Self-rerouting due to cancellation between Wrexham and Crewe

[A S Leib]

I have an advance single from Wrexham General to Tring changing at Crewe and Milton Keynes Central for 19:40, and an anytime day return from Hemel Hempstead to Tring, tomorrow, with Avanti having sent an email saying that the Wrexham to Crewe train is cancelled.

Would I be able to change at Warrington Bank Quay, or would I have to change at Chester and Crewe? It doesn't make a practical difference as I'd get back at the same time either way, and I'd leave Wrexham later avoiding Warrington; I'm just curious if I'd have the option. Would being able to go via Watford Junction and possibly leaving there be an option?

On the plus side, I won't need to wonder if eighteen minutes would be enough time to change from a bus to train in Wrexham, and that should be full delay repay for the return leg.

 

[Starmill]

Presumably you wouldn't be using different operators? If so this is automatically covered as your train is cancelled.

 

[A S Leib]

Presumably you wouldn't be using different operators? If so this is automatically covered as your train is cancelled.

The 20:26 Chester to Warrington Bank Quay's Northern if I don't stick with going via Crewe; otherwise, TfW, Avanti and LNR.

---

	Original plan	Crewe	Warrington
d. Wrexham General	19:40	20:18	20:00
a. Chester	(calls)	20:38	20:18
d. Chester	(calls)	20:58	20:26
a. Warrington Bank Quay			20:50
d. Warrington Bank Quay			21:23
a. Crewe	20:20	21:20
d. Crewe	20:46	21:35
a. Milton Keynes Central	21:52	22:57	(calls)
d. Milton Keynes Central	22:02	23:08	(calls)
a. Watford Junction			23:16
d. Watford Junction			23:29
a. Hemel Hempstead	22:35	23:36	23:41

 

[Watershed]

I have an advance single from Wrexham General to Tring changing at Crewe and Milton Keynes Central for 19:40, and an anytime day return from Hemel Hempstead to Tring, tomorrow, with Avanti having sent an email saying that the Wrexham to Crewe train is cancelled.

Would I be able to change at Warrington Bank Quay, or would I have to change at Chester and Crewe? It doesn't make a practical difference as I'd get back at the same time either way, and I'd leave Wrexham later avoiding Warrington; I'm just curious if I'd have the option. Would being able to go via Watford Junction and possibly leaving there be an option?

On the plus side, I won't need to wonder if eighteen minutes would be enough time to change from a bus to train in Wrexham, and that should be full delay repay for the return leg.

If it's a through Advance it will be routed Avanti & Connections so there is no operator restriction. So in principle you are free to use an alternative TfW service for example.

However, Warrington Bank Quay isn't on a permitted route from Wrexham to Tring, so going via there wouldn't be valid. In the circumstances it is the kind of reasonable alternative you'd hope staff would permit you to use but I'd make sure to ask the guard before simply boarding a train at Chester.

 

[A S Leib]

Thank you.

My outbound journey's also been affected by cancellations due to more trains than normal needing repairs, but that shouldn't mean much practical change. The 08:23 Crewe to Wrexham General's showing as only running to Chester, but I should still be able to get from there to Wrexham in time by bus.

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

Should getting the 23:08 Milton Keynes to Hemel Hempstead (fast from Leighton Buzzard to Berkhamsted) be an issue? I know that split ticketing formally requires calling where the ticket's split in this case, but I'd also be over an hour late by then.

 

[Watershed]

Thank you.

My outbound journey's also been affected by cancellations due to more trains than normal needing repairs, but that shouldn't mean much practical change. The 08:23 Crewe to Wrexham General's showing as only running to Chester, but I should still be able to get from there to Wrexham in time by bus.

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

Should getting the 23:08 Milton Keynes to Hemel Hempstead (fast from Leighton Buzzard to Berkhamsted) be an issue? I know that split ticketing formally requires calling where the ticket's split in this case, but I'd also be over an hour late by then.

If sticking to trains that stop at your split station would cause you to arrive more than an hour late, you're entitled to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity, which in practice would require waiving the requirement to stop at the split station.

In practice, WMT guards, especially on the WCML south, are notorious for undertaking few ticket checks and the chances of an RPI check at that time of night must be next to nil...

 

[A S Leib]

Thank you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2026 ==

The route I ended up with in the end was

Hemel Hempstead 06:06
06:38 Milton Keynes Central 07:00
08:09 Crewe 08:23
08:47 Chester 09:24
09:39 Wrexham General

TfW Rail's website said there was ticket acceptance with buses between Chester and Wrexham, but the 09:24 got me there ten minutes before the bus would have.

Wrexham General 20:00 (20:22 actual)
20:18 (20:37 actual) Chester 20:58
21:20 Crewe 20:46 (21:31 actual)
21:31 (22:26 actual) Rugby 22:16 (22:34 actual)
23:36 (23:51 actual) Hemel Hempstead

As predicted and in line with my previous experience, there weren't any ticket checks between Milton Keynes (well, I changed at Rugby due to how delays worked out, to have a five-minute wait instead of 25) and Hemel at that time of night. Crewe to Chester in the morning was the only ticket check I had.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2026 ==

The Chester to Wrexham portions were removed from the timetable at short notice rather than showing as cancelled; presumably I've done the correct thing making delay repay claims for both legs through TfW against the stated times on the advance tickets, manually entering itineraries?

 

[Starmill]

If it's a through Advance it will be routed Avanti & Connections so there is no operator restriction. So in principle you are free to use an alternative TfW service for example.

However, Warrington Bank Quay isn't on a permitted route from Wrexham to Tring, so going via there wouldn't be valid. In the circumstances it is the kind of reasonable alternative you'd hope staff would permit you to use but I'd make sure to ask the guard before simply boarding a train at Chester.

My reading of the new wording of Condition 28 is the service for which you have a ticket is cancelled (i.e. not running late, nor missed connection), the geographic route restrictions no longer apply:

In addition to the validity that your Ticket automatically entitles you to, you will normally in such circumstances be permitted to travel up to either two trains prior or two trains after the affected service, using the same operator that you are booked onto.

So you needn't worry about permitted routes any more, nor geographic route restrictions, if you use the same operator. I got this from the use of the phrase "in addition to the validity...". Otherwise it wouldn't be "in addition", it would just be the ordinary rule under the conditions of the Advance ticket.

Now you could argue they never intended that to be the case, because it doesn't seem to me that there's any reason to ease the geographic restrictions but only in circumstances where your operator doesn't change (even if, as in this case, there's no operator restriction). You could also argue that it says "normally", but I interpreted that as being a qualifier about the next sentence in 28.3, which talks about the circumstances when services are less frequent.

To be honest, 28 these days is a total mess. It was poor in its predecessors' forms, and it's worse from bizarre revisions. It has loads of unclear language, it's not subdivided to deal with one single issue per sub clause, it's difficult to read and it fails to establish a clear hierarchy. If it were me travelling though, I'd be comfortable sticking to the argument that if my service is cancelled, I can use any train, disapplying any geographic or permitted route restrictions, but only when using the same operator(s).

 

[Watershed]

My reading of the new wording of Condition 28 is the service for which you have a ticket is cancelled (i.e. not running late, nor missed connection), the geographic route restrictions no longer apply:

So you needn't worry about permitted routes any more, nor geographic route restrictions, if you use the same operator. I got this from the use of the phrase "in addition to the validity...". Otherwise it wouldn't be "in addition", it would just be the ordinary rule under the conditions of the Advance ticket.

Now you could argue they never intended that to be the case, because it doesn't seem to me that there's any reason to ease the geographic restrictions but only in circumstances where your operator doesn't change (even if, as in this case, there's no operator restriction). You could also argue that it says "normally", but I interpreted that as being a qualifier about the next sentence in 28.3, which talks about the circumstances when services are less frequent.

To be honest, 28 these days is a total mess. It was poor in its predecessors' forms, and it's worse from bizarre revisions. It has loads of unclear language, it's not subdivided to deal with one single issue per sub clause, it's difficult to read and it fails to establish a clear hierarchy. If it were me travelling though, I'd be comfortable sticking to the argument that if my service is cancelled, I can use any train, disapplying any geographic or permitted route restrictions, but only when using the same operator(s).

Yes, that's a reading I'd not considered. I'm not sure that I would be quite as comfortable relying on your interpretation of the meaning of "in addition to the validity" to allow travel via non-permitted routes, because the argument could be made that this is just about allowing you to use earlier or later services on the routes that condition 13 allows you to use.

The principle of lex specialis could also be used to argue that since condition 13 specifically deals with the routes you can use, it is only overriden where explicitly stated.

Of course I wouldn't be advocating for the above arguments - but it's the kind of thing I would expect to see brought up if the railway ever employed a clued-up lawyer to defend a claim for breach of contract for charging extra to go via Warrington in a case like this, for example, or in a contested prosecution.