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

[Bletchleyite]

No, there isn't, but their use would need to be within the spirit of taking a reasonable alternative route to your destination, otherwise it would mean you could go anywhere.

Why would it matter if they did provided the time of purchase was before the cancellation was made? That you didn't know the train would be cancelled when you paid means you can't plan to abuse it.

 

[modernrail]

So what?

We are talking about situations where the passenger's journey has been disrupted beyond their control.

The concept of 'any reasonable route' was well established before the existence of journey planners, and was only destroyed due to the dogma of privatisation.

If a non-conventional route happens to be beneficial in the circumstances, why create a difficulty, when you could actually create goodwill and leave a positive impression at zero marginal cost?

I can dream!

If anybody argues with my reasonable route they will get a stern reply. If I didn’t cancel the train I won’t be taking a lecture on my workaround. Occasionally even as a seasoned rail user I will get my route wrong, I will have been better waiting on the platform for the next direct service etc. However, by wrong I mean I have caused myself to be later to my destination that would have been. I don’t mean a guard can tell me it’s wrong. No alternative is the Orient Express and so I will be using any route I deem potentially beneficial to my original goal as I see fit.

The vast majority of guards have always been okay with this anyway. The jobsworth we stuffed up your journey and but it was technically a different company etc etc crew is a relatively recent phenomenon, who will just have to get used to the new world pretty quickly if they want to avoid some tense snap back from passengers.

This all returns us to a more helpful railway, which is what it should be.

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

Why would it matter if they did provided the time of purchase was before the cancellation was made? That you didn't know the train would be cancelled when you paid means you can't plan to abuse it.

If the railway is ever producing cancellations at a rate that passengers can actually plan to abuse that meaningfully then the railway should probably spend its time and energy working out how to be a better railway and not worry itself with an enterprising workaround.

Also, seriously, what do we think is going to happen. Somebody knows every third train is cancelled (on which route, other than Thameslink, does that happen) and so plans to save £3.50 by buying a ticket to x but then does a loop around that route to go via y? It’s just a none point and if any railway employee chooses to get over excited about it they should probably have a chat with themselves first.

 

[embers25]

Does anywhere in the guidance actually say a journey planner should be used for alternatives to be reasonable as the DfT press release doesn't and surely it should be front and center of that unless I'm missing something?

 

[modernrail]

Does anywhere in the guidance actually say a journey planner should be used for alternatives to be reasonable as the DfT press release doesn't and surely it should be front and center of that unless I'm missing something?

I would say it doesn’t really matter if it does or doesn’t. No railway employee should try and rely on that argument if tempted.

The reality when you see a cancellation - check journey planner, if in station try and check screens and speak to somebody. Try and work out if the cancellation is a one off or something bigger is going on. Take in information assuming all of the above may be wrong, badly informed, can’t be bothered, the situation is still unclear etc. Look at the departure board and see if there is any other service that might be useful for you. Maybe use journey planner to check some connections of none cancelled trains especially if something on the board can get you around some disruption as opposed to one off cancellation. Make a decision. Hope that decision pays off. Be aware it might not. Take alternative route/service. Some of the time be happy with it (usually where different operator on same route), some times be unhappy with it (more likely where you are trying to route yourself around a problem.

Extra effort to the passenger - quite a lot.

Annoyance factor when a guard then tries to unpick your decision making rather than focussing on being helpful to all who have been put out by the cancellation - massive.

 

[embers25]

If the railway is ever producing cancellations at a rate that passengers can actually plan to abuse that meaningfully then the railway should probably spend its time and energy working out how to be a better railway and not worry itself with an enterprising workaround.

Also, seriously, what do we think is going to happen. Somebody knows every third train is cancelled (on which route, other than Thameslink, does that happen) and so plans to save £3.50 by buying a ticket to x but then does a loop around that route to go via y? It’s just a none point and if any railway employee chooses to get over excited about it they should probably have a chat with themselves first.

You can often tell about an hour before SWR actually announce that they are curtailing all WoE trains at Basingstoke that it will happen and so the clever person wishing to travel to London from Exeter later in the morning buys the much cheaper SWR fare and 99% of the time will be able to travel on peak GWR and take half the time and for half the cost or better with their Network Card.

Note that although Network Card is generally valid from 10am, 2 hours before is 8am and technically from Exeter the Network card is valid on the 0824 to Waterloo and so that would make the 0652 fast to Paddington fair game with a Network Card if the 0725 or 0823 were cancelled/curtailed.

Yes SWR could recover and you'd be stuck on SWR, but that doesn't happen very often as SWR aren't exactly known for their service recovery skills! Its often surprisingly easy to work out which services will be curtailed on the WoE. The delay in SWR notification comes because, whilst its relatively easy for passengers to see what's coming, it apparently comes as a complete shock to SWR.

 

[Tester]

You can often tell about an hour before SWR actually announce that they are curtailing all WoE trains at Basingstoke that it will happen and so the clever person wishing to travel to London from Exeter later in the morning buys the much cheaper SWR fare and 99% of the time will be able to travel on peak GWR and take half the time and for half the cost or better with their Network Card.

Note that although Network Card is generally valid from 10am, 2 hours before is 8am and technically from Exeter the Network card is valid on the 0824 to Waterloo and so that would make the 0652 fast to Paddington fair game with a Network Card if the 0725 or 0823 were cancelled/curtailed.

Yes SWR could recover and you'd be stuck on SWR, but that doesn't happen very often as SWR aren't exactly known for their service recovery skills! Its often surprisingly easy to work out which services will be curtailed on the WoE. The delay in SWR notification comes because, whilst its relatively easy for passengers to see what's coming, it apparently comes as a complete shock to SWR.

Are you suggesting that this is a good reason to clamp down on people's ability to recover from disruption?

 

[fandroid]

As the curtailing of WOE services at Basingstoke is not an uncommon phenomenon, SWR could do themselves and their WOE customers a favour by routinely adding in a stop at Basingstoke on the fast electric service from Winchester whenever the former happens. It follows the WOE diesels through the station about 10 mins later. That may dismay the potential Exeter trickster but it would very much please anyone travelling from Axminster onwards.

 

[redreni]

So what?

Well, the public-facing stuff says be reasonable, which is absolutely fine by me. But then the staff-facing stuff says the definition of reasonable is does a journey planner suggest it. That means as far as the staff are concerned, the journey planner test is not itself subject to a reasonableness test, instead it defines what is reasonable.

That's problematic to my mind in several ways (e.g. what if changes to the live running data mean a journey planner suggests the alternative route when the passenger embarks on it but no longer suggests it by the time their ticket is checked and the RPI or whoever wants to establish if the route is reasonable)?

I think the customer facing and staff facing tests should be the same. The only reason they're not is the railway has a very low opinion of its own staff and doesn't trust them to have a sense of what's reasonable (possibly rightly, in the case of those who operate within a fiefdom and think people whose ticket is too cheap to use their bit of the network should wait or buy another ticket).

If you are going to make journey planners the arbiter, though, you'd better put some parameters around that or it'll be a case of "my journey planner suggested this route" versus "well my journey planner doesn't - you didn't have to come this way and you're off route".

And you'll also open up scope for people to book a cheap journey in first class, hope the train is cancelled and then do an absurd diversion of hundreds of miles via the WCML and ECML.

We are talking about situations where the passenger's journey has been disrupted beyond their control.

The concept of 'any reasonable route' was well established before the existence of journey planners, and was only destroyed due to the dogma of privatisation.

Agreed. That's what I always say if I travel on a ticket that may be cheaper than intended: if the rule was to be reasonable, I would be reasonable, but as the rule is stick to permitted routes, I will plan my journey and buy my tickets accordingly.

If a non-conventional route happens to be beneficial in the circumstances, why create a difficulty, when you could actually create goodwill and leave a positive impression at zero marginal cost?

I can dream!

Agreed.

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

If anybody argues with my reasonable route they will get a stern reply. If I didn’t cancel the train I won’t be taking a lecture on my workaround. Occasionally even as a seasoned rail user I will get my route wrong, I will have been better waiting on the platform for the next direct service etc. However, by wrong I mean I have caused myself to be later to my destination that would have been. I don’t mean a guard can tell me it’s wrong. No alternative is the Orient Express and so I will be using any route I deem potentially beneficial to my original goal as I see fit.

The vast majority of guards have always been okay with this anyway. The jobsworth we stuffed up your journey and but it was technically a different company etc etc crew is a relatively recent phenomenon, who will just have to get used to the new world pretty quickly if they want to avoid some tense snap back from passengers.

This all returns us to a more helpful railway, which is what it should be.

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


If the railway is ever producing cancellations at a rate that passengers can actually plan to abuse that meaningfully then the railway should probably spend its time and energy working out how to be a better railway and not worry itself with an enterprising workaround.

Also, seriously, what do we think is going to happen. Somebody knows every third train is cancelled (on which route, other than Thameslink, does that happen) and so plans to save £3.50 by buying a ticket to x but then does a loop around that route to go via y? It’s just a none point and if any railway employee chooses to get over excited about it they should probably have a chat with themselves first.

What about somebody knows every third train is cancelled so plans to save £350 on a journey from south east England to Scotland?

Would they get away with that if they'd only got the journey planner to suggest going via Scotland by adding a via point in Scotland to the search? No, I don't expect so, because it would fail the reasonableness test, but that's no reason to have guidance floating around that says you can do that sort of thing (by making the journey planner result reasonable by definition).

 

[modernrail]

Well, the public-facing stuff says be reasonable, which is absolutely fine by me. But then the staff-facing stuff says the definition of reasonable is does a journey planner suggest it. That means as far as the staff are concerned, the journey planner test is not itself subject to a reasonableness test, instead it defines what is reasonable.

That's problematic to my mind in several ways (e.g. what if changes to the live running data mean a journey planner suggests the alternative route when the passenger embarks on it but no longer suggests it by the time their ticket is checked and the RPI or whoever wants to establish if the route is reasonable)?

I think the customer facing and staff facing tests should be the same. The only reason they're not is the railway has a very low opinion of its own staff and doesn't trust them to have a sense of what's reasonable (possibly rightly, in the case of those who operate within a fiefdom and think people whose ticket is too cheap to use their bit of the network should wait or buy another ticket).

If you are going to make journey planners the arbiter, though, you'd better put some parameters around that or it'll be a case of "my journey planner suggested this route" versus "well my journey planner doesn't - you didn't have to come this way and you're off route".

And you'll also open up scope for people to book a cheap journey in first class, hope the train is cancelled and then do an absurd diversion of hundreds of miles via the WCML and ECML.

Agreed. That's what I always say if I travel on a ticket that may be cheaper than intended: if the rule was to be reasonable, I would be reasonable, but as the rule is stick to permitted routes, I will plan my journey and buy my tickets accordingly.


Agreed.

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


What about somebody knows every third train is cancelled so plans to save £350 on a journey from south east England to Scotland?

Would they get away with that if they'd only got the journey planner to suggest going via Scotland by adding a via point in Scotland to the search? No, I don't expect so, because it would fail the reasonableness test, but that's no reason to have guidance floating around that says you can do that sort of thing (by making the journey planner result reasonable by definition).

There are about 5 people in the country who would try that on and will already be fleecing the public purse in 200 other ways. It will be a none problem.

 

[AdamWW]

Well, the public-facing stuff says be reasonable, which is absolutely fine by me. But then the staff-facing stuff says the definition of reasonable is does a journey planner suggest it. That means as far as the staff are concerned, the journey planner test is not itself subject to a reasonableness test, instead it defines what is reasonable.

Given that getting these things wrong is potentially a criminal offence it would be useful for passengers if they were to be told what the rules actually are.

 

[modernrail]

Given that getting these things wrong is potentially a criminal offence it would be useful for passengers if they were to be told what the rules actually are.

Guards on trains are not lawyers and passengers on trains are not criminals. Criminals are a tiny subset of the population.

The key point is that guards don’t try and be lawyers. If the same person is turning up on your trains on a regular basis with wild stories of cancelled trains in Cornwall that meant you needed to travel via Scotland deal with in the same way as you always have - refer to BTP as likely fare evasion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Guards on trains are not lawyers and passengers on trains are not criminals. Criminals are a tiny subset of the population.

The key point is that guards don’t try and be lawyers. If the same person is turning up on your trains on a regular basis with wild stories of cancelled trains in Cornwall that meant you needed to travel via Scotland deal with in the same way as you always have - refer to BTP as likely fare evasion.

BTP don't really do that, but certainly scan the ticket, tap whichever button it is for "investigate this one" (I think there is that option on some of the scanning tools to do it on the quiet rather than telling them and doing a form) and move on. If they take the mick too much I guess a letter will arrive a few weeks later.

Meanwhile the person who goes to Bletchley via Bedford because the WCML is up the spout again is clearly just getting home, even if it might be that they are an enthusiast and find doing that more enjoyable than waiting around as they get to tick off their last WMT liveried 150 before it rusts and shakes itself to bits. And it's no different from what they would have done in BR days, which are just in effect returning. The difficulty is that there are a load of people (passengers, enthusiasts and staff) who are too young to remember how this sort of thing just worked in BR days (it worked like this, but with paper timetables instead of journey planners) and are looking for all manner of issues with it.

 

[Adam Williams]

That's problematic to my mind in several ways (e.g. what if changes to the live running data mean a journey planner suggests the alternative route when the passenger embarks on it but no longer suggests it by the time their ticket is checked and the RPI or whoever wants to establish if the route is reasonable)?

The brief makes it clear that the journey planner doesn't need to find fares or do anything with the routeing guide, so all it means is "any service(s) in the electronic data" given that all of them plan journeys and pick interchange points etc in their own way.

I really do not think this will be a problem.

 

[modernrail]

BTP don't really do that, but certainly scan the ticket, tap whichever button it is for "investigate this one" (I think there is that option on some of the scanning tools to do it on the quiet rather than telling them and doing a form) and move on. If they take the mick too much I guess a letter will arrive a few weeks later.

Meanwhile the person who goes to Bletchley via Bedford because the WCML is up the spout again is clearly just getting home, even if it might be that they are an enthusiast and find doing that more enjoyable than waiting around as they get to tick off their last WMT liveried 150 before it rusts and shakes itself to bits. And it's no different from what they would have done in BR days, which are just in effect returning. The difficulty is that there are a load of people (passengers, enthusiasts and staff) who are too young to remember how this sort of thing just worked in BR days (it worked like this, but with paper timetables instead of journey planners) and are looking for all manner of issues with it.

One thing I would love to see with GBR is a slightly more muscular BTP. I quite enjoy the heavy handed walk through on continental trains.

I would pair it with a new criminal offence of not wearing headphones. Then it is up to the population whether they want to be in the none criminal or criminal fraternity.

 

[Adam Williams]

I would pair it with a new criminal offence of not wearing headphones

What, just generally? Or, whilst watching TikTok?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would pair it with a new criminal offence of not wearing headphones. Then it is up to the population whether they want to be in the none criminal or criminal fraternity.

It's already a Byelaw offence!

 

[Dr Day]

vast majority within Wales are TfW.

If you include the Valleys, and use the metric ‘services’ rather than seats or passengers or revenue then yes, but there is still an awful lot of travel within Wales on non-TfW services.

So theoretically, if XC cancel a service between Cardiff and Newport, would GWR be obliged to carry their passengers but not TfW? Of course in practice everyone just gets the next train anyway.

 

[Minnietheminx]

So theoretically, if XC cancel a service between Cardiff and Newport, would GWR be obliged to carry their passengers but not TfW?

Can't imagine TfW coming out of that one well, if they tried to refuse travel.

Frankly this just seems to be a case of politicians being ready to announce policy and then someone pipes up with 'what about the devolved administrations?', there's not enough time to consult counterparts in Edinburgh and Cardiff so some spad in the DfT suggests excluding TfW and ScotRail from the policy for now and everyone runs with it as gospel.

It's more of an issue for TfW than ScotRail, obviously, but, given Avanti's (IMO unacceptable) tendency to drop everything north of Preston if there's any problems between Glasgow and Preston, forcing passengers onto the already overcrowded TPE , I can understand if some passengers to and from Carlisle would choose to try the ScotRail service via Dumfries if they aren't pressed for time

 

[embers25]

As the curtailing of WOE services at Basingstoke is not an uncommon phenomenon, SWR could do themselves and their WOE customers a favour by routinely adding in a stop at Basingstoke on the fast electric service from Winchester whenever the former happens. It follows the WOE diesels through the station about 10 mins later. That may dismay the potential Exeter trickster but it would very much please anyone travelling from Axminster onwards.

I wish they'd stop the Weymouth-Waterloo trains both ways at Basingstoke during disruption too and the inconsistent decision making on doing that currently makes the whole thing even worse as you never know what they will do.

 

[Russel]

It's more of an issue for TfW than ScotRail, obviously, but, given Avanti's (IMO unacceptable) tendency to drop everything north of Preston if there's any problems between Glasgow and Preston, forcing passengers onto the already overcrowded TPE , I can understand if some passengers to and from Carlisle would choose to try the ScotRail service via Dumfries if they aren't pressed for time

Regarding the point about Avanti, it's not even as if it's an uncommon occurrence, Avanti and services on the WCML in general seem to fall apart each time the wind changes direction and there is a multiple places where Avanti and Northern overlap with Scotrail and TFW.

 

[positron]

I may be misunderstanding this journey planner thing but to me a journey planner is the app I buy my tickets from e.g. TfW app or GWR app. I can't imagine any of them would route someone in Bristol via Hereford to get to e.g. Lancaster. But if Cross country is up the spout (standard operating practice for them) that should be an option for the passenger and would be reasonable imo. Far more reasonable than going to London and getting an Avanti for example.

Poor example because of TfW but imagine they were otherwise included.

A journey planner returning a route should obviously be automatically a reasonable route but it should be the floor not the ceiling.

There's obviously more circumstances I think this rule should kick in (e.g. Cross country running 4 carriage trains and you getting left on the platform due to overcrowding). Though that's a circumstance that delay repay doesn't handle well either (always have to go through appeal). But to start with they need to get the definition of reasonable right. I hope if journey planners are the gospel that the GBR app when it eventually comes out does a good job of suggesting these alternatives to people.

One thing I always find annoying with the current apps is their only flow is for finding fares essentially. But often you already have a ticket and want to find a valid route for it and that's just not something anyone caters for, GBR need to do that too, then if they detect the valid train is cancelled they can adjust.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FastJP and the official National Rail Enquiries one will show non permitted routes with split tickets if faster. Most of the sales ones won't. Even Trainline which does splits and so could price them doesn't.

 

[redreni]

The brief makes it clear that the journey planner doesn't need to find fares or do anything with the routeing guide, so all it means is "any service(s) in the electronic data" given that all of them plan journeys and pick interchange points etc in their own way.

I really do not think this will be a problem.

If it means that I wish they'd brief the staff to that effect.

Your common or garden passenger will worry if they can get their favourite journey planner to suggest a route before they embark on it (which is why they selected it), but then half an hour later the disruption has cleared and the journey planner will no longer proffer that route without being coaxed because there are faster options.

I'm not worried about journey planners not finding fares as they're not required to be able to find fares as you say, but passengers may not always be able to coax their favourite journey planner into showing the route they're on. Some journey planners have very few advanced options. If I'm taking what would normally be a non-permitted route under policy, I'm certainly going to take screenshots of a journey planner suggesting said route. There's nothing in this press release to alert passengers that they may want to take that precaution, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The simplest is just to say that if a passenger cites a provable, relevant cancelled service (or the one on their Advance ticket) then they can do whatever if it's even vaguely reasonable. Now clearly being caught at Penzance on a Wick to Altnabreac single would be a bit silly, but it will be hard to plan to misuse this because you won't know your train was cancelled ahead of time in most cases.

So if the WCML North is truly up the spout and someone intends to pay three quid for the bus from Preston to Lancaster then go round from Lancaster via the Cumbrian Coast and a bimble across Whitehaven then get a mate to pick them up from Carlisle instead of going to Penrith, that should be fine, for example. It is just someone trying to get where they are going. And the time when someone has been messed up by a collapse of service is not the time to go all jobsworth on them.

 

[0B00]

My scenario A. I arrive in Birmingham New Street on a local train intending to walk over to Moor Street for the 0945 to Marylebone. My ticket is routed 'via High Wycombe'. I see on my app that the 0945 is cancelled. It is a one-off, and the 1015 is running. This policy allows me to stay where I am and join the 0947 Avanti to Euston?

My scenario B. Some farce has closed the Chiltern route for 3 days. I can now buy a ticket that is routed 'via High Wycombe' and freely use Avanti to get to London saving £££ on the correct ticket for that route?

Thoughts?

 

[A S Leib]

My scenario B. Some farce has closed the Chiltern route for 3 days. I can now buy a ticket that is routed 'via High Wycombe' and freely use Avanti to get to London saving £££ on the correct ticket for that route?

In that case, I don't see why passengers should have to pay more due to emergency closures, though I'd be very surprised if that hasn't frequently been the case (I know the fairer solution in this scenario might be to say travel via LNR and not Avanti is allowed; that might lead to LNR overcrowding).

 

[embers25]

In that case, I don't see why passengers should have to pay more due to emergency closures, though I'd be very surprised if that hasn't frequently been the case (I know the fairer solution in this scenario might be to say travel via LNR and not Avanti is allowed; that might lead to LNR overcrowding).

SWR regilarly refuse GWR acceptance during WoE issues. XC dont usually allow TfW. GWR however tend to be better. During the Padd fire they allowed London-Bristol via Avanti to Brum and XC on.

 

[Watershed]

Does anywhere in the guidance actually say a journey planner should be used for alternatives to be reasonable as the DfT press release doesn't and surely it should be front and center of that unless I'm missing something?

I agree it should be more prominently stated. But that is the internal guidance.

 

[styles]

There are about 5 people in the country who would try that on and will already be fleecing the public purse in 200 other ways. It will be a none problem.

Oooh err maybe! But there are websites which are practically dedicated to this.

On Time Trains

Find out how often your train journey is on time, look up recent services eligible for delay repay claims and check your station rankings.

www.ontimetrains.co.uk

(The above screenshot shows the Ontimetrains website for a commuter time journey from Rhyl to Chester and the amount of delay repay you'd likely receive if you took that particular service).

The number of people specifically selecting services in order to claim delay repay compo is probably quite low, but it's a bit more than 5, as one of them has also apparently made a website for it. When I've travelled for work under somebody else's credit card I've often done it because the delay compensation comes to me rather than my employer, and it's tax-free. There was also this case of someone who worked at a solicitors' firm who was sanctioned after filing nearly 300 fake delay compensation claims: https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/12/...el-manager-sanctioned-for-train-ticket-fraud/ - so even solicitors/legal bods get in on the act.

 

[embers25]

I agree it should be more prominently stated. But that is the internal guidance.

How on earth can the policy be enforceable if it is not shared with the travelling public? (I know this isn't the first example in rail). So if I look up journey planner X at 1300 and even take a screen shot and the guard looks up journey on planner Y at 1330 and its not shown we will likely get into an argument...just like what happens now when TOC's withdraw acceptance whilst people are still busy trying to get around issues that have cleared.

I've had numerous cases where GWR have argued about whether a screenshot from SWR journey check or nat rail remains valid an hour later as I'm approaching Taunton and in this case there are enough jobsworth guards and barrier staff that challenge and take a lot of convincing. How can the Government think missing out such a key bit of information is acceptable! Their whole tag line for this is that you shouldn't have to sit on a platform working out what you can and can't do...and yet you will still have to sit on a platform consulting a journey planner to work out what you can and can't do (and likely multiple journey planners given their inconsistency).

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

GWR are now tweeting full details and crucially have not mentioned the journey planner validation rule either so how on earth is it enforceable. This needs sorting out and quickly as its not a small issue.