Forthcoming changes to National Rail Conditions of Travel

[Benjwri]

I note that the draft NRCoT changes document says that the removal of the Routeing Guide from the contract was done because it was "not available to the public in suitable form".

My assumption is that they deemed the Routeing Guide too complicated for a 'normal' passenger (i.e. not us) to use, but even so...how many 'normal' passengers actually read the NRCoT in the first place?

I would assume they are worried that it is so complicated it could be deemed not to be a reasonable legal inclusion in the contract.

 

[Haywain]

I find it slightly sad that people who can identify when a law hasn't actually been broken are described by TF as "sharp lawyers".

Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that there's a proper redraft of the NRCoT in the works. If it's done by the same people that have done this most recent round of changes (and I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be) that is unlikely to yield good news for passengers...

Perhaps they need to employ some sharp lawyers!

 

[Mainline421]

I don't think they've understood that many routes are (were?) permitted but don't show on journey planers for various reasons, the new status quo is unworkable in the event of a dispute unless they add the ability to plan a journey retrospectively, since times/easements differ depending on the date, and even then the "applying to that ticket" wouldn't work for season tickets or any of the multitude of tickets not available online. Even for those that are, it doesn't work for break of journey, at present the only reliable way to demonstrate that certain routes are valid would be to spam TrainSplit with convoluted queries (and in reality people likely won't pre-plan the exact times of a BoJ)

By providing a clear mechanism to check for valid routes this exception to the range of options available to a Train Company where no valid ticket is held can be removed

Their comments on 13.2 show they are completely out of touch with the reality of what the changes actually do (to be clear I'm obviously not suggesting that many "ordinary" passengers would routinely consult the guide, merely that there was a clear process). Not only have they made it harder to determine permitted routes, but 9.5.2 and 13.2 were primarily concerned with travel via a different permitted route, not with over-travelling.

Regarding 9.5.2

Requested removal of this exemption following TOC legal review as it does not differ from any other circumstance where the incorrect ticket is held

This is just objectively wrong. There is often no mechanism to pay an excess before boarding, and if you intend to use different routes on the outbound and return legs, this is the cheapest/most appropriate ticket for the journey even if you have firm plans. In reality people don't, nor should they need to commit to a specific train. At the moment it can at least be dealt with by refunds on LNER’s single-leg pricing, but even that costs £5, generates unnecessary admin, and is apparently going to be banned soon anyway.

 

[sheff1]

I would assume they are worried that it is so complicated it could be deemed not to be a reasonable legal inclusion in the contract.

If is deemed too complicated for a 'normal' passenger then the new wording (below*) explains things to them - there is no requirement for them to use the Routeing Guide.

* as shown on an itinerary presented by the journey planner on www.nationalrail.co.uk or from a Licensed Retailer in connection with the purchase of a ticket and/or including the relevant restrictions applying to that ticket

Equally though there is no need to also remove the Routeing Guide from the contract thus potentially causing issues for those who do not find it too complicated and who might, if penalised when following a route permitted by the Guide but which can't be generated as above, now need to argue the case as to whether something in an Info Box should be deemed part of the contract despite claims in the NRCoT to the contrary.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is just objectively wrong. There is often no mechanism to pay an excess before boarding, and if you intend to use different routes on the outbound and return legs, this is the cheapest/most appropriate ticket for the journey even if you have firm plans.

Whilst I am also deeply unhappy with the changes to 9.5.2 it has been pointed out to me that 6.1.1 would seem to offer at least some protection for a passenger who needs an excess but cannot acquire one before boarding:

6.1.1 There were no facilities for the issue of the Ticket you require or other authority to
travel either because there was no Ticket office open or a self-service Ticket
machine was not in working order, or would not accept your only available method
of payment (card or cash)

It would be far better for everyone if it was properly spelled out that you can get an excess on board still (even if the wording was tightened) but I think anyone who was charged or worse onboard would be able to rely on 6.1.1 still.

 

[Benjwri]

Whilst I am also deeply unhappy with the changes to 9.5.2 it has been pointed out to me that 6.1.1 would seem to offer at least some protection for a passenger who needs an excess but cannot acquire one before boarding:



It would be far better for everyone if it was properly spelled out that you can get an excess on board still (even if the wording was tightened) but I think anyone who was charged or worse onboard would be able to rely on 6.1.1 still.

Personally I wouldn't be happy to rely on this. The definition of a ticket is fairly well defined and I am not convinced that provides protection, as an excess is not a ticket, and the ticket you require is available.

 

[Oscar M]

It would be far better for everyone if it was properly spelled out that you can get an excess on board still (even if the wording was tightened)

Personally I wouldn't be happy to rely on this. The definition of a ticket is fairly well defined and I am not convinced that provides protection, as an excess is not a ticket, and the ticket you require is available.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a TOC argued that a passenger can still obtain the ticket they require; it just can't be done by excessing their existing ticket.

 

[KirkstallOne]

These are some urgent changes that have been identified as a result of the recent revenue protection challenges at a number of TOCs

to address areas of fraud and opportunities for sharp lawyers to pick at the wording and get people off when caught not paying

This is a complete inversion of reality.

Did the ORR report identify any revenue protection challenges or did it find the ToCs had gone rogue?

Have sharp lawyers actually got anyone off or did they instead ram through the nonsensical interpretation of regulation 11 adopted by the CM?

And did those same sharp lawyers lean on the duty solicitor to advance a defence for Charles Brohiri?

Maybe they mean the sharp lawyers who didn’t represent the 6 SJP test cases?

 

[ainsworth74]

Personally I wouldn't be happy to rely on this. The definition of a ticket is fairly well defined and I am not convinced that provides protection, as an excess is not a ticket, and the ticket you require is available.

It would certainly be far better if it was properly codified rather than just chucking the baby out with the bathwater like they have that's for sure. But it's some crumb at least!

 

[Hadders]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a TOC argued that a passenger can still obtain the ticket they require; it just can't be done by excessing their existing ticket.

Change of route excess is still referred to in the Routeing Guide (albeit the Routeing Guide is now in an info box in the NRCoT rather than a condition itself). The issue is if you cannot obtain it before boarding.

My view is if there is no open ticket office (excesses aren't available from TVMs or online) then you would be entitled to purchase onboard. The issue is if a ticket office refuses to sell you an excess (and we know they are difficult to obtain at the best of times). Technically you would be able to purchase on board but in the event of 'difficulties' on board I'm not sure how you would demonstrate to a TOCs satisfaction that sale of an excess was refused.

 

[redreni]

Personally I wouldn't be happy to rely on this. The definition of a ticket is fairly well defined and I am not convinced that provides protection, as an excess is not a ticket, and the ticket you require is available.

I'm not so sure that an excess is not a Ticket. The definition of 'Ticket' in the NRCoT is quite broad, and frankly nothing like what most regular passengers or railway staff might say if you asked them to explain what they think constitutes a ticket.

The only feature that makes it questionable is that an excess is only valid in conjunction with another ticket, but it's not unique in that respect. Tickets to or from a London zone boundary also need to be presented in conjunction with another ticket (such as a Travelcard or freedom pass) in order to be valid, but they are generally considered to be tickets.

I can't see anything in the definition of 'Ticket' in the NRCoT that would indicate that it includes boundary zone tickets but excludes excesses.

 

[Hadders]

An excess is defined in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement as:

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre-docman/services/rsp/12119-tsa-v10-2-main-agreement-volume-1/file.html

“Excess Fare” means a variation in the Rights and Restrictions applicable to a Fare which has the effect of converting that Fare into another Fare.

 

[redreni]

I believe earlier there was some discussion about whether Transport Focus had been consulted about these changes. A Freedom of Information request has now been shared with me which yielded a copy of the TF response to the RDG (dated 2 April 2025) and also a copy of the draft NRCoT as they stood when sent to TF (dated 5 March 2025). Both are attached.

I actually found the TF response to be quite heartening as they seemed to focus on very similar issues that we ourselves have on this thread noted and worried about. It's a shame that their powers are so limited that they can only suggest changes rather than force a reconsideration. The draft NRCoT are interesting as a historic document but I don't think there was anything particular exciting within.

There were also some emails which contained some interesting titbits (they have been trimmed for clarity and to remove identifying information):







Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that there's a proper redraft of the NRCoT in the works. If it's done by the same people that have done this most recent round of changes (and I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be) that is unlikely to yield good news for passengers...

This is interesting. Thanks for posting!

Intriguing that the restriction on Break of Journey on the Elizabeth Line core section was seemingly added later. It would be interesting to find out if the duty to consult passenger groups was complied with in relation to that change, then, if it was added after TF had already been consulted?

An excess is defined in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement as:

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre-docman/services/rsp/12119-tsa-v10-2-main-agreement-volume-1/file.html

Ah, okay. That's not part of the contract, though, right?

I don't doubt that RDG want people to buy a brand new ticket if they can't get an excess, and don't care if passengers find it impossible to get an excess. We can see that from the proposed March 2025 wording, which would have changed "a Ticket" in 6.1 to "any Ticket" and thereby unambiguously restricted the exception to the "pay before boarding" principle to cases where it wasn't possible to buy any ticket at all at the departure station. But they've ended up with an exception that applies where you can't buy the ticket you require (no thanks to Transport Focus, by the way, based on their formal response - I wonder how that amendment came about?).

The intention behind changing "a ticket" (or "any ticket" as RDG wanted) to "the ticket you require" must surely have been to avoid forcing passengers to overpay, on pain of being prosecuted, sued or given a Penalty Fare?

 

[Hadders]

Ah, okay. That's not part of the contract, though, right?

It is a contract entered into by the by each of the train operators with each other and the Rail Settlement Plan.

 

[redreni]

It is a contract entered into by the by each of the train operators with each other and the Rail Settlement Plan.

Quite. So not part of the contract with the passenger (albeit still useful to passengers in many cases, no doubt).

 

[wilsontown]

Ah service update emails. When you get flooded with texts/emails when your booked train changes from running 5 minutes late to 6 minutes late and back to only 5 minutes late etc.

And don't actually get info when it would be useful. I got a text sometime in the small hours that my LNER train was cancelled. At some point it must have got reinstated and ran more or less on time (I was on it), but I never got any other alerts.

 

[Bikeman78]

.how many 'normal' passengers actually read the NRCoT in the first place?

I suspect the answer is very close to zero. I think I have mentioned Dave Gorman before. About a year after the Boris bikes started in London, he took the time to read through all the terms and conditions. All 36 pages. He spotted an error, where they referred to a leap year having 364 days instead of 366. It was correctly very soon after he pointed it out, so clearly no one had bothered to read the terms in any detail for a year.

He then went on to talk about the terms and conditions for the tickets to be in the audience of his show. Some of them were very interesting to say the least, but no one picked up on them.

 

[125Spotter]

I'm not sure how you would demonstrate to a TOCs satisfaction that sale of an excess was refused.

If I’m doing something ‘exotic’ involving the railway and ticketing these days for which any problems I encounter could turn into my word against theirs (despite being on the right side of the rules), regrettably I tend to use the voice recording function in my mobile phone to record the interaction until the journey is complete or such time it is clear I no longer require the evidence.

I wish this was not necessary, but the number of cases I’ve seen here of people let down or not trusted (perhaps rightly so) means I don’t have faith that the same could not happen to me, despite having attempted to follow the rules in good faith – a recording of a conversation at a ticket office or with a guard is very useful to keep hold of. It is made for my personal use in a place open to the public where individuals involved have no particular expectation of privacy, so I’m also happy that it’s perfectly legal and reasonable to do so.

Without wishing to go off topic, the same principle applies for me to dashcam evidence – it can help turn 50/50 judgments into fairer judgments against another party in the event of an incident on the roads.

 

[Oscar M]

Change of route excess is still referred to in the Routeing Guide (albeit the Routeing Guide is now in an info box in the NRCoT rather than a condition itself). The issue is if you cannot obtain it before boarding.

That's my point - I can see a train company arguing that you can still obtain the "ticket you require" before boarding, you just can't do that by excessing your existing ticket.

I'm not saying that argument is necessarily correct, but I can see a TOC trying it. In any case, I do think the current wording is too ambiguous.

 

[AlterEgo]

I note that the draft NRCoT changes document says that the removal of the Routeing Guide from the contract was done because it was "not available to the public in suitable form".

My assumption is that they deemed the Routeing Guide too complicated for a 'normal' passenger (i.e. not us) to use, but even so...how many 'normal' passengers actually read the NRCoT in the first place?

This ties in with my long-held belief that the Routeing Guide was unlikely to ever form part of the contract because it was extremely complicated and not presented in a format suitable for the customer.

 

[redreni]

That's my point - I can see a train company arguing that you can still obtain the "ticket you require" before boarding, you just can't do that by excessing your existing ticket.

I'm not saying that argument is necessarily correct, but I can see a TOC trying it. In any case, I do think the current wording is too ambiguous.

I agree with that. Ultimately the existence of the right to buy the ticket you want and to get a change of route excess if you need one, may depend on people being willing to insist on that right, and regrettably that may involve facing down crude threats of penalty fares, prosecution and/or civil action from TOCs. It's for individuals to weigh the risks involved.

I did a journey late at night involving a tight connection at Aylesbury a few days before the NRCoT changed. If I missed the connection I would have missed the last train for which my ticket was valid and would have needed a change of route excess to get home, but it would have been impossible to buy one before boarding (or at all, probably). With the NRCoT as it was at the time, I was able to take the risk.

With the NRCoT as it is now, I would have to choose between
1. Buying an Any Permitted return ticket at twice the price of the via Chalfont & Latimer (i.e. overpaying)
2. Trying to get a one-way change of route excess for the return leg at the time of buying the ticket, or afterwards but in advance of travel (i.e. overpaying since in the event I did make the tight connection and did travel via Chalfont & Latimer),
3. Facing the risk of a penalty fare or prosecution on the return leg if I missed a tight bus-to-train connection and was then revenue inspected travelling in breach of a route restriction on my ticket, or
4. Driving.

I would personally take the third option and rely on the unavailability of facilities to buy a change of route excess at Aylesbury at the time I got there, but I can see why many people would take one of the other options.

If this were about revenue protection, by the way, the facility to excess a ticket online would be made available. Or, at the very least, a permit-to-travel-type facility would be made available specifically for excess fares, so if you know how much the excess costs, you can choose to pay that amount (either online or at a TVM) in return for a voucher which you can then use to buy the excess on board or at your destination. That way, if nobody is around to sell the excess, the TOC still collects the revenue. The fact nothing like this is being done is probably down to laziness, although it could also be taken to indicate that the railway wishes to be able to overcharge people.

 

[Gloster]

I went in to Ryde Esplanade yesterday and they have now heard about the update, but they didn’t seem to know what changes there have been and just tell you to go online to find out. However, although the new rules are on the National Rail website, there appears to be nothing drawing attention to changes that might catch passengers who might not be aware of some of the changes mentioned above.

 

[redreni]

I went in to Ryde Esplanade yesterday and they have now heard about the update, but they didn’t seem to know what changes there have been and just tell you to go online to find out. However, although the new rules are on the National Rail website, there appears to be nothing drawing attention to changes that might catch passengers who might not be aware of some of the changes mentioned above.

I'm fairly sure the good people at Ryde have only recently heard tell of the assassination of President Kennedy, though...

 

[Gloster]

I'm fairly sure the good people at Ryde have only recently heard tell of the assassination of President Kennedy, though...

I believe that they are still getting over the assignation of President…Lincoln.

 

[redreni]

So, I'm already finding myself scratching my head as to how routes are to be validated, especially where a cross-London transfer is involved.

13.1 is most unclear. The relevant part now says essentially says:

If no specific route or Train Company is shown, then (subject to any time restrictions for the type of fare you have purchased) it will be valid on: [...] as shown on an itinerary presented by the journey planner on www.nationalrail.co.uk or from a Licensed Retailer in connection with the purchase of a Ticket and/or including the relevant restrictions applying to that Ticket.

Now, leaving aside the fact that any expression that begins "it will be valid on as shown on..." doesn't mean anything, there's plenty of room for speculation as to what it's trying to say.

For example, Question 1, do the provisos in orange and red apply to itineraries presented by NRE and itineraries presented by a licensed retailer, or just to itineraries presented by a licensed retailer?

Question 2, what does the proviso in red mean? If I don't buy a ticket from Trainline so don't have an itinerary presented by them in connection with the purchase of a ticket (or if I do purchase from them but the itinerary issued in connection with the purchase of the ticket doesn't show the route I later decide to take), can I point to the fact that they present an itinerary showing the route I wish to take alongside the ticket I hold, as evidence that my route is valid, provided the retailer shows the relevant restrictions applicable to the ticket? Same question in relation to NRE?

I am assuming this cannot be intended to mean you can only rely on the itinerary you obtained when you bought the ticket, as that would essentially remove a great deal of flexibility from flexible tickets?

I wouldn't rule out that they may intend it to mean you can only rely on an itinerary from a licensed retailer if it is the itinerary against which you bought your ticket, otherwise you can only rely on itineraries presented by NRE. That, too, would be very restrictive because, contrary to what it says in the information box below this Condition, you cannot "include specific locations you wish to travel through" when you search on NRE. You can include one, and only one, specific location you wish to travel through. This makes it impossible to get an itinerary for many permitted routes on NRE.

How are other people interpreting this?

 

[MrJeeves]

My interpretation is:

If no specific route or Train Company is shown, then (subject to any time restrictions for the type of fare you have purchased) it will be valid:
..(a) on any direct train service between the stations shown on your Ticket; or
..(b) as shown on an itinerary presented in connection with the purchase of a ticket and/or including the relevant restrictions applying to that Ticket
....(i) on nationalrail.co.uk; or
....(ii) from a Licensed Retailer

Question 2, what does the proviso in red mean? If I don't buy a ticket from Trainline so don't have an itinerary presented by them in connection with the purchase of a ticket (or if I do purchase from them but the itinerary issued in connection with the purchase of the ticket doesn't show the route I later decide to take), can I point to the fact that they present an itinerary showing the route I wish to take alongside the ticket I hold, as evidence that my route is valid, provided the retailer shows the relevant restrictions applicable to the ticket? Same question in relation to NRE?

To me, the red and orange sections are trying to say you must be either in the process of booking a ticket to find a valid route, or using some kind of a "what can I do with my ticket?" service where you tell it what ticket you hold and then ask it to find journeys valid with that ticket. In that case...

can I point to the fact that they present an itinerary showing the route I wish to take alongside the ticket I hold, as evidence that my route is valid

Yes, provided your wording is saying that Trainline is offering you the ticket you hold.

I wouldn't rule out that they may intend it to mean you can only rely on an itinerary from a licensed retailer if it is the itinerary against which you bought your ticket, otherwise you can only rely on itineraries presented by NRE. That, too, would be very restrictive because, contrary to what it says in the information box below this Condition, you cannot "include specific locations you wish to travel through" when you search on NRE. You can include one, and only one, specific location you wish to travel through. This makes it impossible to get an itinerary for many permitted routes on NRE.

Well, does the "If no specific route [...] is shown" not already exclude you from using either NRE or a retailer to find valid routes for a ticket routed via any specific location...? Or does "specific route" actually mean a list of mandatory trains in combination with an Advance...? Who knows!

 

[furlong]

How are other people interpreting this?

That in practice the provisions on routeing in the NRCoT will sometimes now be sufficiently undefined and unenforceable as to leave a void into which you'll need to read in a default 'common sense' clause (i.e. any reasonable route given whatever happens to be displayed on the ticket, such as a 'via' location). The new wording shifts some power to specify valid routes away from the railway and gives it to the passenger.

The change needs to be largely reverted unless the intention really is to move away from defining all the routes and accept anything that appears reasonable to the passenger in the circumstances.

 

[Angmering1974]

The change needs to be largely reverted unless the intention really is to move away from defining all the routes and accept anything that appears reasonable to the passenger in the circumstances.

Curious why you say it needs to be reverted? Some pro-passenger changes are welcome surely.

 

[redreni]

Well, does the "If no specific route [...] is shown" not already exclude you from using either NRE or a retailer to find valid routes for a ticket routed via any specific location...? Or does "specific route" actually mean a list of mandatory trains in combination with an Advance...? Who knows!

Well, it's only an information box so perhaps not worth getting too hung up on, but I had taken it to refer to the ability to create an itinerary to support any valid route you may wish to take, rather than to route restrictions on tickets.

For example, if you want to travel from Southampton to London via Portsmouth, you can query NRE for Southampton to London via Portsmouth (Portsmouth being the 'specific location you want to travel through) and you will get an itinerary, offered in connection with a through ticket from Southampton to London. This is all well and good.

But as soon as there is more than one specific location you wish to travel through, it falls down. Say you want to go from Southampton to London via Portsmouth and Virginia Water? You cannot use NRE to generate an itinerary passing both those specific locations you wish to travel through, even though you can, uncontroversially, trace that route on map PD.

I had expected to be able to report that retailers that accept multiple via points (e.g. the Forum's site) would offer that itinerary, but when I turn off split tickets I'm getting no results from the forum's site either. So, this would appear to be a route that was uncontroversially valid before as a straightforward mapped route, but which I can't immediately see how to validate under the new NRCoT?

The best I could do in this case would be to validate (1) Southampton to London via Portsmouth and (2) Southampton to London via Virginia Water separately, then rely on the fact both routes pass through Woking to argue both deviations from the shortest route (the one by way of Portsmouth and the one by way of Virginia Water) must be permitted in their own right. It is unclear if this is allowed?

 

[sot]

I researched a route earlier and NRE offered something which requires two extra tickets that actually passes through (and the service actually stops at) the required station and then uses another ticket to get back.

If this is the kind of thing that is expected for public this is outrageous. Admittedly it gives validity to some of the loopholes of yesteryear but offering such absurd itineraries and recommending a 3 ticket split for approx £10 more rather than the end to end ticket is pure madness.