Travelled on the next available train (after cancellation) but being charged.

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, but the point I was making earlier in the thread (which was hotly disputed) is that removing Advance and TOC-specific tickets would only be likely to result in higher average ticket prices, even if it was revenue neutral overall.

Which is a good point. I think many people took it to mean there would be no reduction in the walk-up fare, which may not be the case. But because there would be likely at least one passenger who would not travel because of the abolition of the super-cheap fare, your point would be right.

 

[najaB]

Condition 43 of the National Rail Conditions Of Carriage is relevant to this discussion.

"...If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination printed on or stored on your ticket, and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you...."

I've been thinking some more about the Condition 43 argument as that is the closest I can get to blanket permission to travel on another TOC's train if yours is cancelled. The problem I have with it is the fact that it gives a right to overnight accommodation - this strongly implies that 'stranded' means unable to complete your journey in the same day. How far you would get in invoking this condition at 2pm for a one-hour journey remains to be seen.

I still stand by the advice that you should seek permission to travel in these circumstances.

 

[trainophile]

I've been thinking some more about the Condition 43 argument as that is the closest I can get to blanket permission to travel on another TOC's train if yours is cancelled. The problem I have with it is the fact that it gives a right to overnight accommodation - this strongly implies that 'stranded' means unable to complete your journey in the same day. How far you would get in invoking this condition at 2pm for a one-hour journey remains to be seen.

I still stand by the advice that you should seek permission to travel in these circumstances.

But how many of Joe Public who only travel on high days and holidays are aware of that fact? What recourse do they have to information about their options if their train is cancelled? A good TM on a train that is stopping short of destination due to technical problems or some such reason will make an announcement about what passengers needing to travel onwards should do, but if I get off a Merseyrail train at Chester, to find my Arriva is not running, would it occur to me to enquire, or would I just board the next southbound VTWC to Crewe, hoping I can pick up a South Wales train there? The latter, apparently, could result in me being prosecuted!

A rail journey is a short-term thing for most people, booked, undertaken and forgotten about upon arrival. All these complex conditions are more in line with taking out a mortgage or a finance agreement, when the small print is material to what you are agreeing to. I am somewhat astounded that so much is made of such trivial "irregularities" like using an alternative operator's train to complete a journey that you have every right to, having paid for it!

Some posters on here seem to think people should spend half their lives studying the small print, when to the passenger it should be no more complicated than jumping on a bus.

Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question about how much additional cost is incurred by a train carrying a few extra passengers than originally manifested? Provided there is room for them, surely it doesn't hurt anyone to help out in such circumstances.

 

[najaB]

But how many of Joe Public who only travel on high days and holidays are aware of that fact? What recourse do they have to information about their options if their train is cancelled?

Very few. Which is why we end up with situations as presented in the OP.

I am somewhat astounded that so much is made of such trivial "irregularities" like using an alternative operator's train to complete a journey that you have every right to, having paid for it!

And nobody has suggested even for a moment that you aren't entitled to complete your journey - using the services of the TOC with whom you have a contract. The issue under discussion is if you have a right to use the services of a different one.

Some posters on here seem to think people should spend half their lives studying the small print, when to the passenger it should be no more complicated than jumping on a bus.

I can't speak for other posters, but my contribution to this thread has been to try and establish a cogent argument that would be of use to the OP and to any other posters who later find themselves in a similar situation. This isn't a one-off and the OP's relatives won't be the last people to find themselves in a similar situation. Unfortunately, as yet, despite much huffing and puffing about the evil train companies and their contempt for the customers in worship at the temple of Mammon one hasn't been presented.

As such, despite my personal belief that they have a (moral, not legal) obligation to carry the passengers, I haven't yet read anything that changes my opinion that the passenger has to have permission to travel on TOC B's train free of the threat of financial or legal penalty.

Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question about how much additional cost is incurred by a train carrying a few extra passengers than originally manifested? Provided there is room for them, surely it doesn't hurt anyone to help out in such circumstances.

Pretty sure that it would be so small as to be unquantifiable.

 

[trainophile]

Pretty sure that it would be so small as to be unquantifiable.

So why is there an issue at all?

I do understand that you are addressing the facts of the matter, and some of us e.g. myself are being side-tracked by what we perceive as unfair regulations, and possibly should be keeping our views to ourselves as they don't help the OP.

However it was an interesting discussion, and focused a few minds on the other points of view I bet!

 

[najaB]

So why is there an issue at all?

Pretty sure that the cost of carriage never entered into it, two other reasons come to mind though. First it could be that TOC B sees TOC A as a challenger (think VTEC and Grand Central) so they see carrying the 'oppositions' passengers due to a cancellation as the thin edge of the wedge (will they have to carry them if the other side is late, full, etc.?)

The second (much more cynical) reason I can think of is that it's a easy way to get some money out of the passenger - either through making them pay again, or threatening prosecution and accepting a settlement.

 

[gray1404]

I have to admit this thread has confused me a lot in terms of acceptance of Advance (and in fact TOC specific walk up fares) ticket on other TOCs services, which I shall now explain. I do think we need still need full and information however from the OP in terms of exactly what services their friend traveled on and the exact tickets held in order to advise and work towards trying to get a good outcome for them. I am concerned we are in fact nowhere nearer to obtaining such details however.

Do correct me if I am wrong in what I am able to say here, please. I often travel on Route: London Midland Only tickets on the West Coast Mainline from Liverpool so a change at Stafford is required. I travel on both LM Advances and LM Only walk up tickets. My understanding has been that in the event of a delay/cancellation to the LM service I have to wait for the next LM service (and then have the option of claiming delay repay if its over 30 minutes delay) an I cannot get on the service of another TOC (in this case it would be Virgin) unless one of the following applies: -

1. there is ticket acceptable arrangments in place between the 2 TOCs at time of disruption
2. it is the last service of the day and that it will not otherwise be possible for me to get to my destination unless I get the service of the other TOC.

 

[LAX54]

I have to admit this thread has confused me a lot in terms of acceptance of Advance (and in fact TOC specific walk up fares) ticket on other TOCs services, which I shall now explain. I do think we need still need full and information however from the OP in terms of exactly what services their friend traveled on and the exact tickets held in order to advise and work towards trying to get a good outcome for them. I am concerned we are in fact nowhere nearer to obtaining such details however.

Do correct me if I am wrong in what I am able to say here, please. I often travel on Route: London Midland Only tickets on the West Coast Mainline from Liverpool so a change at Stafford is required. I travel on both LM Advances and LM Only walk up tickets. My understanding has been that in the event of a delay/cancellation to the LM service I have to wait for the next LM service (and then have the option of claiming delay repay if its over 30 minutes delay) an I cannot get on the service of another TOC (in this case it would be Virgin) unless one of the following applies: -

1. there is ticket acceptable arrangments in place between the 2 TOCs at time of disruption
2. it is the last service of the day and that it will not otherwise be possible for me to get to my destination unless I get the service of the other TOC.

As far as I can work out, what you say is correct, of course the OP has failed to provide any real detail, but I am assuming if there is another 'same TOC' train in an hour or so, then THAT was what is meant by next available train, it's how I would see it in that position, as I assume it would in every other transport situation

 

[najaB]

Do correct me if I am wrong in what I am able to say here, please. I often travel on Route: London Midland Only tickets on the West Coast Mainline from Liverpool so a change at Stafford is required. I travel on both LM Advances and LM Only walk up tickets. My understanding has been that in the event of a delay/cancellation to the LM service I have to wait for the next LM service (and then have the option of claiming delay repay if its over 30 minutes delay) an I cannot get on the service of another TOC (in this case it would be Virgin) unless one of the following applies: -

1. there is ticket acceptable arrangments in place between the 2 TOCs at time of disruption
2. it is the last service of the day and that it will not otherwise be possible for me to get to my destination unless I get the service of the other TOC.

That is my understanding of things, however several posters have disagreed. I'm particularly interested in the logic behind Yorkie's disagreement since, as a moderator and fares advisor, I'm confident it is based on a clear interpretation of the rules that would be convincing to on-train staff and so would negate the need for you to seek permission to board the Virgin train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The odd thing is that in Virgin vs LM there is a clear (in most cases) budget operator and premium operator, where mostly the premium one (VT) is usable with the interavailable ticket only. In more complex journeys where there is no clear hierarchy it seems rather less clear cut.

What about, for instance, one of those tenuous &connections Advances? I have had one from Liverpool to Birmingham Intl, which was only issued because New St to Intl was on XC.

 

[najaB]

What about, for instance, one of those tenuous &connections Advances? I have had one from Liverpool to Birmingham Intl, which was only issued because New St to Intl was on XC.

Those are interesting because the ticket restrictions usually say something like "Travel must include travel on the main TOC..." - so I suppose as long as you actually use the services of the named TOC at some point, then you'd be free to use any other. If that argument would wash with the guys and gals on the ground remains to be seen.

 

[swt_passenger]

What about, for instance, one of those tenuous &connections Advances? I have had one from Liverpool to Birmingham Intl, which was only issued because New St to Intl was on XC.

The staff info (Advance FAQs Q24) has an explanation of this - stating that occasionally the joint planning systems will give a much larger 'connection' than the actual TOC specific leg, and instructs staff as follows:

“TOC & Connections” simply means the majority of the journey should take place on the TOC shown plus any other local connections. Unfortunately not all Journey Planners understand the meaning of “the majority of”, and sometimes the ‘majority’ might be a relatively small portion. But it works both ways round as all TOCs are affected, and it all balances out. Do not penalise the passenger if the ticket issuing system gives them a journey where the “main” TOC has a
relatively small portion, and please report any extreme examples found.

 

[najaB]

For the avoidance of doubt, I want there to be a clear case for travelling on the next train without needing to seek permission. If anyone can find that reason then great - it can be added to the ticketing guide and referred to if people have similar trouble in future.

 

[gray1404]

I would also say that the "sticking to the 'Route' TOC" on Advances (and TOC specific walk ups) so strictly has built up over time and has come to a head more recently. Even the staff now don't all think of the railway as one big family but rather separate companies. When the railways first went private there was very much more an approach of putting customer on the next running service, regardless of who the operator - just like it would have been in the BR days where it was only being on the timed booked train that mattered in the case of Apex and Super Advance. Any disruption then your on the next running train regardless.

 

[najaB]

Even the staff now don't all think of the railway as one big family but rather separate companies.

Unless I've missed something, they are separate companies?

 

[trainophile]

Unless I've missed something, they are separate companies?

You wouldn't necessarily surmise that from booking a ticket on Trainline etc.

 

[najaB]

You wouldn't necessarily surmise that from booking a ticket on Trainline etc.

Some might, some might not but they don't go out of their way to hide the fact that there's different operators involved. Here's an example screenshot:

 

[gray1404]

Unless I've missed something, they are separate companies?

Yes, but at tims of disruption that fact is often rubbed in the customers face and used to their disadvantage. i.e. your LM to Euston is cancelled, you havn't paid for an overpriced VT ticket so even though theres a VT to Euston leaving platform 3 now, will still have to sit around here and wait for LM to get their act together.

 

[trainophile]

I suppose what I meant was, as you generally book a ticket as a through journey, regardless of how many different train companies are involved, the impression is that they are at least all part of the same overall operation. (Which they are, as Network Rail would demonstrate.)

If you had to book each leg separately, e.g. using your example Edinburgh to Crewe, Crewe to Newport, Newport to Cardiff (why wouldn't you book Crewe to Cardiff I wonder?), this would at least focus the mind that you are dealing with separate entities.

 

[najaB]

I suppose what I meant was, as you generally book a ticket as a through journey, regardless of how many different train companies are involved, the impression is that they are at least all part of the same overall operation. (Which they are, as Network Rail would demonstrate.)

Right idea, wrong company. Network Rail doesn't run trains.

If you had to book each leg separately, e.g. using your example Edinburgh to Crewe, Crewe to Newport, Newport to Cardiff (why wouldn't you book Crewe to Cardiff I wonder?), this would at least focus the mind that you are dealing with separate entities.

Using the rarely-apt airline example, it's no different to booking a flight to the USA with one leg being KLM to Amsterdam and the second leg being Amsterdam to Atlanta on Delta - yet it's one ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but at tims of disruption that fact is often rubbed in the customers face and used to their disadvantage. i.e. your LM to Euston is cancelled, you havn't paid for an overpriced VT ticket so even though theres a VT to Euston leaving platform 3 now, will still have to sit around here and wait for LM to get their act together.

Some would argue (I've got no dog in this fight, by the way) that the LM ticket is discounted from what should be the 'correct' price.

 

[trainophile]

What I meant was Network Rail cover the whole... well... rail network and are responsible for the whole of the country's rail infrastructure, not just slices of it. Hence my assertion that they do operate as one entity, unlike the train operators.

 

[najaB]

Hence my assertion that they do operate as one entity, unlike the train operators.

But, unlike the train operators, Network Rail is one company.

 

[trainophile]

But, unlike the train operators, Network Rail is one company.

Lol yes, but we are talking at cross purposes here - I'm referring to the perception that the travelling public have about "the railway".

 

[yorkie]

As I said before, I want to know more information before advising about a specific incident. I think it would be difficult to deny that reasonableness won't come into the equation, we do not know what advice was sought/given, nor the timings of the booked itinerary or the actual journey made. We do not know details of the exact ticket held.

Some people have started talking about Off Peak tickets, but this is clearly about Advance tickets, and different terms apply.

Some people appear to be disregarding the T&Cs applicable to the ticket, which state you may take the next train, and some people appear to be disregarding the policy which all TOCs are committed to, which states that when disruption occurs passengers will not be discriminated against by TOC.

I know there is no risk to the public with the views held by najaB as he is not in a position to charge people, but I am very concerned with the views expressed by JonFun and would like to know if he is saying he is disregarding the policy not to discriminate by TOC?

Here is a real example from today:\

https://twitter.com/EMTrains/status/681105907028197376

Hi Ysabel, if your train is cancelled you're able to travel on the next available train and should not be charged a new ticket.

even if it is via Virgin east Coast and not East Midlands?

That is correct Ysabel, hope this helps.

EMT incorrectly deleted Leeds as an origin for this service (causing some staff to claim it didn't exist - I know this is another problem the rail industry has, but we've had other threads for that, so let's put that to one side) when they should have put 'Cancelled', and staff at Leeds initially claimed that passengers had to use Northern to Sheffield, as the website was unclear on the matter. However they relented. As far as I am concerned, once staff have said it's okay to get the next train, then the Guard on that train has no right to withdraw that authorisation.

We do not know exactly what conversations took place with the OP's scenario, however if they were told they could take the next train from Leeds then that, as far as I am concerned, is definitive.

If there was a TPE train very soon after the XC service, and the passengers simply boarded the next train, that is a situation I would advise people not to get into, and I can see how XC would be unhappy about that, however a strict interpretation of the Advance rules stating passengers may get the next train, means that I do not think passengers (acting reasonably) should be penalised.

I completely agree with what AlterEgo said earlier, and those who disregard what he says are quite frankly not being sensible.

Oh and the rubbish about whether or not a TOC has received any money from the fare is complete and utter nonsense; we all know revenue allocation does not determine validity (don't make me roll out my Huntington split ticket example again), and the policy makes that absolutely clear.

Some people seem to want to disregard the policies that really matter and apply their own, ludicrous, interpretations. Such people hopefully won't ever be in the job previously held by AlterEgo, as they clearly are not suited for it.

 

[najaB]

I know there is no risk to the public with the views held by najaB as he is not in a position to charge people...

I'm not, others are and don't see anything in your post that removes the threat of prosecution or financial penalty if you board another train company's service if yours is cancelled without first ensuring that you have permission to do so.

 

[yorkie]

I agree that such a threat could exist, but then the threat of prosecution or financial penalty exists even when using entirely and indisputably valid tickets at times without disruption, especially so on XC.

Hopefully we will shortly receive more information soon so that we can put this particular case at rest.

 

[trainophile]

We had Advance tickets from Paddington to Hereford on the sad occasion of the double fatalities at Slough. There was a delayed Cardiff train boarding as we sat in the Lounge, but we thought we wouldn't be allowed to take it.

We asked at the Lounge reception desk, and the person on duty immediately said with some authority and confidence "yes, go for it, there are no restrictions during disruption". We just made it!

Our tickets on board, and on the connection from Newport to Hereford, were accepted without question.

We were very lucky that we had arrived early, as our booked train was subsequently cancelled and normal service did not resume for several hours. On that occasion thankfully common sense prevailed.

 

[najaB]

I agree that such a threat could exist, but then the threat of prosecution or financial penalty exists even when using entirely and indisputably valid tickets at times without disruption, especially so on XC.

Hopefully we will shortly receive more information soon so that we can put this particular case at rest.

I agree that prosecutions/PF's are threatened when they aren't valid - that's why what I have been seeking is an unambiguous answer that can be given to people who find themselves in this situation: i.e. your train is cancelled and you have an Advance or TOC-only ticket. As I see it the only reliable advice is to ask a representative of 'TOC B' for permission to travel if TOC A hasn't already done so on your behalf.

 

[Jonfun]

Yorkie, I'm sorry you're concerned about my views. I regularly defend passengers rights - when they are in the right. I know I'm not going to change your opinion but I don't think it is right that you should, as a forum fares advisor, give advice which is highly likely to result in someone having to buy a new ticket, and potentially, if coming across a revenue inspector, being taken to court.

The railway will generally accommodate disruption, as very well explained by kwvr (who I trust as knowledgeable on the matter) earlier on. Often ticket acceptance will be agreed for one single cancellation. But to assume it has been automatically granted is not good advice.

My advice of seeking a member of railway staff and enquiring won't get the passenger in any trouble. Your advice is highly likely to. That's all I now intend to contribute to this discussion.

 

[furlong]

For those wondering what constitutes "disruption", there is a clear obligation in the TSA to carry other TOC's passengers free-of-charge, but it only kicks in as follows:

(1) Obligation to carry
...
(b) If any event occurs which is capable of affecting two or more trains of an Operator and is likely to result in passengers who are using or wish to use those trains being delayed by more than an hour, every other Operator must use its reasonable endeavours to enable the passenger to complete his journey on its trains at no extra charge.

with an important caveat

(2) Exception
The obligation in sub-Clause (1)(b) above only applies if the affected Operator could not reasonably have been expected to make alternative arrangements to prevent the passengers referred to in that sub-Clause being delayed by more than an hour, having regard to the length of any notice it had of the event which affected its train(s).

and

(5) Compensation
(a) An Operator which carries passengers pursuant to sub-Clause (1) above will not receive any compensation for doing so unless the delay referred to in that sub-Clause continues for more than 48 hours.

So it seems pretty clear that the onus lies firmly on the original operator of a disrupted service to determine the alternative arrangements for its passengers and the circumstances are tightly defined in which there is an automatic entitlement to use another operator's trains.