Proposals to remove 15-minute Delay Repay

[Topological]

If an amount equivalent to that which DR15 costs the industry [government] was genuinely used to increase the budget and improve the railway - and I don’t mean a budget set and then reduced by the amount abandoning DR15 would likely save - then I’d happily forego DR15. But we all know in our hearts it wouldn’t work like that: the government won’t increase rail spending and will take not paying DR15 as a saving for the treasury. It would then effectively end up funding madcap schemes such as windmills or immigrant hotels.

One alternative would be for all trains that are delayed by 15-30 minutes to incur a penalty based on the ORCATS share on the route. That money would go into a pot to pay for enhancements across the network, projects which would otherwise not get funding. The admin cost would be much lower than making payments to each claimant.

The definition of "enhancement" would be transparent, as would the amount that went into the fund.

The money could even be "bid" by communities to support community rail partnerships (for example).

 

[WelshBluebird]

With regards to buses not having compensation, and trains do:

Of course some bus companies do operate their own schemes. E.g. first bus in bristol have a scheme where if your bus is 20 mins late or doesnt run, you can claim back free travel. It may not be cash but it isnt nothing.

 

[Belperpete]

IF “cost” needs to be reduced then I think that DR should be universally paid credit for future travel rather than as a refund, as it would keep the revenue within the system.

I wouldn't be against this, but the big provisio would be that I would have to be able to spend my credit with any TOC or ticket retailer, not just with the TOC that had delayed me. I wouldn't be happy having credit with a TOC that I am unlikely to ever use again.

In practice, this would effectively need GBR to set up it's own bank, with everyone having their own account into which each TOC would pay DR into, and which people would be able to spend with authorised rail retailers. Somehow I don't see this happening.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

If an amount equivalent to that which DR15 costs the industry [government] was genuinely used to increase the budget and improve the railway - and I don’t mean a budget set and then reduced by the amount abandoning DR15 would likely save - then I’d happily forego DR15.

But that is NOT what is being proposed. The proposal is that the cost savings will be matched by the extra costs in paying more 30+ minute claims, by improving auto payment.

My big concern is that stopping DR15 can be quickly and easily implemented. However, improving the auto claims process is potentially complex, and could take a long time to implement. If this gets the go ahead, my feeling is that DR15 will be stopped quickly, while improving the auto claims will be about as fast as project oval, and likely get quietly shelved after some small token improvement.

 

[VT 390]

If 15-29 delay repay is removed and the reasoning of improved automatic payments is used I really don't see how automatic payments could reliably work for paper tickets or digital tickets that are not scanned during the journey.
As cost savings are the primary reason for removing 15 minute delay repay, automatic payments would result in some delay repay costs that would otherwise not have been paid. Examples of this include having advanced tickets for more than 1 service but both are delayed/cancelled and passengers buying tickets then not travelling/ending journeys short/breaking journeys.

I also genuinely can not see how automatic delay repay for flexible tickets would work without either making delay repay payments where they are not due, therefore additional costs or having passengers having to do some form of manual intervention to process the claim, in which case you could just submit a manual form as you do now.
I do think the claims process could be simplified with fewer stages however I really don't think it is difficult to claim now with most confusion for non regular passengers being which operator to claim through which a single centralised delay repay page would solve.

 

[AlterEgo]

Part of the reason it's crap is paying for lots of stuff that doesn't matter much at the cost of stuff that does matter. I like @MrJeeves and don't want him to be delayed by 15 minutes but if he is I'd rather the 62.5 pence (probably closer to a pound with all the admin costs) went to eg the care system.

Transport enthusiasm doesn't really have anything to do with it one way or another.

It isn't going to go to the care system. This is not even one percent of rail subsidy. How much gets saved by not processing 15 minute delay repay claims? Ten million?

A whole load of enthusiasts don't want simpler fares becuase they don't trust the government to make it revenue neutral. Yet here there are people arguing for fewer passenger rights in the vain hope the pisspot amount of money saved goes to fund the care system or something.

The rail community here is unserious and not very activist and it shows.

It's crap becuase nobody fights for anything.

 

[furnessvale]

benefits bribes of privatisation

Benefit or bribe, a private railway paid it, a nationalised railway won't.

 

[Horizon22]

I'd be surprised if they implemented this, because it has the whiff of floating a very stinky idea (which will affect a vast portion of rail travellers) so they can pretend to "listen" and "compromise" and implement some other still-awful ideas. Seen it many times.

I would agree and the Labour government has had form for this.

Obviously to standardise would need to probably go to 15 or 30, and some 30min are unlikely to shift - Elizabeth line and Overground on the TfL regimes. I doubt in the grand scheme of things that the revenue cost between 15-30 minute thresholds is actually that much, considering it's a small fraction already of the ticket cost. But a move in the "automatic delay repay" direction might have scared a few about escalting costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

TBF, eyeballing that chart, looking at the TOCs involved I'd guess the majority of compensation is for quite significant delays.

15-29 minute delays contributed to 13% of the overall Delay Repay compensation for the TOCs listed in that chart. Quite likely though there's more eligible people in this threshold who don't bother claiming than any other.

 

[sheff1]

Ironically if railways sold less advance tickets (or allowed people to travel on earlier delayed services), so still get to destination closer to time due, would be less delay repay. But they don't choose to do this.

Yes, the railway actively increases the amount of DR due by refusing to let people board a train which would get them to their destination closer to, or even at, the booked arrival time of the delayed train they are instead forced to wait for.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yes, the railway actively increases the amount of DR due by refusing to let people board a train which would get them to their destination closer to, or even at, the booked arrival time of the delayed train they are instead forced to wait for.

There are many, many situations where the railway disincentivises or even prohibits passengers to take the initiative to reduce their own delay.

Here is another example. There's a long journey I often make involving a connection from a long-distance train to an hourly local stopper. In principle when I miss the connection I am more than happy to get the bus for that last leg. It's slower than the intended train would have been, but still gets me home sooner than sitting around waiting for the next stopper. But if I have an advance ticket, I am prohibited from doing so, so instead I sit and wait, and in goes a 1hr delay repay claim!

 

[MrJeeves]

Part of the reason it's crap is paying for lots of stuff that doesn't matter much at the cost of stuff that does matter. I like @MrJeeves and don't want him to be delayed by 15 minutes but if he is I'd rather the 62.5 pence (probably closer to a pound with all the admin costs) went to eg the care system.

But the reality is that the money doesn't do that, and instead whichever part of the DfT operated that train service will get its Schedule 8 payment from the other part of the DfT that manages the infrastructure (who may have gotten that money from another operator whose train caused the delay).

I'm happy to snatch some of that money out of the system.

 

[Falcon1200]

A bus can be delayed by factors within control of the bus company, but most delays will be out of their control

Indeed, but some delays are the direct fault of the bus operator, eg no Driver, vehicle breaking down. Not that it makes any difference as Delay repay does not exist anyway!

But if I have an advance ticket, I am prohibited from doing so

How does that prevent taking the bus instead of waiting for a train?

 

[py_megapixel]

How does that prevent taking the bus instead of waiting for a train?

The terms and conditions of an advance ticket prohibit ending my rail journey short of the destination on the ticket.

 

[Egg Centric]

It isn't going to go to the care system. This is not even one percent of rail subsidy. How much gets saved by not processing 15 minute delay repay claims? Ten million?

A whole load of enthusiasts don't want simpler fares becuase they don't trust the government to make it revenue neutral. Yet here there are people arguing for fewer passenger rights in the vain hope the pisspot amount of money saved goes to fund the care system or something.

The rail community here is unserious and not very activist and it shows.

It's crap becuase nobody fights for anything.

But the reality is that the money doesn't do that, and instead whichever part of the DfT operated that train service will get its Schedule 8 payment from the other part of the DfT that manages the infrastructure (who may have gotten that money from another operator whose train caused the delay).

I'm happy to snatch some of that money out of the system.

It's extremely simple. The money doesn't magic itself into existence. If it's not spent on delay repay then it's either spent on lower ticket prices, better rail facilities, or returned to the tax payer. Or a combination of all three. The only way this wouldn't be the case is second order effects where removing delay repay would disincentivise train travel. I find this unlikely but concede it's a possibility. This is just basic accountancy.

Incidentally, am currently on a train scheduled to arrive precisely half an hour later than my scheduled service. The TOC in question has a fifteen minute scheme but the delaying TOC has a half hour one so crossing my fingers while pondering this abusurdity. But am I remotely bothered about the half hour delay? No.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Indeed, but some delays are the direct fault of the bus operator, eg no Driver, vehicle breaking down. Not that it makes any difference as Delay repay does not exist anyway!

Some bus companies do have similar schemes though.

How does that prevent taking the bus instead of waiting for a train?

Because advance tickets dont let you finish your journey early to be able to get that bus.

 

[Falcon1200]

The terms and conditions of an advance ticket prohibit ending my rail journey short of the destination on the ticket.

Because advance tickets dont let you finish your journey early to be able to get that bus.

Would the holder of such a ticket actually be physically prevented from exiting their connecting station, and penalised (how?) if they did?

 

[Sonic1234]

Because advance tickets dont let you finish your journey early to be able to get that bus.

In theory yes, but has it ever happened where someone has said "I've missed my connection, got an hour to wait, can I leave and get the bus?" or just leave the station for any reason and they've said "no".

It would be complaint worthy if they did in my opinion.

 

[317 forever]

I had an example last year where had DR15 not existed I'd have felt it best not to claim, and missed out as a result.

I was travelling Southport - Heaton Chapel, changing at Manchester Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

We reached Oxford Road 32 minutes late. At Piccadilly I made a beeline for a Heaton Chapel train, which was strictly speaking the one before the advertised connection from Oxford Road. I forget the exact difference, but it meant I arrived at Heaton Chapel something like 27 minutes late (based on the advertised connections from Southport) rather than 42 minutes.

I therefore felt it honest to say my delay was 15-29 minutes. Had DR15 not existed I would therefore not have claimed. However, as they saw me "officially" arrive 42 minutes late they did pay me the 50% accordingly!

 

[BeijingDave]

Perhaps I am influenced from the Scottish perspective, but I fundamentally see no reason why what is in reality a fairly minor delay to one's journey should result in compensation, even if such compensation is a pittance.

The chances are, for most reasons of travel, you have about 15-30 mins of flexibility at the end regardless. It shouldn't be considered worthy of compensation that said flexibility has been lost. If you are planning to meet a friend in a coffee shop in the centre of Glasgow at 1pm, and you get the train arriving at 12:47, you shouldn't be particularly surprised, let alone compensated if you arrive 10 minutes late to the meet-up because the train broke down and you had to wait for the one behind.

Principally, you have paid the railway for the service of getting you from station A to station B, a service which has been fulfilled in a reasonable amount of time.

I agree with this position.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's extremely simple. The money doesn't magic itself into existence. If it's not spent on delay repay then it's either spent on lower ticket prices, better rail facilities, or returned to the tax payer. Or a combination of all three. The only way this wouldn't be the case is second order effects where removing delay repay would disincentivise train travel. I find this unlikely but concede it's a possibility. This is just basic accountancy.

I agree delay repay neither incentivises nor disincentivises rail travel in and of itself, but good luck finding the political grounds to make more investment in the railway after most of its passengers just got told they'll be due less compensation when the railway fails on them.

I'd have never introduced DR15 but now it's here I wouldn't take it away and also don't believe it is a serious proposal anyway. It's been floated to see how badly it stinks, which is how this country's infantile political class does governance. Genuinely one of the worst ideas to scrape, what - about £10m together, laughable. Like bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[redreni]

Perhaps I am influenced from the Scottish perspective, but I fundamentally see no reason why what is in reality a fairly minor delay to one's journey should result in compensation, even if such compensation is a pittance.

The chances are, for most reasons of travel, you have about 15-30 mins of flexibility at the end regardless. It shouldn't be considered worthy of compensation that said flexibility has been lost. If you are planning to meet a friend in a coffee shop in the centre of Glasgow at 1pm, and you get the train arriving at 12:47, you shouldn't be particularly surprised, let alone compensated if you arrive 10 minutes late to the meet-up because the train broke down and you had to wait for the one behind.

Principally, you have paid the railway for the service of getting you from station A to station B, a service which has been fulfilled in a reasonable amount of time.

As a London commuter I have a polar opposite perspective. I am on flexi time; every single delay minute in the morning means, in principle at least, I have to work later in the evening, meaning delays in both the morning and evening eat into my evening. If we're going to try to automate delay repay, totting up these micro-delays and paying out once the pennies each delay represents comes to a meaningful amount, would be a very good idea.

As it is, most London commuters who change trains at any point will find that hold-ups of well over 15 minutes already attract no compensation, because the timetable contains what are (for commuters, at least) really quite padded minimum connection times that are divorced from the reality of the interchanges commuters actually make. The 15-29 minute delays I claim for with respect to commuting are between 15-29 minutes compared to the timetable, but are generally far longer than that when compared to the journey I actually make on days when everything is on time.

Entirely pointless form-filling, I might add, given that the retailer has all of the information required to assess and pay out a Delay Repay claim - if only they were permitted to do so.

I'm filling in a delay repay form as we speak for a journey where I used a combination of two tickets, bought from two different retailers. I'm not sure how I would go about correcting it if the retailer who sold me one of the tickets compensated me for a delay on the part of the journey it happens to know about? What if the length of delay is different when the whole journey is considered, putting the claim into a different bracket or meaning there is no valid claim at all?

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBF, eyeballing that chart, looking at the TOCs involved I'd guess the majority of compensation is for quite significant delays.

I dunno, I put loads of 15 minute claims in for delays of only just over that due to missed connections at the very end of a journey...

 

[thedbdiboy]

Benefit or bribe, a private railway paid it, a nationalised railway won't.

Except it didn't, that was one of the big fictions of 'privatisation'. Franchisees bid against a service specification - enhanced Delay Repay (DR) was in the specification and the track access agreements with associated delay attribution offset the cost. It was all always underwritten by the taxpayer but could be concealed within the smoke and mirrors of a faux 'privatisation' that left the taxpayer as guarantor of last resort.

What we are seeing now is Government having nothing to hide behind when funding the railway, so there is a lot more pressure to control costs. DR in is its current form is really not good value for money - it doesn't incentivise better performance and pays out indiscriminately whatever the cause of the problem, is rife for fraud and the money could be better spent elsewhere on passenger benefits. Of course any scaling back will be unpopular but that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

 

[redreni]

It's extremely simple. The money doesn't magic itself into existence. If it's not spent on delay repay then it's either spent on lower ticket prices, better rail facilities, or returned to the tax payer. Or a combination of all three. The only way this wouldn't be the case is second order effects where removing delay repay would disincentivise train travel. I find this unlikely but concede it's a possibility. This is just basic accountancy.

Incidentally, am currently on a train scheduled to arrive precisely half an hour later than my scheduled service. The TOC in question has a fifteen minute scheme but the delaying TOC has a half hour one so crossing my fingers while pondering this abusurdity. But am I remotely bothered about the half hour delay? No.

I think you're right not to dismiss the possibility that delay compensation entitlements affect purchasing decisions.

It's a topic of conversation on trains during football away days, in my experience. People bemoan how expensive train travel is compared to previous seasons, compare notes, tips and tricks for the present and forthcoming jaunts, and observe that the cost of the fares over the season is offset to some extent by the delay repay. Everyone's got an example or two of a trip where they got the entire fare back. Some people have even told me straight out that they're only here because they were able to put the delay repay from a previous away day towards the cost of this one, otherwise they'd have had to give the game a miss.

Anybody who travels regularly knows that over time, some of what they spend on fares comes back to them as compensation. If you reduce the compensation, that is tantamount to increasing fares and will obviously affect what people are willing to spend. You may get people spending less by travelling less, by eschewing First Class or by selecting slower but cheaper journeys.

 

[Egg Centric]

Anybody who travels regularly knows that over time, some of what they spend on fares comes back to them as compensation. If you reduce the compensation, that is tantamount to increasing fares and will obviously affect what people are willing to spend. You may get people spending less by travelling less, by eschewing First Class or by selecting slower but cheaper journeys.

If we keep subsidy and spending the same (in a nationalised system as we're about to have) then in principle in the long run it's increasing fares for the savvy but also decreasing them for the less savvy.

That would hit most of the people in this thread personally - certainly I'd have less in my back pocket* - but I'm not going to call it bad policy because of that. I support quite a lot of policies that aren't in my own self interest. And frankly there's still piles of ways for the savvy to save loads on fares compared to the less so.

(PS arrived late so I'm gonna get me some ill deserved compo - in fact will be about 80% back cause of 1st being declassified for the final leg, again without this bothering me. IMO I don't "deserve" either)

*otoh if it's used to reduce subsidy then possibly I'll have more in my back pocket. Either way it's not something I think it's right to consider.

 

[thedbdiboy]

You have entirely the wrong idea about my motivations, which are driven by genuinely trying to improve the industry for customers rather than jumping on bandwagons. This forum works well when it encourages honest debate; you perhaps reveal more about yourself than you might want to when you descend to personal insults.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==


I never advocated removing them, but aligning them also means that triggering a repayment for any cause after 15 minutes is not proportionate. Unless maybe you think that with enough incentives the railways can influence the weather?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==


But it does justify redesigning the process so that honest claims are paid without quibble and very obvious dishonest ones are spotted quickly. That is to everyone's benefit. And I'd like to know where/how you decide I 'support' the NRCoT changes. You clearly know nothing about the efforts to protect customers interests over a decision made at Government level.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==


Except that the Government is keen to make GBR a success and is finding money to freeze a load of fares this year. So there is money there for causes that can be demonstrated to have wider economic benefit

 

[redreni]

You have entirely the wrong idea about my motivations, which are driven by genuinely trying to improve the industry for customers rather than jumping on bandwagons.

By reducing delay compensation entitlements?

I never advocated removing them, but aligning them also means that triggering a repayment for any cause after 15 minutes is not proportionate. Unless maybe you think that with enough incentives the railways can influence the weather?

Some delays - of whatever length - are unavoidable. The dreadful stabbing incident on the ECML caused delays in each of the various delay repay thresholds, I'm sure. The leaked proposals are not about reducing delay compensation where the delay was outside the industry's control. Rather, they are about allowing TOCs to cancel a train on a route with 30 minute headways, potentially for reasons entirely within their control such as not having recruited enough drivers or guards, thereby making everybody stand on an overcrowded train half an hour later, without paying any compensation at all because they will say the delay was actually only 29 minutes and 50 seconds (which for some reason, contrary to the norms of rounding, gets rounded down not up)

I would accept a compromise such as 25 and 55 minute thresholds, so that cancelled trains on 30 and 60 minute clockface headways attract compensation. I would also like to see GBR address the chicanery whereby there's an industry-facing timetable where the train arrives at the terminus at one time, which gives sufficient time for the turnaround, but the passenger-facing timetable pretends it isn't due into the terminus until maybe 7 minutes later, so the delay repay threshold isn't met until the train has been delayed by 22 or 37 minutes, rather than 15 or 30, and so that performance metrics can be goosed. Apart from anything else, this practice compounds the issue with excessive MCTs in London and contributes to rail looking uncompetitive with driving for travel time where journeys involve crossing London.

I can see how 15 minutes can be presented as over-generous, but when one considers all the tricks the industry plays to mitigate its obligation to pay compensation for delays, it starts to look a lot more sensible imho.

Except that the Government is keen to make GBR a success and is finding money to freeze a load of fares this year. So there is money there for causes that can be demonstrated to have wider economic benefit

I think they've been really clumsy in how they've handled all this, though. Doing nothing is generally better PR than doing two things, one good for passengers and one bad. The bad news will get more attention than the good.

And they've mishandled the good news by putting up posters in every station stating, without qualification, that fares are frozen (and no, saying you can go to a website for further information is not a qualification, it's an invitation to go and find additional info if interested. It does not constitute a warning that there are caveats to the headline claim, such as that most fares aren't frozen).

As a consequence, staff are doubtless going to have their ears bent rather fiercely at the next fares revision.

 

[andy33gmail]

Some delays - of whatever length - are unavoidable. The dreadful stabbing incident on the ECML caused delays in each of the various delay repay thresholds, I'm sure.

And in my view any assets the perpetrator has should be seized to cover the delay repay, alternative trouble, compensation etc.

 

[Belperpete]

One of the big changes that has happened since privatisation is that train companies no longer hold trains to make connections, as they get penalised for doing so. The standard response now to a missed connection is "claim the delay repay".

Delay Repay was a way of ensuring that passengers got some sort of recompense, that at least some of the delay attribution money ended up in passengers' pockets and it wasn't all seen as ending up in TOC shareholders' pockets. The 15 minute DR was subsequently introduced because there was widespread discontent that not enough DR was being paid, that there were far too many delays where passengers got nothing. I suspect that if the DR15 is removed, that discontent will return.

If the government want to start chipping away at DR, they need to do something else to make it look like the railway is actually being run for the passengers, like incentivising TOCs to hold connections, rather than disincentivising them.

 

[The exile]

Indeed, but some delays are the direct fault of the bus operator, eg no Driver, vehicle breaking down. Not that it makes any difference as Delay repay does not exist anyway!

Or indeed failure to recognise the realities of “normal” peak hour traffic and assuming that the same timetable will work between 15.30 and 18.00 as works between 10.30 and 15.30 (same interval service with same number of vehicles)

 

[yorksrob]

The rail community here is unserious and not very activist and it shows.

It's crap becuase nobody fights for anything.

I must admit, I don't recognise that characterisation of this forum. In particular many of us were quick to see through the LNER fares trial for what it is, very early on, far more so than Transport for the North and the Railway Press, which seem to be uncharacteristically supine on the issue.