WCML closures: why no cross-ticket acceptance as previously?

[MKB]

In May 2023, London Northwestern confirmed to me in writing that they had an unpublished ticket acceptance in place with Cross Country, Avanti West Coast, Chiltern, GWR. Transport for Wales & East Midlands during the Bank Holiday engineering closure of the southern section of the West Coast Mainline. They even asked me not to publicly share that information as they did not want everyone to know.

This was in spite of the fact that then (as now) they were running replacement bus services (which add on a couple of hours to the journey time).

I was surprised to be told that they no longer offer any ticket acceptance during the current works between Rugby and Milton Keynes Central.

Why would this be?

It's especially galling that to get from Nuneaton to Euston in a manageable amount of time, not only do I have a longer journey (via Leicester), I also have to buy two tickets at greater cost. Ker-ching!

 

[RailWonderer]

A major downside of a non integrated railway - these things should be transparent and consistent across the entire network. Once WMR's contract ends on 1st Feb next year this will no longer apply when everything is under GBR anyway so there's light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[transportphoto]

Once WMR's contract ends on 1st Feb next year this will no longer apply when everything is under GBR anyway so there's light at the end of the tunnel.

Everything? There will still be operators not under GBR for which WMT interact with daily.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I imagine this is due to them (and Avanti) putting on copious amounts of RRBs for the section that currently doesn't have any tracks.

That and it's been published in nationwide news channels that there is significant works happening and to allow extra time for travel.

If they hadn't put on RRBs then absolutely there would have to be other transportation available

 

[Wallsendmag]

A major downside of a non integrated railway - these things should be transparent and consistent across the entire network. Once WMR's contract ends on 1st Feb next year this will no longer apply when everything is under GBR anyway so there's light at the end of the tunnel.

GBR is still some time away, don’t confuse coming into DfTO ownership with GBR

 

[Watershed]

A major downside of a non integrated railway - these things should be transparent and consistent across the entire network. Once WMR's contract ends on 1st Feb next year this will no longer apply when everything is under GBR anyway so there's light at the end of the tunnel.

The ending of the contract won't change permitted routes. A Nuneaton-London ticket still won't be valid via Leicester.

 

[Bill57p9]

It's especially galling that to get from Nuneaton to Euston in a manageable amount of time, not only do I have a longer journey (via Leicester), I also have to buy two tickets at greater cost. Ker-ching!

OK, I’ll bite.
Looking at BRFares.com, “standard” Nuneaton to/from London Terminals tickets (single, day return, etc.) are valid “via any permitted route”, though there are some “not via Birmingham or Coventry” fares.
Is this really not valid via Leicester during WCML closure? Back in the day when the phrase was “any reasonable route” this used to include the fastest*, which Between Nuneaton and London during a WCML closure would be via Leicester.
Has this changed So that “any permitted” doesn’t include the fastest?

* I seem to recall that shortest and any direct route would also be counted as “reasonable” routes.

 

[MKB]

Via Leicester has only been allowed in the past (in my experience) when the WCML is unexpectedly blocked, or during some previous planned closures but apparently not this one. It has only been allowed by virtue of cross-ticket acceptance to deal with the main route being blocked rather than by easements.

 

[Watershed]

OK, I’ll bite.
Looking at BRFares.com, “standard” Nuneaton to/from London Terminals tickets (single, day return, etc.) are valid “via any permitted route”, though there are some “not via Birmingham or Coventry” fares.
Is this really not valid via Leicester during WCML closure? Back in the day when the phrase was “any reasonable route” this used to include the fastest*, which Between Nuneaton and London during a WCML closure would be via Leicester.
Has this changed So that “any permitted” doesn’t include the fastest?

* I seem to recall that shortest and any direct route would also be counted as “reasonable” routes.

Yes, not valid via Leicester unfortunately. Would be quite reasonable but since the abolition of 'any reasonable route' that principle has gone out the window...

 

[NeakPed]

Aside from the fact that the MML doesn’t currently have the physical capacity to cater for WCML refugees from Nuneaton. Especially when trains are/were leaving Sheffield full & standing.

 

[LowLevel]

As is standard really, been like it for years - the MML has never had the capacity to deal with the much more heavily trafficked ECML and WCML closures and is routinely overwhelmed, to the significant disadvantage of the usual passengers and staff. Of course the withdrawal of the HST fleet and refocussing the remaining diesel services around mostly 5 car trains with the introduction of the Corby trains hasn't helped but the EMR Intercity and Regional services are basically unusable during the these blocks.

 

[RailWonderer]

The ending of the contract won't change permitted routes. A Nuneaton-London ticket still won't be valid via Leicester.

Okay, but what is the excuse for this, how long does it take for the head of revenue or ticketing for the railways to stand up and say, these route specific tickets should be axed? I understand intercity vs regional ticket pricing will probably still remain like DB for example, but route specific normally implies a slower vs faster option but not always.

 

[The exile]

Going off at a bit of a tangent but is Narborough (for example) to London valid both ways?

 

[MKB]

Going off at a bit of a tangent but is Narborough (for example) to London valid both ways?

Yes, both Narborough and Hinckley are valid to London both ways. For Nuneaton to London via Leicester, these are often offered as ticket-split points.

 

[DarloRich]

Capacity or lack thereof on alternative routes is surely the reason.

It is a lot better getting on a coach than being left stranded at Nuneaton when the 2 or 4 car 170 pulls away loaded to the gunwales!

 

[MKB]

For my upcoming weekend in London, I have decided the optimal time/cost solution is to drive to and park at Milton Keynes and go from there.

My other fallbacks of driving to either Leicester or Warwick Parkway just weren't working timewise on Friday evening. (I need to be at the Orange Tree Theatre in Richmond for 19:30 and there's only so far I can go in having an early Friday finish.

Of course, if the detailed train schedules had been published when I booked the theatre last June, I would have picked a different weekend. (I did deliberately avoid the Xmas and New Year bank holiday periods and thought everything would be back to normal by 2 January when everyone bar teachers and those on annual leave can be expected to have returned to work.)

 

[styles]

Okay, but what is the excuse for this, how long does it take for the head of revenue or ticketing for the railways to stand up and say, these route specific tickets should be axed? I understand intercity vs regional ticket pricing will probably still remain like DB for example, but route specific normally implies a slower vs faster option but not always.

Well, in my view, it's because GBR and nationalisation of the franchised TOCs is nothing but a vote grabber. The creation of GBR, as well as the nationalisation of the franchised TOCs, doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually change other than who runs the services.

If the government was serious about nationalisation for example, they would nationalise the ROSCOs.

If the government was serious about fare reform, they could do that without state ownership of the TOCs already.

In fact, it's just that both political parties have clocked the fact that the general public say in surveys and opinion polls that they want the railway renationalised, and this appears to voters to do that.

While I'm sure the DfT will come out with some sort of fares reform plan, I wouldn't get hopes up about anything revolutionary.

Additionally, GBR doesn't cover all rail services. Lumo, Hull Trains, Grand Central, TfW, ScotRail, Merseyrail, Elizabeth Line, the Underground, and I suppose the Eurostar for what that's worth in the context, won't be covered. So the fares system we currently have is still going to exist regardless of GBR, because a lot of these operators have route or operator specific fares.

 

[35B]

Okay, but what is the excuse for this, how long does it take for the head of revenue or ticketing for the railways to stand up and say, these route specific tickets should be axed? I understand intercity vs regional ticket pricing will probably still remain like DB for example, but route specific normally implies a slower vs faster option but not always.

The question is, would that route have been “reasonable” back in 1994?

 

[Watershed]

Okay, but what is the excuse for this, how long does it take for the head of revenue or ticketing for the railways to stand up and say, these route specific tickets should be axed? I understand intercity vs regional ticket pricing will probably still remain like DB for example, but route specific normally implies a slower vs faster option but not always.

This has nothing to do with route specific tickets. It's just that going via Leicester is considered too much of a detour to be a permitted route. Permitted routes were supposed to encapsulate all previously 'reasonable routes' but clearly that has not really happened and the range of permitted routes has steadily become narrower over time.

I doubt that GBR will be rushing to reinvent the wheel in terms of the Routeing Guide. Universal cross-TOC ticket acceptance on existing permitted routes would be a much better and easier thing to implement, though there are the usual protestations from the intercity TOCs against any moves in that direction.

 

[RailWonderer]

I doubt that GBR will be rushing to reinvent the wheel in terms of the Routeing Guide. Universal cross-TOC ticket acceptance on existing permitted routes would be a much better and easier thing to implement, though there are the usual protestations from the intercity TOCs against any moves in that direction.

Avanti and LNER are both under government administration and in October 2026 EMR will join them. When this happens, won't the people working at these ToCs get a townhall or assembly to remind them all that they are one and the same with a joined up mission to provide reasonable transport for ticket holders on behalf of the DFT?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

Well, in my view, it's because GBR and nationalisation of the franchised TOCs is nothing but a vote grabber. The creation of GBR, as well as the nationalisation of the franchised TOCs, doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually change other than who runs the services.

If the government was serious about nationalisation for example, they would nationalise the ROSCOs.

If the government was serious about fare reform, they could do that without state ownership of the TOCs already.

In fact, it's just that both political parties have clocked the fact that the general public say in surveys and opinion polls that they want the railway renationalised, and this appears to voters to do that.

While I'm sure the DfT will come out with some sort of fares reform plan, I wouldn't get hopes up about anything revolutionary.

Additionally, GBR doesn't cover all rail services. Lumo, Hull Trains, Grand Central, TfW, ScotRail, Merseyrail, Elizabeth Line, the Underground, and I suppose the Eurostar for what that's worth in the context, won't be covered. So the fares system we currently have is still going to exist regardless of GBR, because a lot of these operators have route or operator specific fares.

That's the big concern, that nationalisation is only happening out of vote grabbing short termism rather than happening out of a genuine will to provide better services. A botched nationalisation won't fix the root cause problems of privitisation.

 

[Watershed]

Avanti and LNER are both under government administration and in October 2026 EMR will join them. When this happens, won't the people working at these ToCs get a townhall or assembly to remind them all that they are one and the same with a joined up mission to provide reasonable transport for ticket holders on behalf of the DFT?

You would be surprised at the attitudes that prevail in many such TOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You would be surprised at the attitudes that prevail in many such TOCs.

Avanti is still FirstGroup/Trenitalia. While it has limitations, the DfT Operator TOCs already have acceptance in the event of a cancellation.

 

[edwin_m]

As is standard really, been like it for years - the MML has never had the capacity to deal with the much more heavily trafficked ECML and WCML closures and is routinely overwhelmed, to the significant disadvantage of the usual passengers and staff. Of course the withdrawal of the HST fleet and refocussing the remaining diesel services around mostly 5 car trains with the introduction of the Corby trains hasn't helped but the EMR Intercity and Regional services are basically unusable during the these blocks.

This. I may be biased as a Nottingham resident, but it doesn't seem fair that a blockade of the ECML or WCML inconveniences passengers on those routes, but a blockade of either or the MML itself renders the route out of St Pancras close to useless.

 

[Pinus contorta]

This. I may be biased as a Nottingham resident, but it doesn't seem fair that a blockade of the ECML or WCML inconveniences passengers on those routes, but a blockade of either or the MML itself renders the route out of St Pancras close to useless.

Yea ditto the Carlisle to Newcastle local service when either of the WCML or ECML has something going on. Not much fun being shoved on 2 Carriages like Sardines and stood up unable to reach the Loo for 60 - 90 minutes.

 

[TUC]

As is standard really, been like it for years - the MML has never had the capacity to deal with the much more heavily trafficked ECML and WCML closures and is routinely overwhelmed, to the significant disadvantage of the usual passengers and staff. Of course the withdrawal of the HST fleet and refocussing the remaining diesel services around mostly 5 car trains with the introduction of the Corby trains hasn't helped but the EMR Intercity and Regional services are basically unusable during the these blocks.

Even so, in significant disruption like this, shouldn't the approach be to 'share the pain', even if it adds extra pressure on routes like the MML? I think many people would rather travel on a crowded train than a RRB.

 

[SynthD]

A botched nationalisation won't fix the root cause problems of privitisation.

The change is to a slightly lower level of neoliberalism, but some people want none of it.

This. I may be biased as a Nottingham resident, but it doesn't seem fair that a blockade of the ECML or WCML inconveniences passengers on those routes, but a blockade of either or the MML itself renders the route out of St Pancras close to useless.

The thread on the Marylebone queuing system and packed trains shows how the Chiltern line is the regular victim. Ideally it should be spread out - for each passenger according to their need, on to each line according to their capacity.

 

[LowLevel]

Even so, in significant disruption like this, shouldn't the approach be to 'share the pain', even if it adds extra pressure on routes like the MML? I think many people would rather travel on a crowded train than a RRB.

I suppose it depends if you're the one sat on a train as it fills up at Sheffield thinking "phew, I dodged the bus, but wow, this train is getting busy" or if you're stuck at Derby or even worse Long Eaton for hours trying and failing to board a train to do your regular journey because several hundred people who don't fancy a bus ride have beaten you to it - particularly if it's commuters etc that you're shafting over multiple days for a long block.

Same applies to being at places like Grantham when MML blocks are on having assumed you'll be able to fit into a connecting train or your usual train to Nottingham and despite strengthening failing miserably because the Regional services can never replace the Intercity ones.

The crew get fed up of being verbally assaulted by frustrated passengers and refuse to work overtime to allow extra trains to run and the cycle repeats. It's been like it forever.

 

[edwin_m]

Even so, in significant disruption like this, shouldn't the approach be to 'share the pain', even if it adds extra pressure on routes like the MML? I think many people would rather travel on a crowded train than a RRB.

The answer may be a little different for planned closure versus unplanned disruption. When the WCML or ECML has a planned closure, RRBs are provided for that route but not for the MML. So the MML passengers suffer from the overcrowding but don't even have an alternative. I guess Chiltern is similar.

 

[Watershed]

I suppose it depends if you're the one sat on a train as it fills up at Sheffield thinking "phew, I dodged the bus, but wow, this train is getting busy" or if you're stuck at Derby or even worse Long Eaton for hours trying and failing to board a train to do your regular journey because several hundred people who don't fancy a bus ride have beaten you to it - particularly if it's commuters etc that you're shafting over multiple days for a long block.

Same applies to being at places like Grantham when MML blocks are on having assumed you'll be able to fit into a connecting train or your usual train to Nottingham and despite strengthening failing miserably because the Regional services can never replace the Intercity ones.

The crew get fed up of being verbally assaulted by frustrated passengers and refuse to work overtime to allow extra trains to run and the cycle repeats. It's been like it forever.

I can see where you're coming from, but journey planners are always going to recommend those routes as they're fastest, and either the through tickets have always been valid (e.g. London-Manchester via Sheffield) or retailers will increasingly suggest splits that allow them (e.g. London-Nuneaton via Leicester).

I don't think it's worth trying to fight the tide on this one. Instead the root cause of the problem needs to be addressed - poor rail replacement bus arrangements on uncomfortable buses which usually have poor connections at either end. If the journey time wasn't so long, and people knew they would have a decent journey, they wouldn't be nearly as afraid of taking them. Of course best of all would be having the diverted services that historically always used to run, but that seems to be put in the "impossible" camp these days.

 

[The Planner]

Of course best of all would be having the diverted services that historically always used to run, but that seems to be put in the "impossible" camp these days.

The issue with that is that the diversionary routes often don't have the capacity to run anything significant, and then you just end up in the same situation of people trying to cram on to a limited diverted service.