Safeguarding doesn't guarantee the right to use the travel facilities it guarantees the right to have the facilities in the first place.
I'm not sure this is quite right. There must surely always have been a reasonable expectation that this type of facilities, which are statutory in nature, could, in reality, be used in line with the rules applicable when they were issued. They were subject to restrictions but again there has arguably always been a reasonable expectation that these would generally be no more restrictive than applied when issued.
If this was not the case, TOCs could have restricted, through administrative means, the use of facilities at any time since privatisation and effectively eliminated them altogether thereby frustrating the commercial requirement that they have under the Franchise Agreements to abide by the staff travel agreements and the statutory character of the facilities.
The only circumstances they could get out of the obligation is if there was a specific
statutory bar on the facilities' use, which clearly is not the case.
(The above only applies to Safeguarded, including Retired Safeguarded, staff, not to TOC NEs.)
Perhaps some learned QCs might be engaged on this point?