Delays on "LM AND XC ONLY" tickets

[CrazyTom]

If one holds a "TOC ONLY" ticket and the booked train on that TOC is cancelled or delayed, what right does one have to travel on an alternative service with another TOC to complete one's journey on time? A relative of mine shelled out significant amounts for unrestricted tickets to complete their journey, and I was wondering based on this post whether they were actually entitled to travel without buying a new ticket. Details are as follows:

• Booked on this ticket.
• Travelled on the 0828 Cross Country service from Derby to Tamworth, which arrived on time at 0849.
• The 0901 London Midland service to London, on which they had a reservation, was cancelled.
• They were told by staff that they either had to wait for the next London Midland service at 1020, or shell out for this anytime ticket to travel on the 0907 Virgin service, which would have them getting to London on time. They chose the latter.
• Upon contacting London Midland customer service, they were offered a refund of the cost of the original tickets paid, but not the significant amount they paid for the tickets they needed to complete the journey on time.
• Was this correct?

I understand that it makes sense that another TOC shouldn't have to carry another's passengers for free, but it seems rather ridiculous that one should have to shell out far more than the cost of the original ticket to complete the journey on time. Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere; I did search and couldn't find anything conclusive. Thank You!

 

[bb21]

It is generally accepted that 60 minutes is the threshold for accepting dedicated fares from other TOCs, but there is no automatic right.

 

[Starmill]

I'm surprised they refunded the original ticket. I agree that there should be a right to this, but it can be difficult to get a refund once you've started your journey.

 

[CrazyTom]

I'm surprised they refunded the original ticket. I agree that there should be a right to this, but it can be difficult to get a refund once you've started your journey.

The refund was under delay repay, although they offered 100% of the return ticket price, not the 50% that they were technically require to offer.

 

[Starmill]

I see, so they were offered compensation for a delay that they didn't incur. Helpful...

 

[bb21]

I see, so they were offered compensation for a delay that they didn't incur. Helpful...

Probably as a goodwill gesture.

 

[Starmill]

I agree. Which seems to answer the OP's question; they weren't refunded anything. This is why I usually refuse to buy a new ticket, because it's so difficult to get it refunded.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is generally accepted that 60 minutes is the threshold for accepting dedicated fares from other TOCs, but there is no automatic right.

And I've noticed that Virgin, particularly on the west, have recently started playing hard-ball on this, regardless of whether the delay is more than an hour. Much to the anger of a lot of TPE customers between the north west and Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I've noticed that Virgin, particularly on the west, have recently started playing hard-ball on this, regardless of whether the delay is more than an hour. Much to the anger of a lot of TPE customers between the north west and Scotland.

Which isn't all that unreasonable when you think about it. Why should a TOC get away with providing an unreliable/overcrowded/infrequent service on the cheap then dump all its passengers on another TOC that isn't getting paid fully for it when it all goes wrong?

If I was VT I would be very cross with LM on the Trent Valley at the moment. Even more so with the long-term atrocious reliability of the Liverpools. It's all rather different to the reciprocal arrangements at Euston where things go wrong. Unless required by the franchise agreement, I would insist on full payment at walk-up rate from LM to carry any of their passengers not on an interavailable ticket where the issue is LM's fault, as it mostly is. Then maybe LM would realise that their price-dumped, low-quality, low-capacity[1] service on the "IC" lines can't continue as it is and has to be properly funded and properly operated.

[1] At least this is getting resolved, but the rest of it stands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably as a goodwill gesture.

Was it *actually* Delay Repay? There's scope for a TOC to refund in full for an abandoned journey, isn't there, i.e. one that didn't reach the ticketed destination for a reason that was within the TOC's control? That's what this was.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which isn't all that unreasonable when you think about it.

Perhaps there should be a way for one TOC to bill another for having to carry its passengers, but the passengers affected shouldn't be having to stump up yet more cash to solve the failings of the railway industry. Particularly given that most TOC-specific tickets are the Advance tickets that the railway industry impose on passengers through price-gouging on walk-up fares.

Most people don't choose a train based on the operator, they choose it based on the timing.

Virgin West Coast are being particularly hard on TPE at the moment, even though there is no alternative to TPE between Manchester and Scotland. But it isn't TPE who suffer, it is their passengers who get left stranded at a station (it happened at Carlisle with a two hour delay last week) despite other trains operating fine.

The Rail Delivery Group like to claim that they are Britain's railway companies working together. Time for them to prove it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps there should be a way for one TOC to bill another for having to carry its passengers, but the passengers affected shouldn't be having to stump up yet more cash to solve the failings of the railway industry. Particularly given that most TOC-specific tickets are the Advance tickets that the railway industry impose on passengers through price-gouging on walk-up fares.

I wouldn't object to a situation where there were set-out criteria (e.g. an anticipated delay of over 60 minutes) where Advance and TOC restrictions would be automatically lifted, and the originating TOC would be automatically billed, at the relevant walk-up fare (minus their ORCATS share if relevant), for the journey made.

That would give the likes of LM a massive clout to sort their appalling operations on the Trent Valley and north of Birmingham out, as they would cease to make money. It'd also benefit the passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Virgin West Coast are being particularly hard on TPE at the moment, even though there is no alternative to TPE between Manchester and Scotland.

There is - Northern to Preston/Lancaster then VT, which is what it'd have been by default in the late 1990s except for, what, 2-3 trains per day. Probably what I'd choose until TPE's new stock turns up, as I'm heartily sick of the overcrowding.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are some circumstances where a TOC may pay another TOC for ticket acceptance.

Grand Central had contingency plans for every one of their (admittedly few) trains. This invariably involved passengers getting a specific East Coast train - a specific one, and GC were billed for the privilege.

On a more casual level, where en-masse ticket acceptance is requested, this should go via Control who will keep a log. TOCs can then decide between themselves what action to take - sometimes this won't be financial action, sometimes it might be something else (like "alright this time, but next time we go belly up you have to provide XYZ for our passengers).

 

[Bletchleyite]

And this is probably why there's disquiet - south of Northampton LM taking VT's passengers does work, but north thereof there is almost nothing LM can usefully do for VT, and it sounds like LM won't pay, because they already charge their passengers too little to be able to run their own operation properly.

TPE are clearly similar - with a 4-car unit once an hour, how are they realistically going to be able to do anything to help VT?

 

[Camden]

Accepting other TOCs passengers when things go wrong should be a part and parcel risk of taking on a franchise. These operating companies have things far too much their own way.

 

[Merseysider]

I wouldn't feel too sorry for TPE, they take a similar stance on Northern passengers. Train faults on the 185s or issues with staff seem to happen every day and if they were palming a full train of passengers off every time it happened there'd be a lot of disgruntled Virgin/EMT/EC customers.

That said, if the alternative is passengers being delayed an hour or more they really should be put on the next train regardless of operator and the cost passed back to the TOC at fault. Having to pay for this would focus a few minds.

 

[bb21]

If I was VT I would be very cross with LM on the Trent Valley at the moment. Even more so with the long-term atrocious reliability of the Liverpools. It's all rather different to the reciprocal arrangements at Euston where things go wrong. Unless required by the franchise agreement, I would insist on full payment at walk-up rate from LM to carry any of their passengers not on an interavailable ticket where the issue is LM's fault, as it mostly is. Then maybe LM would realise that their price-dumped, low-quality, low-capacity[1] service on the "IC" lines can't continue as it is and has to be properly funded and properly operated.

[1] At least this is getting resolved, but the rest of it stands.

Ironically LM were one of the best performers in P9 (13 Nov-10 Dec). West Coast were far worse.

 

[bb21]

Was it *actually* Delay Repay? There's scope for a TOC to refund in full for an abandoned journey, isn't there, i.e. one that didn't reach the ticketed destination for a reason that was within the TOC's control? That's what this was.

I was just putting forward a strong possibility. What it was exactly, who knows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ironically LM were one of the best performers in P9 (13 Nov-10 Dec). West Coast were far worse.

LM as a whole? I don't see any big problems with their performance south of Northampton, though I have no personal experience of Birmingham area locals apart from once a few weeks ago. But the Birmingham-Liverpool and Trent Valley services are in my experience and observation rather poor.

 

[All Line Rover]

Which isn't all that unreasonable when you think about it. Why should a TOC get away with providing an unreliable/overcrowded/infrequent service on the cheap then dump all its passengers on another TOC that isn't getting paid fully for it when it all goes wrong?

If I was VT I would be very cross with LM on the Trent Valley at the moment. Even more so with the long-term atrocious reliability of the Liverpools. It's all rather different to the reciprocal arrangements at Euston where things go wrong. Unless required by the franchise agreement, I would insist on full payment at walk-up rate from LM to carry any of their passengers not on an interavailable ticket where the issue is LM's fault, as it mostly is. Then maybe LM would realise that their price-dumped, low-quality, low-capacity[1] service on the "IC" lines can't continue as it is and has to be properly funded and properly operated.

[1] At least this is getting resolved, but the rest of it stands.

I completely agree. VTWC's southbound morning peak services are exceptionally busy. When LM cancels the 07:55 Crewe to Euston service (as it often does due to "staff shortages"), why should VTWC allow passengers holding £39 LM Only SVR tickets to travel on trains for which the appropriate ticket is a £256 SOR (£277 from SOT [yes, that's an odd one!], £175 from LTV, £175 from TAM and £150 from NUN) and, worse, cause overcrowding that would displace passengers holding those expensive tickets?

London Midland need to get their act together. There should be no obligation for one TOC to accept another TOC's TOC-specific tickets, at least during peak hours.

 

[All Line Rover]

Accepting other TOCs passengers when things go wrong should be a part and parcel risk of taking on a franchise. These operating companies have things far too much their own way.

Not when one TOC cancels trains day in day out due to "staff shortages" which, even if these staff cost the equivalent of £100/hour, is a terrible excuse for a train that is likely to be carrying around 300 passengers paying approximately £15 each = £4500.

In the absence of disruption, I haven't seen VTWC cancel a train due a staff shortage once. Not once. Too many of VTWC's Pendolinos have been breaking down lately, but it's not as bad as London Midland's chronic "staff shortages".

 

[All Line Rover]

if the alternative is passengers being delayed an hour or more they really should be put on the next train regardless of operator and the cost passed back to the TOC at fault. Having to pay for this would focus a few minds.

Yes, this should be a franchise obligation. But the DfT seems more than happy to accept staff shortages, otherwise it would have stripped Govia of the London Midland franchise years ago.

 

[All Line Rover]

Ironically LM were one of the best performers in P9 (13 Nov-10 Dec). West Coast were far worse.

As a percentage of trains arriving "on time", yes (unsurprisingly, as they run many short distance trains). As a percentage of trains cancelled, absolutely not.

What is worse? A VTWC service arriving at its destination 12 minutes late (only really disrupting passengers making connections at intermediate stations), or LM cancelling two trains in a row from e.g. Rugeley Trent Valley, or the last train of the day from Northampton to Crewe which calls at a number of quiet, unstaffed stations?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a percentage of trains arriving "on time", yes (unsurprisingly, as they run many short distance trains). As a percentage of trains cancelled, absolutely not.

What is worse? A VTWC service arriving at its destination 12 minutes late (only really disrupting passengers making connections at intermediate stations), or LM cancelling two trains in a row from e.g. Rugeley Trent Valley, or the last train of the day from Northampton to Crewe which calls at a number of quiet, unstaffed stations?

Quite. I'm fairly convinced LM has got unmanageably big, FWIW. I'd give Liverpool-Brum to Northern (plus some 350s to run it), and the Trent Valley service to the West Coast franchise, personally (possibly with new units e.g. 6-car 800s or something).

The latter might stop people getting price dumped Advances for a tenner to cram themselves aboard overcrowded trains, but at least it'd be run properly.

 

[bb21]

As a percentage of trains arriving "on time", yes (unsurprisingly, as they run many short distance trains). As a percentage of trains cancelled, absolutely not.

What is worse? A VTWC service arriving at its destination 12 minutes late (only really disrupting passengers making connections at intermediate stations), or LM cancelling two trains in a row from e.g. Rugeley Trent Valley, or the last train of the day from Northampton to Crewe which calls at a number of quiet, unstaffed stations?

You may be surprised that even looking at cancellations LM weren't that bad last period.

 

[yorkie]

...Why should a TOC get away with providing an unreliable/overcrowded/infrequent service on the cheap ....

If the other companies lowered their fares to a price that was a little more affordable, they may not lose so much custom! :roll:

Anyway fortunately it's not up to you to decide what policy should be so here it is: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/ACOP015v3 - PIDD (2).pdf

...During disruptive incidents passengers should not be discriminated against on the basis of operator and efforts should be made to deliver the same high standards to everyone. This includes passengers travelling on TOC-specific tickets who have been re-routed onto another TOC’s trains because of disruption....

 

[najaB]

Anyway fortunately it's not up to you to decide what policy should be...

The section of the document you quoted starts

In the event of a CSL2-type incident...

Which I don't think applies to the OP's situation of a single train being cancelled.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Anyway fortunately it's not up to you to decide what policy should be so here it is: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/ACOP015v3 - PIDD (2).pdf

Disruption is an interesting term to use, my interpretation of that would be a line closure or similar heavily disruptive event. I'm pretty strict where it comes to TOC specific tickets although they tend to be reservation compulsory so they're usually on the wrong trains.

 

[All Line Rover]

You may be surprised that even looking at cancellations LM weren't that bad last period.

Are you basing that on LM's overall performance, or the Liverpool to Birmingham and Trent Valley routes in particular? To do the former would be like saying that ATW has fantastic performance because the Valley Line shuttles help to raise the average.

See the two attachments: LM Liverpool to Birmingham and VT NW England to Birmingham. VT's performance during the period in question isn't excellent but almost all of the disruption was down to infrastructure faults (including suicides). London Midland's disruption was not wholly attributable to this.

All of the cancellations on Friday 18th November were caused by staff shortages. The worst problem Virgin Trains had on that date was a delay of 25 minutes on a single service. All other services ran "on time" (the punctuality being no worse, on the whole, than LM). And since VT's services come from Glasgow/Edinburgh, one would expect LM's services, coming only from Liverpool, to have considerably better punctuality.