Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Yesterday a passenger got a penalty fare, because he was travelling on a different TOC than the one the ticket was valid for (same route). I kinda have sympathy for him, although he might be due delay repay for the cancelled train, I reckon the company he eventually travelled on should allow him to travel - after all it's not his fault he was inconvenienced and late - and if the price is higher then the original ticket the original TOC, not fine the passenger?
Thinking especially if the train cancelled meant there was no later alternative other than a different company?
It's the Balkanisation of the railways because of "privatisation", I fear.
The ticket was presumably an advance ticket, and - to me - the main problem is that people want cheaper tickets but aren't prepared to read the conditions attached to them. Or the conditions aren't made clear. I suspect the former.
The alternative is we scrap advance tickets and make everyone pay a lot more, not going to work, right?
Bottom line is that it probably was the passenger's fault for not following the conditions attached to the ticket he'd bought. I know all of us here are much more clued-up than many passengers, but equally we can't have it both ways.
If this was the case NRCoT 28.2 would enable the passenger to travel on any train at all that gets them to their destination (or for the TOC relevant to provide them with a taxi).
Otherwise I believe the industry views it as part of the lower price offered by TOC specific tickets although of course whether this *should* be the case is a completely different matter.
Yesterday a passenger got a penalty fare, because he was travelling on a different TOC than the one the ticket was valid for (same route). I kinda have sympathy for him, although he might be due delay repay for the cancelled train, I reckon the company he eventually travelled on should allow him to travel - after all it's not his fault he was inconvenienced and late - and if the price is higher then the original ticket the original TOC, not fine the passenger?
Thinking especially if the train cancelled meant there was no later alternative other than a different company?
The entitlement shown in the conditions of travel (at 9.4), is only to travel on the next train of the correct TOC. It’s really a risk you take when using an advance. By all means ask the guard on another TOC’s service if you can travel earlier, but never assume you can make your own decision to do so. If the last train scenario applies you still can’t really be certain of the ‘any TOC will help’ provisions, some staff will deny it even then.
My interpretation is that if you’re on a service that runs at relatively low frequency, such as an open access route, they can still make you wait for the correct ‘next train’.
It's the Balkanisation of the railways because of "privatisation", I fear.
The ticket was presumably an advance ticket, and - to me - the main problem is that people want cheaper tickets but aren't prepared to read the conditions attached to them. Or the conditions aren't made clear. I suspect the former.
The alternative is we scrap advance tickets and make everyone pay a lot more, not going to work, right?
Bottom line is that it probably was the passenger's fault for not following the conditions attached to the ticket he'd bought. I know all of us here are much more clued-up than many passengers, but equally we can't have it both ways.
Point I'm trying to make is the ticket was for a specific company and possibly a specific time, and the TOC let him down, therefore their side of the bargain wasn't fulfilled, so that TOC should cover any extra costs of using another to get him to his destination. The pax followed the conditions by being at the right platform for the right train, except it didn't show up. I don't blame him one iota for catching the next train, yet it cost him £100 (or £50 if paid quickly).
In my eyes the original TOC should pick up the bill; but it shouldn't be a penalty fare, just the ordinary fare for the "new" journey; I presume the trip was Manchester-Leeds (not wholly sure but that would make sense as there are two routes, one Northern and one TPE) so the pax should have been allowed to pay Man/Leeds with TPE on the train and claim delay repay off Northern so he's not much worse off by trying to get to his destination on time?
I admit I've no idea how long he would have had to wait for the next train on his ticketed TOC, but I suspect considering the line we were on, an hour.
My view is that if your Advance journey is disrupted the ticket should automatically become (and be endorsed by the first member of staff encountered as such) an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single for the date on it, and where completion that day is not possible (i.e. the disrupted train(s) were the last of that day) should be endorsed for the same validity the following day.
This is roughly Deutsche Bahn's policy.
This is even more important now Advances are increasingly not just a bargain basement restricted fare but rather the main fare (see LNER's trial).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I admit I've no idea how long he would have had to wait for the next train on his ticketed TOC, but I suspect considering the line we were on, an hour.
The entitlement shown in the conditions of travel is only to travel on the next train of the correct TOC. It’s a risk you take when using an advance. By all means ask the guard on another TOC’s service if you van travel earlier, but never assume you can make your own decision to do so. If the last train scenario applies you still can’t really be certain of the ‘any TOC will help’ provisions, some staff will deny it even then.
Must admit if that were me I would do exactly that, ask if I could use the ticket or alternatively can I buy on one the train. However this particular train was very busy and about to leave when he alighted, he could still have asked he guard who was standing ready to depart.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My view is that if your Advance journey is disrupted the ticket should automatically become (and be endorsed by the first member of staff encountered as such) an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single for the date on it, and where completion that day is not possible (i.e. the disrupted train(s) were the last of that day) should be endorsed for the same validity the following day.
This is roughly Deutsche Bahn's policy.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Above an hour the PRO rights kick in to be re-routed, which should be arranged by the original TOC (but often isn't).
Agree - in fact if your original train is cancelled you could enter a peak time which could cause further issues even with the same TOC (although if it did that would be highly unfair). had no idea about the hour+ rule, they are quick to remind us not to leave our bags etc...but not so quick to explain our rights like that!!
I completely agree. Unfortunately the rules are written without any consideration of what is reasonable. TOCs usually say (or act in a way that indicates) they would prefer for you to be unnecessarily delayed and claim Delay Repay, as bonkers as that is. The same goes when TOCs insist you stick with your booked train on an Advance even if it's delayed, or refuse to let you take the train before when yours is cancelled.
If it was an Advance ticket then there is one interpretation of the Advance T&Cs (condition 5.2) which would suggest any operator can be used if you take the next train, but I admit that there are differing views on this. In theory an ambiguous clause should be interpreted in the passenger's favour as it's a consumer contract, but in practice train companies have absolutely no regard for consumer law and simply train staff that TOC-only restrictions are absolute. Unsurprisingly, staff then usually apply those rules strictly and many decide not to apply discretion.
I completely agree. Unfortunately the rules are written without any consideration of what is reasonable. TOCs usually say (or act in a way that indicates) they would prefer for you to be unnecessarily delayed and claim Delay Repay, as bonkers as that is. The same goes when TOCs insist you stick with your booked train on an Advance even if it's delayed, or refuse to let you take the train before when yours is cancelled.
Yes, it would save the original TOC money if the pax got to his destination via another TOC and didn't have to claim delay repay, or at least a lesser amount, I assume in this case, despite the penalty fare, the pax will still claim delay repay, so the original TOC will still lose out. As you say, it IS bonkers, and should be addressed; without being political I hope the next government (whatever colour) sees to this - and maybe even a spot on "rip-off Britain" or similar (Martin Lewis) would help?
My view is that if your Advance journey is disrupted the ticket should automatically become (and be endorsed by the first member of staff encountered as such) an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single for the date on it, and where completion that day is not possible (i.e. the disrupted train(s) were the last of that day) should be endorsed for the same validity the following day.
...and very generous it is, as it applies when the disruption (even a minor retiming) is known in advance. I would be content with something like authority to travel by the previous or next train.
...and very generous it is, as it applies when the disruption (even a minor retiming) is known in advance. I would be content with something like authority to travel by the previous or next train.
My view is that if your Advance journey is disrupted the ticket should automatically become (and be endorsed by the first member of staff encountered as such) an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single for the date on it, and where completion that day is not possible (i.e. the disrupted train(s) were the last of that day) should be endorsed for the same validity the following day.
...and very generous it is, as it applies when the disruption (even a minor retiming) is known in advance. I would be content with something like authority to travel by the previous or next train.
Or (in the case of DB causing me to miss an international connection), going for an extra day's holiday - including a visit to a country I hadn't been due to visit - at DB's expense. Excellent service.
Or (in the case of DB causing me to miss an international connection), going for an extra day's holiday - including a visit to a country I hadn't been due to visit - at DB's expense. Excellent service.
Point I'm trying to make is the ticket was for a specific company and possibly a specific time, and the TOC let him down, therefore their side of the bargain wasn't fulfilled, so that TOC should cover any extra costs of using another to get him to his destination. The pax followed the conditions by being at the right platform for the right train, except it didn't show up. I don't blame him one iota for catching the next train, yet it cost him £100 (or £50 if paid quickly).
In my eyes the original TOC should pick up the bill; but it shouldn't be a penalty fare, just the ordinary fare for the "new" journey; I presume the trip was Manchester-Leeds (not wholly sure but that would make sense as there are two routes, one Northern and one TPE) so the pax should have been allowed to pay Man/Leeds with TPE on the train and claim delay repay off Northern so he's not much worse off by trying to get to his destination on time?
I admit I've no idea how long he would have had to wait for the next train on his ticketed TOC, but I suspect considering the line we were on, an hour.
The problem is that there is no mechanism for the TOC who's train has been overloaded by carrying all the delayed passengers (and potentially could be paying out compensation themselves as a result) for passing the bill back to the original TOC. For stsrters how would you know how many passengers were affected?
And as for getting the guard of a train that has been cancelled (so won't be there!) to endorse heaven knows how many tickets, as suggested by a previous poster, that just seems totally absurd.
It does seem to me that some people want their cake and eat it. If you buy a cheap ticket that has restrictions on it, then you must expect to abide by those conditions. It may not be the passengers fault that their train was cancelled, but neither was it the fault of the other TOC who they now want to travel on. They aren't getting any money from the ticket that the passenger originally bought, so why should they carry the passenger for free? You might jusr as well say that the passenger should be able to get in a bus or taxi and expect them to give him a free ride.
The passenger could try claiming the cost of the new ticket back from the original TOC (that way the original TOC would foot the bill), but I am fairly sure what the reply would be. Back in BR days, connections would be held for a late running train, and often a taxi would be laid on if the next train wasn't for a significant time. Nowadays the standard reaction is just to tell the passenger to claim delay repay. Unfortunately that is the ethos to be expected when TOCs are fined for holding connections.
Though I'm sure they had to pay for the cost of the taxi which took me to a nice hotel for the night, the bed & breakfast cost, and the taxi again in the morning.... And possibly needed some settlement with a different rail company which honoured my ticket (as endorsed by DB)...
In these days of computerisation, should it not be possible to record at the point of ticket inspection that the ticket shown was for a different service? In that way, the TOC on which travel was made can prove the ticket was for the TOC that had the impacted service.
Once the printed ticket is obsolete, the QR codes will be able to provide all the links needed. So we are talking about progressively less people travelling on paper advances.
For paper TOC specific fares, the fare does the job because the TOC with which the passenger travelled can only claim the TOC specific ticket for the impacted service.
It seems like there are ways if there is a will.
In cases where a passenger travels on another service to avoid the delay then that will reduce the delay repay payments, so the cost should not be too high.
In these days of computerisation, should it not be possible to record at the point of ticket inspection that the ticket shown was for a different service? In that way, the TOC on which travel was made can prove the ticket was for the TOC that had the impacted service.
Once the printed ticket is obsolete, the QR codes will be able to provide all the links needed. So we are talking about progressively less people travelling on paper advances.
For paper TOC specific fares, the fare does the job because the TOC with which the passenger travelled can only claim the TOC specific ticket for the impacted service.
It seems like there are ways if there is a will.
In cases where a passenger travels on another service to avoid the delay then that will reduce the delay repay payments, so the cost should not be too high.
Of course, if the rail system was integrated so there was no need for different companies to switch revenue around if people went on a different train from the one intended when they got their ticket, then none of this would be relevant. Years ago, if a problem led to using a different train or route, no-one cared who you'd paid the money to, you'd just paid "the railway" and "the railway" was carrying you. This could even be the case on international journeys when all the European rail services were publicly owned and ran as a service not a business.
Of course, if the rail system was integrated so there was no need for different companies to switch revenue around if people went on a different train from the one intended when they got their ticket, then none of this would be relevant.
Yes, but equally no one would have a TOC restricted ticket in that instance, and there wouldn't be the possibility to save some money by reducing the flexibility of the ticket.
It does seem to me that some people want their cake and eat it. If you buy a cheap ticket that has restrictions on it, then you must expect to abide by those conditions. It may not be the passengers fault that their train was cancelled, but neither was it the fault of the other TOC who they now want to travel on. They aren't getting any money from the ticket that the passenger originally bought, so why should they carry the passenger for free? You might jusr as well say that the passenger should be able to get in a bus or taxi and expect them to give him a free ride.
Expecting to be accommodated when your train hasn't turned up isn't "having your cake and eating it", it's rightly expecting the industry to provide the service paid for.
Of course, if the rail system was integrated so there was no need for different companies to switch revenue around if people went on a different train from the one intended when they got their ticket, then none of this would be relevant. Years ago, if a problem led to using a different train or route, no-one cared who you'd paid the money to, you'd just paid "the railway" and "the railway" was carrying you. This could even be the case on international journeys when all the European rail services were publicly owned and ran as a service not a business.
That difference - between express and commuter services - is one that British railways gave up many, many years ago, in the Victorian era, at least in commercial terms (i.e. for fare purposes: it remained, to some extent, in operational terms - speed and number of stops). All trains were open to all, with ordinary tickets, with a few exceptions: a handful were 'special', requiring special tickets or supplements - and were very much so, with much announcement, and rigorous boarding and ticket checking procedures. It must be said that other countries made different choices, with multiple classes of train...
Something that perhaps warrants a separate thread, if the mods see it appropriate.
Expecting to be accommodated when your train hasn't turned up isn't "having your cake and eating it", it's rightly expecting the industry to provide the service paid for.
What is this "the industry"? If you are referring to the transport industry, then as I said you might just as well expect to get a free trip in a bus or a taxi.
What is this "the industry"? If you are referring to the transport industry, then as I said you might just as well expect to get a free trip in a bus or a taxi.
In a sensible country, buses would absolutely accept disrupted rail passengers, and vice versa. Taxis are trickier, as taxis cannot carry passengers "for free" using existing capacity in the way that public transport can.
What is this "the industry"? If you are referring to the transport industry, then as I said you might just as well expect to get a free trip in a bus or a taxi.
I know that there are arguments about integrated transport, however for "the industry" I refer to the rail industry, which should work as a whole to get people where they need, not retreat to their silos regarding which train is operated by whom.
Passengers and taxpayers don't care about the rail industries internal machinations.
Yesterday a passenger got a penalty fare, because he was travelling on a different TOC than the one the ticket was valid for (same route). I kinda have sympathy for him, although he might be due delay repay for the cancelled train, I reckon the company he eventually travelled on should allow him to travel - after all it's not his fault he was inconvenienced and late - and if the price is higher then the original ticket the original TOC, not fine the passenger?
Thinking especially if the train cancelled meant there was no later alternative other than a different company?
As I have stated before TOC specific fares apart from Open Access operators* should be abolished.
All fares should be set by and tickets should be sold through 'GBR' or whatever you want to call it. As I understand it all fares revenue goes to DfT/Treasury and ToCs run trains on their behalf. So there is no excuse for the current confusing mass of fares. You can buy Anytime, Offpeak and Advanced tickets. Advance tickets manage demand and direct you to a specific train, maybe slower and/or less busy where that saves you money.
Once disruption means you cannot complete the journey as booked then you get the next available service or services to get you to your desiination with the minimum delay. ToC shouldn't be a consideration. GBR manage delay repay payout and deduct any due to ToC failings from agreed ToC payments. One delay repay system, one fares system. Also avoids situations where one ToC tries to pass the blame on to a different ToC on multi leg journeys which has happened to me several times with Northern and TPE.
In the case of Offpeak tickets as long as you started your journey in time to complete it within offpeak hours then again same rules apply.
I think the current mess is totally unfair and leaves the passenger to sort out failings that are down to the ToCs. Try finding a Northern member of staff at Doncaster on a Saturday afternoon... Ticket acceptance then becomes a non issue.
* You would be able to buy specially discounted OA specific tickets direct, OA would be required to have a general 'disruption policy' in place to detail your options if travelling on these tickets.
Thinking this through, and assuming that TOC-specific fares continue:
I am at Euston with my £20* Offpeak LNR Single to Crewe. The train is cancelled. Should I have the right to catch the next Avanti (normal Offpeak fare £40,* superior ambience**, catering, getting me to Crewe 30min earlier) all for free?
A reasonable compromise might be to offer customers the choice of an excess to the Any Permitted fare, which is currently not allowed - or of waiting for the next 350 and claim DR.
*fictitious fares.**arguable, but Avanti claim that.
Query #1: what happens if the 1-hour threshold is passed by LNR? In that case, I suggest they would be obliged to refund the excess (this would be more likely with TPE north of Carlisle).
Query #2: what about Advances? More difficult, as how would you calculate the excess? What is the equivalent fare? TBH I don't know, and it might be simpler only to allow a change of TOC after 1 hour (as for #1)
(Pedantic note - the OP asked about TOC-specific fares and Advances are train-specific, but the discussion has moved on...)
As I have stated before TOC specific fares apart from Open Access operators* should be abolished.
All fares should be set by and tickets should be sold through 'GBR' or whatever you want to call it. As I understand it all fares revenue goes to DfT/Treasury and ToCs run trains on their behalf. So there is no excuse for the current confusing mass of fares. You can buy Anytime, Offpeak and Advanced tickets. Advance tickets manage demand and direct you to a specific train, maybe slower and/or less busy where that saves you money.
Once disruption means you cannot complete the journey as booked then you get the next available service or services to get you to your desiination with the minimum delay. ToC shouldn't be a consideration. GBR manage delay repay payout and deduct any due to ToC failings from agreed ToC payments. One delay repay system, one fares system. Also avoids situations where one ToC tries to pass the blame on to a different ToC on multi leg journeys which has happened to me several times with Northern and TPE.
In the case of Offpeak tickets as long as you started your journey in time to complete it within offpeak hours then again same rules apply.
I think the current mess is totally unfair and leaves the passenger to sort out failings that are down to the ToCs. Try finding a Northern member of staff at Doncaster on a Saturday afternoon... Ticket acceptance then becomes a non issue.
* You would be able to buy specially discounted OA specific tickets direct, OA would be required to have a general 'disruption policy' in place to detail your options if travelling on these tickets.
If you exclude OA operators, then the problem persists, in both directions. What happens when a couple of trainloads of GBR passengers want to get the OA train as it is the only one running?
For the WCML, I am not sure what you are proposing for fare standardisation. Would all those passengers who currently get a cheap ticket because they travel on a slow stopping LNWR train in future have to buy the expensive fast Avanti fare? Or would all the fares on the fast services be dropped to LNWR levels? I suspect I know which the treasury would be pushing for.
...and very generous it is, as it applies when the disruption (even a minor retiming) is known in advance. I would be content with something like authority to travel by the previous or next train.
It's pretty much in their own interests to lift the restrictions completely. For example if the customer departs two hours earlier than planned as a result of a minor retiming which creates a missed connection, they are very likely to arrive on time, even if there's further delay, or a subsequent connection is missed. This minimises any payments for compensation.
They could try to define it based on when precisely you booked or when precisely you were informed of an amended schedule, but sensibly they don't bother as this would make the policy more difficult to understand.
In the same way it's reasonable if the customer chooses a departure a few hours later than booked, as in that case they'll be electing a new itinerary on themselves which they're presumably happy with, and are as such unlikely to complain or try to claim compensation.
In the UK, policies are intentionally restrictive and standards of customer care during disruption are very poor. As a result delays are more likely to occur, and where they occur, they're likely to be longer than necccesary. Customers reasonably are likely to be aggrieved by that, so they're more likely to make complaints and claim compensation. DB's policy also improves customer satisfaction - most of the general public understand when things go wrong, and they aren't asking for perfection. They just want honesty, with since apologies if that's appropriate, and mitigation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It does seem to me that some people want their cake and eat it. If you buy a cheap ticket that has restrictions on it, then you must expect to abide by those conditions. It may not be the passengers fault that their train was cancelled, but neither was it the fault of the other TOC who they now want to travel on. They aren't getting any money from the ticket that the passenger originally bought, so why should they carry the passenger for free? You might jusr as well say that the passenger should be able to get in a bus or taxi and expect them to give him a free ride.
This analogy falls apart rapidly. Horrible unreliability frequently has led to TransPennine Express passengers trying to travel on Northern or Grand Central services over the past few years, albeit things are now better. The Northern or Grand Central services are nearly always cheaper than similar journeys on TransPennine Express, are you really saying that makes a difference? Southern frequently accept SWR tickets for London - Southampton, even though Southern is nearly always cheaper than SWR. Is that not allowable? Is that not customer friendly?
Most people have bought the ticket they bought because the journey time was the closest thing to their needs. Why wouldn't you try to as best replicate that as possible?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This analogy falls apart rapidly. Horrible unreliability frequently has led to TransPennine Express passengers trying to travel on Northern or Grand Central services over the past few years, albeit things are now better. The Northern or Grand Central services are nearly always cheaper than similar journeys on TransPennine Express, are you really saying that makes a difference?
The post you quoted was about the fact that the TOC that the passenger now wants to travel on gets no payment for the liabilities it would be incurring. The cost of the ticket is irrelevant.
