Concerning announcement on LNER regarding tickets

[yorkie]

I'm on the 1933 London to Leeds, and the Guard announced that Hull Trains are not valid on LNER services, despite the cancellations.

However, the 2030 London to Hull appears to be the last Hull Trains service of the day; therefore National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) Condition 28 applies, which means that passengers cannot be stranded and must be conveyed on alternative services.

LNER may not like it, but it's an internal railway dispute and not of any concern to the customer. By all means, LNER can instigate some sort of dispute procedure with Hull Trains if they want, but it is unacceptable to make passengers a victim of any dispute between the companies.

Do LNER not provide comprehensive training to their Guards regarding their obligations under the NRCoT?

I find it 'interesting' that train companies are often keen to remind passengers of their obligations, but are rather reluctant to be aware of their own responsibilities.

I think this is a deep-rooted cultural problem, that may never go away.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Hull Trains themselves are saying:

Hull Trains apologise for the inconvenience caused by the cancellation to your service today, the following arrangements have been made to convey you to your destination:
All Passengers are advised to travel on 1H06 (18:48 London Kings Cross to Beverley) Alternatively, we advise customers to purchase an alternative ticket and claim the difference in price between this and your original ticket (which you can claim from your original ticket retailer) back through our customer service team. In addition, where your journey is 30 minutes or more later arriving into your destination we will pay the appropriate Delay Repay compensation to you based on your original ticket price. To claim the difference in price on your ticket and any applicable Delay Repay compensation please use our Webform - https://www.railhelp.co.uk/hulltrains/general-enquiry/policy-and-products/customer-relations or via Email customerservices.hull@hulltrains.co.uk with full images of all your tickets.
We're sorry if these issues have delayed you today, just to remind you all that you can claim 'Delay Repay' if your journey has been affected. Visit our website at hulltrains.co.uk to find out how to claim or pick up a form at a station.

That's a bit better and sort of acknowledges the right to re-routeing, but doesn't help anyone who turns up at Kings Cross in time for the 20:30 and finds their only option is the 21:00 LNER as far as Doncaster, then a 45 minute wait for a Northern service to Hull, arriving at 00:18.

 

[yorkie]

This is absolutely not acceptable.

There is absolutely no requirement for anyone to have the cash to purchase a new ticket; LNER are obliged to carry passengers at no cost to the passenger, and there is no requirement for passengers to wait until 21:00 if they are able to travel earlier to avoid a delay.

If LNER want to bill Hull Trains, that's an internal railway matter.

 

[Msq71423]

This is unadvertised, but Hull Trains have a customer service member od staff at KGX with a supply of preprinted flexible tickets for anyone unable or unwilling to purchase the replacement. Anyone seeking help at KGX should be pointed in their direction.

 

[yorkie]

This is unadvertised, but Hull Trains have a customer service member od staff at KGX with a supply of preprinted flexible tickets for anyone unable or unwilling to purchase the replacement. Anyone seeking help at KGX should be pointed in their direction.

That's good to know, however if an LNER Guard encounters anyone who is unaware of this secret person, then they cannot charge the passenger for a new ticket.

If LNER choose to bill Hull Trains, then the two companies can fight that out, but it's not a matter of concern for customers.

This abysmal (and repeated) threatening announcement was the only downer on an otherwise excellent journey on LNER. I don't like to hear of other people being threatened, and I would defend anyone in that position if any Guard attempted to charge them anywhere near where I was sat.

 

[bramling]

I'm on the 1933 London to Leeds, and the Guard announced that Hull Trains are not valid on LNER services, despite the cancellations.

However, the 2030 London to Hull appears to be the last Hull Trains service of the day; therefore National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) Condition 28 applies, which means that passengers cannot be stranded and must be conveyed on alternative services.

LNER may not like it, but it's an internal railway dispute and not of any concern to the customer. By all means, LNER can instigate some sort of dispute procedure with Hull Trains if they want, but it is unacceptable to make passengers a victim of any dispute between the companies.

Do LNER not provide comprehensive training to their Guards regarding their obligations under the NRCoT?

I find it 'interesting' that train companies are often keen to remind passengers of their obligations, but are rather reluctant to be aware of their own responsibilities.

I think this is a deep-rooted cultural problem, that may never go away.

Completely agree. I wouldn’t say it’s specifically a railway problem though, the same could be said of many institutions in this country, especially those in the public sector. Councils and HMRC are ones which spring to mind, but there’s plenty of others.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2025 ==

Hull Trains themselves are saying:


That's a bit better and sort of acknowledges the right to re-routeing, but doesn't help anyone who turns up at Kings Cross in time for the 20:30 and finds their only option is the 21:00 LNER as far as Doncaster, then a 45 minute wait for a Northern service to Hull, arriving at 00:18.

Don’t really see why passengers should have to go through the bother of having to buy a new ticket and then claim back.

 

[A S Leib]

Does the obligation for TOCs to accept others' passengers remain if the affected company provides (sufficient) road transport, although I'd guess that's unlikely to be the case in this scenario?

 

[Watershed]

Does the obligation for TOCs to accept others' passengers remain if the affected company provides (sufficient) road transport, although I'd guess that's unlikely to be the case in this scenario?

In theory there could be a suggestion that this meets the requirement to provide alternative transport under NRCoT 28.2, but for a long-distance journey like this a replacement coach is hardly a reasonable alternative when there's a train that is running. It certainly wouldn't comply with the PRO obligation to re-route passengers using "comparable transport conditions", albeit that is something which can only be enforced against the TOC at 'fault'.

 

[yorkie]

Don’t really see why passengers should have to go through the bother of having to buy a new ticket and then claim back.

Indeed; they don't have to do this.

Does the obligation for TOCs to accept others' passengers remain if the affected company provides (sufficient) road transport, although I'd guess that's unlikely to be the case in this scenario?

Condition 28.2 is unconditional; any concerns by any company that any other company isn't providing a sufficient alternative is an internal railway dispute and not of any concern to customers.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Indeed; they don't have to do this.

Condition 28.2 is unconditional; any concerns by any company that any other company isn't providing a sufficient alternative is an internal railway dispute and not of any concern to customers.

28.2 is not unconditional; it says 'Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.'
it doesn't state that you can unconditionally use alternative train services, just that alternative means is provided. It all comes down to that very elastic term 'reasonable'.

 

[yorkie]

28.2 is not unconditional; it says 'Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.'
it doesn't state that you can unconditionally use alternative train services, just that alternative means is provided. It all comes down to that very elastic term 'reasonable'.

If you are suggesting it would not be reasonable to get a train, then that is absolutely ludicrous and demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part.

 

[thedbdiboy]

If you are suggesting it would not be reasonable to get a train, then that is absolutely ludicrous and demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part.

I'm not. I merely pointed out that 28.2 is not, as you stated, unconditional.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not. I merely pointed out that 28.2 is not, as you stated, unconditional.

I'm not suggesting that every TOC in the country is obliged to convey Hull Trains passengers.

It's clearly not conditional in the case of LNER conveying passengers yesterday in the context of a London to Grantham/Doncaster/Selby/Hull etc journey in the case of the last train being cancelled.

The point is that LNER can't impose conditions such as passengers must pre purchase tickets or must arrive after midnight or any other such nonsense.

 

[30907]

"Hull Trains [tickets] are not valid on LNER services, despite the cancellations."

Was that their exact wording?

Hull trains advise their customers (for today):
https://www.hulltrains.co.uk/travel-information/engineering-works

Ticket holders with ‘Hull Trains Only’ tickets for the affected services can travel on any other Hull Trains service on the same date or the day either side of the affected date using existing tickets without having to change them.

If alternative Hull Trains services are not suitable, we advise customers to purchase an alternative ticket. You can claim back the cost of your original ticket plus the difference between the cost of a new ticket and the original ticket.

Clearly they did not arrange ticket acceptance with LNER (or LNER refused it) and informed their customers as to what to do. (I confess I would have expected them to arrange acceptance on the 2033 for Goole and beyond, I the same way that GC routinely do.)

 

[TUC]

Was that their exact wording?

Hull trains advise their customers (for today):
https://www.hulltrains.co.uk/travel-information/engineering-works


Clearly they did not arrange ticket acceptance with LNER (or LNER refused it) and informed their customers as to what to do. (I confess I would have expected them to arrange acceptance on the 2033 for Goole and beyond, I the same way that GC routinely do.)

As said, this is not the only example of the rail industry assuming every passenger has access to spare funds which they can afford to pay out and wait to reclaim. It's an approach built around the convenience of the industry, not around looking after passengers well.

 

[yorkie]

Was that their exact wording?

I didn't record it, so it may not quite be exactly word for word, but pretty much, yes.

Hull trains advise their customers (for today):
https://www.hulltrains.co.uk/travel-information/engineering-works


Clearly they did not arrange ticket acceptance with LNER (or LNER refused it) and informed their customers as to what to do. (I confess I would have expected them to arrange acceptance on the 2033 for Goole and beyond, I the same way that GC routinely do.)

This doesn't change anything; as I said above, passengers cannot be penalised.

 

[styles]

As said, this is not the only example of the rail industry assuming every passenger has access to spare funds which they can afford to pay out and wait to reclaim. It's an approach built around the convenience of the industry, not around looking after passengers well.

I wonder what would happen if a passenger turned up and said I don't have the money to buy a new ticket and wait for a refund.

 

[The exile]

I wonder what would happen if a passenger turned up and said I don't have the money to buy a new ticket and wait for a refund.

I expect Exactly the same as when a ticket office messed up a weekly ticket for me and I asked the same question. “Tough”. Had my ticket been my usual monthly I would have been in exactly that position.

 

[styles]

I expect Exactly the same as when a ticket office messed up a weekly ticket for me and I asked the same question. “Tough”. Had my ticket been my usual monthly I would have been in exactly that position.

But in this case the contract the passenger has says that the train company will provide either alternative means of making the journey, or overnight accommodation.

I don't think it would stand up to scrutiny if they said well we did provide alternative means (buy a new ticket then get a refund), if this isn't available to the passenger, e.g. because they don't have £75 spare to buy the walk-up super off peak single from London to Hull.

Even just the spirit of this rule is basically to avoid passengers being stranded, which is what would happen if somebody was in London without £75 to either get home or get a hotel for themselves.

In the absence of anyone from Hull Trains being available to help, I'd have thought LNER would have to accept the passenger on the next service (which happens to be the last one of the day)?

 

[yorkie]

I wonder what would happen if a passenger turned up and said I don't have the money to buy a new ticket and wait for a refund.

Simply board the LNER and if LNER attempt to bill you, refuse to pay it. Escalate the matter to the highest possible level. Any passenger who originally bought a ticket through the forum site can expect additional support if ever placed in this position. I would ask the relevant people to make sure the customer got a satisfactory outcome.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2025 ==

... I'd have thought LNER would have to accept the passenger on the next service (which happens to be the last one of the day)?

Yes, but it's also totally legitimate for a passenger to take an earlier train, if they arrive at the station early enough.

Incidentally, I am aware senior LNER management are aware of this thread, and I am grateful that they are looking into it.

Although the announcement didn't affect me personally, it did annoy me to hear such aggressive repeated anti-passenger announcements as soon as I sat down on the train (especially following a less than ideal lounge experience, where I was turfed out of my seat when I'd not even had chance to get settled).

 

[Ben Rhydding]

Hull Trains`Passengers Charter is the only one I`ve seen which includes reference to Passengers Rights and Obligations under Art 16 of 1371/2007. On this occasion, they have followed that regulation by refusing to arrange rerouting but undertaking to reimburse if the passenger arranges it him/ herself.

In a sense, this is progress as most TOCs deny the existence of 1371/2007. Indeed, many deny NRCoT 28.2 as well.

As long as the Hull Trains passenger knows his/ her rights and carries spare money, he/ she will not be out of pocket. Whether that is the proper way for Hull Trains, LNER or any other TOC to go about their business is another matter.

What benefit does the railway industry derive from insisting on their (unlawful) "right" to penalise passengers during service disruption?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don’t really see why passengers should have to go through the bother of having to buy a new ticket and then claim back.

I don't either, if it's that much of an issue then surely the equivalent of an Unpaid Fares Notice can be issued and sent to Hull Trains?

 

[styles]

Hull Trains`Passengers Charter is the only one I`ve seen which includes reference to Passengers Rights and Obligations under Art 16 of 1371/2007. On this occasion, they have followed that regulation by refusing to arrange rerouting but undertaking to reimburse if the passenger arranges it him/ herself.

In a sense, this is progress as most TOCs deny the existence of 1371/2007. Indeed, many deny NRCoT 28.2 as well.

As long as the Hull Trains passenger knows his/ her rights and carries spare money, he/ she will not be out of pocket. Whether that is the proper way for Hull Trains, LNER or any other TOC to go about their business is another matter.

What benefit does the railway industry derive from insisting on their (unlawful) "right" to penalise passengers during service disruption?

While they have complied with that regulation, it doesn't override any additional rights afforded to the passenger under the National Rail Conditions of Travel contract.

E.g. if I have an employment contract which says I get paid £20/hour, the employer has complied with the minimum wage legislation if they pay me £15/hour, but they've still breached the contract by not paying me £20/hour.

 

[yorkie]

Hull Trains`Passengers Charter is the only one I`ve seen which includes reference to Passengers Rights and Obligations under Art 16 of 1371/2007. On this occasion, they have followed that regulation by refusing to arrange rerouting but undertaking to reimburse if the passenger arranges it him/ herself.

In a sense, this is progress as most TOCs deny the existence of 1371/2007. Indeed, many deny NRCoT 28.2 as well.

As long as the Hull Trains passenger knows his/ her rights and carries spare money, he/ she will not be out of pocket. Whether that is the proper way for Hull Trains, LNER or any other TOC to go about their business is another matter.

Yes, true. It is at least better than nothing. I've never seen LNER admit the existence of the PRO and I suspect they'd rather passengers didn't know about it (but I really hope someone high up reads this and goes on to prove me wrong!)

What benefit does the railway industry derive from insisting on their (unlawful) "right" to penalise passengers during service disruption?

Based on the aggressive tone of voice from some Guards, it sounds like they want to penalise people for choosing to travel with other operators.

Unfortunately, some people don't think in the sort of way that people like we do; some people don't consider the bigger picture, or the need to give a good service to customers. It's a cultural problem, which I don't think will ever go away. No company, no manager, can ever eliminate it, in my opinion, though I believe that strong management can certainly reduce it massively.

 

[LowLevel]

Personally I've always found this condition an interesting one and have taken to assuming it is intended to enforce the position that any TOC's staff will help make arrangements for stranded travellers, rather than that they will automatically let people travel on their train services - IE they might get in touch with the affected TOC to arrangement hotels, alternative transport or ticket acceptance, rather than being obligated to simply accept the tickets and that be the end of the matter.

A regulator with teeth would be hitting Hull Trains for not simply supplying the replacement tickets required as they have a representative present, rather than bringing LNER into it at all - particularly as it seems they do in fact have the required person and indeed the tickets there, but are choosing to do nothing with them.

However not applying common sense with heels being dug in over it to the detriment of people simply trying to travel late at night is ridiculous.

A recent example I encountered involved a farce whereby some passengers had been delayed on a Northern service missing their last Cross Country service to Birmingham. I don't work for Northern or Cross Country however the station supervisor at their interchange station had worked out that catching my train on a different line of route would get them rather closer to Birmingham than Yorkshire.

They were helped on board, I got them something to drink, and I phoned ahead to the station supervisor at my final stop with their details who got Northern to book taxis ready and waiting for my train and sent some security staff to show them to the pick up point. All of this despite none of the original journey or delay being anything to do with my TOC.

I'd like to think that despite the issues the way they were dealt with will have presented the railway in a good light and at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

Why the contracts TOCs have can't ensure this kind of practice is entrenched I don't know but there we are.

 

[jamiearmley]

I don't either, if it's that much of an issue then surely the equivalent of an Unpaid Fares Notice can be issued and sent to Hull Trains?

I completely agree with this.

If it really is that much of an issue - and it really isn't - the LNER position should be that the guard conducts a full ticket check and makes a record of any Hull Trains Only open or Advance tickets and then passes it to their management to arrange matters at that level between LNER and Hull trains.

The only thing the customer should be being told is how to claim for the delay and an apology for the disruption.

 

[styles]

Personally I've always found this condition an interesting one and have taken to assuming it is intended to enforce the position that any TOC's staff will help make arrangements for stranded travellers, rather than that they will automatically let people travel on their train services - IE they might get in touch with the affected TOC to arrangement hotels, alternative transport or ticket acceptance, rather than being obligated to simply accept the tickets and that be the end of the matter.

Indeed. Overnight accommodation, ticket acceptance on other operators, hiring coaches, putting people into taxis - all viable options available. Some are better for passengers than others of course, but you're right that it doesn't automatically mean acceptance on another train company's trains.

A regulator with teeth would be hitting Hull Trains for not simply supplying the replacement tickets required as they have a representative present, rather than bringing LNER into it at all - particularly as it seems they do in fact have the required person and indeed the tickets there, but are choosing to do nothing with them.

Indeed, or some coaches. Obviously slower than the train, but could get to Hull at near enough the same time as the last LNER service would if ticket acceptance wasn't arranged. I know overnight accommodation is an option, but I suspect this is one of the less popular options for passengers - for me anyway, I tend to book trains on certain dates because I need/want to be somewhere that day. It makes sense in extreme weather where the roads are also difficult etc.

However not applying common sense with heels being dug in over it to the detriment of people simply trying to travel late at night is ridiculous.

A recent example I encountered involved a farce whereby some passengers had been delayed on a Northern service missing their last Cross Country service to Birmingham. I don't work for Northern or Cross Country however the station supervisor at their interchange station had worked out that catching my train on a different line of route would get them rather closer to Birmingham than Yorkshire.

They were helped on board, I got them something to drink, and I phoned ahead to the station supervisor at my final stop with their details who got Northern to book taxis ready and waiting for my train and sent some security staff to show them to the pick up point. All of this despite none of the original journey or delay being anything to do with my TOC.

I'd like to think that despite the issues the way they were dealt with will have presented the railway in a good light and at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

Why the contracts TOCs have can't ensure this kind of practice is entrenched I don't know but there we are.

Indeed. I rather feel that LNER may have been asked about ticket acceptance and refused it. Which makes sense in a sort of bubble where Hull Trains is the competition and LNER want to look better than Hull Trains maybe. But doesn't make sense when you realise it's just deterring passengers from using the railways, or that they could even use it to their advantage and make an announcement welcoming Hull Trains ticket holders on board and low-key suggesting they're doing them a favour.

Equally, Hull Trains had half a dozen other ways of handling it which doesn't involve passengers being out of pocket.

 

[yorkie]

There is no requirement for anyone to get in touch to arrange anything. Any company in a position is obligated to do so; LNER were clearly in such a position, and therefore were duly obligated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2025 ==

...Indeed. I rather feel that LNER may have been asked about ticket acceptance and refused it....

If so, that would be surprising, but someone high up is looking into why the established procedures were not followed, and I am hopeful that they will reach a good outcome, and lessons will be learnt

... But doesn't make sense when you realise it's just deterring passengers from using the railways, or that they could even use it to their advantage and make an announcement welcoming Hull Trains ticket holders on board and low-key suggesting they're doing them a favour....

There are many great Guards who will do exactly this!

But, sadly, due to deep-rooted cultural problems, there are some very stubborn ones who see other TOCs passengers as a huge inconvenience and there to be threatened, charged and put off using the railways.

Such people are a disgrace to the industry, but I don't see any prospect of sufficient training, 'mystery shopping' and safeguards ever being put in place to ensure that such behaviour isn't tolerated.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Could Hull Trains hire a replacement train from LNER, or anyone else come to that, to run the service, in the same way they might provide a replacement coach? Or would ASLEF not allow it?

Thread started:

Hiring a replacement train

Could Hull Trains hire a replacement train from LNER (or any other TOC, including charter operators) to cover when they cancel a service due to industrial action? Could LNER operate additional trains to cover cancelled Hull Trains services? Curious as to why neither of the above seems to happen.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which makes sense in a sort of bubble where Hull Trains is the competition and LNER want to look better than Hull Trains maybe.

It doesn't even make sense in that context. All the passenger on the receiving end of it will remember is that it was LNER who were a-holes about it.

Question for the thread: do we know why the Hull Trains service was cancelled? Was it related to the ongoing industrial action? If so, I can see why LNER would dig their heels in and not offer ticket acceptance. Hull Trains shouldn't be selling tickets for trains they know they can't run due to strike action.

ETA: It was related to the strike action, the 2030 is also cancelled today due to the strike. In which case I do actually have much more sympathy with LNER. Hull Trains should be being more pro-active in dealing with their customers and actively re-booking them.