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

[Bletchleyite]

This bears repeating, as it's so important: ameliorating the delays people experience is always worthwhile. No railway can be perfectly on time every time, but they can do everything possible to reduce the inconvenience caused. At least it seems the people in the industry making that argument are making positive progress.

It's actually of note I suppose that some WMT passengers switching to Avanti might actually get there sooner than planned (probably similar in a few other places). That, as well as costing the railway nothing (as they wouldn't have bought an Avanti ticket) looks rather good in publicity terms as well as being zero inconvenience.

They might also be impressed and pay more for the faster service next time, another win for the railway (which is why being fussy about what does and doesn't constitute first class is not sensible).

 

[Starmill]

I don’t know about the Independent, but the Guardian are very good at correcting errors like this if you report them, so perhaps try doing that.

Obviously in an ideal world they’d get it right first time, but news has faced huge cutbacks as revenue has plummeted and picture editors don’t have the time or resource to research everything as thoroughly as we (or I imagine they) would like, particularly in a world that expects ‘content’ immediately.

Exactly, I'm sure that's just a stock image and no further importance than that was considered.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I wonder how "cancelled" will be defined - will servives starting from a later station / that skip stops be covered for example. And what about long delays when the service isnt cancelled just late?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder how "cancelled" will be defined - will servives starting from a later station / that skip stops be covered for example.

A train is cancelled if it does not serve the station at which the passenger intended to board it.

Or possibly also the one at which they intended to alight from it, but I'm not 100% on that.

And what about long delays when the service isnt cancelled just late?

Not as yet, nor missed connections, but there's always scope for improvement.

 

[furlong]

This is long overdue. Many of these passengers were ALREADY entitled to travel on alternative routes and operators under the PRO but no train company seems to have briefed its staff about this or provided passengers with an easy way to take up those rights. This will go some way towards meeting those PRO obligations but it's still trying to nudge passengers into accepting limits on rerouting that don't exist.

Can we now get this new initiative expanded to include not just declared cancellations but also severe delays?
E.g. Start by saying if you're expected to arrive more than an hour late they'll treat it like a cancellation under this policy?

I used to argue that if a passenger used an invalid operator because of a delay and the e-ticket was scanned, it should trigger a payment to that operator equivalent to a proportion of any nominal savings in the amount of Delay Repay paid out by the original operator.

 

[lowe1409]

This is long overdue. Many of these passengers were ALREADY entitled to travel on alternative routes and operators under the PRO but no train company seems to have briefed its staff about this or provided passengers with an easy way to take up those rights. This will go some way towards meeting those PRO obligations but it's still trying to nudge passengers into accepting limits on rerouting that don't exist.

Can we now get this new initiative expanded to include not just declared cancellations but also severe delays?
E.g. Start by saying if you're expected to arrive more than an hour late they'll treat it like a cancellation under this policy?

I used to argue that if a passenger used an invalid operator because of a delay and the e-ticket was scanned, it should trigger a payment to that operator equivalent to a proportion of any nominal savings in the amount of Delay Repay paid out by the original operator.

Absolutely. Even minor delays if it affects connections. If your train is 10 minutes late, and you're gonna miss your connection (which could be a very infrequent service), you should be allowed to board an earlier train to maintain your connection.

 

[SaltAndVinegar]

Can we now get this new initiative expanded to include not just declared cancellations but also severe delays?
E.g. Start by saying if you're expected to arrive more than an hour late they'll treat it like a cancellation under this policy?

Surely under the PRO they should expand it to cover anticipated >60min delays, and ideally missed connections. Given the irritating vagueness of elements of railway policy, I’m not holding out much hope.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. Even minor delays if it affects connections. If your train is 10 minutes late, and you're gonna miss your connection (which could be a very infrequent service), you should be allowed to board an earlier train to maintain your connection.

That of course worked fine before Advance quotas were put on local stopping services rather than just long distance ones.

 

[redreni]

Obviously though if you further delay yourself by choice Delay Repay is arguably only payable based on the shortest delay you could have incurred, unless you physically could not board that next train. You can't claim an hour just because you were 397 bashing and didn't want a Pendolino in half an hour. Of course this is one reason to do this - it will save the railway money!

The trouble with trying to enforce that principle is delay repay software will just look for and find the optimum route and assume a passenger intending to take a different route would have known they should take it. That's unreasonable.

The route that turns out to be quickest and the route that journey planners would have told you to take if you ran a search at the time when the passenger had to make the decision, may be two entirely different routes. Passengers who act reasonably to try to mitigate their delay but end up choosing a sub-optimal route shouldn't be penalised.

It is still advantageous to open up alternative routes for passengers. It will often help them mitigate their delay.

Even if it doesn't, it can still be worthwhile. I was once at Euston when the WCML suddenly had to close and the usual chaos ensued. We were advised to go to Kings Cross and divert. When I checked later, it would in theory have been 20 minutes faster to wait it out at Euston than to divert via Kings Cross and Doncaster as I did, but only if I had managed to get on the first northbound train to run once the line re-opened. I've no idea if it would have been possible to board that train, but I am sure it was better and more comfortable for me, and better operationally for Network Rail (in terms of maintaining safe conditions at Euston) and for Avanti that I didn't try.

 

[MontyP]

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

I assume this is a sarcastic comment? I've always found that treating rail staff like jobsworths by having a loud and animated conversation is the least likely way to get the desired outcome

 

[embers25]

So if I'm stood on Waterloo and SWR are doing their usual trick or starting all Exeter trains at Basingstoke due to minor disruption. Can I now just hop over to Padd and get GWR?

Does the same apply if they say a service will terminare early at Yeovil so is Effectively cancelled to Exeter?

Also, with a walk up ticket, if I planned to use the 1520 to Exeter but the 1320 is cancelled, surely I can now claim I planned to use the 1320 and hop over to Padd and board the 1503...even though the 1420 and 1520 are still running. Or does this not apply to walk up tickets?

 

[cuccir]

I'm at a station where an XC service is cancelled and the station announcements are making a big deal of repeating that tickets for it are not valid on the subsequent Northern (6 mins later) or LNER (22 mins later) trains - people booked on it have to wait over 40 minutes before a train they can board, a TPE service which is accepting the tickets for some reason (I have a season ticket for the journey I'm making so can do the Northern service).

It seems particularly petty this week to make people late, to be honest - I'd be irritated if I had to wait

 

[WelshBluebird]

Also, with a walk up ticket, if I planned to use the 1520 to Exeter but the 1320 is cancelled, surely I can now claim I planned to use the 1320 and hop over to Padd and board the 1503...even though the 1420 and 1520 are still running. Or does this not apply to walk up tickets?

I mean that's the case with delay repay now though surely? Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should or are allowed to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, with a walk up ticket, if I planned to use the 1520 to Exeter but the 1320 is cancelled, surely I can now claim I planned to use the 1320 and hop over to Padd and board the 1503...even though the 1420 and 1520 are still running. Or does this not apply to walk up tickets?

If you have a walk up ticket you can use whatever train you like within its validity, but you don't get extra Delay Repay by leaving it later. There is one argument that says you get nothing at all because you voluntarily broke your journey and so were not delayed, though if you did actually intend to use the 1320 then Delay Repay based on the first opportunity you could have taken is probably reasonable to claim even if you took the sensible rule of "second train out" to avoid standing for a long period, say.

Claiming Delay Repay falsely where you delayed yourself rather than the railway doing so is fraud, a very serious criminal offence, so whether it's physically possible or not, obviously don't.

 

[35B]

I mean that's the case with delay repay now though surely? Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should or are allowed to.

Absolutely. And it's when too many people do that kind of thing that restrictions get imposed on the logic that "everyone's at it".

 

[modernrail]

Ah good! This is one of my biggest irritants as a very regular user of lots of the network.

I love the fact some on here seem to think passengers will immediately use the opportunity to put together the equivalent of a boots meal deal, trying to figure out the most expensive alternative journey. I suspect in 99.9% of cases passengers will just try and get to where they were going via a reasonable route and even if it ends up not being the most reasonable because they don’t have a PhD is train routes, nobody will die.

I take the point on OAO though, in both directions. Especially as their performance can be dodgy. The devolved operators should just get on with falling into line. The overlaps are not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[embers25]

If you have a walk up ticket you can use whatever train you like within its validity, but you don't get extra Delay Repay by leaving it later. There is one argument that says you get nothing at all because you voluntarily broke your journey and so were not delayed, though if you did actually intend to use the 1320 then Delay Repay based on the first opportunity you could have taken is probably reasonable to claim even if you took the sensible rule of "second train out" to avoid standing for a long period, say.

Claiming Delay Repay falsely where you delayed yourself rather than the railway doing so is fraud, a very serious criminal offence, so whether it's physically possible or not, obviously don't.

I never mentioned delay repay. I was just asking whether using GWR in the scenario was really valid? If you use GWR you arrive earlier anway.

The point is that one single cancellation opens up a world of confusion. Such as cancelling the 1707 from Basingstoke to Exeter which you can use many super off peak tickets on, would then permit the traveller to go to Reading and use the peak 1729 from there, even if the 1807 ran (obviously on normal times not temp times)

 

[LowLevel]

Ah good! This is one of my biggest irritants as a very regular user of lots of the network.

I love the fact some on here seem to think passengers will immediately use the opportunity to put together the equivalent of a boots meal deal, trying to figure out the most expensive alternative journey. I suspect in 99.9% of cases passengers will just try and get to where they were going via a reasonable route and even if it ends up not being the most reasonable because they don’t have a PhD is train routes, nobody will die.

I take the point on OAO though, in both directions. Especially as their performance can be dodgy. The devolved operators should just get on with falling into line. The overlaps are not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

Once upon a time I used to watch out for service disruption on Chiltern so I could use their cheap tickets with my railcard to go for a bash on the Virgin "Pretendolino" loco hauled train in the evening peak. But I suspect I was not the common denominator there!

It's always frustrated me that the network doesn't function as a cohesive unit when there's disruption - getting people to where they need to be should be the priority. As a result I've been waving people on during disruption regardless of ticket acceptance for many years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I love the fact some on here seem to think passengers will immediately use the opportunity to put together the equivalent of a boots meal deal, trying to figure out the most expensive alternative journey. I suspect in 99.9% of cases passengers will just try and get to where they were going via a reasonable route and even if it ends up not being the most reasonable because they don’t have a PhD is train routes, nobody will die.

Most people will want the fastest alternative, a subset will want the fastest direct alternative if there is one. Beyond that you've really just got a few enthusiasts having a play, and there really aren't enough of them to worry about.

 

[Adam Williams]

A train is cancelled if it does not serve the station at which the passenger intended to board it.

Or possibly also the one at which they intended to alight from it, but I'm not 100% on that.

I've had it confirmed that if the stops the customer is using (i.e. where they join/leave a service) are cancelled in Darwin, even if the service is otherwise partially running (e.g. it's a CrossCountry service terminated early at New Street), the acceptance policy can be used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've had it confirmed that if the stops the customer is using (i.e. where they join/leave a service) are cancelled in Darwin, even if the service is otherwise partially running (e.g. it's a CrossCountry service terminated early at New Street), the acceptance policy can be used.

Thanks. The railway applying common sense. Whatever next?

 

[modernrail]

Once upon a time I used to watch out for service disruption on Chiltern so I could use their cheap tickets with my railcard to go for a bash on the Virgin "Pretendolino" loco hauled train in the evening peak. But I suspect I was not the common denominator there!

It's always frustrated me that the network doesn't function as a cohesive unit when there's disruption - getting people to where they need to be should be the priority. As a result I've been waving people on during disruption regardless of ticket acceptance for many years.

Yes, especially as the threat when the shoe is on the other foot and somebody has missed an advance timing because life is life, buses are buses, the underground is the underground etc.

So this is a very welcome levelling of the playing field.

The other one I would love to see is for you only to be charged the difference between your advance fare and the full fare if you miss a train booked with an advance. It is very very unlikely most people are trying to game the system if they have ended up on a train close to the original timing as the difference in price is still usually horrible, it is just less horrible. Anyway, not to distract the thread but I do hope this is the start of a few of these silly presume the passenger is a criminal and the train system is without fault items now depart never to be seen again.

 

[Coleridge]

If TfW is going to be responsible for train services on key routes in England like Manchester to Hereford, Manchester to Chester, Shrewsbury to Birmingham, they need to have this in place for these routes really.

It's a typically half-baked idea and press release from DfT. At the very least, it should have been a joint press release with Scotrail and TfW, if only to say that those companies were not participating. And, as has been discussed in this thread, a great deal of very important fine detail is missing.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It's a typically half-baked idea and press release from DfT. At the very least, it should have been a joint press release with Scotrail and TfW, if only to say that those companies were not participating. And, as has been discussed in this thread, a great deal of very important fine detail is missing.

I don't think it's acceptable for TfW to not eventually join the scheme (the same way it would be if EMR did not later join; I understand why they're delaying the entry with their fleet fiasco) while remaining the main operator for significant places in England, like Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury and Nantwich, for example.

It's not the fault of residents there that the railway's structured to have their services operated by Wales, and I don't think they should lose out on the same rights just because of that.

 

[35B]

It's a typically half-baked idea and press release from DfT. At the very least, it should have been a joint press release with Scotrail and TfW, if only to say that those companies were not participating. And, as has been discussed in this thread, a great deal of very important fine detail is missing.

Agreed on the devolved administrations, but not on the fine detail - the statement is absolutely clear. Whether revenue protection staff have been adequately briefed on what that means, however...

 

[redreni]

Agreed on the devolved administrations, but not on the fine detail - the statement is absolutely clear. Whether revenue protection staff have been adequately briefed on what that means, however...

We know there's more detail to the policy than is in this press release because additional details have been been briefed internally. Hence we know how staff have been told to assess if an alternative route is reasonable. (Presumably for the purposes of this test, no via or avoid points may be specified when searching, though this isn't stated.)

This creates a position where a passenger may think an alternative route is reasonable and take it on the strength of this announcement, having been provided with no way to check if the railway agrees an alternative route is reasonable, but may then be dealt with by staff for being off route because they can't prove that, at the time they decided to divert, journey planners were offering the route (with or without fares).

I don't think the journey planner+based test of reasonableness is bad, necessarily, but it's bad that it's supposed to be a secret.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Why would you disallow avoid points? If you know that the disruption is caused by a signal failure in a particular area it seems eminently reasonable to add an avoid condition for that area.

 

[Djgr]

I don't think it's acceptable for TfW to not eventually join the scheme (the same way it would be if EMR did not later join

I don't think that it is workable having a minority of train operators not participating. I believe that non-participators will need to take a pragmatic approach or the decision will be taken out of their hands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think that it is workable having a minority of train operators not participating. I believe that non-participators will need to take a pragmatic approach or the decision will be taken out of their hands.

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to say that all TOCs receiving English subsidy money (which would include TfW but not the open access operators) must comply for any journey where at least one point is in England. Merseyrail is a bit of an awkward one, but if it receives any DfT funding it would count, and I'd include Network Rail subsidy in that.

What is done within Scotland and Wales is for them, though it's so de minimis that they might as well agree it. The vast majority of services within Scotland are ScotRail and the vast majority within Wales are TfW.

 

[Watershed]

So if I'm stood on Waterloo and SWR are doing their usual trick or starting all Exeter trains at Basingstoke due to minor disruption. Can I now just hop over to Padd and get GWR?

Does the same apply if they say a service will terminare early at Yeovil so is Effectively cancelled to Exeter?

Also, with a walk up ticket, if I planned to use the 1520 to Exeter but the 1320 is cancelled, surely I can now claim I planned to use the 1320 and hop over to Padd and board the 1503...even though the 1420 and 1520 are still running. Or does this not apply to walk up tickets?

If you're travelling to Exeter then the train is cancelled for you, so yes. It applies to all tickets, whether walk-up or Advance. There may well be some clued-up people who are able to benefit from this to travel on a train they'd not otherwise be eligible to take - but taken in the round, the benefits to the industry and passengers are far greater than the potential loss from a handful of people buying cheaper tickets.

Ah good! This is one of my biggest irritants as a very regular user of lots of the network.

I love the fact some on here seem to think passengers will immediately use the opportunity to put together the equivalent of a boots meal deal, trying to figure out the most expensive alternative journey. I suspect in 99.9% of cases passengers will just try and get to where they were going via a reasonable route and even if it ends up not being the most reasonable because they don’t have a PhD is train routes, nobody will die.

Exactly.

I take the point on OAO though, in both directions. Especially as their performance can be dodgy. The devolved operators should just get on with falling into line. The overlaps are not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

They are very significant if you travel in the part of England where TfW provide a large proportion of the services but share the route (or alternative routes) with other operators. For example Crewe-Chester/Manchester, Shrewsbury-Birmingham/Hereford, Chester-Manchester/Liverpool and Cheltenham-Chepstow/Lydney.

The lack of TfW inclusion is yet another example of why devolving English rail services to the Welsh government is utterly bonkers.

There's also a number of key routes in Wales that are affected, for example Newport-Carmarthen (and everything in between) and Chester-Holyhead. Whilst these are by no means the biggest passenger flows in the country, they are not insignificant either.