Advance Single for a Lumo Train that no longer exists

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair it predates March 2020 - meeting the 12 weeks was already a problem prior to that and much of it dates from moving Network Rail's HQ to Milton Keynes and failing to keep all the existing and experienced staff.

Regardless of whether 12 weeks is met or not, trains should not be opened for sale until it is confirmed.

"We think we might run this, so give us your money" is not an appropriate business practice.

 

[Haywain]

To explain further if everyone else agreed to 6 weeks notice 3-4 years ago,

Nobody has agreed to anything, they just have to live with what is provided, the same as Lumo will have to. If Lumo believe they have signed up to something better that is not being provided they can sue for breach of contract but that will give them damages, not better service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nobody has agreed to anything, they just have to live with what is provided, the same as Lumo will have to. If Lumo believe they have signed up to something better that is not being provided they can sue for breach of contract but that will give them damages, not better service.

But even so, even if they're not finding out until 2200 the day before service whether they can run or not, they shouldn't be opening the trains for sale until then.

(It's presumably not quite that bad?)

 

[Haywain]

But even so, even if they're not finding out until 2200 the day before service whether they can run or not, they shouldn't be opening the trains for sale until then.

(It's presumably not quite that bad?)

I have no idea why you are arguing with me, I haven't defended what Lumo are doing. And "2200 the day before" doesn't appear to have any relevance here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And "2200 the day before" doesn't appear to have any relevance here.

Per the NRCoT it's the latest a train can be removed from the timetable and not be considered an on-the-day cancellation, but it was an extreme example. My point was simply that Lumo shouldn't be opening trains for sale until it is confirmed they can run. (Obviously if something on the day like a tree on the line or a member of staff who didn't turn up prevents it running that's different).

 

[Haywain]

My point was simply that Lumo shouldn't be opening trains for sale until it is confirmed they can run.

I don't think you'll find anything on this thread that disagrees with that view.

 

[Watershed]

Wasn‘t it written somewhere in the rail privatisation Act that the network Operator had to give about 14 weeks notice, so that tickets could be sold for at least 12 weeks without changes. If this legislation has been amended then I apologise for getting it wrong.

It seems to me if plan was late, Operator shouldn’t have agreed to it (but I guess it is not easy complaining), and Rail Regulator should be enforcing the rules to avoid the Operator having a conflict of interest about complaining

The Railways Act 1993 effectively says "the Secretary of State can do what he wants, when he wants, how he likes to privatise BR and manage the new privatised railway", and not a massive amount more than that. It certainly doesn't go into the specifics of Informed Traveller bidding timescales.

The ORR is involved in these matters, and they must have regard to the DfT's directions in what they do. But ultimately they can't force Network Rail to do the impossible; there simply isn't a sufficient level of resource in place to allow the industry to return to T-12 at the moment. And there seems to be very little interest in doing so, as having the ability to add possessions and change timetable at short notice rather suits everyone concerned.

The issue here is that despite marking their services as reservation compulsory in the timetable data - and thus having full control over the sale of tickets on their services - Lumo are selling Advances where they haven't finalised their timetable. They are both failing to warn passengers that this is the case, and failing to inform them when changes do happen. All of which is, frankly, diabolical and inexcusable.

 

[Haywain]

Lumo are selling Advances where they haven't finalised their timetable.

It's worse - they appear to be selling tickets where they have finalised their timetable, and know that the trains they are selling for won't run.

 

[Starmill]

I was basing it on the legal status
If rights are agreed legally then whatever is agreed applies, you can’t legally use the argument that your competitors agreed to lesser rights in the past, so you need to abide by what they get.

If the track provider signed the rights and didn’t get a lower time period agreed then they should abide by what the signed up to even if it is a struggle to do so. Basic contract law, you don’t sign up to a contract that you have no intention of abiding by. If every business took that attitude, contracts fall apart everywhere.

To explain further if everyone else agreed to 6 weeks notice 3-4 years ago, then someone comes along and gets a new agreement with 12 weeks notice, their new agreement is valid even if it means there are now two levels of service to be provided

There's no evidence that Lumo have a special agreement with Network Rail to have the plan validated earlier. Network Rail cannot always meet the dates.

Lumo can issue tickets in advance of that if they want to, but they shouldn't do unless they are 100% confident they've got contact details for everyone who books, and they will be able to directly advise them of any changes with advance notice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2022 ==

I don't think you'll find anything on this thread that disagrees with that view.

Agreed. I haven't spotted anyone defending the practice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's worse - they appear to be selling tickets where they have finalised their timetable, and know that the trains they are selling for won't run.

There's a word for that - fraud.

 

[Tom1791]

Thanks everyone for their replies - it was a very interesting and very helpful read.

For anyone interested I contacted Lumo customer services this morning who confirmed the journey had been rescheduled and said my ticket would be valid on the next service to London (06:24 LNER). They adviced I book a seat on that service (which I have done).

It will be interesting to see if everything goes smoothly regarding ticket checks onboard this service. I think it was mentioned above that because the next Lumo service was over an hour later, my rights are I get re routed on the next available service to London, which would be the 06:24?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did they specifically say the 0624, and not their next service? Would want to be 100% sure about that, ideally in writing!

 

[westcoaster]

Thanks everyone for their replies - it was a very interesting and very helpful read.

For anyone interested I contacted Lumo customer services this morning who confirmed the journey had been rescheduled and said my ticket would be valid on the next service to London (06:24 LNER). They adviced I book a seat on that service (which I have done).

It will be interesting to see if everything goes smoothly regarding ticket checks onboard this service. I think it was mentioned above that because the next Lumo service was over an hour later, my rights are I get re routed on the next available service to London, which would be the 06:24?

Edinburgh passenger nearly loses holiday after being booked onto 'phantom train'

A heartbroken teacher nearly had her first holiday in three years cancelled today (April 5) after Trainline booked her onto a train that didn't exist.

www.edinburghlive.co.uk

Looks to be multiple people affected, looks as if you need to wait for the 0900

 

[Tom1791]

Did they specifically say the 0624, and not their next service? Would want to be 100% sure about that, ideally in writing!

They definitely said the 0624 LNER service. It might be best to get something in writing, I agree!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

Edinburgh passenger nearly loses holiday after being booked onto 'phantom train'

A heartbroken teacher nearly had her first holiday in three years cancelled today (April 5) after Trainline booked her onto a train that didn't exist.

www.edinburghlive.co.uk

Looks to be multiple people affected, looks as if you need to wait for the 0900

Interesting the article seems to suggest it's trainline's fault when in reality you were also able to buy the ticket from the Lumo website too!

 

[westcoaster]

They definitely said the 0624 LNER service. It might be best to get something in writing, I agree!

https://twitter.com/n_cunningham/status/1511217833576910848?t=V7SXEhAx5D5s3BX2VomgxA&s=19

Might be that same people as in the article, down the thread LUMO say to use the next LUMO service.

 

[Haywain]

https://twitter.com/n_cunningham/status/1511217833576910848?t=V7SXEhAx5D5s3BX2VomgxA&s=19

Might be that same people as in the article, down the thread LUMO say to use the next LUMO service.

It might be that what's been put in place for @Tom1791 has been done since the people in the article travelled.

 

[JonathanH]

Passengers who wanted to catch the 0614 from Edinburgh might also be advised (possibly at their own cost) to look at earlier trains from Edinburgh which connect with the Lumo service starting at Newcastle to preserve journey times. In that way, I am surprised that any arrangements would be made that involve the 0624 LNER service from Edinburgh since Lumo are still running the missing service between Newcastle and London.

Even if Lumo are paying, I am surprised they would put passengers aboard the 0624 and not the 0606 from Edinburgh to Plymouth (or 0548) for the connection to London at Newcastle.

 

[Watershed]

Passengers who wanted to catch the 0614 from Edinburgh might also be advised (possibly at their own cost) to look at earlier trains from Edinburgh which connect with the Lumo service starting at Newcastle to preserve journey times. In that way, I am surprised that any arrangements would be made that involve the 0624 LNER service from Edinburgh since Lumo are still running the missing service between Newcastle and London.

Passengers have the right to choose between being rerouted onto an earlier service to connect into the Lumo service from Newcastle (e.g. 06:06 XC), or onto the next available London service (06:24 LNER). Neither would be at the passenger's own cost.

 

[Starmill]

Passengers who wanted to catch the 0614 from Edinburgh might also be advised (possibly at their own cost) to look at earlier trains from Edinburgh which connect with the Lumo service starting at Newcastle to preserve journey times. In that way, I am surprised that any arrangements would be made that involve the 0624 LNER service from Edinburgh since Lumo are still running the missing service between Newcastle and London.

Even if Lumo are paying, I am surprised they would put passengers aboard the 0624 and not the 0606 from Edinburgh to Plymouth (or 0548) for the connection to London at Newcastle.

Why is this surprising? Lumo are obliged to arrange an alternative. This is an appropriate alternative. The things you suggest are in the former case not an alternative and in the latter case an alternative which requires someone to leave earlier.

Why would you be motivated to question this, other than perhaps because you think that Lumo customers should receive poor service?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

Passengers have the right to choose between being rerouted onto an earlier service to connect into the Lumo service from Newcastle (e.g. 06:06 XC), or onto the next available London service (06:24 LNER). Neither would be at the passenger's own cost.

Indeed. It's bizarre that certain posters appear to be wilfully misunderstanding this. It's really pretty straightforward. The number of passengers expected to be affected is going to be fairly small too.