best-case scenario.

 

[Brissle Girl]

What is the relevance of this? At the time that they paid for their journey, the passenger agreed to make a journey with a connection time of eight minutes. If 'the railway' gives them less time and they can make it in less, great. If they cannot make it, and are delayed in their arrival at their destination by a qualifying period of time as a result, they are entitled to compensation. Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

​

So are you suggesting that if the connection time was 25 minutes, and this was reduced to 20 by a late running train then compensation is due, as they expected 25 minutes. That wouldn't seem to make sense. Unless otherwise agreed (and you can request longer connection times when making a booking online, though I would agree it is a greyer area if a walk up fare is purchased), I would expect the position to be judged by the actual arrival and departure time of the trains concerned and a comparison with the allowed connection time for the station.

Most reasonable people would on arrival immediately go and check when the next train was if they arrived late and thought they had missed their connection. The departure list screens would still be showing the connecting service and that it was running late. (I'm not suggesting the traveller wasn't reasonable by the way, but using it to judge what is the fairest way to determine whether or not compensation is due.)

The unanswered question here is whether 6 minutes is enough at Exeter St Davids. It sounds like it wasn't in this instance, although that could just have easily been the case if the original train had been 2 mins late and the second one on time, when GWR would have been on more solid ground to reject the claim.​

 

[Starmill]

So are you suggesting that if the connection time was 25 minutes, and this was reduced to 20 by a late running train then compensation is due, as they expected 25 minutes.

No. I'm suggesting what I wrote:

If 'the railway' gives them less time and they can make it in less, great. If they cannot make it, and are delayed in their arrival at their destination by a qualifying period of time as a result, they are entitled to compensation.

a comparison with the allowed connection time for the station.

How is the minimum connection time relevant? The connection time that the passenger actually agreed to is what is relevant.

Most reasonable people would on arrival immediately go and check when the next train was if they arrived late and thought they had missed their connection.

It sounds to me like this is exactly what the OP's granddaughter did.​

​

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm familiar with St David's and think 6 minutes is adequate time for an able-bodied and able-minded person to find an information screen and look up their train. The railway sets the minimum time at 6 minutes, too.

How is the minimum connection time relevant? The connection time that the passenger actually agreed to is what is relevant.​

This is plainly not reasonable - if a passenger agrees to a 25 minute connection at Exeter St David's and it comes to 20 minutes because of a 5 minute delay, this does not warrant Delay Repay.

The only key here is whether the passenger had the minimum connection time, which is a time set by the railway to account for someone unfamiliar with a station to arrive at it, find where the next one is, and go to the correct platform.

If people are suggesting 6 minutes is too tight at Exeter St David's then that is a separate question, but from what I see, GWR have acted in accordance with the rules.

 

[Starmill]

This is plainly not reasonable - if a passenger agrees to a 25 minute connection at Exeter St David's and it comes to 20 minutes because of a 5 minute delay, this does not warrant Delay Repay.

It's exactly reasonable. For the third time:

If 'the railway' gives them less time and they can make it in less, great. If they cannot make it, and are delayed in their arrival at their destination by a qualifying period of time as a result, they are entitled to compensation.

Just because you could make a connection in a particular time, doesn't mean anyone could.

The only key here is whether the passenger had the minimum connection time

The minimum connection time isn't relevant, except perhaps in the minds of enthusiasts. It also isn't published if the customer books their ticket online or from a ticket machine and then checks NRE. The only way to even find it is to use a timetable leaflet - and sometimes they are missing, or contradictory, even from those.

which is a time set by the railway to account for someone unfamiliar with a station to arrive at it, find where the next one is, and go to the correct platform.

I think you've just made that up.

I thought people would already be aware of this, but for clarity:

And delay repay is there to give compensation for the railway's failures.

'Delay Repay' is compensation for inconvenience arising from delayed a arrival at one's destination regardless of the cause. A connection time which is simply unrealistic as a result of delays is one such cause. It is not just for inconvenience caused by railway industry. It's legitimate to question if that is appropriate or not (in a separate thread for that purpose), but that is what the scheme does.​

 

[AlterEgo]

It's exactly reasonable. For the third time:

Just because you could make a connection in a particular time, doesn't mean anyone could.

To repeat: The minimum connection time is a (somewhat conservative!) time that the railway considers is adequate for able bodied and able minded people to make a connection between trains at a station. This is the time at which the railway says "this is the tightest time we are confident to sell an itinerary for".

The minimum connection time isn't relevant, except perhaps in the minds of enthusiasts. It also isn't published if the customer books their ticket online or from a ticket machine and then checks NRE. The only way to even find it is to use a timetable leaflet - and sometimes they are missing, or contradictory, even from those.

But whether a minimum connection time is published or not is not relevant here. It isn't in the same way that Delay Repay does not need to be explicit that if you have an "agreed" 25 minute connection at EXD, have it shaved down to 20 by a late train, and magically bugger about for 19 minutes, then run like a devil and miss your connection, then you don't get your money.

I think you've just made that up.

It is very frustrating to be accused of making things up without citation or rebuttal, because it is your way of making me look insincere or false. I have not suggested you are making things up - I am merely taking you up on your points and rebutting them to the best of my ability, and would ask you do the same courtesy to me instead of just saying "you made it up".

In a former job I had, a colleague was responsible for cleansing our delay repay CRM and finding particular problem connections. I sat on a working group seeing what we could do about them (often, not much, but sometimes we got some wins!). The minimum connection times are really there for exactly the reason I stated, and are set to be on the conservative side for able bodied and able minded people who are not already oriented with the station, assuming they arrive at one extremity of the station and have to make a connection on the very furthest platform in the station away from that. They also are not set in stone. The minimum times for the "re-imagined" Birmingham New Street were lowered, for example - it's now 12 minutes, as opposed to 15. Liverpool South Parkway was more recently increased to 10 minutes from 7 minutes.

I thought people would already be aware of this, but for clarity:

'Delay Repay' is compensation for inconvenience arising from delayed a arrival at one's destination regardless of the cause.

Nope, it doesn't cover you if you leave your bag and it ends up in lost property and causes you a delay, or if you have a ticket mishap on the day and need to visit a ticket office to get it corrected, or get really confused by being on the railways for the first time and not know where to go.

Delay Repay doesn't cover you if you have a connection which is equal to or greater than the minimum connection time and still miss your connection, unless there are compelling extenuating circumstances, like being a victim of failed assistance (or even a slow, successful one), have any sort of disability which hampers your ability to adhere to the connection, or are misdirected by info screens or staff. None of these are suggested to have been in play here.

A connection time which is simply unrealistic as a result of delays is one such cause.

I don't consider 6 minutes unrealistic at EXD - you don't even need to go upstairs to see the summary board - and if you think it is then we are having a different discussion.

​

 

[Brissle Girl]

That would mean that as soon as your first train is one minute late you could claim that the time to change had been reduced from what you were expecting and thus you could claim compensation. Which would be absurd. Minimum connection times, as used in the journey planner, are there to advise the minimum time that someone needs, and is an entirely reasonable basis on which to judge whether compensation is due. Good luck trying to claim that your 25 minute connection was reduced to 20 minutes and thus you missed your train and was delayed. I'd like to see you argue that in the Small Claims Court.

 

[AlterEgo]

That would mean that as soon as your first train is one minute late you could claim that the time to change had been reduced from what you were expecting and thus you could claim compensation. Which would be absurd. Minimum connection times, as used in the journey planner, are there to advise the minimum time that someone needs, and is an entirely reasonable basis on which to judge whether compensation is due. Good luck trying to claim that your 25 minute connection was reduced to 20 minutes and thus you missed your train and was delayed. I'd like to see you argue that in the Small Claims Court.

You have put this more succinctly than I have - it's basically what I wanted to say.

 

[najaB]

It may well be that six minutes is enough time to make a connection, but unless I've missed something the OP's daughter arrived into Exeter after her booked train should have left.

So I refer to my earlier point: unless she had been told that the connecting train was running late it's not unreasonable to treat this as a missed connection.

 

[AlterEgo]

Edit - delete, misread the post.

 

[najaB]

As another poster correctly pointed out, the minimum connection time isn't advertised so it's not clear on what basis the passenger could feel they had missed their connection before they actually did.

Unless I've completely misunderstood something, the train they were intending to catch was due to depart at 1603, the train they were on arrived at 1605.

1605 is later than 1603.

 

[AlterEgo]

The train they were intending to catch was due to depart at 1603, the train they were on arrived at 1605.

1605 is later than 1603. There's your basis.

I assume the connecting train hadn't disappeared off the screens? If it had, then I agree DR should be payable.