London connection time query

[SamJMathis]

Hi all,

I’ve been looking at old forum posts which state that the minimum connection time between St Pancras and Euston is 35 mins.

Just for clarification, does this mean that if I bought a ticket to St Pancras and then another departing Euston, I would need to leave at least 35 mins between arrival at St Pancras and departure from Euston for my onward journey to still be honoured in the event of a delay/cancellation?

Thanks

 

[Watershed]

That's correct - this is known as the minimum connection time (MCT). For connections across London, you have allow the MCT for the station at each end (this is typically 15 minutes for the larger London stations, including St Pancras and Euston), plus the relevant duration for the cross-London 'fixed link'.

For St Pancras to Euston the fixed link (Tube) officially takes 5 minutes, provided the transfer begins between 07:00 and 19:00. That increases to as much as 15 minutes at other times of day and on weekends. Very early and late in the day, you are told to make your own way at your own cost, e.g. by bus, taxi, or simply walking or cycling - this is shown as "transfer" - as it's assumed the Tube doesn't run.

The rail industry data which dictates these durations and modes is only a very rough approximation of the Tube timetable, and in many cases the journey is actually faster and there are earlier first/later last Tube services than the data says. But you can only rely on connections that meet the MCT as calculated above. You can look up the MCT for any station, and the fixed links (including modes, applicable times and durations) it has to other stations, at the unofficial but incredibly useful resource that is BR Times.

If you miss your onward connection due to a delay arriving into London or on the Tube, you would be entitled to take the next train that complies with any restrictions shown on your ticket (e.g. "Avanti only"). You can also claim Delay Repay if you're sufficiently delayed - most operators have a 15 minute threshold before you can claim.

 

[SamJMathis]

Ah I see, that BR Times tool looks very useful indeed.

Thank you very much for the in-depth response. Really helpful

 

[paul1609]

If you hold one ticket to St Pancras and another from Euston it is a grey area as to whether that is considered a continuous journey and you are able to claim compensation accross the two journeys. The usual fix is to buy one of the journeys to/from Zone 1.

 

[yorkie]

If you hold one ticket to St Pancras and another from Euston it is a grey area as to whether that is considered a continuous journey and you are able to claim compensation accross the two journeys. The usual fix is to buy one of the journeys to/from Zone 1.

I don't agree that it's a grey area.

However, if anyone wants to benefit from enhanced support in the event of a dispute, buy it all as one journey from our ticketing site; if the relevant advanced option is set, we will sell a combination of tickets to/from London Terminals, if that's the cheapest option for the journey.

 

[paul1609]

I don't agree that it's a grey area.

However, if anyone wants to benefit from enhanced support in the event of a dispute, buy it all as one journey from our ticketing site; if the relevant advanced option is set, we will sell a combination of tickets to/from London Terminals, if that's the cheapest option for the journey.

View attachment 160543

If its not a grey area why is it "Experimental"?
In reality if you are going to split in London its often going to be cheaper to book both legs seperately whichever booking site you use this is because that way you get to see the full range of prices that are available for the leg going from London. I often find that dropping just one service to the north saves £££.
Obviously using trainsplit and its derivatives for a through London journey you will often be charged disproportinate fees disguised as "share of savings" and miss out on cashback and other perks schemes run by the more mainline retailers.

 

[jfollows]

I don't think it's a "grey area", it may shows as "Experimental" on the forum's ticketing site because it's not been fully tested and validated.

To my way of thinking, anyone who holds two tickets with a connection between them needs to ensure that a minimum connection time is allowed between the arrival of the first train and departure of the second train, whether the change is made at a single station or across London. If it does, then the entire journey is eligible for Delay Repay from the party causing the delay.

It usually makes it easier if the tickets are bought in a single transaction, because otherwise the first pass automated processing of the Delay Repay claim fails, but when the claim is escalated it should be honoured in due course. It's not a requirement to book a single journey in a single transaction.

 

[Hadders]

If you hold one ticket to St Pancras and another from Euston it is a grey area as to whether that is considered a continuous journey and you are able to claim compensation accross the two journeys. The usual fix is to buy one of the journeys to/from Zone 1.

My personal experience is that Avanti, WMT and GTR have all paid delay repay claims when using combinations of tickets to/from London Terminals for journies via Kings Cross and Euston.

In reality if you are going to split in London its often going to be cheaper to book both legs seperately whichever booking site you use this is because that way you get to see the full range of prices that are available for the leg going from London. I often find that dropping just one service to the north saves £££.
Obviously using trainsplit and its derivatives for a through London journey you will often be charged disproportinate fees disguised as "share of savings" and miss out on cashback and other perks schemes run by the more mainline retailers.

Not this again.

As has been pointed out many times before there is nothing to stop you purchasing individual tickets through Trainsplit if you want to avoid the share of savings fee. That way Trainsplit does get some benefit from the sale. As I'm sure you'll point out, there are some Government owned and Government subsidised train companies offering cashback when purchasing tickets through their websites, which you like taking advantage of. While there's nothing illegal in identifying splits through a split ticketing site and then purchasing the tickets elsewhere, in my view it is morally dubious and if everyone did that split ticketing sites would cease to exist.

 

[yorkie]

If its not a grey area why is it "Experimental"?

Not because validity is a grey area!

In reality if you are going to split in London its often going to be cheaper to book both legs seperately whichever booking site you use this is because that way you get to see the full range of prices that are available for the leg going from London. I often find that dropping just one service to the north saves £££.

If people want to add individual tickets, then that's absolutely fine, but not everyone wants to manually work out all the prices and timings from the origin to the split point, and do the same again from the split point to the destination.

However, the onus is on the customer to ensure that minimum interchange times are met, and if trains are retimed, cancelled, delayed etc this can be a lot of hassle to deal with any resulting disputes.

If anyone wants to let a booking system take care of all of that, and to have documented evidence of a contractual right to travel on the through itinerary, then our site is ideal for that.

Obviously using trainsplit and its derivatives for a through London journey you will often be charged disproportinate fees disguised as "share of savings"

We pass on the vast majority of the savings to the customer; only a small proportion is retained.

If you want the full savings, you can specify a journey for each individual leg and them all to your basket and pay for all 'journeys' in one transaction.

But what I would ask that you don't do, is use our site to identify the best savings and then book elsewhere; that's not acceptable.

and miss out on cashback and other perks schemes run by the more mainline retailers.

The cashback and perks from other retailers may be enticing, but overall it will generally cost the customer more than if they used our site. Perks aren't that valuable, and cashback percentages are typically much lower than the average share of savings we find.

But you also lose the peace of mind of having one itinerary showing the contractual entitlement full actual journey; the original poster seems unsure of their contractual entitlements, so they might not be quite so willing to become embroiled in a protracted dispute as someone such as yourself, in the event of delays.

I don't think it's a "grey area", it may shows as "Experimental" on the forum's ticketing site because it's not been fully tested and validated.

To my way of thinking, anyone who holds two tickets with a connection between them needs to ensure that a minimum connection time is allowed between the arrival of the first train and departure of the second train, whether the change is made at a single station or across London. If it does, then the entire journey is eligible for Delay Repay from the party causing the delay.

It usually makes it easier if the tickets are bought in a single transaction, because otherwise the first pass automated processing of the Delay Repay claim fails, but when the claim is escalated it should be honoured in due course. It's not a requirement to book a single journey in a single transaction.

Absolutely true, however in practice disputes can and do occur; this is especially the case if trains are retimed or cancelled more than a day in advance ("P coded") and/or if multiple operators are involved. In some cases, customers have had to spend so much time arguing with TOCs that any compensation is effectively negated, depending on how people value their time.

The Ombudsman isn't great with these sorts of issues either.

Not this again.

Indeed!

As has been pointed out many times before there is nothing to stop you purchasing individual tickets through Trainsplit if you want to avoid the share of savings fee. That way Trainsplit does get some benefit from the sale. As I'm sure you'll point out, there are some Government owned and Government subsidised train companies offering cashback when purchasing tickets through their websites, which you like taking advantage of. While there's nothing illegal in identifying splits through a split ticketing site and then purchasing the tickets elsewhere, in my view it is morally dubious and if everyone did that split ticketing sites would cease to exist.

Exactly this!

 

[jfollows]

Indeed to all that.

My practice is to buy split tickets myself for "familiar" journeys - Tutbury & Hatton for Derby, Stafford for Birmingham - and my preference is to buy them on the day of travel at the station. But sometimes if I use this forum's site I'm more than happy to pay the "fee" for a new split point I hadn't worked out for myself already.

I don't generally cancel the transaction and go and buy split tickets separately at that point, but I know I could. Again, my time and effort has "some" value ......

 

[paul1609]

Not this again.

As has been pointed out many times before there is nothing to stop you purchasing individual tickets through Trainsplit if you want to avoid the share of savings fee. That way Trainsplit does get some benefit from the sale. As I'm sure you'll point out, there are some Government owned and Government subsidised train companies offering cashback when purchasing tickets through their websites, which you like taking advantage of. While there's nothing illegal in identifying splits through a split ticketing site and then purchasing the tickets elsewhere, in my view it is morally dubious and if everyone did that split ticketing sites would cease to exist.

Yes this again.
Railukforums is an enthusiasts site that existed before trainsplit came about.
My view is that it should maintain a neutral stance between rail retailers.
I dont believe that moderators, staff, experts whatsever you want to call them should be advocating the use of one particular retailer.
I dont have a problem with the forum maintaining an affiliate site but if it does it should publish annually the payments made by the site.
If employees of trainsplit and its affiliated contractors are making posts on here advocating the use of the service they should make that clear on every such post.
I dont have any connection to any retailer.

 

[jfollows]

Yes this again.
Railukforums is an enthusiasts site that existed before trainsplit came about.
My view is that it should maintain a neutral stance between rail retailers.
I dont believe that moderators, staff, experts whatsever you want to call them should be advocating the use of one particular retailer.
I dont have a problem with the forum maintaining an affiliate site but if it does it should publish annually the payments made by the site.
If employees of trainsplit and its affiliated contractors are making posts on here advocating the use of the service they should make that clear on every such post.
I dont have any connection to any retailer.

That's complete nonsense, I have no connection with this site but its ticketing service is an additional option over those that existed already and has two advantages to me - firstly, it is more responsive and flexible and secondly any money that it makes goes to a cause I support.

All the comments made are equally applicable to other ticketing sites which offer split ticketing and I see no bias in any of the comments made.

 

[yorkie]

Yes this again.
Railukforums is an enthusiasts site that existed before trainsplit came about.
My view is that it should maintain a neutral stance between rail retailers.
I dont believe that moderators, staff, experts whatsever you want to call them should be advocating the use of one particular retailer.
I dont have a problem with the forum maintaining an affiliate site but if it does it should publish annually the payments made by the site.
If employees of trainsplit and its affiliated contractors are making posts on here advocating the use of the service they should make that clear on every such post.
I dont have any connection to any retailer.

You are entitled to your views.

However, we are not going to do as you suggest, and you are welcome not to use our ticketing site if you don't want to use it.

The site came about as a result of fares workshops and other meetings by forum members, who have created a site which meets a wide variety of needs following feedback over many years from a variety of members; I make no apologies for achieving what we have achieved.

If anyone doesn't like what we do, there is no compulsion to use us (all I ask is please don't use the site to find the best prices if you are booking elsewhere)

 

[Belperpete]

I don't agree that it's a grey area.

I seem to recall that previously someone who had a ticket for travel into Paddington, and a separate ticket for onward travel from Kings Cross (I think), was advised that he wasn't entitled to delay compensation for the complete journey as he didn't hold a ticket for the complete journey - one of the tickets would have had to be London Underground Zone 1 for it to be a joined up journey. What makes Paddington - KX different to STP - Euston? I note that WALK is a specified fixed link between STP and KX (so you wouldn't need a ticket to travel between those two), but not between STP and Euston. Or am I miss remembering that case?

 

[yorkie]

I seem to recall that previously someone who had a ticket for travel into Paddington, and a separate ticket for onward travel from Kings Cross (I think), was advised that he wasn't entitled to delay compensation for the complete journey as he didn't hold a ticket for the complete journey - one of the tickets would have had to be London Underground Zone 1 for it to be a joined up journey. What makes Paddington - KX different to STP - Euston? I note that WALK is a specified fixed link between STP and KX (so you wouldn't need a ticket to travel between those two), but not between STP and Euston. Or am I miss remembering that case?

Can you link to this, please?

Misinformation at places like PAD is rife; if people who booked with us are mistreated, we'll help them.

 

[Haywain]

I seem to recall that previously someone who had a ticket for travel into Paddington, and a separate ticket for onward travel from Kings Cross (I think), was advised that he wasn't entitled to delay compensation for the complete journey as he didn't hold a ticket for the complete journey - one of the tickets would have had to be London Underground Zone 1 for it to be a joined up journey. What makes Paddington - KX different to STP - Euston? I note that WALK is a specified fixed link between STP and KX (so you wouldn't need a ticket to travel between those two), but not between STP and Euston. Or am I miss remembering that case?

I think you are referring to a case where the issue was onward transport from King’s Cross, involving Grand Central, so rather different.

 

[Belperpete]

Can you link to this, please?

Misinformation at places like PAD is rife; if people who booked with us are mistreated, we'll help them.

Unfortunately it was quite awhile back, so not easy to find.

I think you are referring to a case where the issue was onward transport from King’s Cross, involving Grand Central, so rather different.

So you are saying that the difference in that case was that one of the legs is an Open Access operator? So they don't count as being part of the same journey?

To take an extreme example, if I caught a train to say Gatwick, flew to say Edinburgh, and then onward train journey, would that count as one rail journey for delay repay, even though there was a big Gatwick-Edinburgh gap in the middle? I presume not. In which case, what makes a journey with a big cross London gap in the middle any different?

Okay that is an extreme example, but I am just trying to understand what the rules are around when two separate tickets can be considered as one continuous journey, and when not. As evidenced by the previous poster I am not the only one to think that a significant gap in the middle would make it two separate journeys.

 

[Haywain]

So you are saying that the difference in that case was that one of the legs is an Open Access operator? So they don't count as being part of the same journey?

No, in the case that I think you are referring to there was no issue with the Delay Repay claim, which was paid out on the basis of the two tickets with a cross-London 'gap' forming one journey. I think this is the thread you are referring to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-reimbursement.261890/

 

[Hadders]

To take an extreme example, if I caught a train to say Gatwick, flew to say Edinburgh, and then onward train journey, would that count as one rail journey for delay repay, even though there was a big Gatwick-Edinburgh gap in the middle? I presume not. In which case, what makes a journey with a big cross London gap in the middle any different?

In your extreme example there would be no entitlement for it to count as one rail journey, the tickets clearly would not join up.

However, to give another example Bath to London Terminals and London Terminals to Stevenage does join up. You would need to make sure you left sufficient interchange time between arrival at Paddington and departure from Kings Cross.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately it was quite awhile back, so not easy to find.


So you are saying that the difference in that case was that one of the legs is an Open Access operator? So they don't count as being part of the same journey?

No.

By the way, in future, please create a new thread for this sort of query.

To take an extreme example, if I caught a train to say Gatwick, flew to say Edinburgh, and then onward train journey, would that count as one rail journey for delay repay, even though there was a big Gatwick-Edinburgh gap in the middle? I presume not.

No

In which case, what makes a journey with a big cross London gap in the middle any different?

The tickets have a common location: London Terminals. The same would apply for Bradford Stations, etc.

The fact that the daytime fixed link requires the use of a ticket that includes LU validity doesn't alter this fact.

Okay that is an extreme example,

It's not even an example; it's a completely different concept.

but I am just trying to understand what the rules are around when two separate tickets can be considered as one continuous journey, and when not.

When they join at a common location, such as London Terminals. The location printed on the ticket doesn't have to be the same, but they do need to have a common point, whether that point is a specific station, or a group of stations, or a zone. They could even overlap.

As evidenced by the previous poster I am not the only one to think that a significant gap in the middle would make it two separate journeys.

You are the one who introduced the idea of a "significant gap" into this thread; it's not relevant to the journey the original poster is making.

 

[Belperpete]

No, in the case that I think you are referring to there was no issue with the Delay Repay claim, which was paid out on the basis of the two tickets with a cross-London 'gap' forming one journey. I think this is the thread you are referring to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-reimbursement.261890/

It is indeed! And I note that Hadders pointed to guidance that passengers have less rights if they use contactless to cross London rather than having a ticket that includes zone 1. Does that only apply to advance tickets? If so, why? And would the same apply if you walked?

Agreed that the delay repay claim was paid for the full journey in that particular case, but it was far from clear whether that was by luck or by right. There was plenty of guidance given by various posters that the OP should have included zone 1 in her ticketing, that wasn't positively refuted. The most definitive rebuttal seems to be Yorkie stating in his opinion it was not correct. Importantly, I can see no explanation on that thread for why the advice on needing zone 1 was incorrect.

No.

By the way, in future, please create a new thread for this sort of query.

No

The tickets have a common location: London Terminals. The same would apply for Bradford Stations, etc.

The fact that the daytime fixed link requires the use of a ticket that includes LU validity doesn't alter this fact.

It's not even an example; it's a completely different concept.

When they join at a common location, such as London Terminals. The location printed on the ticket doesn't have to be the same, but they do need to have a common point, whether that point is a specific station, or a group of stations, or a zone. They could even overlap.

You are the one who introduced the idea of a "significant gap" into this thread; it's not relevant to the journey the original poster is making.

Apologies for not starting a new thread, however I was only continuing a query already raised in this thread (posts #4 onward). In retrospect, it would be better as this is not about connection times. Can it be split?

Agreed that I introduced the concept of a "significant gap". I did that in order to understand when journeys join up and when they don't.

It is far from obvious that someone who has a ticket from Gloucester to London Terminals, and another from London Terminals to York, neither of which is valid for travel between Paddington and KX, is still entitled to delay repay for a journey that includes that leg. Thanks to you and Hadders for the explanation which wasn't given in the original thread that I recalled, or in previous responses on this thread. However, I am unclear why it would be different for advance tickets, as per the guidance referenced by Hadders in that thread.

 

[yorkie]

It is indeed! And I note that Hadders pointed to guidance that passengers have less rights if they use contactless to cross London rather than having a ticket that includes zone 1. Does that only apply to advance tickets? If so, why? And would the same apply if you walked?

The only issue with walking is that the minimum interchange times assume you will take the tube; if walking results in a longer transfer than the suggested time, you could have a problem. That clearly won't be a problem for Euston to King's Cross; platform to platform if you know where you are going, it can actually be quicker on foot.

Agreed that the delay repay claim was paid for the full journey in that particular case, but it was far from clear whether that was by luck or by right. There was plenty of guidance given by various posters that the OP should have included zone 1 in her ticketing, that wasn't positively refuted. The most definitive rebuttal seems to be Yorkie stating in his opinion it was not correct. Importantly, I can see no explanation on that thread for why the advice on needing zone 1 was incorrect.

I'll turn that round: if people claim Zone 1 is required, why? This is something people have made up.

Apologies for not starting a new thread, however I was only continuing a query already raised in this thread (posts #4 onward). In retrospect, it would be better as this is not about connection times. Can it be split?

It's more for future reference; it's far easier if people create new threads. Splitting is a pain, but it can be requested by reporting the first post to be split, including in the report a list of post numbers to move, and a suggested thread title. The opening post may need some re-wording.

Agreed that I introduced the concept of a "significant gap". I did that in order to understand when journeys join up and when they don't.

Yes but these tickets join up at London Termina.s

It is far from obvious that someone who has a ticket from Gloucester to London Terminals, and another from London Terminals to York, neither of which is valid for travel between Paddington and KX, is still entitled to delay repay for a journey that includes that leg.

There is no gap; yes the recommended interchange times during the daytime include the tube, and yes that needs to be ticketed somehow, but that doesn't mean there is a "gap".

Thanks to you and Hadders for the explanation which wasn't given in the original thread that I recalled, or in previous responses on this thread. However, I am unclear why it would be different for advance tickets, as per the guidance referenced by Hadders in that thread.

It's not different for Advance tickets; it's just that for Advance tickets, care does need to be taken to ensure minimum interchange times are met, and that there isn't an actual gap, for it to constitute one journey. Our ticketing site will handle that automatically. If people want to do their own thing, that's up to them.

To demonstrate there is no "gap" and our site isn't doing something that fundamentally at least some TOCs do too, below is a screenshot from Chiltern's site.

The screenshot shows a late night journey from Coventry to Didcot Parkway, with a (unexplained) 'transfer' between Euston and Paddington, when the tube isn't running:

Chiltern's site does not state what tickets you are being issued, nor does it make it clear that Euston to Paddington isn't actually a train (it's a "make your own way" transfer.

The tickets are:


Coventry to London Terminals £44.80
London Terminals to Didcot Parkway £41.10

Total £85.90

Maybe the Chiltern site reveals the combination of tickets once payment has been taken, but on my browser I saw no way to find this out, so I had to figure it out using alternative methods.

There is no gap, it's all one journey.

(There is also no "gap" in Bradford, nor would building a metro between the stations 'create' a new gap that didn't previously exist , and don't get me started on Manchester!)

 

[jfollows]

It is far from obvious that someone who has a ticket from Gloucester to London Terminals, and another from London Terminals to York, neither of which is valid for travel between Paddington and KX, is still entitled to delay repay for a journey that includes that leg. Thanks to you and Hadders for the explanation which wasn't given in the original thread that I recalled, or in previous responses on this thread. However, I am unclear why it would be different for advance tickets, as per the guidance referenced by Hadders in that thread.

My thinking, and I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong because I'll make journeys based on it, is that

if I have a ticket from Wilmslow to Nuneaton, and another ticket from Nuneaton to Leicester, than - provided that I leave 5 minutes between arrival and departure, and it doesn't matter what sort of ticket I have other than that if it's an advance ticket it has to respect the minimum connection time, then I can claim Delay Repay if the train getting me to Nuneaton is late.

Likewise Paddington to King's Cross, no need for a ticket to London U1 or whatever, but I have to allow a minimum of 15 + (25 or 20 or 15 depending on time of day) + 15 minutes between trains, in other words up to 55 minutes, between booked arrival time at Paddington and departure time from King's Cross. And I can pay for my own journey with contactless or whatever.

If I were in the latter case and was delayed in my arrival into Paddington enough to miss my booked train onward from King's Cross, I'd expect to be able to take a later train from King's Cross and claim Delay Repay from whoever delayed my London arrival.

I don't think it's complicated and I don't think it's wishful thinking.

EDIT And, of course, I think I agree with yorkie although he may have posted extra nuances I hadn't thought about!

 

[Haywain]

but I have to allow a minimum of 15 + (25 or 20 or 15 depending on time of day) + 15 minutes between trains,

Amended, to better illustrate the point.

 

[jfollows]

Amended, to better illustrate the point.

Yes, you're right, that'd have to be the minimum time between arrival and departure as you say.

Plus I accept that walking complicates things a little, but in reality I'd expect to walk between Euston/Saint Pnacras/King's Cross because it's neither quicker nor slower, whereas I'd expect the timing between Paddington and King's Cross to be based on the Underground, not on walking or taking the bus. In general I'd expect the minimum connection time in London to be based on using the Underground, and only walking where it's a sensible option that doesn’t take longer.

 

[Belperpete]

Plus I accept that walking complicates things a little, but in reality I'd expect to walk between Euston/Saint Pnacras/King's Cross because it's neither quicker nor slower, whereas I'd expect the timing between Paddington and King's Cross to be based on the Underground, not on walking or taking the bus.

In practice, the minimum connection times are so padded that someone of reasonable fitness should be able to walk most of them within the allocated times. I regularly used to walk Paddington to St. P in under 45 minutes. And walking the Southern terminii such as Victoria to the northern terminii such as Euston takes surprisingly little time, provided that you know where you are going. Paddington to Liverpool St or v.v. might be a bit tougher though.

Anyway, thanks to those who have clarified the issue about not needing a ticket including zone 1. That is not what I had gathered from the previous thread.

 

[Haywain]

I hadn't really thought about it earlier, but I have successfully claimed Delay Repay from both EMR and Avanti for journeys between the West Coast main line and southern MML where the tickets and passes have not included the underground.

 

[redreni]

Anyway, thanks to those who have clarified the issue about not needing a ticket including zone 1. That is not what I had gathered from the previous thread.

Yeah, that's interesting, thanks all.

I've been advising people against using contactless to get from (say) Maidenhead to Kings Cross to pick up an intercity train for which they've booked an advance single, and rightly so (I think). I've been saying they should get a day return to zone 1 so that their tickets join up, but it's interesting to note that it's still considered one journey under the NRCoT if they get a day return to London Terminals and then use contactless after Paddington.

The day return to zone 1 is the slightly cheaper option, though (and much, much cheaper for those with a Network Railcard, or travelling with somebody who has one, as these are generally Saturday journeys), plus having a ticket for all portions of the journey means the entire fare counts for delay repay purposes in the event of a delay to the overall journey.

But for other journeys between two points a bit further from London, but still via London, I can see that it might make a lot of sense to leave the cross-London transfer un-ticketed and pay on the day (or walk, or hire a bike, or whatever).

 

[yorkie]

My recommendation is to book any such journeys as one through journey, with a through itinerary.

It doesn't matter if it's one ticket or a combination of tickets, nor does it matter if you have selected the option to use contactless for cross-London transfers, but I strongly advise getting a through itinerary.

Bear in mind trains can be cancelled, deleted from the timetable, retimed, as well as delayed; having a contract that clearly specifies the entire itinerary can save a lot of time in the event of a dispute.

Just because a passenger is in the right, does not mean TOCs will acknowledge this; similarly, a TOC refusing a valid claim does not mean the claim is invalid.

If anyone who booked a through journey with us (regardless of whether or not the 'let me use oyster/contactless to cross London' option is selected) will be supported by us in the event of a dispute.

 

[redreni]

My recommendation is to book any such journeys as one through journey, with a through itinerary.

Yes, and that's what I do, but invariably by the time the topic comes up in conversation, the person concerned has already booked the tickets from the relevant London terminal and hasn't booked any tickets from Maidenhead (or wherever their origin is - it's usually Maidenhead or Furze Platt or Taplow) to the London terminal. It's usually somebody saying to somebody else "I got the tickets, they're only from Kings Cross, we'll just use contactless to get there". I've heard it a number of times, including from people who I know hold a Network Railcard who are going there and back in a day.

So they're paying £10.50 each way for a segment of the journey that should cost £14.25 return and they're exposing themselves to an avoidable risk of turning up at Kings Cross to find they've missed their booked train and their ticket to Hartlepool (for instance) is now worthless. Granted, that may not be how it ought to work out, but it's how it would work out (and has worked out in at least a couple of cases I know of).

Maybe in theory using contactless rather than a ticket shouldn't lessen a passenger's rights, but it's a lot harder, as you say, to evidence an itinerary and a contract if you have no itinerary and no ticket to show to staff in relation to the part of your journey where you were delayed. There are also practical difficulties in evidencing, when you turn up at Kings Cross 5 minutes after your booked train has departed and want to get the next one, that you tapped in at Maidenhead when you say you did so that the delay can be confirmed - the journey history won't be available to you yet. So as far as staff know, you've simply missed your train.

This is a large part of the reason why I may come across as anti-contactless at times. When contactless wasn't available, people starting their journey at Maidenhead would have booked their tickets from their origin to their destination and been better off for it.