Underground delays and booked trains

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bristol Rover

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2009
Messages
72
Touch wood this hasn't happened to me yet, but how does one stand in the following situation. I nearly had this problem a week ago and was not looking forward to the prospect.

Advance ticket purchased from London Paddington to Bristol, ticket only valid on train specified.

Travelling across the Underground from Station A to Paddington, using an Oyster card. Normal journey time (as specified by NR) 30 minutes. I would allow an hour for this.

Severe delays on the tube, journey takes 1 hour 10, train missed.

What are the passenger's rights in this case? I could imagine getting to Paddington and explaining to FGW and them saying 'not our problem mate'. And they'd have a point - it's not their fault that TFL have let you down.

However, the passenger has done all that can be reasonably expected of them, in leaving plenty of time, but being unlucky. Should the passenger be expected to pay what is essentially a fine (in having to buy a new ticket)?

The Oyster card could prove you left enough connection time, as the records are logged to the card.

I believe the situation would be different if a 'through ticket' had been bought, requiring the Underground (e.g. Clapham J to Bristol TM via Paddington), but let's concentrate on this case with the Oyster card and Advance Single.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
I believe the situation would be different if a 'through ticket' had been bought, requiring the Underground (e.g. Clapham J to Bristol TM via Paddington), but let's concentrate on this case with the Oyster card and Advance Single.
I agree that clapham or whatever would be different. Assuming station A is not a station served by NR then I believe it would be "not our problem" strictly speaking
 

island

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
10,620
Location
0036
As I understand it, you would be, to use a technical term, stuffed.

If you had a through Advance route †AP SLOUGH, or if you were using a Travelcard to get to Paddington, you are protected.
 

badzena

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Messages
17
This did happen to me once when delays on the tube caused me to miss my departure from Kings Cross. I spoke to the train manager of the next service about 20 minutes before it was due to depart, politely explained the situation, and asked if there was any way I could board her later departure. She thanked me for coming to see her in advance and allowed me to board! I don't know how many guards would do the same...
 

island

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
10,620
Location
0036
Indeed; staff discretion will apply (and is probably more likely to be applied when one asks politely before departure!)

I have seen it done by gateline staff as well.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,469
Location
Yorkshire
If you find yourself in this situation, then you will find that many - though not all - Train Managers will "show discretion" (as badzena experienced) if you approach them prior to departure. Alternatively the ticket office may endorse the ticket for travel on a later service.

However you can avoid any risk of this problem occurring in future by purchasing a ticket from 'Zone U1* London' which is priced at £3 more than a ticket from London Terminals. (That is assuming Station A is in Zone 1; if not then alter the ticket as appropriate), however if Station A is a station that is also served by National Rail services it may be possible to buy a ticket from there, or another combination of tickets, alternatively perhaps travelling from a conveniently located National Rail station near Station A may be applicable.

Obviously specific advice cannot be given where the origin is unknown.

For example a paper ticket from, say, Ealing Broadway to London Terminals plus London Terminals to York would be a valid combination of tickets (see Advance FAQs) and would still cover you for delays on LU between Paddington & King's Cross, though sadly this does cost more than Oyster PAYG.

Starting your journey on a different mode (ie, LU in this case) can cause problems when using Advance tickets, if the tickets are not through tickets.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
6,047
Location
Crayford
For example a paper ticket from, say, Ealing Broadway to London Terminals plus London Terminals to York would be a valid combination of tickets (see Advance FAQs) and would still cover you for delays on LU between Paddington & King's Cross, though sadly this does cost more than Oyster PAYG.
But if you touched in at Ealing Broadway and out at the NR platforms at Paddington before touching back in to the Underground and asked the ticket office at Kings Cross to provide a journey printout from your card, this should be sufficient evidence that you started on another NR service. Smartcards are allowed to be used but they need to be interrogated by staff that can see the details rather than being produced on a later train a long way from London.
 

island

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
10,620
Location
0036
The Advance FAQs do not accept tube single tickets (PAYG or paper) for the purpose of endorsing for later travel.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
6,047
Location
Crayford
The Advance FAQs do not accept tube single tickets (PAYG or paper) for the purpose of endorsing for later travel.
Indeed, which is why you need to make it clear that you used FGW between Ealing and Paddington by touching out at the NR gates rather than going straight onto the H&C/Circle.
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,011
If, in our supposedly "unified" railway, you are delayed on the tube and miss your mainline connection, one would expect to be accommodated on the next available mainline service, especially in the interests of good customer service. After all, doing so doesn't (or at least shouldn't) cost the railways a penny, and it can't be difficult for them to find out if you were delayed on the tube - a bit of helpful collaboration between TfL and the TOC's can't be that hard to ask for, surely?

Unfortunately, this is not the case, and even though discretion seems to be shown in many cases, this situation of being heavily delayed on the tube can cause a lot of worry and distress in many passengers. I'd be interested to hear stories of people who have not been shown discretion. Perhaps discretion is actually shown in the vast majority of cases, so I don't have anything to worry about?

I do not accept the argument that the tube is "not part of the railways." Buses and taxis, yes, I agree. But the tube, no, I don't agree!

I don't know what this situation was like in the days of British Rail. I'm sure some on here would be able to spread some light.
 

island

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
10,620
Location
0036
Indeed, which is why you need to make it clear that you used FGW between Ealing and Paddington by touching out at the NR gates rather than going straight onto the H&C/Circle.
I still don't think that's enough. Your journey is only protected if you used a through ticket, or several National Rail tickets. Using a tube or bus in the middle on a separate ticket (other than a Travelcard) forfeits the protection, if I remember correctly.

Edit: Don't mind me, this particular combination is protected.
 
Last edited:

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
If, in our supposedly "unified" railway, you are delayed on the tube and miss your mainline connection, one would expect to be accommodated on the next available mainline service, especially in the interests of good customer service....

....I do not accept the argument that the tube is "not part of the railways." Buses and taxis, yes, I agree. But the tube, no, I don't agree!

I don't know what this situation was like in the days of British Rail. I'm sure some on here would be able to spread some light.
The only part of the London Underground that I know of being run by BR in my lifetime is the Waterloo & City that NSE ran for a while. Saying the LUL is part of the railway is like saying Metrolink, or T&W Metro or Croydon Tramlink is part of the railway, they aren't and the Underground isn't.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,469
Location
Yorkshire
The Advance FAQs do not accept tube single tickets (PAYG or paper) for the purpose of endorsing for later travel.
Indeed, which is why you need to make it clear that you used FGW between Ealing and Paddington by touching out at the NR gates rather than going straight onto the H&C/Circle.
Clearly tickets to/from London Terminals, with the tube being used in between, are acceptable. If any other mode was used, then this is still a valid combination but if delayed occurred on a non-recognised mode then it could invalidate the claim (e.g. if you are supposed to allow 45 mins for a transfer, that will be based on an LU transfer, you could invalidate your claim if you take a taxi. On the other hand, the Yeovil Junction/Pen Mill connection appears to assume a taxi is used and not taking one could invalidate any claims there if a delay occurred on a bus/while walking).

The tickets should also be honoured for a journey starting on National Rail if Oyster PAYG is used, however in this case the Advance FAQs state that you should get this checked in a travel centre and endorsed before boarding the onward train. I am not convinced that is always fair or reasonable, but that's what it says.

So Ealing Broadway - Paddington - King's Cross - York would be fine.

But what is not included is when you use a "non train company" ticket (whether on paper or stored electronically) followed by a an Advance ticket. Now, whether or not touching in at Ealing Broadway and touching out at King's Cross without intermediately touching out/in at Paddington means that this is a "non train company" journey or not, is debatable (in this case the Oyster PAYG fare would be identical, in some other cases it would not). It is also doubtful that the travel centre staff would be checking Oyster readers for this purpose. It is likely that they would simply check with LU/TfL whether or not there was disruption along the route in question, and if there is, endorse the tickets.

It really is difficult to advise the OP on how to avoid such issues in future as we do not know the location of Station A, other than provide general advice that the OP can then apply, depending on where in London the journey originates from.

The rules are certainly complex, that's for sure, but many ticket office staff will endorse tickets for onward travel if there are delays on LU, irrespective of the exact consumer rights involved with the tickets in question. But it is better to do everything you can to ensure you are covered to maximise the chances of such an endorsement being made, and if it is not made, maximising your chances of a refund.

So what I'd do is start my journey on a National Rail service, to be safe (note that this includes London Overground, for the avoidance of doubt!)
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,397
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
. . . . Saying the LUL is part of the railway is like saying Metrolink, or T&W Metro or Croydon Tramlink is part of the railway, they aren't and the Underground isn't.
Quite correct. Its as clear a distinction as chalk and cheese. I was even considering making exactly the same response myself.

I'm sure that All Line Rover was in no doubt either (judging by his use of quotation marks).

The question that arises though, is there really any benefit or purpose to the industry's distinction between honouring a ticket on one of a TOC's later service if delayed by an unforseen and unforeseeable incident on another Operator's service, and, an unforseen and unforeseeable incident on another Operator's service when that 'other Operator' is TfL or T&W Metro?

Apart from the cynic's reply that it maximises revenue without any additional provision to the customer, it does seem to me to be an archaic and unneccessary posturing by the industry to set itself apart from its suburban members. (Delayed on Merseyrail, no problem. Delayed on the Northern Line, pay again).
Why does this matter? Because the passenger might be travelling on an Advance and not a season, Anytime or whatever, and finds that the distinction between rail operators who are 'in' the ATOC club and those who are not render them liable to a fare up to 10 times the price they paid.

The 'ATOC club' membership wasn't even designed to achieve this distinction!
But it does.
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,011
The only part of the London Underground that I know of being run by BR in my lifetime is the Waterloo & City that NSE ran for a while. Saying the LUL is part of the railway is like saying Metrolink, or T&W Metro or Croydon Tramlink is part of the railway, they aren't and the Underground isn't.
I'm afraid that I have absolutely no experience of the T&W Metro, so am unable to comment on it.

TfL is the "umbrella brand" for all methods of rail transport in London: London Underground, London Overground and the DLR. This leads to the interesting situation where one can miss their mainline connection because of a delay on the London Overground, and be fully entitled to travel on the next available mainline service, but one can also miss their mainline connection because of a delay on the London Underground, and be forced to rely on the discretion of staff! I know that London Underground, London Overground and the DLR are all run by separate companies, but the average passenger doesn't care about that, and simply considers all three to be part of the "integrated" public transport network in London.

I have three points to make:
  1. Why distinguish between London Overground, and London Underground / The DLR, when they are all run under the same brand?
  2. Why is the London Underground "not part of the railways" when hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of people are required to use it as part of a mainline journey to transfer between London Terminals?
  3. What difference makes Merseyrail "part of the railways," and London Underground / The DLR "not part of the railways?"
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Yes, err... thanks. That explains a lot. :roll:
Okay then, it comes down to whether or not they were part of BR, which itself comes down to whether or not they were grouped with one of the Big Four in 1923. So it's a historical thing...

(Obviously this doesn't include former BR lines that have been reused for non-BR systems, such as the DLR or Midland Metro.)
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
....
I have three points to make:
  1. Why distinguish between London Overground, and London Underground / The DLR, when they are all run under the same brand?
  2. Why is the London Underground "not part of the railways" when hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of people are required to use it as part of a mainline journey to transfer between London Terminals?
  3. What difference makes Merseyrail "part of the railways," and London Underground / The DLR "not part of the railways?"
1. Do they use the same brand? I haven't travelled around London to much in recent years, but, AFAIK, the buses, LUL, DLR, Croydon Tramlink and London Overground use different brands and different logos.

2. The cost of transfers between London stations as part of a longer journey is covered for a through journey starting on the National Rail network, but for journeys starting on the tube it is treated as being like using a bus, or taxi, or even just walking to the National Rail station. In these situations, why should the tube be treated better than travelling by bus or walking or taxi or even the Croydon Tramlink?

3. Merseyrail was part of BR at the time of privatisation, it is a Train Operating Company that is part of the National Rail network and a member of ATOC. LUL/DLR was not part of BR when privatisation happened, it is not a Train Operating Company, it is not part of the National Rail network (although it does share some tracks, just like the T&W does) and AFAIK, it is not a member of ATOC.
 

Bristol Rover

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2009
Messages
72
Station A was London Bridge, but I wanted it to be a general discussion as the scenario outlined could apply to any tube journey followed by a booked train.

I agree that most TMs would show discretion if approached in advance, but it's an unnecessary worry to have to bear. I think the Zone 1 ticket advice is the best course of action to take in the future.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,469
Location
Yorkshire
1. Do they use the same brand?
Depends how you define 'brand'; I guess ALRs argument is that they use the same TfL brand but with their own 'sub-brand'. They do certainly have their own identity.
The cost of transfers between London stations as part of a longer journey is covered for a through journey starting on the National Rail network
True
but for journeys starting on the tube it is treated as being like using a bus, or taxi, or even just walking to the National Rail station.
Not for the purpose of Oyster PAYG charging, which I guess is what ALR was hinting at, in which case using the tube at the start of a journey that continues by National Rail will only charge you once for one journey.

In other words, LU and NR are integrated for the purposes of ticketing in respect of Oyster PAYG, Travelcards, etc, but not for the purposes of using Advance tickets. It is that discrepancy and lack of consistency that I guess ALR is arguing could be a cause of confusion and frustration for passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Station A was London Bridge, but I wanted it to be a general discussion as the scenario outlined could apply to any tube journey followed by a booked train.
In that case, you would have been covered if you had used Thameslink, or started your journey with a train to Waterloo (East) or Charing Cross!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree that most TMs would show discretion if approached in advance, but it's an unnecessary worry to have to bear. I think the Zone 1 ticket advice is the best course of action to take in the future.
It depends on the exact circumstance, but for a Railcard holder travelling at a time that Oyster considers peak, the additional cost of a ticket from "Zone U1 London" (code 0785) is going to be roughly the same (perhaps 5p less, due to rounding I think) than a separate Oyster PAYG fare anyway, and gives the added protection and/or no requirement to seek endorsement from a ticket office. For other users, there may be a marginal additional cost which is worth it, but for those travelling further out into distant zones it may get expensive.

So it depends on the exact origin and the customers' requirements as to what I'd advise. It also depends on the AP ticket in question; e.g. some TOCs do not attract much premium to tickets from places like Finsbury Park, Clapham Jn etc. East Coast however do not allow their cheapest Advance tickets to be booked across London. It's a minefield!
 
Last edited:

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,011
1. Do they use the same brand? I haven't travelled around London to much in recent years, but, AFAIK, the buses, LUL, DLR, Croydon Tramlink and London Overground use different brands and different logos.
They all use the roundel, they are use the same font, they all use the same method of payment (Oyster), they all use the TfL website. I consider that a brand.

3. Merseyrail was part of BR at the time of privatisation, it is a Train Operating Company that is part of the National Rail network and a member of ATOC. LUL/DLR was not part of BR when privatisation happened, it is not a Train Operating Company, it is not part of the National Rail network (although it does share some tracks, just like the T&W does) and AFAIK, it is not a member of ATOC.
I'll let people make up their own mind on whether the general public consider that a valid, sensible, completely understandable argument.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
They all use the roundel, they are use the same font, they all use the same method of payment (Oyster), they all use the TfL website. I consider that a brand....
brand
noun

1. kind, grade, or make, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or the like.
2. a mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make,
ownership, etc.
3. a mark formerly put upon criminals with a hot iron.
4. any mark of disgrace; stigma.
5. branding iron.

I suppose they share number 4 :lol:
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,469
Location
Yorkshire
HHF - can you confirm if you are stating that you are suggesting TfL is not a brand? (and surely point number 1 does apply!)

If so, the existence of TfL Design Standards would suggest otherwise.

TfL said:
Modal differences

TfL has produced a range of design standards for use by staff, suppliers and design agencies involved in graphic design and layout.
Although some guidelines apply across different modes and business areas, key differences between them mean it is essential that the correct set of standards is applied.
It would be a reasonable argument to say each mode is a sub-brand.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
Sarcasm?

TfL might be a brand, TfGM might be a brand, or WYPTE even. None of them actually operate a service though and lets be honest, how many have you heard say they travel on TfL? If I see the LUL roundel, or even the bus roundel, I don't tend to think of TfL.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
6,047
Location
Crayford
TfL are definitely muddying the waters though. They show LO routes on the tube map; and at stations where LO interchange with other NR services they certainly give the impression that LO isn't part of NR. True, they had good reasons for doing this in terms of increasing passenger usage; but somewhere down the line it's going to blow up in someones face and a judge is going to decide that it's not clear to the public and throw out the case.

Also, I am concerned about the different treatment of Oyster PAYG in relation to long distance journeys. On the one hand if you are delayed getting to your Advance train then you can claim delayed travel as long as you get the ticket endorsed at a travel centre, but the other way round you can be stranded in Central London if your long distance train is seriously delayed because simply having the means to travel economically to your destination is not sufficient to be provided with a taxi to finish the journey.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
4,678
Location
Sheffield
Okay then, it comes down to whether or not they were part of BR, which itself comes down to whether or not they were grouped with one of the Big Four in 1923. So it's a historical thing...

(Obviously this doesn't include former BR lines that have been reused for non-BR systems, such as the DLR or Midland Metro.)
This throws up interesting differences though.

T&W Metro & Metrolink took over Big Four lines which were part of the BR passenger network at the time of takeover. So, basically a continuing service only interrupted by engineering work required to convert to light rail standards.

Midland Metro, on the other hand, was introduced on an ex-BR (Big Four) line on which there had been no passenger service for many years.
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
T&W Metro & Metrolink took over Big Four lines which were part of the BR passenger network at the time of takeover. So, basically a continuing service only interrupted by engineering work required to convert to light rail standards.

Midland Metro, on the other hand, was introduced on an ex-BR (Big Four) line on which there had been no passenger service for many years.
And the DLR is a mix of both types.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top