Split ticketing delay repay trick, or fraud?

[1D54]

Really cannot understand the appeal of gaming the system to the point of maybe committing fraud, for two pounds and fifty pence.

Maybe putting the feelers out for bigger 'claims' later down the line. Hopefully the OP will have taken note of what has been posted on here and has come to the conclusion that it is simply not worth it!

 

[Essan]

Slightly different scenario:

When I am travelling from Evesham to Fort William, I usually split tickets with one to Birmingham, one (advance) from Birmingham to Glasgow and then a 3rd from Glasgow to Fort William. One reason for this is because I have a Scotrail over 50 railcard giving a discount on the final leg. Also, advances are not available for that journey starting in Evesham. As there are very few services to Fort William, I invariably have a long wait in Glasgow - sometimes over 2 hours (indeed, I prefer this as it means less likelihood of missing the evening train to the Fort, stranding me overnight)

So, if my Avanti WC train is over an hour late into Glasgow, I will still have time for my onward connection, but, I have been on a train that was over an hour late. And if I've booked via Avanti for that part of the journey (as I usually do), I get an automatic delay replay ..... Do I reject that on the basis that my "overall" journey was not actually delayed, even though Avanti have no knowledge that I was travelling elsewhere after I reached Glasgow? Does the fact that I was expecting over 2 hours in Glasgow before the continuation of my overall journey mean that they properly constitute 2 entirely separate journeys?

 

[styles]

In the Conditions of Travel, it states:

14.2 Unless Condition 14.1 applies, you may use a combination of two or more Tickets to make a journey provided that the train services you use Call at the station(s) where you change from one Ticket to another.

The key word there for me is 'may'. There appears to be no obligation on a passenger to consider multiple tickets a single journey. So long as that is the case, I don't see why a delay repay claim for anything less than the full complement of tickets would be invalid.

In theory, this may only affect the minimum required compensation under Delay Repay - arguably, for any repayment above the minimum required, the operator can set additional restrictions, as it is effectively goodwill on their part that they are going 'above' what is required. I'm not aware of any operators' delay repay terms doing this however, certainly not for this scenario.

Of course, this could change in the future. As split ticketing has become mainstream with the likes of ScotRail, LNER, Trainline, TrainPal etc offering it, no doubt more people will find themselves in this situation and put the claim in.

 

[DelW]

There are circumstances where I'd think it's reasonable to claim DR on the first journey if it's delayed.

I sometimes make a journey where I have an hour's wait at an interchange point (hourly service arriving, hourly service departing, either just miss or insufficient connection time). So I plan my trip to use that hour off the station, usually going for a meal or sometimes doing some shopping.

If my first train is over half an hour late, I won't have time to do that. I'll arrive at my final destination on time, but without having done what I'd planned on the way. I may even need to go and eat before doing anything else, to make up for the meal I've missed.

Obviously if I have a through ticket, that's my tough luck and the original TOC have avoided a potential DR claim that a short distance passenger could have made. But if I have tickets that are split at the interchange, it seems reasonable to me to claim DR on the first one, to make up for the inconvenience of not being able to use that hour productively.

 

[DaveB10780]

There are circumstances where I'd think it's reasonable to claim DR on the first journey if it's delayed.

I sometimes make a journey where I have an hour's wait at an interchange point (hourly service arriving, hourly service departing, either just miss or insufficient connection time). So I plan my trip to use that hour off the station, usually going for a meal or sometimes doing some shopping.

If my first train is over half an hour late, I won't have time to do that. I'll arrive at my final destination on time, but without having done what I'd planned on the way. I may even need to go and eat before doing anything else, to make up for the meal I've missed.

Obviously if I have a through ticket, that's my tough luck and the original TOC have avoided a potential DR claim that a short distance passenger could have made. But if I have tickets that are split at the interchange, it seems reasonable to me to claim DR on the first one, to make up for the inconvenience of not being able to use that hour productively.

Sure provided you follow the identical rules with the second half of the journey and only claim for one ticket if delayed.

 

[redreni]

I think the main principle is not to take the mick, isn't it?

And if you must take the mick, try not to advertise the fact on forums like this, as it may steer the debate on compensation for delays in directions that wouldn't favour the passenger. It's one of the only areas where UK rail passengers get a better deal than rail passengers elsewhere in Europe, and if you travel long distance regularly, it helps offset the high fares.

For me personally, there are circumstances where a delay on the first leg of a journey might inconvenience me. I've got a claim in with TPE for a journey from Kings Cross to Hartlepool that included a 50 minute wait at York, with the tickets split at York. I booked it with a 50 minute wait rather than a 20 minute wait because I knew when I got to York station I needed to buy two newspapers, tear out the coupons and buy a Northern day ranger for use the following day - my only chance to do so given that by the time I got to Hartlepool, the ticket office would be closed and wouldn't open again until the Monday.

It is perfectly feasible, therefore, that a delay on that first leg (of say 35 minutes) could have seriously inconvenienced me, notwithstanding that I could still have made my connection. As it was, my train into York was on time, giving me ample time not only to buy my papers and my day ranger but also to get brunch in the station pub. It was the delay on the York to Thornaby leg that made me miss my connection and arrive in Hartlepool just over an hour late. I'm claiming that as a delay on the entire journey from Kings Cross to Hartlepool, which it was. There was no earlier train I could have got from York - I always intended to get the first train towards Thornaby and I did, my destination was Hartlepool and I was delayed about 65 minutes.

But I also had business to attend to at York station which meant, had I instead been delayed on the London to York leg, still made my connection and been able to arrive at Hartlepool on time, I would have suffered non-trivial inconvenience in terms of not being able to buy the ticket I needed for the following day's travel, or at the very least not being able to get anything to eat until I reached Hartlepool. I've always been under the impression the delay repay scheme exists to compensate passengers for delays that cause them inconvenience? I accept, of course, this would have meant adopting a flexible attitude to the question of whether I was making two separate journeys or one through journey, which isn't something I would normally condone, but it was a situation where a 30-35 minute delay inbound to York, with the train to Thornaby leaving on time, would have basically wrecked my plans for the following day even if it didn't literally cause me to miss my connection.

In most cases I quite agree that delays which don't affect arrival time at the final destination shouldn't be claimed for.

 

[Wolfie]

I think the main principle is not to take the mick, isn't it?

And if you must take the mick, try not to advertise the fact on forums like this, as it may steer the debate on compensation for delays in directions that wouldn't favour the passenger. It's one of the only areas where UK rail passengers get a better deal than rail passengers elsewhere in Europe, and if you travel long distance regularly, it helps offset the high fares.

For me personally, there are circumstances where a delay on the first leg of a journey might inconvenience me. I've got a claim in with TPE for a journey from Kings Cross to Hartlepool that included a 50 minute wait at York, with the tickets split at York. I booked it with a 50 minute wait rather than a 20 minute wait because I knew when I got to York station I needed to buy two newspapers, tear out the coupons and buy a Northern day ranger for use the following day - my only chance to do so given that by the time I got to Hartlepool, the ticket office would be closed and wouldn't open again until the Monday.

It is perfectly feasible, therefore, that a delay on that first leg (of say 35 minutes) could have seriously inconvenienced me, notwithstanding that I could still have made my connection. As it was, my train into York was on time, giving me ample time not only to buy my papers and my day ranger but also to get brunch in the station pub. It was the delay on the York to Thornaby leg that made me miss my connection and arrive in Hartlepool just over an hour late. I'm claiming that as a delay on the entire journey from Kings Cross to Hartlepool, which it was. There was no earlier train I could have got from York - I always intended to get the first train towards Thornaby and I did, my destination was Hartlepool and I was delayed about 65 minutes.

But I also had business to attend to at York station which meant, had I instead been delayed on the London to York leg, still made my connection and been able to arrive at Hartlepool on time, I would have suffered non-trivial inconvenience in terms of not being able to buy the ticket I needed for the following day's travel, or at the very least not being able to get anything to eat until I reached Hartlepool. I've always been under the impression the delay repay scheme exists to compensate passengers for delays that cause them inconvenience? I accept, of course, this would have meant adopting a flexible attitude to the question of whether I was making two separate journeys or one through journey, which isn't something I would normally condone, but it was a situation where a 30-35 minute delay inbound to York, with the train to Thornaby leaving on time, would have basically wrecked my plans for the following day even if it didn't literally cause me to miss my connection.

In most cases I quite agree that delays which don't affect arrival time at the final destination shouldn't be claimed for.

Possibly somewhat niche cases posted by @DelW and yourself but you both make a reasonable point. As ever any simple rule has valid exceptions.

 

[AlterEgo]

In the Conditions of Travel, it states:



The key word there for me is 'may'. There appears to be no obligation on a passenger to consider multiple tickets a single journey.

It’s not up to the passenger to consider anything. All that phrase says is you may make one journey using more a combination than one ticket. It doesn’t make any comment at all about whether one ticket can be used for two journeys or anything else.

The NRCoT and predecessor NRCoC never defined what a journey actually is, which mean the situation is vague. I’d probably invite people to be reasonable and consider what a judge would say if you tried to argue. I rather think a judge would consider a journey ending once the passenger exits the rail system and goes about another purpose not related to their travel, and particularly if this is exceeding the minimum offered connection by some margin and only if it is the passenger’s choice.

In my view:

I travel from Rugby to Cheltenham Spa using two tickets. I change at Birmingham New Street with a 20 minute connection. I have made one journey using two tickets.

I travel from Rugby to Fort William using a combination of three tickets. Due to the timetable the shortest connection in Glasgow is nearly two hours and I must leave Glasgow Central and cross the city for Queen Street. I use this time to get lunch and buy some toiletries for my trip. I have made one journey using three tickets.

I have a London to Aberdeen anytime single. I travel from London to Edinburgh in the morning and arrive at 12pm. I meet a friend for lunch and we then go to the Castle. A few connecting trains to Aberdeen depart in the meantime. I take my connection to Aberdeen at 5pm. I have made two journeys using one ticket.

I have two tickets to cover a Penzance to London journey. Dawlish gets flooded and I am unable to complete my journey, and we get terminated in Plymouth and given a hotel, with a bus to cover the journey to Exeter the next morning where trains will take us to London. I have still made one journey on two tickets.

 

[trainophile]

There are changes afoot that may make it easier for a TOC delay repay team to see that a ticket is part of a split-ticketing journey.

You might be meeting someone at the destination on ticket A to give them ticket B for their own separate travel. Could happen, e.g. a parent with a student child who has no money to buy their own ticket back to their university.

 

[pelli]

Another fun way to exploit break of journey to bend delay repay rules is when you make an "invalid" connection onto an earlier train than "allowed" by minimum connection times, and that train is subsequently delayed - although you are not late compared with the fastest valid itinerary for your full journey, you declare that you have actually made two separate journeys, i.e. taken a break of journey at the interchange point and then presented yourself there in time for a valid itinerary just from the interchange point to the destination, for whose delay you claim repay (which, if you hold a through ticket, most Train Operating Companies usually calculate based on the whole ticket price anyway despite the ticket covering more than the journey in question). Extracts from a forum thread discussing this back in 2021:

It's well known that, if I attempt to make an invalid connection, I am not protected of the incoming train is delayed causing the connection to be missed.

I have a different question though. If I successfully make an invalid connection (for example, a 15-minute connection between King's Cross and St Prancas), but the delay occurs after the invalid connection, can I still claim compensation for the whole journey, based on the connection I have successfully made?

Example: I get into King's Cross and make my way onto a Thameslink train within 15 minutes to cross London which departs on time, and an incident occurs on Thameslink core which makes me delayed into my destination compared to the timetable of the Thameslink train, or miss a valid connection afterwards, can I claim delay repay from Thameslink for my whole journey or just the part of the journey from St Pancras? Will it have any difference if I hold a flexible ticket compared to an advance ticket where the LNER train is reserved and Thameslink is the unreserved connection?

Delay Repay is calculated by comparing the booked arrival time with your actual arrival time.

If you make an earlier connection in one part of your journey but experience a delay in another, that does not change how the calculation is made.

I can understand that you can't claim a delay repay for the full journey in this case. But can't you forget the earlier leg of the journey and claim for the delay for the journey from StP T/L to wherever, based on the time you started that leg of the journey, if a delay makes that part run late (late compared to the proper timing for that start at StP that is)? Or is that not being disputed here?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another fun way to exploit break of journey to bend delay repay rules is when you make an "invalid" connection onto an earlier train than "allowed" by minimum connection times, and that train is subsequently delayed - although you are not late compared with the fastest valid itinerary for your full journey, you declare that you have actually made two separate journeys, i.e. taken a break of journey at the interchange point and then presented yourself there in time for a valid itinerary just from the interchange point to the destination, for whose delay you claim repay (which, if you hold a through ticket, most Train Operating Companies usually calculate based on the whole ticket price anyway despite the ticket covering more than the journey in question). Extracts from a forum thread discussing this back in 2021:

I would definitely consider that fraudulent if you actually did make one through journey and were just lucky enough to make a short connection.

 

[BingMan]

Agreed. The railway would love an excuse to say "one ticket, one journey" and stop accepting things like missed trains on split Advances. I don't think the legal precedent that prevents them banning splitting entirely (unlike say in Ireland where it *is* banned) would extend to having to give extra rights to people who travel on multiple tickets, rather just that they can't legally ban it.

To be fair you really need to define your journey in your mind before you start it and claim based on that decision, rather than just picking what is most financially beneficial to you after the event.

If I buy a ticket from A to B and another ticket from B to C surely that is too separate journeys, each of which is subject to the delay repay rules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I buy a ticket from A to B and another ticket from B to C surely that is too separate journeys, each of which is subject to the delay repay rules.

If you consider it two separate journeys, it would be wrong to take advantage of protections that involve considering it one journey, such as not needing to buy a new Advance if you missed the connection at B. Similarly if the train arriving at C is late you couldn't put in a DR claim using both tickets, only that one.

It's one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it. I think it's fair to decide which it is at the point of starting out, though if you bought them on a single itinerary from a splitting site then it's very clearly one journey.

In the end if people take the mick over this the railway will get stricter and that's always to the passenger's disadvantage - so be reasonable.

 

[JBuchananGB]

It can be complicated.
A few years ago (8 Aug 2019) my wife made a journey Birkdale to London Euston, where she met her granddaughter (then age 9). My wife was the holder of a Senior Railcard at the time. She travelled south with an Off-Peak Day return Birkdale to Edge Hill, and an Advance Single Liverpool to Euston. (Both with Senior Railcard Discount applied)
She had in her possession the tickets for the return journey which were a Fixed Family Single, specified for the 17.33 service from Euston to Liverpool (£49.50) and a Child Off-Peak Single from Edge Hill to Birkdale.
The tickets were purchased using one of my Virgin online account on 26 July.
There was severe disruption for the return journey. I can't recall which timetabled train she actually travelled on, but her arrival in Liverpool was over 30 minutes late. Delay Repay was claimed from Virgin for the Fixed Family Single.
Because of a good walk across to Liverpool Central, by the time they arrived at Birkdale they were less than 30 minutes delayed compared to the original schedule.
It would have been a right faff to explain to Virgin that they owed me some percentage of a Senior Railcard off-peak return Birkdale to Edge Hill, and some other percentage of a Child Off-peak Day single Edge Hill to Birkdale. Simple to claim for the Fixed Family Single.
My records show I received £24.75 from West Coast Trains on 17 August 2019. I challenge anyone to say I did the wrong thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly it is difficult to get TOCs to pay out on a split where the end station of one ticket and the start of the next aren't the same (i.e. you're starting short on one of them) though with a lot of faff I did once get Avanti to cough up for this sort of scenario.

Though assuming 15 minute DR didn't apply in the case you note (and I don't think VT did do 15 minute DR?), I'd say nothing was due at all because you arrived at your final destination under 30 minutes late as per a valid itinerary, therefore the claim was at least a bit questionable.

 

[redreni]

If you consider it two separate journeys, it would be wrong to take advantage of protections that involve considering it one journey, such as not needing to buy a new Advance if you missed the connection at B. Similarly if the train arriving at C is late you couldn't put in a DR claim using both tickets, only that one.

It's one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it. I think it's fair to decide which it is at the point of starting out, though if you bought them on a single itinerary from a splitting site then it's very clearly one journey.

In the end if people take the mick over this the railway will get stricter and that's always to the passenger's disadvantage - so be reasonable.

The railway has already got stricter over connecting legs on through Advances, in ways that are detrimental to the passenger because they reduce flexibility and prevent passengers taking advantage of unofficial, tight connections that may be available.

There will be cases, therefore, where I've paid extra to split tickets in order to get a flexible Anytime ticket for my connecting leg. I've still booked both legs at the same time (though I can't book it as a through journey on split tickets because I've yet to find a split ticketing site that will offer a split that is more expensive than a through ticket where I want flexibility only on the connecting leg).

In that case, if a delay on the connecting leg is significant and causes me to miss all or part of the sporting event that was, essentially, the entire purpose of my journey, I'm going to claim against the through journey. I think everyone would agree that is fair. In fact, if I was travelling on a valid itinerary for the through journey, I will always claim on that basis.

If I have made an unofficial connection and am then delayed on the connecting leg after departure, I do understand the principle that I've already elected to treat it as a through journey, so I don't have a claim at all if there was an unofficial connection involved as the comparator would be the first official connection I could have made. It is tempting to think, however, if I've paid extra for the flexibility of an Anytime return partly because I knew I had every chance of making a connection that was just below the MCT and I've made it, they shouldn't then begrudge paying back 12.5% of that relatively expensive (for the distance) fare if I've suffered a 15 minute delay on a 20 minute leg of the journey. They've not quite managed to provided the service I paid for!

 

[MarlowDonkey]

There will be cases, therefore, where I've paid extra to split tickets in order to get a flexible Anytime ticket for my connecting leg. I've still booked both legs at the same time (though I can't book it as a through journey on split tickets because I've yet to find a split ticketing site that will offer a split that is more expensive than a through ticket where I want flexibility only on the connecting leg).

What should apply if the second part of a connecting leg used contactless, an Oyster card or season ticket? That's entirely plausible for cross-London journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What should apply if the second part of a connecting leg used contactless, an Oyster card or season ticket? That's entirely plausible for cross-London journeys.

You can claim normal Delay Repay using contactless. You log onto your TfL account, download evidence of the payment, and submit that as a ticket.

However the situation where that bit in the middle is TfL is a very grey area. Some would certainly say that having, for example, a ticket to Euston, taking the Tube on contactless to Paddington, then a ticket from Paddington, *is* two journeys including in terms of having to purchase a new Advance if the connection was missed, and some would think otherwise (both views have been expressed here in the past and there's nothing I know of in writing to confirm either view). But if we did consider it one, I suspect submitting the separate Tube single as part of an overall DR claim would get rejected.

On the other hand if one had an Advance from Penzance to Paddington then used contactless to travel to Bletchley including a Tube trip, I don't see why that wouldn't be one journey, it's a contactless version of a ticket from London Zone 1 to Bletchley which if on paper would unquestionably be a valid part of such a claim.

 

[redreni]

You can claim normal Delay Repay using contactless. You log onto your TfL account, download evidence of the payment, and submit that as a ticket.

However the situation where that bit in the middle is TfL is a very grey area. Some would certainly say that having, for example, a ticket to Euston, taking the Tube on contactless to Paddington, then a ticket from Paddington, *is* two journeys including in terms of having to purchase a new Advance if the connection was missed, and some would think otherwise (both views have been expressed here in the past and there's nothing I know of in writing to confirm either view). But if we did consider it one, I suspect submitting the separate Tube single as part of an overall DR claim would get rejected.

On the other hand if one had an Advance from Penzance to Paddington then used contactless to travel to Bletchley including a Tube trip, I don't see why that wouldn't be one journey, it's a contactless version of a ticket from London Zone 1 to Bletchley which if on paper would unquestionably be a valid part of such a claim.

The ambiguity is fine from the Railway's point of view. The percentage of passengers who realise they can claim for delays on contactless at all, let alone on through journeys including a contactless segment, must be fairly tiny.

 

[Wolfie]

You can claim normal Delay Repay using contactless. You log onto your TfL account, download evidence of the payment, and submit that as a ticket.

However the situation where that bit in the middle is TfL is a very grey area. Some would certainly say that having, for example, a ticket to Euston, taking the Tube on contactless to Paddington, then a ticket from Paddington, *is* two journeys including in terms of having to purchase a new Advance if the connection was missed, and some would think otherwise (both views have been expressed here in the past and there's nothing I know of in writing to confirm either view). But if we did consider it one, I suspect submitting the separate Tube single as part of an overall DR claim would get rejected.

On the other hand if one had an Advance from Penzance to Paddington then used contactless to travel to Bletchley including a Tube trip, I don't see why that wouldn't be one journey, it's a contactless version of a ticket from London Zone 1 to Bletchley which if on paper would unquestionably be a valid part of such a claim.

Just to muddy the waters further there is TfL and TfL.. Your argument is based solely on use of the Tube, what about the Overground or Elizabeth line, both of which are part of National Rail?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to muddy the waters further there is TfL and TfL.. Your argument is based solely on use of the Tube, what about the Overground or Elizabeth line, both of which are part of National Rail?

Pretty sure the Lizzie and Overground would be the same as Thameslink, i.e. considered part of the National Rail through journey.

But the situation with regard to crossing London is an annoying grey area, which could do with being clarified explicitly somewhere. Ideally a journey involving two tickets where they don't meet at the same station but do "meet" at two different stations in the same town/city should be considered as contiguous provided the specified times to cross that town/city are adhered to. Same with Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham etc.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Some would certainly say that having, for example, a ticket to Euston, taking the Tube on contactless to Paddington, then a ticket from Paddington, *is* two journeys including in terms of having to purchase a new Advance if the connection was missed

The contactless area around London has now expanded to include some lines with only hourly services. So you arrive at Euston or Kings Cross sufficiently late to trigger delay repayment. You haven't even bought the next stage of the journey and won't until you touch in on the Underground. Such is the slack in your timetable for crossing London that you will make it on time to your ultimate destination even though you were late arriving into a London terminal. Claim for the delay or not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The contactless area around London has now expanded to include some lines with only hourly services. So you arrive at Euston or Kings Cross sufficiently late to trigger delay repayment. You haven't even bought the next stage of the journey and won't until you touch in on the Underground. Such is the slack in your timetable for crossing London that you will make it on time to your ultimate destination even though you were late arriving into a London terminal. Claim for the delay or not?

If you'd include the contactless bit in your claim if you did arrive late, no. If you wouldn't, perhaps fair enough.

It's one or the other.

 

[bananas]

OP here, sorry for disappearing - I apparently don’t get email notifications.

Maybe it's some wierd sense of achievement beating abusing the rules, or just a very mean habit to steal from a service largely paid for by others.

To be honest, the thread seems to be a strange topic for a member's first post on RUK.

I just get enjoyment out of finding possible (even very theoretical) ways to bend rules. I don’t plan to exploit them - in this case I see no reason to risk it for (as someone has mentioned) what is probably going to be much less than £10 in most cases. Part of my motivation is that if I one day discovered a particularly bad loophole, I could try and get it fixed before it bankrupts the whole system!

I suppose it being my first post might make it seem a bit suspicious, but I swear that’s a coincidence! It’s just a question I’ve had burning away in the back of my mind for a while.

 

[talldave]

I suppose it being my first post might make it seem a bit suspicious, but I swear that’s a coincidence! It’s just a question I’ve had burning away in the back of my mind for a while.

Thanks for stimulating an interesting debate, the highlight of which, for me, was @Watershed's use of "nebulous hand waving" which so quaintly sums up the rail industry!!

 

[Watershed]

Thanks for stimulating an interesting debate, the highlight of which, for me, was @Watershed's use of "nebulous hand waving" which so quaintly sums up the rail industry!!

You're welcome! Yes, it seems to be the favoured way the industry deals with what it perceived as "loopholes" - rather than defining things clearly and unambiguously.

 

[unsatisfied]

If you use split ticketing to buy journey A -> B and B -> C, and you are delayed on your B -> C leg such that you arrive at C 15+ minutes late but service A -> B was fine all day long, are you given delay repay on your whole journey, or only on the B -> C segment?

If you use split ticketing to buy journey A -> B and B -> C, and you are delayed on your A -> B leg such that you arrive at C 15+ minutes late but service B -> C was fine all day long, are you given delay repay on your whole journey, or only on the A -> B segment, or given delay repay on the A -> B segment for the delay in arriving at B?

If blue then go ahead and claim it, as you shouldn't be strictly disadvantaged for using split ticketing, it would make sense that there is some benefit too. If they play the game, you should too.
If orange then I'd respect the system of honour and claim for what you were ultimately delayed by (I assume navigating train delays and cancellations doesn't cause you distress, you didn't sprain your knee running to make your connection, and you weren't planning to exit the station at B, or perform some activity at station B such as using the loo/vending machines/ticket office/meeting another traveller which you weren't able to do because of the delay).

Delay repay is to give train operators a financial incentive to provide better service (or give the customers a feeling of payback?). For some reason, most operators have additional lower time thresholds or additional % payouts, how very odd in a for-profit model. Maybe there would be too much backlash if this were removed? Or the delay repayments aren't enough to incentivise the train operators improve their service?

 

[trainophile]

Testing this currently. Travelled from Manchester Airport to Crewe on Monday, Northern journey all good and on time, well just 2 mins late arriving. Half hour connection onto westbound TfW, which arrived at our final destination Hereford 28 late.

(We were quite lucky actually as it was 62 late at Abergavenny, and terminated at Cardiff instead of Fishguard Harbour - RTT reporting “lightning strike“, not sure of location.)

Have included the MIA-CRE tickets (there were four of us) in the claim for 15-29 minutes delay as it was most definitely planned and bought as a single journey. Will report back.

 

[AlterEgo]

Testing this currently. Travelled from Manchester Airport to Crewe on Monday, Northern journey all good and on time, well just 2 mins late arriving. Half hour connection onto westbound TfW, which arrived at our final destination Hereford 28 late.

(We were quite lucky actually as it was 62 late at Abergavenny, and terminated at Cardiff instead of Fishguard Harbour - RTT reporting “lightning strike“, not sure of location.)

Have included the MIA-CRE tickets (there were four of us) in the claim for 15-29 minutes delay as it was most definitely planned and bought as a single journey. Will report back.

But this is just claiming correctly and in line with the NRCoT for the full journey, it’s not what has been proposed in the thread.

 

[trainophile]

But this is just claiming correctly and in line with the NRCoT for the full journey, it’s not what has been proposed in the thread.

Sorry if off topic. It’s just that I’m never confident of how a TOC will view it.