If your train is cancelled, do you have to get the next one from your booked TOC?

[bhi156]

I'm travelling down the WCML from Euston tomorrow on a late train with LNR, though not their last train. My ticket is an LNR off-peak return. I have 10 minutes between getting off the train and getting my bus home, and that's the last bus home. If my LNR train is delayed (while I'm at Euston) or cancelled, do you think I could get the next Avanti train up, which would get me to the station in time for the bus? I suspect that it would probably be okay in terms of a cancellation, but more difficult for a delay.

I was travelling from Birmingham to Cardiff via Cheltenham, my journey being BHM-CNM XC, CNM-CDF TfW, and my XC was so delayed I missed my connection. Even though I had an advance ticket, GWR had no problem with me hitching a ride down to Gloucester and then to Cardiff. But I guess that's a different scenario entirely.

 

[Waverley125]

Similar question - have a trained booked KGX-LDS on 31/08 but it's cancelled due to strikes. Can I just go over the road to STP and travel via Sheffield?

 

[Watershed]

Since you wouldn't be stranded (as there is a later LNR train that your ticket is valid on), Avanti wouldn't be under an obligation to assist you. No harm in asking but in my experience the Avanti staff are very unlikely to agree, their Euston staff are notorious for being passenger unfriendly and refusing to help even when obliged to help!

LNR would be obliged to re-route you at the earliest opportunity under the PRO (which could mean arranging ticket acceptance on Avanti, or issuing you a new Any Permitted ticket for free) if the delay by sticking with them would be 61+ minutes. However that's also unlikely to apply, as their trains are roughly every 30 mins.

The Delay Repay you'd get for sticking with LNR might pay for the cost of a taxi, I guess? Otherwise you could get a refund on your LNR ticket (50% if you just want a refund on half of your return ticket) and buy a new Off-Peak Single with Avanti, which wouldn't be completely extortionate.

Similar question - have a trained booked KGX-LDS on 31/08 but it's cancelled due to strikes. Can I just go over the road to STP and travel via Sheffield?

It depends on your ticket. If it's routed "LNER only" then the above provisions apply - EMR are only obliged to assist you if you'd be stranded.

If it's routed "Any Permitted" then it'll be a walk-up ticket valid on EMR anyway.

If it's routed "LNER & Connections" then there is no TOC restriction and so EMR should be letting you travel with them, if it will get you there sooner than the next LNER train. But there's a good chance they'll wrongly reject your ticket.

LNER may have some form of ticket acceptance in place (either general, or specifically for your train) so it's worthwhile checking with them on social media or on their website.

 

[FaresGuru22]

If it's routed "LNER & Connections" then there is no TOC restriction and so EMR should be letting you travel with them, if it will get you there sooner than the next LNER train. But there's a good chance they'll wrongly reject your ticket.

LNER & Connections -> Only valid on booked London North Eastern Railway services and required connecting services. If there are cancellations and you need alternative services, you must at least travel with LNER for some part of the journey.

 

[Hadders]

LNER & Connections -> Only valid on booked London North Eastern Railway services and required connecting services. If there are cancellations and you need alternative services, you must at least travel with LNER for some part of the journey.

Not necessarily.

If the delay is going to be longer than 60 minutes then the OP can ask LNER to re-route them under the PRO. This might involve telling the OP to travel with EMR from St Pancras.

Also, in the event of the OP being stranded then NRCOT condition 28.2 requires any train company who is in a position to assist to do so.

 

[FaresGuru22]

Not necessarily.

If the delay is going to be longer than 60 minutes then the OP can ask LNER to re-route them under the PRO. This might involve telling the OP to travel with EMR from St Pancras.

Also, in the event of the OP being stranded then NRCOT condition 28.2 requires any train company who is in a position to assist to do so.

Yes, this applies to both 'TOC Only' tickets and 'TOC & Connections' tickets. Not sure why there was a suggestion there is no TOC restriction as there certainly is, and EMR would correctly reject unless the above applies and/or TA has been agreed.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Not necessarily.

If the delay is going to be longer than 60 minutes then the OP can ask LNER to re-route them under the PRO. This might involve telling the OP to travel with EMR from St Pancras.

Also, in the event of the OP being stranded then NRCOT condition 28.2 requires any train company who is in a position to assist to do so.

But that assistance does not necessarily equate to ticket acceptance or conveying by an alternative operator. It may or may not.

Another TOC could assist by simply facilitating communication out of hours between the customer and the responsible TOC, e.g. allowing a customer to use an internal telephone to contact the control room of the other operator.

 

[Watershed]

Yes, this applies to both 'TOC Only' tickets and 'TOC & Connections' tickets. Not sure why there was a suggestion there is no TOC restriction as there certainly is, and EMR would correctly reject unless the above applies and/or TA has been agreed.

There is nothing that prevents the ticket from being valid on EMR as there is no "LNER only" restriction.

EMR's services would in any event only be used for part of the journey, i.e. a "connection", as far as Sheffield. For all they know, you could using LNER from Wakefield to Leeds!

If they wrongly rejected the Advance then you would be entitled to claim back any additional ticket you were wrongly charged for.

But that assistance does not necessarily equate to ticket acceptance or conveying by an alternative operator. It may or may not.

Another TOC could assist by simply facilitating communication out of hours between the customer and the responsible TOC, e.g. allowing a customer to use an internal telephone to contact the control room of the other operator.

We have corrected your misunderstanding of NRCoT 28.2 several times, so I'm unsure why you continue to repeat myths about it. What you've said has absolutely no basis on what the NRCoT wording actually says, nor does it fit any reasonable (let alone purposive) interpretation, which a Court would use in the event of a dispute.

It is obvious that merely enabling you to communicate with your original booked operator is so pointless that it may as well not constitute assistance at all. The clause is there to require other operators to either get you to your destination themselves or using alternative transport, or provide you with overnight accommodation, where they are in a position to do so. That would be made out by, for example, being the station facilities operator or having staff at a given station.

 

[FaresGuru22]

There is nothing that prevents the ticket from being valid on EMR as there is no "LNER only" restriction.

EMR's services would in any event only be used for part of the journey, i.e. a "connection", as far as Sheffield. For all they know, you could using LNER from Wakefield to Leeds!

If they wrongly rejected the Advance then you would be entitled to claim back any additional ticket you were wrongly charged for.

Can you confirm which piece(s) of fares data you're using to back up the claim that a KGX-LDS LNER & Cons ticket is valid with EMR STP-SHF please?

 

[Watershed]

Can you confirm which piece(s) of fares data you're using to back up the claim that a KGX-LDS LNER & Cons ticket is valid with EMR STP-SHF please?

Again, you are viewing this from the railway's operationally-led mindset rather than the consumer's perspective (let alone the legal position).

What's in the fares data is irrelevant as far as the customer is concerned; it's not communicated to them at all when buying a ticket. Its only use is in determining what journey planners can sell.

There is nothing public-facing that tells holders of such an Advance that their ticket is restricted such that it must include a leg on LNER in the event of disruption. That's all that matters, and accordingly the railway cannot lawfully prevent a customer from taking the fastest available alternative routing.

It's pathetic that the railway would rather argue the toss over internal revenue distribution - and in so doing increase its delay liability and further tarnish its deservedly awful reputation - rather than doing the right thing morally and legally by getting the customer to their destination ASAP.

 

[OscarH]

Can you confirm which piece(s) of fares data you're using to back up the claim that a KGX-LDS LNER & Cons ticket is valid with EMR STP-SHF please?

I don't want to drag this off topic, I'm generally of the same view as Watershed, that the railway should apply common sense and aim to get passengers back on track.

But in terms of what blocks this for the general public, the Wellingborough route exclusion is obviously not public and unenforceable. Is the "cannot start with a walk" restriction in the public routeing guide anywhere? Ctrl+F walk didn't find anything.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Again, you are viewing this from the railway's operationally-led mindset rather than the consumer's perspective (let alone the legal position).

What's in the fares data is irrelevant as far as the customer is concerned; it's not communicated to them at all when buying a ticket. Its only use is in determining what journey planners can sell.

There is nothing public-facing that tells holders of such an Advance that their ticket is restricted such that it must include a leg on LNER in the event of disruption. That's all that matters, and accordingly the railway cannot lawfully prevent a customer from taking the fastest available alternative routing.

It's pathetic that the railway would rather argue the toss over internal revenue distribution - and in so doing increase its delay liability and further tarnish its deservedly awful reputation - rather than doing the right thing morally and legally by getting the customer to their destination ASAP.

You honestly think that the general public will think not catching a LNER train with a ticket that says LNER & Connections is fine?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You honestly think that the general public will think not catching a LNER train with a ticket that says LNER & Connections is fine?

I think most people will think that if their train is cancelled they should be able to get the next train of any TOC, though going to another terminal might not enter their mind. Particularly as the "route" field is not normally printed on Advances.

 

[Watershed]

I think most people will think that if their train is cancelled they should be able to get the next train of any TOC, though going to another terminal might not enter their mind. Particularly as the "route" field is not normally printed on Advances.

Indeed, though Kings Cross and St Pancras are so close that it seems eminently reasonable to consider going from the adjacent station in the event of disruption. The walk from the high-numbered Kings Cross platforms to the EMR platforms can't be much further than to platform 0!

As you say, for a long time LNER's TVMs would print Advances without any real TOC/route information at all, they would usually just say "Valid on booked trains and required connections" or similar.

 

[miklcct]

I think most people will think that if their train is cancelled they should be able to get the next train of any TOC, though going to another terminal might not enter their mind. Particularly as the "route" field is not normally printed on Advances.

On most of my Advance tickets the route field is printed, with the name of the TOC as well (for example, specified LNER trains & connections, or South Western Railway only)

 

[All Line Rover]

There is nothing that prevents the ticket from being valid on EMR as there is no "LNER only" restriction.

Are you sure this complies with condition 4.4 of the Advance Tickets Terms and Conditions?

 

[Adam Williams]

Are you sure this complies with condition 4.4 of the Advance Tickets Terms and Conditions?

If this condition was to be read literally and in isolation, then it would literally be impossible to travel after disruption made the original itinerary unviable.

 

[FaresGuru22]

Again, you are viewing this from the railway's operationally-led mindset rather than the consumer's perspective (let alone the legal position).

What's in the fares data is irrelevant as far as the customer is concerned; it's not communicated to them at all when buying a ticket. Its only use is in determining what journey planners can sell.

There is nothing public-facing that tells holders of such an Advance that their ticket is restricted such that it must include a leg on LNER in the event of disruption. That's all that matters, and accordingly the railway cannot lawfully prevent a customer from taking the fastest available alternative routing.

It's pathetic that the railway would rather argue the toss over internal revenue distribution - and in so doing increase its delay liability and further tarnish its deservedly awful reputation - rather than doing the right thing morally and legally by getting the customer to their destination ASAP.

I really don't disagree with you. I would much rather the customer be given a more appropriate alternative option in the event of disruption. However, that's not where industry is at. So for the time being, the route/operator conditions apply at point of purchase and continue to apply during disruption until 'restrictions are lifted' or more correctly 'ticket acceptance is in place'. The NRCoT sadly doesn't confirm anything on this point. The only text to rely on are the advance ticket T&Cs, which aren't as clear as they should be, but I believe are sufficient enough to satisfy my point in a court of law; i.e. if you can only change your ticket prior to travel to another journey that satisfies the route/operator conditions, why would you suddenly drop this condition under disruption.

NB. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me to state my interpretation of the rules without analysing my viewpoint (which I had not actually expressed up to now) and suggesting I am against consumers.

I don't want to drag this off topic, I'm generally of the same view as Watershed, that the railway should apply common sense and aim to get passengers back on track.

But in terms of what blocks this for the general public, the Wellingborough route exclusion is obviously not public and unenforceable. Is the "cannot start with a walk" restriction in the public routeing guide anywhere? Ctrl+F walk didn't find anything.

Funnily enough, it's not actually the route data that controls included and excluded TOCs in many cases. Not common knowledge but you cannot have both mandatory operators and excluded operators inside a route as some retailers are not interpreting the data correctly. You may be able to present a route that does have this, and if you do I'd also be able to demonstrate where it is not working as intended. To avoid going too far off topic, I'll just note that the products can control this aspect too, and you may find that products attached to a route where a mandatory operator is not defined (despite the route description suggesting one should be) will have a condition attached to enforce a mandatory operator. An exclusion of Wellingborough as an example is just an extra safety net in journey planners.

I think most people will think that if their train is cancelled they should be able to get the next train of any TOC, though going to another terminal might not enter their mind. Particularly as the "route" field is not normally printed on Advances.

The route field absolutely is printed on most Advance tickets, eTicket, CCST, PRT, etc., different lengths though!

 

[OscarH]

Funnily enough, it's not actually the route data that controls included and excluded TOCs in many cases. Not common knowledge but you cannot have both mandatory operators and excluded operators inside a route as some retailers are not interpreting the data correctly. You may be able to present a route that does have this, and if you do I'd also be able to demonstrate where it is not working as intended. To avoid going too far off topic, I'll just note that the products can control this aspect too, and you may find that products attached to a route where a mandatory operator is not defined (despite the route description suggesting one should be) will have a condition attached to enforce a mandatory operator. An exclusion of Wellingborough as an example is just an extra safety net in journey planners.

Interesting about some retailers not handling the routes correctly - there are many many ambiguous cases in the data (which I wouldn't call incorrect when it's an ambiguous spec), but that one seems fairly obvious.

Yeah, I know about the fares data TOC restrictions, I picked a random LNER&conns advance ticket code for Kings Cross to Leeds, and checked. As it was main TOC GR, any connecting TOC, and wouldn't itself restrict EMR up the MML on EMR, with an LNER leg Wakefield - Leeds, I didn't mention it.

 

[FaresGuru22]

Yeah, I know about the fares data TOC restrictions, I picked a random LNER&conns advance ticket code for Kings Cross to Leeds, and checked. As it was main TOC GR, any connecting TOC, and wouldn't itself restrict EMR up the MML on EMR, with an LNER leg Wakefield - Leeds, I didn't mention it.

Great! So we're all aligned that when the route states TOC & Connections, then said TOC must be part of the journey. Contrary to a view shared above.

I won't enter the next realm of 'main leg' of a journey in terms of the data, what is published to customers and the potential for disruption. But we all know that if you use a TOC & Connections advance ticket booked to travel 90% with operator 1 and 10% with operator 2 to actually travel 10% with operator 1 and 90% with operator 2, you're going to be correctly challenged. And if disruption comms do not suggest ticket acceptance is in place, oh dear. Disruption doesn't immediately change the validity of tickets, it's clear enough that the ticket is sold at that price to be used on said TOC and permits the use of connecting services of other TOCs too. Though I agree that T&Cs do not state this explicitly and those in the know will do their best to argue this point of 'well it doesn't specifically say we can't, so we will'. Loopholesville is fun, eh.

 

[redreni]

Loopholesville is fun, eh.

I agree with you about one thing: there is absolutely no need for @Watershed or anybody else to put about the idea that you are anti-passenger. You seem to have that under control yourself.

If the rail industry had earned itself a reputation for interpreting rules purposively and reasonably flexibly, then I might agree passengers might be thought to be under some kind of moral obligation not to buy or use tickets in ways that they might reasonably be expected to know are unintended.

As it is, however, the rail industry has not earned any such reputation and there is no such obligation on passengers. And while one must reluctantly accept that where an advance ticket has both a booked train only restriction and a TOC restriction, the TOC restriction applies during disruption until and unless somebody waives it, extending that to 'TOC & connections' tickets on the basis of what you think TOCs intend is frankly absurd.

How would any of us know what TOCs intend? I'm sure you wouldn't? We can only go by the restrictions made available to the passenger when they buy their ticket.

 

[FaresGuru22]

Following and applying the rules isn't anti passenger. Setting anti passenger rules is anti passenger. And gladly, I do not set the rules. Happy to share my personal view but no point given that spelling out the rules already makes me anti passenger in the view of those not happy with the rules.

 

[OscarH]

Great! So we're all aligned that when the route states TOC & Connections, then said TOC must be part of the journey. Contrary to a view shared above.

I won't enter the next realm of 'main leg' of a journey in terms of the data, what is published to customers and the potential for disruption. But we all know that if you use a TOC & Connections advance ticket booked to travel 90% with operator 1 and 10% with operator 2 to actually travel 10% with operator 1 and 90% with operator 2, you're going to be correctly challenged. And if disruption comms do not suggest ticket acceptance is in place, oh dear. Disruption doesn't immediately change the validity of tickets, it's clear enough that the ticket is sold at that price to be used on said TOC and permits the use of connecting services of other TOCs too. Though I agree that T&Cs do not state this explicitly and those in the know will do their best to argue this point of 'well it doesn't specifically say we can't, so we will'. Loopholesville is fun, eh.

The person above had also suggested Wakefield to Leeds on LNER to be fair to them.

Yes the meaning of main TOC from a data perspective is certainly good fun at times

 

[miklcct]

Great! So we're all aligned that when the route states TOC & Connections, then said TOC must be part of the journey. Contrary to a view shared above.

I won't enter the next realm of 'main leg' of a journey in terms of the data, what is published to customers and the potential for disruption. But we all know that if you use a TOC & Connections advance ticket booked to travel 90% with operator 1 and 10% with operator 2 to actually travel 10% with operator 1 and 90% with operator 2, you're going to be correctly challenged. And if disruption comms do not suggest ticket acceptance is in place, oh dear. Disruption doesn't immediately change the validity of tickets, it's clear enough that the ticket is sold at that price to be used on said TOC and permits the use of connecting services of other TOCs too. Though I agree that T&Cs do not state this explicitly and those in the know will do their best to argue this point of 'well it doesn't specifically say we can't, so we will'. Loopholesville is fun, eh.

The person above had also suggested Wakefield to Leeds on LNER to be fair to them.

Yes the meaning of main TOC from a data perspective is certainly good fun at times

It is also possible to book a Greater Anglia & connections Advance ticket with the majority of the journey on a booked Great Northern train between Ely and London, with the remainder being a unreservable Greater Anglia local service to a station served by only Greater Anglia and EMR, which is not printed on the ticket.

What if I travel on an EMR service instead of the Greater Anglia service to "connect" to the booked Great Northern service when there is disruption? Is it going to be allowed? What if the ECML is also disrupted and I travel on Greater Anglia to London instead?

 

[Starmill]

Loopholesville is fun, eh.

Can you clarify your intentions with these comments? I'm lost, because I don't see how the posts above are discussing a loophole. A loophole is usually defined as an error in a rule which allows its purpose to be circumvented. You can't circumvent anything by buying a ticket and guessing the train will be cancelled, and then getting that random guess correct. I'd also question why you seem to be so very angry about a really small point? The law tips the balance in consumer contracts so they favour the consumer, unlike say a contract between two limited companies. This is a really uncontroversial principle that's been set economy-wide for many years so I'm not sure it's worth your energy battling against the principle like this?

 

[devondonkeu]

I hope the OP got home OK as the whole thread lost track of his plight