Cross-operator ticket acceptance announced (excluding East Midlands Railway, OAOs) when services are cancelled

[Adam Williams]

Government press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...stranded-rail-passengers-arrives-this-weekend

For the first time, passengers whose trains are cancelled can use another operator’s service to complete their journey immediately, free of charge

Not "for the first time" if it was previously offered between DfTO operators? And presumably there were previously plenty of cases prior to that where another operator providing travel met the requirements under 28.2 of the NRCoT for a passenger who would otherwise be stranded / article 16 of the PRO.

From Sunday (20 September 2026), passengers whose trains are cancelled will be able to use other services free of charge – ending limbo at stations and the need for costly re-bookings.

Currently, passengers are paying the price for a system which prioritises shareholders when trains are cancelled.

People are left to wait on platforms for operators to agree ticket acceptance, rush to catch another service across the station, buy a new ticket, or abandon their journey altogether – with countless meetings, appointments, and reunions missed as a result.

• c2c
• Gatwick Express
• Greater Anglia
• Great Northern
• LNER
• London Northwestern Railway
• Northern
• Southeastern
• Southern
• Thameslink
• South Western Railway
• Transpennine Express
• West Midlands Railway
• Avanti West Coast (new)
• Chiltern Railways (new)
• CrossCountry (new)
• Great Western Railway (new)

I think this is a move in the right direction. It does again appear to be a bit of policy that assumes journeys are single-leg, on one train operator however - where is the equivalent protection for someone on a delayed CrossCountry service who is caused to miss their connection (through no fault of their own)?

 

[Gaelan]

Also no mention of ScotRail, TfW, Merseyrail, or TfL.

I have every faith that a ScotRail guard would allow me travel in a pinch if LNER cancelled a train, but somewhat less faith that LNER would return the favor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder why EMR didn't agree it? A very strange odd one out.

I'd agree with those who say it should be the same rule (next 2 trains/any train within 2 hours, any TOC) if a connection is missed. It is confusing and inconsistent for it to be different in the two scenarios which most laypeople would consider the same.

 

[A S Leib]

Also no mention of ScotRail, TfW, Merseyrail, or TfL.

Nor of the Tyne and Wear Metro. In TfL's case, maybe thinking's been that most people would be using contactless or zonal cards, when something like automatic TfL acceptance if disruption leaves stations just outside Greater London without service would still be useful.

I wonder why EMR didn't agree it?

The Guardian article brings up the current reduced timetable. I'm not sure if that is the reason.

East Midlands Railway, which has been beset with problems while introducing malfunctioning Hitachi bi-mode trains, will also not be immediately included due to its ongoing mass cancellations and shortages of seats.

 

[LowLevel]

I wonder why EMR didn't agree it? A very strange odd one out.

I'd agree with those who say it should be the same rule (next 2 trains/any train within 2 hours, any TOC) if a connection is missed. It is confusing and inconsistent for it to be different in the two scenarios which most laypeople would consider the same.

EMR already have it with Northern and TPE which are at least useful for the North West. I assume it'll follow along once the fleet is performing more reliably.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

Clearly EMR are wanting to avoid transfers-in, which could sdd to overcrowding.

But will EMR ticket holders be allowed transfers out to other TOCs?

 

[noddingdonkey]

I wonder if the EMR omission is because the MML doesn't have the capacity to soak up passengers when the ECML is disrupted? I can imagine this blanket headline causing further passenger confusion with the open access operators on the King's Cross-Doncaster flow not being included too.

 

[ainsworth74]

Obviously this is a step in the right direction as this sort of default cross-acceptance should have been the default from day one. I do worry that some of the implications haven't been fully thought through however.

For instance Birmingham to Edinburgh with XC splitting at Sheffield, York and Newcastle. The XC train is cancelled and Avanti operate trains from Birmingham to Edinburgh so it is perfectly valid to jump on the Avanti train. What happens when a train manager or RPI checks tickets at Preston and is presented with a York to Newcastle ticket? Hopefully pragmatism will reign but I can see an awkward interaction resulting at the very least.

Or how about Stevenage to Birmingham via High Wycombe using the outward portion of an Off Peak return in the morning rush hour (there are no peak restrictions on the outward in the morning). GTR cancel the connecting train from Stevenage to London so I head to Euston and jump on Avanti. What happens at the Euston barrier? Or on the train?

It's a good policy overall I just worry that there are edge cases that have been fully thought about and which are going to cause friction points and lead to bad headlines ("Passenger tried to use new railway policy due to cancellation and was prosecuted for not having a valid ticket" etc etc). Which considering the industries already god damn awful reputation is not going to do anyone any favours.

 

[D1537]

For the first time, passengers whose trains are cancelled can use another operator’s service to complete their journey immediately, free of charge

I can also foresee ordinary passengers who have just read the headline on this one (and not the detail) ending up having issues where one of the operators is OA, especially on Grand Central and Lumo West Coast.

 

[AndrewE]

The Guardian's report https://www.theguardian.com/busines...sengers-automatic-right-free-switch-operators has more precise details and says

Automatic cross-operator ticket acceptance has been brought in already across firms returned to public ownership, but now CrossCountry, GWR, Avanti West Coast and Chiltern Railways, running important intercity routes, will be included.

The remaining passenger train operations are scheduled to come into public ownership next year under a Great British Railways banner, bar a handful of open-access services, which will remain separate.

East Midlands Railway, which has been beset with problems while introducing malfunctioning Hitachi bi-mode trains, will also not be immediately included due to its ongoing mass cancellations and shortages of seats.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'd agree with those who say it should be the same rule (next 2 trains/any train within 2 hours, any TOC) if a connection is missed.

In reality, my experience is that the majority of staff will be pragmatic about this and will allow passengers to do whatever is reasonable to recover from journey disruption, regardless of frivolous ticketing matters. I've never personally encountered staff being difficult when I'm not on my booked train with an Advance, for example, regardless of whether this is due to a missed connection or a cancellation.

There are of course also cases where - despite the fact they are dealing with a passenger who has already been thoroughly inconvenienced - the railway will choose to make life harder for them. We read about it enough on this forum. In honesty I struggle to understand why staff choose to enforce this, given they would generally have the discretion not to - I suspect they are probably faced with pressure from above.

It is in these latter situations that this sort of policy is really needed, and it really needs to be worded in a watertight way. I can't imagine it is actually the intention of the government for it not to apply to missed connections, but I agree they need to state explicitly that it does.

I just think there needs to be some appreciation that despite several decades of marketing people trying to convince them otherwise, most passengers don't care who operates their train and broadly just think of "the railway" as a single entity. When things go wrong, a railway that still tries to get them home as quickly and smoothly as it can makes them feel cared for and builds goodwill. A railway that argues with them about ticketing conditions they don't understand, and tells them they can't get the next train home because it's the wrong colour (despite not being able to catch the right-coloured one), makes them feel unvalued as a customer and dissuaded from rail travel, and will hurt the railway in the long term - all for precisely no benefit except presumably making someone somewhere feel clever.

 

[Andrew1395]

Wouldn’t the quickest way to make this very clear to consumers, would be for GBR to abolish fares that are TOC specific, such as LNER only and LNER and connections? I suspect that will happen. Presumably if open access operators wish to use industry systems for settlement etc (for which they only pay marginal cost). They too in future will be obliged to accept GBR tickets.

 

[Djgr]

In reality, my experience is that the majority of staff will be pragmatic about this and will allow passengers to do whatever is reasonable to recover from journey disruption, regardless of frivolous ticketing matters. I've never personally encountered staff being difficult when I'm not on my booked train with an Advance, for example, regardless of whether this is due to a missed connection or a cancellation.

There are of course also cases where - despite the fact they are dealing with a passenger who has already been thoroughly inconvenienced - the railway will choose to make life harder for them. We read about it enough on this forum. In honesty I struggle to understand why staff choose to enforce this, given they would generally have the discretion not to - I suspect they are probably faced with pressure from above.

It is in these latter situations that this sort of policy is really needed, and it really needs to be worded in a watertight way. I can't imagine it is actually the intention of the government for it not to apply to missed connections, but I agree they need to state explicitly that it does.

I just think there needs to be some appreciation that despite several decades of marketing people trying to convince them otherwise, most passengers don't care who operates their train and broadly just think of "the railway" as a single entity. When things go wrong, a railway that still tries to get them home as quickly and smoothly as it can makes them feel cared for and builds goodwill. A railway that argues with them about ticketing conditions they don't understand, and tells them they can't get the next train home because it's the wrong colour (despite not being able to catch the right-coloured one), makes them feel unvalued as a customer and dissuaded from rail travel, and will hurt the railway in the long term - all for precisely no benefit except presumably making someone somewhere feel clever.

And passengers need to have the courage to have "loud and animated conservations" with jobsworth staff.

 

[Coolzac]

I personally think that the OAs should become part of the scheme, but also to keep their license to run they must meet a certain level of reliability. Because otherwise it just enables them (Grand Central) to be bailed out when their reliability is poor.

 

[TUC]

Wouldn’t the quickest way to make this very clear to consumers, would be for GBR to abolish fares that are TOC specific, such as LNER only and LNER and connections? I suspect that will happen. Presumably if open access operators wish to use industry systems for settlement etc (for which they only pay marginal cost). They too in future will be obliged to accept GBR tickets.

That would be detrimental to passengers in the increased fares which would result.

 

[D1537]

I personally think that the OAs should become part of the scheme, but also to keep their license to run they must meet a certain level of reliability. Because otherwise it just enables them (Grand Central) to be bailed out when their reliability is poor.

The problem with OAs is how few services they run, though. This is an extreme example, but if I'm standing at Doncaster waiting for the 12:09 to King's Cross and it's cancelled, there isn't another one for five hours (17:06). If I'm on LNER and my train is cancelled, there's another one in half an hour at the most. The same also applies to Lumo EC / Hull Trains and LNER, and Lumo WC and Avanti, of course.

 

[TUC]

It is interesting that the announcement refers to 'reasonable alternative route' rather than 'permitted route' which does reintroduce the concept of what is reasonable?

 

[Watershed]

It is interesting that the announcement refers to 'reasonable alternative route' rather than 'permitted route' which does reintroduce the concept of what is reasonable?

The rule is basically that you can take any alternative route that a journey planner suggests, even if it would normally be non-permitted and therefore require split tickets ("combined fare" as NRE now labels it).

 

[TUC]

The rule is basically that you can take any alternative route that a journey planner suggests, even if it would normally be non-permitted and therefore require split tickets ("combined fare" as NRE now labels it).

That isn't how the announcement frames it. It says 'Customers holding a valid ticket will be able to travel on another participating operator’s train, departing within 2 hours before or after their original cancelled service, using a direct or reasonable alternative route.'

In any event, whilst we all know that in reality it can be unpredictable what routes journey planners suggest, isn't the underlying expectation that they should only offer permitted routes?

 

[py_megapixel]

split tickets ("combined fare" as NRE now labels it).

What on earth....? "Combine" is an antonym to "split"!

 

[AdamWW]

What on earth....? "Combine" is an antonym to "split"!

But there are two different concepts here.

Split ticketing normally refers to using two or more tickets for a journey which could be made (at greater expense) with a single ticket.

When the NRE site produces a journey that isn't on a permitted route and proposes multiple tickets then calling that a combined fare makes more sense to me than calling it split ticketing. There's nothing to split.

If ticket splitting sites do the same thing (I don't know if they do) then I can quite see why they also refer to this as split ticketing since it's all the same to the passenger. But I don't think that makes it wrong for NRE to use a more appropriate term.

 

[Adam Williams]

I don't know if they do

They do, and they don't charge any commission for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there are two different concepts here.

Split ticketing normally refers to using two or more tickets for a journey which could be made (at greater expense) with a single ticket.

When the NRE site produces a journey that isn't on a permitted route and proposes multiple tickets then calling that a combined fare makes more sense to me than calling it split ticketing. There's nothing to split.

If ticket splitting sites do the same thing (I don't know if they do) then I can quite see why they also refer to this as split ticketing since it's all the same to the passenger. But I don't think that makes it wrong for NRE to use a more appropriate term.

I'd still call that splitting unless it's summed up and issued on one ticket, even if there isn't a through fare. It's the well known term for it and has been for ages, and any implications of it are exactly the same as if it was a split ticket, other than that if you buy it through Trainsplit a fee isn't charged because there's nothing as a basis to calculate one.

 

[lowe1409]

The rule is basically that you can take any alternative route that a journey planner suggests, even if it would normally be non-permitted and therefore require split tickets ("combined fare" as NRE now labels it).

Reasonable will depend on the situation. If there's say an issue an issue on the hope valley such as the recent tunnel fire, Manchester to Sheffield via Leeds or Huddersfield all of a sudden becomes a reasonable route, even if no journey planner would ever suggest it. What about WCML North goes down, Manchester to Carlisle via Leeds or Newcastle suddenly becomes a reasonable route

 

[Recessio]

This is a good move. Feels like the sort of thing that could do with a catchy name though. Like Norwich Pharmacal, Martha's Rule... If a passenger could just say to a guard "I'm travelling on this service under the Mornington Crescent rules" rather than having to remember "Section 28.2 of the NRCoT" or "Article 16 of the PRO" . A "Hendy Transfer" perhaps?

 

[lowe1409]

This is a good move. Feels like the sort of thing that could do with a catchy name though. Like Norwich Pharmacal, Martha's Rule... If a passenger could just say to a guard "I'm travelling on this service under the Mornington Crescent rules" rather than having to remember "Section 28.2 of the NRCoT" or "Article 16 of the PRO" . A "Hendy Transfer" perhaps?

Or just say, 'my original train was canceled.' or 'ive been advised there was an incident at xxx and been told by staff to come this way around'

 

[TrainTraveler]

There is, what you might call, a “moral hazard” with non GBR operators in that cancelling trains becomes “free” as the passengers move to another operator. If the scheme includes sensible but significant recompense for the operator that takes the displaced passengers then that could be resolved. Perhaps also reward ticket checks that capture the transfers.

 

[MrJeeves]

There is, what you might call, a “moral hazard” with non GBR operators in that cancelling trains becomes “free” as the passengers move to another operator.

This shouldn't be the passenger's problem to care about!

If the scheme includes sensible but significant recompense for the operator that takes the displaced passengers then that could be resolved. Perhaps also reward ticket checks that capture the transfers.

And I'm glad you've highlighted the viable and sensible solution.

My issue isn't particularly with the OAOs being excluded, but more the local concession operators like Elizabeth Line, Overground, Merseyrail, and also the devolved public operators ScotRail and TfW. I think it's appalling that they are not part of the scheme.

This is certainly a big step in the right direction, but there's still progress to be made in my view.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

Will be interesting to see how 'Reasonable' gets interpreted in practice, especially regarding alternate routes/destinations.

If my Chiltern train to Birmingham Moor Street is canceled, will my 'Chiltern Only' ticket be accepted on XC to New Street? I'd consider that perfectly reasonable but would an XC guard?

There will no doubt be instances where the 'reasonable' thing to do, especially in severe disruption, is go to an alternative destination on a completely different route/TOC
Eg. suppose I'm going to Solihull and the Chiltern train is canceled. Would it be 'reasonable' to go to Birmingham International on a Chiltern only ticket and get a bus/lift?

 

[pr1]

It's a great step forward though I do share some concern with @ainsworth74 and @py_megapixel . There are potential issues with revenue protection staff who may not be so customer friendly/facing, and the industry can have a tendency to be rigid when it needs flexibility.