Proposal to remove 15 Minute Delay Repay - what could be done instead?

[35B]

I know that you disagree, but I fail to see any logic behind your disagreement.

We currently have a scheme where the amount of compensation received is based on how long you have been delayed for. It is therefore illogical to say that someone who has been delayed three hours should receive no more compensation than someone who has been delayed one hour. And insulting to say that someone who has been delayed by three hours should receive no compensation whatsoever.

If you don't think that people who have been delayed for a long time should receive extra compensation, then why not just have a flat rate compensation scheme. Anybody who has been delayed over the threshold (be that 15 minutes or whatever), just receives a set percentage refund regardless of how long they have been delayed?


You do seem to be fixated on how much someone has paid for their ticket. If you base it on that, someone who had been lucky enough to get a very cheap advance might find it almost impossible to redeem their equivalent value free ticket. I would base it on an equivalent journey, based on the full single fares.

The advantage of the free tickets is that they can seem valuable to the passenger, but are cost neutral for the railway. Trying to be miserly with them would defeat the objective. A bit like Club Avanti, that just leaves you feeling short-changed rather than appreciated.

I think that the price of a ticket is an absolutely reasonable basis for the payment - it is a percentage of the amount paid. If I pay £50 for a ticket, then I get £12.50, £25 or £50 based on how long I've been delayed for. Nice, straightforward, and both I and the operator know what the outcome should be. The question then is what the thresholds should be, and how those in an extreme situation should be treated.

My experience of Delay Repay claims (and I know this isn't universally shared) is that they have been dealt with quickly and promptly, with minimum fuss. Start to add in extraneous factors (distance, cause, an arbitrary baseline fare, etc.), and you invite the railway to try to challenge claims rather than pay them

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

How are they cost neutral? I make a journey costing £100 each week. I get a free ticket due a delay this week, and use it instead of paying out £100 next week. Net cost to railway = £100. It is only cost neutral if I make a journey with the free ticket that I wouldn't otherwise have made - I suspect this would only be a minority of free ticket redemptions.

It's still only an opportunity cost - £100 that they might otherwise have got. Cash payments are money out of the door.

Personally, I prefer cash and have no time for arguments that "the money should stay in the industry" - if the industry doesn't provide the service it offers, then IMHO it forfeits the right to retain the cash.

 

[Belperpete]

How are they cost neutral? I make a journey costing £100 each week. I get a free ticket due a delay this week, and use it instead of paying out £100 next week. Net cost to railway = £100. It is only cost neutral if I make a journey with the free ticket that I wouldn't otherwise have made - I suspect this would only be a minority of free ticket redemptions.

It would be cost neutral to the treasury, who wouldn't be paying identifiable sums of money for it. Agreed it would have an impact on fare revenue, but it would just be lost in the vagaries of that pot.

 

[RT4038]

I would prefer a ticketing system where I can opt as to whether I buy Delay Repay cover or not - say ticket prices being reduced 15% and DR cover being available at 20% additional fee (or whatever the numbers would be to be revenue neutral) With 'catastrophic' cover still an entitlement (say delays of 2hr+, plus the 'got to get you there' within reason guarantee). I would go self insured on all but the most unusual circumstances.

It would be cost neutral to the treasury, who wouldn't be paying identifiable sums of money for it.

What has that got to do with it? Taxpayers are footing the bill either way.

 

[VT 390]

Trying to draw a line between what counts as local and long distance would inevitably cause similar problems to the current 15/30/60 thresholds, You would likely end up with situations where somebody making a local journey could end up with compensation when someone making a slightly longer journey on the same train receives nothing.

it might be simpler to just base it on a ratio of the journey time. So for a 30 minute journey it would be 10 minutes, for a 60 minute journey it would be 20 minutes, and so on pro rata. Having said that, I would not be happy getting nothing for a two hour delay on a 6 hour journey. However, setting the threshold ratio at 1 hour for a 6 hour journey, would mean pro rata a 5 minute threshold for a 30 minute journey. That might be seen to be too generous.

I was thinking it would be based off each passengers journey, based on what they enter when claiming delay repay and uploaded their ticket details. It should not matter what other journeys passengers on the same train are making given many services are long distance services that form important local journeys along parts of the route (such as London to Glasgow via West Midlands forming an important part of the local west midlands Coventry-Birmingham-Wolverhampton route).


An example of how this could be set out could be:
Journeys scheduled up to 30 minutes can claim 15+ delay repay
Journeys scheduled to take 31-60 can claim 30+ delay repay
Journeys scheduled to take 61+ can claim 60+ delay repay

Something like this would keep the number of categories down to reduce complexity but still offer delay repay more proportionate to the original scheduled journey length.
It would be relatively easy to implement automatic checks to the system to validate scheduled journey times, especially if delay repay is moved to a single service provider for all journeys.

 

[Belperpete]

I think that the price of a ticket is an absolutely reasonable basis for the payment - it is a percentage of the amount paid.

Yes, but is it any basis for limiting the compensation? Why shouldn't percentages above 100% be paid in extreme cases?

 

[35B]

I would prefer a ticketing system where I can opt as to whether I buy Delay Repay cover or not - say ticket prices being reduced 15% and DR cover being available at 20% additional fee (or whatever the numbers would be to be revenue neutral) With 'catastrophic' cover still an entitlement (say delays of 2hr+, plus the 'got to get you there' within reason guarantee). I would go self insured on all but the most unusual circumstances.

BR used to offer travel insurance as an extra on tickets. It barely sold.

The cost of managing such an insurance would probably exceed the savings, and putting that limit on would incur 90% of the publicity damage of withdrawing DR. I also suspect that there'd be a high risk of misselling - something like a 1% fee to cover a 100% risk.

What has that got to do with it? Taxpayers are footing the bill either way.

This attitude is where the issue is. This is not tax, but a commercial payment for services rendered. One of the greatest weaknesses around the NHS is the idea that we should be grateful for the service provided, rather than a clear recognition as an organisation that it is providing services to each one of us. That gap is what allows services to fall below an acceptable standard, because the focus is on taxpayer money rather than serving patients.

 

[The exile]

If the 2 hours (120+) option was removed for return tickets you would only ever be able to get 50% the full amount paid as at 60-119 minutes it is 50% the total cost of a return ticket.
I do agree that you should not get delay repay compensation above the full ticket cost. In extreme cases you have the option to claim additional reasonable expenses (such as alternative transport costs, hotels...) if these are not directly provided by the operator.

I disagree - once you’ve been delayed by over two hours you should be due extra compensation over and above a refund of your ticket and any incidental expenses.

 

[VT 390]

Yes, but is it any basis for limiting the compensation? Why shouldn't percentages above 100% be paid in extreme cases?

In some cases now you can claim more than 100% the ticket value, its just done separately to delay repay and there are not clear rules to when/what you can claim additionally for all situations.

 

[35B]

I was thinking it would be based off each passengers journey, based on what they enter when claiming delay repay and uploaded their ticket details. It should not matter what other journeys passengers on the same train are making given many services are long distance services that form important local journeys along parts of the route (such as London to Glasgow via West Midlands forming an important part of the local west midlands Coventry-Birmingham-Wolverhampton route).


An example of how this could be set out could be:
Journeys scheduled up to 30 minutes can claim 15+ delay repay
Journeys scheduled to take 31-60 can claim 30+ delay repay
Journeys scheduled to take 61+ can claim 60+ delay repay

Something like this would keep the number of categories down to reduce complexity but still offer delay repay more proportionate to the original scheduled journey length.
It would be relatively easy to implement automatic checks to the system to validate scheduled journey times, especially if delay repay is moved to a single service provider for all journeys.

The price of a ticket is already a good proxy for journey length. My normal journey time to London is 1hr 8 minutes. Some trains are faster, some slower - and some tip below the hour. I am suffering the same delay, whether I've picked the faster or slower service should be irrelevant.

 

[VT 390]

I disagree - once you’ve been delayed by over two hours you should be due extra compensation over and above a refund of your ticket and any incidental expenses.

I definitely agree reasonable additional expenses should be able to be claimed back. This can be done now for things like alternative transport but there does need to be improvements and easier ways to make these claims.

I would love to receive extra compensation over the ticket value for extreme delays, however I think it is unreasonable to have this be part of delay repay.
I would say an exception to this should be for tickets that allow unlimited journeys such as season tickets/rovers/rangers because these allow for many journeys to be made on the same tickets where as regular single/return tickets are valid for 1 journey only (I know you can break your journey but you can still only make the complete length of the journey once).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

The price of a ticket is already a good proxy for journey length. My normal journey time to London is 1hr 8 minutes. Some trains are faster, some slower - and some tip below the hour. I am suffering the same delay, whether I've picked the faster or slower service should be irrelevant.

For many flexible (non split) tickets this is often the case but when advance fares are included ticket price does not often reflect journey length.
For example when I travel to London I usually by advance singles for a journey or around 120-150 minutes but stations closer to London (under an hour) either have very few or no advance fares allocated meaning they can cost significantly more than my advance single on the same train for a much shorter journey.

 

[RT4038]

BR used to offer travel insurance as an extra on tickets. It barely sold.

The cost of managing such an insurance would probably exceed the savings, and putting that limit on would incur 90% of the publicity damage of withdrawing DR. I also suspect that there'd be a high risk of misselling - something like a 1% fee to cover a 100% risk.

Whether it sells or not will show whether passengers prefer cheaper fares or the lotto of Delay Repay and its application. I certainly don't. It would not be 'insurance' - just a different price.

This attitude is where the issue is. This is not tax, but a commercial payment for services rendered. One of the greatest weaknesses around the NHS is the idea that we should be grateful for the service provided, rather than a clear recognition as an organisation that it is providing services to each one of us. That gap is what allows services to fall below an acceptable standard, because the focus is on taxpayer money rather than serving patients.

If it were a commercial business, then all well and good. If the business cannot sustain these kind of costs by increasing their prices to cover then it would cease trading and the service disappear. This is not the case with the railways - this is just getting taxpayers to foot the bill on something they have no real choice as to whether to participate or not.

 

[35B]

Whether it sells or not will show whether passengers prefer cheaper fares or the lotto of Delay Repay and its application. I certainly don't. It would not be 'insurance' - just a different price.

Precisely my concern - a worthwhile customer right thrown aside in the pursuit of the lowest common denominator. We each have choice as to whether to claim Delay Repay. The rules are straightforward and clearly laid out by operator. The scheme is not perfect, but it is far from a lottery, barring some edge cases where different operators' schemes interact awkwardly.

If it were a commercial business, then all well and good. If the business cannot sustain these kind of costs by increasing their prices to cover then it would cease trading and the service disappear. This is not the case with the railways - this is just getting taxpayers to foot the bill on something they have no real choice as to whether to participate or not.

I absolutely disagree. At an individual passenger level, the relationship is a consumer relationship. The treatment of consumers needs to reflect that model, not disempower them.

At a corporate level, it is possible to predict income and costs to a reasonable level of accuracy. That includes Delay Repay. The government has that information and can make informed decisions about the level of subsidy it offers. That is not an individual taxpayer decision, any more than the decision of First Group to invest in Avanti is an individual shareholder decision.

If HM Government wishes to remove Delay Repay, it has the ability to do that through it's control of the network - now, and under GBR. We should all be very cautious of such a change, and what it might represent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but is it any basis for limiting the compensation? Why shouldn't percentages above 100% be paid in extreme cases?

In very extreme cases yes, but that should be discretionary. I don't think a two hour delay to an InterCity type journey really justifies that, a full refund is plenty. I'd only really see that applying to many-hour strandings and those with other "severe discomfort" factors e.g. overnight, lack of toilet facilities, lack of heating/lighting, lack of water during a very hot summer and aircon off, the need to walk down the track to evacuate and potentially leave luggage behind etc.

 

[sheff1]

Yes and no. I think the way taxis work has changed, it is now much easier for a passenger to book an Uber than it is for the TOC to arrange one.

It is much easier to book an Uber, provided that you are lucky enough to live in those few places where Uber operates.

Exactly. Despite frequent advice from some posters to "book an Uber", because they can in their area, it is not possible in many (most?) places. Even if it is possible the passenger would have to pay for the journey and then try and claim it back.

A good few years ago the railway arranged a taxi for me from Westbury to Weymouth, the fare on the meter even then was over £100. If I was stranded in the same way today could I book a Uber at Westbury ? If so, how much would it cost ? How long would it take to get the money back ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if it is possible the passenger would have to pay for the journey and then try and claim it back.

A large proportion of passengers (mostly those in possession of credit cards) are OK with doing that provided they are assured they will (not may) get it back. This is a key to how SWR does things that others don't.

If those passengers are happy to do that why not let them? It's to everyone's benefit if they do.

 

[mike57]

A large proportion of passengers (mostly those in possession of credit cards) are OK with doing that provided they are assured they will (not may) get it back.

My thinking here is: I have already been significantly delayed and have been forced to make alternative arrangements to complete my journey, and I am then involved in a load of admin (at the very least) to recover my expenses. My view is the ToC need make the arrangements and pay for them.

 

[35B]

My thinking here is: I have already been significantly delayed and have been forced to make alternative arrangements to complete my journey, and I am then involved in a load of admin (at the very least) to recover my expenses. My view is the ToC need make the arrangements and pay for them.

Mine is "I want to get home and this is the easiest way". But I have credit cards with reasonable limits on them, so can afford the hit - something that's not consistently true.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My thinking here is: I have already been significantly delayed and have been forced to make alternative arrangements to complete my journey, and I am then involved in a load of admin (at the very least) to recover my expenses. My view is the ToC need make the arrangements and pay for them.

So you would prefer to wait longer for a taxi and have a slower journey simply to make the TOC do some work? That's your prerogative (I don't propose they should only offer the option to take one yourself, and nor do SWR who actually do this now) but I think that's biting your nose off to spite your face, as my Mum always says.

Good reasons to have the TOC arrange it are if you're unable to float the money for a couple of weeks, unable to afford it at all or just don't know where to start in getting one in that area (e.g. if you're stood at Grange over Sands* - I did try once, ended up walking!)

* This was pre-Uber being ubiquitous.. I suspect these days you would get one to come from Lancaster albeit at a fairly whacking fee.

Mine is "I want to get home and this is the easiest way". But I have credit cards with reasonable limits on them, so can afford the hit - something that's not consistently true.

Indeed, but one thing that often pervades on here is "I can't afford/be bothered to/work out how to do X, therefore nobody should". This is not a sensible view. If there are say 50 passengers stranded all waiting for the TOC to arrange one, you might be waiting a long time. But if 49 of them arrange their own, you're first in the queue. You won't be competing over the same taxis, because TOCs don't use Uber to arrange them, it's done via rail replacement agencies e.g. FirstGroup's offering, which means a totally different pool of vehicles and drivers.

 

[35B]

So you would prefer to wait longer for a taxi and have a slower journey simply to make the TOC do some work? That's your prerogative (I don't propose they should only offer the option to take one yourself, and nor do SWR who actually do this now) but I think that's biting your nose off to spite your face, as my Mum always says.

Good reasons to have the TOC arrange it are if you're unable to float the money for a couple of weeks, unable to afford it at all or just don't know where to start in getting one in that area (e.g. if you're stood at Grange over Sands* - I did try once, ended up walking!)

* This was pre-Uber being ubiquitous.. I suspect these days you would get one to come from Lancaster albeit at a fairly whacking fee.



Indeed, but one thing that often pervades on here is "I can't afford/be bothered to/work out how to do X, therefore nobody should". This is not a sensible view. If there are say 50 passengers stranded all waiting for the TOC to arrange one, you might be waiting a long time. But if 49 of them arrange their own, you're first in the queue. You won't be competing over the same taxis, because TOCs don't use Uber to arrange them, it's done via rail replacement agencies e.g. FirstGroup's offering, which means a totally different pool of vehicles and drivers.

There's a point missing here, which is that the whole requirement for a taxi is the result of the TOC's failure to deliver the timetabled service. The proposed mitigations are then to get around self-imposed restrictions (including poor payment terms to the taxi drivers when they submit) by the TOC about who they will use on direct hire, and on what terms. The answer should be that the TOCs are organising the first cabs in the area, and covering the bills - full stop.

While I would act as you do, I regard the situation through much the same light as @mike57.

 

[NeakPed]

TOCs are not incentivised by Delay Repay and I have never seen a Control decision influenced by one. What is more relevant is delay attribution and Schedule 8, plus any penalties for skip-stopping and partial cancellation.

As a former TOC Controller (at 2 TOCs), delay attribution & Schedule 8 did not generally become a factor. What was more important was the impact of the decision on that train & other services - based on the information available at the time the decision was made.
During ‘service recovery” the aim was to get the timetable back to normal as soon as possible/practicable. this would include short term pain for some routes/stations for, hopefully, long term gain. The sooner this was done, the sooner I could continue reading my book.

 

[mike57]

While I would act as you do, I regard the situation through much the same light

I think it would also depend upon how much pain and time I would have to spend post the event to recover what was owing.

The last time this happened was pre-covid, and TPE were at fault. I ended up stranded in York very late having missed the last train back to Scarborough. The only people at York were LNER staff, who were sympathetic but unable to help. I had got the guard to endorse my ticket (it was a paper one) on the last leg of my journey back to York so did have 'evidence' which proved cruical later. I then had to get a taxi back to Seamer to recover my car, it was close to midnight when I arrived in York, the taxi ended up costing close to £100. Getting the money back however proved to be anything but simple, We went through 3 stages spaced over about 2 months, Silence, Denial, and then grudging acceptance, with increasingly heated letters sent at each stage. So as well as the initial 2hr + delay (I should have been on the last train if connecting services had run) I probably spent a further 2 hours chasing over the next 2 months. In a word unacceptable.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a former TOC Controller (at 2 TOCs), delay attribution & Schedule 8 did not generally become a factor. What was more important was the impact of the decision on that train & other services - based on the information available at the time the decision was made.
During ‘service recovery” the aim was to get the timetable back to normal as soon as possible/practicable. this would include short term pain for some routes/stations for, hopefully, long term gain. The sooner this was done, the sooner I could continue reading my book.

But all of that is done as part of a service recovery plan, which is based around KPIs like Schedule 8 and delay attribution. The immediate concern for an individual controller is to rebalance the service and get people and staff moving, but that strategy at a higher level is driven by those financial incentives.

 

[sot]

I just don't know why they can't keep it as is and just do it for RTVs or a modern equivalent online voucher.

The money is not just splurged out without no idea of it being refed back into the system.

The money is guaranteed to go back into the system or just never be used if you put an expiry on it.

Some pax will not bother if it wasn't cash into their bank account.

This answers almost all issues raised. As others have discussed this was probably only put to the table in order to see what the public will say about it.

 

[dk1]

Never understood why they brought it in on longer distance routes. This was all DfT instigated so let them/the tax payer fund it. Just madness in my opinion. Then again I seriously don’t agree that even if over 60mins that anyone should get a 100% refund. What other transportation option offers such a ludicrous passenger agreement?

 

[flitwickbeds]

As a former TOC Controller (at 2 TOCs), delay attribution & Schedule 8 did not generally become a factor. What was more important was the impact of the decision on that train & other services - based on the information available at the time the decision was made.
During ‘service recovery” the aim was to get the timetable back to normal as soon as possible/practicable. this would include short term pain for some routes/stations for, hopefully, long term gain. The sooner this was done, the sooner I could continue reading my book.

Perhaps the level of repayment should be based on the impact of that short-term pain to individual journeys?

On multiple occasions I have been stranded for over an hour at Flitwick (travelling southbound) or Luton (northbound) watching late train after late train whooshing through, or being changed to go straight to Bedford from Luton.

I understand the long-term need to get the timetable back on track asap, and appreciate that every time I get on an on-time train I have no idea what pain others have faced for that to happen. But when people see passenger-carrying trains whooshing through and know that someone is making decision after decision to specifically exclude them from a recovery plan, perhaps there should be an extra level of repayment?

 

[yorksrob]

I think it would also depend upon how much pain and time I would have to spend post the event to recover what was owing.

The last time this happened was pre-covid, and TPE were at fault. I ended up stranded in York very late having missed the last train back to Scarborough. The only people at York were LNER staff, who were sympathetic but unable to help. I had got the guard to endorse my ticket (it was a paper one) on the last leg of my journey back to York so did have 'evidence' which proved cruical later. I then had to get a taxi back to Seamer to recover my car, it was close to midnight when I arrived in York, the taxi ended up costing close to £100. Getting the money back however proved to be anything but simple, We went through 3 stages spaced over about 2 months, Silence, Denial, and then grudging acceptance, with increasingly heated letters sent at each stage. So as well as the initial 2hr + delay (I should have been on the last train if connecting services had run) I probably spent a further 2 hours chasing over the next 2 months. In a word unacceptable.

Yes, I find it can be pot luck getting stranded at York. At times the service has been excellent (if there's someone with sufficient authority available) at others, non existent if you can't find anyone.

This is why I find "the man with the clipboard" to be invaluable in times of disruption.

 

[sheff1]

* This was pre-Uber being ubiquitous..

As as been pointed out many times, Uber is not ubquitous.

Indeed, but one thing that often pervades on here is "I can't afford/be bothered to/work out how to do X, therefore nobody should". This is not a sensible view.

And the opposite from some - “I can do this, so everyone else should” and “I don’t need this, so get rid of it”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As as been pointed out many times, Uber is not ubquitous.

It is however available in all major cities and surrounds, plus local taxi firms now mostly have apps and these can be found quickly with a Google.

It's not in rural areas, but most rail journeys are not in rural areas.

And the opposite from some - “I can do this, so everyone else should” and “I don’t need this, so get rid of it”.

Nobody in this thread is proposing removal of the option for a TOC to arrange a taxi for you. Just that offering the option to arrange your own is going to be, for most passengers, more expedient, and so as it reduces effort by the TOC why not simply allow it with guaranteed reimbursement as SWR do? Just as if your flight is cancelled most people would prefer spending a couple of minutes on the airline app and booking.com to sort the situation themselves using their credit card, provided they have a robust guarantee in writing that they will be repaid, leaving the airline to deal with a queue of tens of people rather than hundreds.

What we must surely agree on is that "you can book one if you want, send the receipt in and we will consider it" is not acceptable at all. Either "book one and it will be reimbursed" (with any conditions e.g. a cap on reimbursement made totally clear and explicit), or "you must wait for us to arrange one", but I prefer the former being an option and I suspect most people who use smartphones to the best of their functional ability (which is most people now, certainly almost everyone aged under about 45 to 50) and who have a credit card (which is a fairly large proportion of the population) will too. And if those people do that, fewer people who prefer the TOC to arrange have to wait in a queue (virtual or physical). What's not to like?

The objection is a bit like "we can't have e-tickets because I don't like e-tickets" - an argument that even here has been put to bed years ago.

 

[SuspectUsual]

It is only cost neutral if I make a journey with the free ticket that I wouldn't otherwise have made - I suspect this would only be a minority of free ticket redemptions

That depends. I’ve had probably close to a hundred free tickets from Northern from being messed around when I was commuting from Hebden / Tod / Littleborough into Manchester for 7 years. I can guarantee you that every single one of them was used for a far more costly journey than that!

OK, some normals will just have a free ride to work, but I suspect a lot would think “where can I have a day out to?”

An example of how this could be set out could be:
Journeys scheduled up to 30 minutes can claim 15+ delay repay
Journeys scheduled to take 31-60 can claim 30+ delay repay
Journeys scheduled to take 61+ can claim 60+ delay repay

I think this just creates additional complexity - and therefore cost administering the scheme - and it’ll create a load of aggro for people making journeys where some services take just below a cutoff point and some are just over. Calder Valley into Manchester and Leeds for example where there are loads of different call patterns

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another thought on this. I think I'd like to see a return of Charter Discounts on season tickets instead of Delay Repay, i.e. a discount on renewal for overall poor performance over the period of the ticket. Moving to DR for these was just an attempt to reduce payouts because some people couldn't be bothered to claim, and also creates the possibility of fraud because people claim to have travelled on services they have not, and with a paper season ticket (which most are) there isn't generally any evidence either way.