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

[35B]

And making the rules crystal clear helps avoid such conflict.

Define “crystal clear”. I think the rule that’s been published is clear, and that the only issue is to ensure that staff recognise that reasonable needs to be interpreted in favour of the traveller.

Yet others see this in the light of the routing guide, and want precision about what can be defined as reasonable at any specific time.

Setting aside the minor point that after 30 years the routing guide never fully achieved that for planned journeys, these are fundamentally different and irreconcilable concepts of “crystal clear”.

That then leads to the question of conflict. At the point at which the timetable has gone belly up, and the route is closed, passengers are stressed. They have their own plans and commitments, and are generally focused on “how do I get to my destination”. That requires practical assistance and support when they turn to railway staff.

A doctrine that treats any form of raised voice as automatically abusive, as in the extract quoted, risks inflaming difficult situations. Staff are absolutely entitled not to be abused, but hiding behind absolute rules increases the risk of conflict and hence abuse.

Which brings us back to the concept of reasonableness. If I’m travelling from Grantham to Manchester, have a ticket routed via Doncaster and Sheffield, get to Doncaster and find the Hope Valley shut, then “reasonable” is about how I get to the destination of my journey. If I choose a revised route that gets me there, it shouldn’t matter overmuch whether I go via Leeds, change at Wakefield, or take the Penistone line - just as long as I am taking trains that will move me to that destination.

 

[Djgr]

Define “crystal clear”. I think the rule that’s been published is clear, and that the only issue is to ensure that staff recognise that reasonable needs to be interpreted in favour of the traveller.

Yet others see this in the light of the routing guide, and want precision about what can be defined as reasonable at any specific time.

Setting aside the minor point that after 30 years the routing guide never fully achieved that for planned journeys, these are fundamentally different and irreconcilable concepts of “crystal clear”.

That then leads to the question of conflict. At the point at which the timetable has gone belly up, and the route is closed, passengers are stressed. They have their own plans and commitments, and are generally focused on “how do I get to my destination”. That requires practical assistance and support when they turn to railway staff.

A doctrine that treats any form of raised voice as automatically abusive, as in the extract quoted, risks inflaming difficult situations. Staff are absolutely entitled not to be abused, but hiding behind absolute rules increases the risk of conflict and hence abuse.

Which brings us back to the concept of reasonableness. If I’m travelling from Grantham to Manchester, have a ticket routed via Doncaster and Sheffield, get to Doncaster and find the Hope Valley shut, then “reasonable” is about how I get to the destination of my journey. If I choose a revised route that gets me there, it shouldn’t matter overmuch whether I go via Leeds, change at Wakefield, or take the Penistone line - just as long as I am taking trains that will move me to that destination.

Well said.

The required approach is simply one of how can the passenger be best helped out of a situation that they didn't create.

 

[tomoufc]

Define “crystal clear”. I think the rule that’s been published is clear, and that the only issue is to ensure that staff recognise that reasonable needs to be interpreted in favour of the traveller.

Yet others see this in the light of the routing guide, and want precision about what can be defined as reasonable at any specific time.

Setting aside the minor point that after 30 years the routing guide never fully achieved that for planned journeys, these are fundamentally different and irreconcilable concepts of “crystal clear”.

That then leads to the question of conflict. At the point at which the timetable has gone belly up, and the route is closed, passengers are stressed. They have their own plans and commitments, and are generally focused on “how do I get to my destination”. That requires practical assistance and support when they turn to railway staff.

A doctrine that treats any form of raised voice as automatically abusive, as in the extract quoted, risks inflaming difficult situations. Staff are absolutely entitled not to be abused, but hiding behind absolute rules increases the risk of conflict and hence abuse.

Which brings us back to the concept of reasonableness. If I’m travelling from Grantham to Manchester, have a ticket routed via Doncaster and Sheffield, get to Doncaster and find the Hope Valley shut, then “reasonable” is about how I get to the destination of my journey. If I choose a revised route that gets me there, it shouldn’t matter overmuch whether I go via Leeds, change at Wakefield, or take the Penistone line - just as long as I am taking trains that will move me to that destination.

Just say any route and delete ‘reasonable’.

 

[speedy1]

I think more of this might go on than you think, especially if someone assumes their ticket won't be valid and (for whatever reason) is desperate to get to their destination on time. But I have no strong basis for this either.

I suspect this too. Younger generation wants to talk to an app. An app currently can only sell you a new ticket. Even with the clear 2 hour rule, eirher it's not advertised or clear enough (or not obvious enough on an App) or people are still too risk averse

IMO it would be handy for eTickets to gain something like the functionality of having other valid routes/services applied to them as soon as a train is cancelled, spelling it out for those who are completely risk averse/unwilling to put up with any encounter with staff/elderly/less able etc.

The new rule is going to help the 'chancers' and I don't think so much the much more anxious risk averse or less able traveler

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just say any route and delete ‘reasonable’.

An interesting question there is who would look out for likely cancelled trains (e.g. one where the inbound was cancelled but it hasn't propagated yet), buy a cheap ticket and then use it under this scheme to make a wholly different journey in that case.

This might be surprisingly high given that it seems enough were using a loophole related to on board route excess entitlement for it to be worth closing that to the detriment of those using it genuinely.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just say any route and delete ‘reasonable’.

That's clearly not going to work. An alternative route is always going to have to be reasonable.

 

[pr1]

There's something very British about a spirit of fair play coming up against the firm spine of officialdom (look at how many sitcoms make fun of the stiff suit sticking to the rules (Capt. Mainwaring) or the rule makers looking being completely unreasonable (Victor Meldrew's constant battles with daily life)).

The railway industry can be very stuck on each and every rule being followed, but as said above, passengers look at what's reasonable and find frustration with the rule book standing in the way like a monolith across the tracks.

In times of frustration, and also as we hurtle towards GBR and as close to a single railway system as possible, the organisation should be open to some flexibility if it helps passengers get home. (And yes, there are chancers out there, who try to game the system, and that doesn't feel very British, though no system is going to be absolutely perfect. Chasing perfection is maybe how we've ended up with such a fragmented network of almost good-enoughs!)

 

[redreni]

Define “crystal clear”. I think the rule that’s been published is clear, and that the only issue is to ensure that staff recognise that reasonable needs to be interpreted in favour of the traveller.

Yet others see this in the light of the routing guide

Who?

, and want precision about what can be defined as reasonable at any specific time.

Maybe some passengers want that - I don't, personally - but the point you seem to be missing is that RDG has briefed staff of the participating TOCs that "reasonable" should be defined in a particular way but has neglected to tell the travelling public.

That doesn't contribute to clarity and may well cause conflict if staff stick rigidly to their own interpretation of the journey planner test they've been briefed on.

Which brings us back to the concept of reasonableness. If I’m travelling from Grantham to Manchester, have a ticket routed via Doncaster and Sheffield, get to Doncaster and find the Hope Valley shut, then “reasonable” is about how I get to the destination of my journey. If I choose a revised route that gets me there, it shouldn’t matter overmuch whether I go via Leeds, change at Wakefield, or take the Penistone line - just as long as I am taking trains that will move me to that destination.

Yes, I agree most cases will be quite straightforward and in practice few staff will question obviously reasonable routes the passenger may wish to take. I think that's the general vibe. If the guidance to passengers and staff were the same then I would be happy.

 

[35B]

Who?

See in this thread.

Maybe some passengers want that - I don't, personally - but the point you seem to be missing is that RDG has briefed staff of the participating TOCs that "reasonable" should be defined in a particular way but has neglected to tell the travelling public.

That doesn't contribute to clarity and may well cause conflict if staff stick rigidly to their own interpretation of the journey planner test they've been briefed on.

Yes, I agree most cases will be quite straightforward and in practice few staff will question obviously reasonable routes the passenger may wish to take. I think that's the general vibe. If the guidance to passengers and staff were the same then I would be happy.

I'm well aware (from on here) of how RDG have briefed staff, and am no fan of that - not least because it will cause conflict where staff are unnecessarily rigid in their interpretation.

However, my comments were in response to a very strong interpretation of Bylaw 6 by a member of staff* which would have the effect of putting the onus on the customer to be "reasonable" in any interaction with staff, regardless of the reasonableness of staff. My point was, and remains, that it is an inherent part of a customer service role to de-escalate conflict - something that this advice runs counter to.

* - I am aware that the said poster's views on a number of matters relating to customer rights are, to put it charitably, widely disputed.

 

[tomoufc]

That's clearly not going to work. An alternative route is always going to have to be reasonable.

Yes, for the passenger. So it’s redundant in the statement.

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

An interesting question there is who would look out for likely cancelled trains (e.g. one where the inbound was cancelled but it hasn't propagated yet), buy a cheap ticket and then use it under this scheme to make a wholly different journey in that case.

This might be surprisingly high given that it seems enough were using a loophole related to on board route excess entitlement for it to be worth closing that to the detriment of those using it genuinely.

And a more interesting question would be so what? Would such a setup actually abstract from revenue? If so, would such abstraction we worthwhile if it led to greater confidence in using the railways more generally, with associated increased revenues?

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

Who?

Maybe some passengers want that - I don't, personally - but the point you seem to be missing is that RDG has briefed staff of the participating TOCs that "reasonable" should be defined in a particular way but has neglected to tell the travelling public.

That doesn't contribute to clarity and may well cause conflict if staff stick rigidly to their own interpretation of the journey planner test they've been briefed on.

Yes, I agree most cases will be quite straightforward and in practice few staff will question obviously reasonable routes the passenger may wish to take. I think that's the general vibe. If the guidance to passengers and staff were the same then I would be happy.

Since this is instructions to publicly owned TOCs (mainly) from a public body, would such institutions be subject to FoI?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, for the passenger. So it’s redundant in the statement.

No, it has to be reasonable by the definition of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

Saying "any route" will just encourage hardcore piss takers.

As @py_megapixel says here:

...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.

This means that both staff and passenger come to an agreement about what is reasonable. This matches my experience. There are loads of alternative route plans TOCs have ready to go which include routes not permitted by the routing guide or a journey planner but which are nonetheless reasonable. I don't think this is really a great concern.

 

[Adam Williams]

Since this is instructions to publicly owned TOCs (mainly) from a public body, would such institutions be subject to FoI?

I see no reason the brief shouldn't be able to be released under the FoIA.

I don't think this is really a great concern.

I would agree with this.

 

[tomoufc]

Saying "any route" will just encourage hardcore piss takers.

So what?

 

[Chiltern 165]

Saying "any route" will just encourage hardcore piss takers.

I don't envision see a scenario where someone would want to take a longer route, unless they are a railway enthusiast or something along those lines.

 

[AlterEgo]

So what?

Ignoring revenue abstraction which isn't in play here, do you not envision any problems the railway could be caused if your Off Peak Single turns into a One Day All Line Rover owing to your train being cancelled?

 

[pr1]

Ignoring revenue abstraction which isn't in play here, do you not envision any problems the railway could be caused if your Off Peak Single turns into a One Day All Line Rover owing to your train being cancelled?

Is that likely amongst everyday passengers or likely amongst enthusiasts who know that's a possibility?

 

[35B]

I don't envision see a scenario where someone would want to take a longer route, unless they are a railway enthusiast or something along those lines.

Generally, I agree. But if revenue staff are to be able to do their basic job of checking that people have a valid ticket, there needs to be some relationship between the ticket held, the disrupted route, and the revised one. Taking my Grantham to Manchester example, I might be able to say "going via Leeds is a problem" and use that as an excuse for going via London, but to go via Hexham would stretch that beyond breaking point.

 

[Chiltern 165]

One Day All Line Rover

"Any reasonable route"/"Please request assistance from a ticket office for a rebooking"

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

Generally, I agree. But if revenue staff are to be able to do their basic job of checking that people have a valid ticket, there needs to be some relationship between the ticket held, the disrupted route, and the revised one. Taking my Grantham to Manchester example, I might be able to say "going via Leeds is a problem" and use that as an excuse for going via London, but to go via Hexham would stretch that beyond breaking point.

True.
I think a good example of tomfoolery that could happen is someone taking the Caledonian Sleeper instead of a late night Avanti.

 

[AlterEgo]

"Any reasonable route"/"Please request assistance from a ticket office for a rebooking"

Sorry I don't understand the point you're making.

Generally, I agree. But if revenue staff are to be able to do their basic job of checking that people have a valid ticket, there needs to be some relationship between the ticket held, the disrupted route, and the revised one. Taking my Grantham to Manchester example, I might be able to say "going via Leeds is a problem" and use that as an excuse for going via London, but to go via Hexham would stretch that beyond breaking point.

Quite.

It is also worth pointing out it doesn't take many people to cause an issue for the railway operationally. What @tomoufc proposes is that if I hold this ticket: https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=SPT&dest=MAN&grpd=MCZ&rte=1000&tkt=FDS

and a train is cancelled I can use it to go literally anywhere I like. You'd get groups of people doing this and enthusiasts would be piling onto peak LNER trains and getting their hot dinners on trains which may in fact have few or no reservations left. It's a stupid scenario and one which, given that this is not my first rodeo with these sorts of loopholes, I can guarantee would happen. There is no way the railway will open itself up to these sorts of issues.

 

[Chiltern 165]

Sorry I don't understand the point you're making.

What I am saying is Railway companies generally add the caveat of "any reasonable route" to stop people from doing crazy routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Any reasonable route"/"Please request assistance from a ticket office for a rebooking"

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


True.
I think a good example of tomfoolery that could happen is someone taking the Caledonian Sleeper instead of a late night Avanti.

Once that's in the system I see no reason they should not. In the seats it's just a train, though a reservation would be needed.

 

[Djgr]

"Any reasonable route"/"Please request assistance from a ticket office for a rebooking"

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

Passengers should not be put through the hassle of finding and queuing at a ticket office (if indeed there is one), and potentially missing a train, to make amends for the failures of the railway.

 

[Amaranthe]

Let's say I had a Carlisle - Newcastle ticket and disruption on the line meant all direct trains for the next several hours would be cancelled (and for whatever reason I couldn't use a rail replacement bus) which of these might be considered a "reasonable route"?

1) Carlisle - Edinburgh - Newcastle
2) Carlisle - Leeds (via S&C) - Newcastle
3) Carlisle - Leeds (via Preston) - Newcastle
4) Carlisle - Birmingham NS - Newcastle
5) Carlisle - Euston - Kings Cross - Newcastle

In my view #1 - 3 should be considered reasonable, #4 I would consider borderline but probably not reasonable (although it would be 1 less change of train than #3) and of course #5 definitely not.

 

[MrJeeves]

In my view #1 - 3 should be considered reasonable, #4 I would consider borderline but probably not reasonable (although it would be 1 less change of train than #3) and of course #5 definitely not.

But the definition of reasonable depends on what has happened, too.

If it's a Northern strike day, then I'd call 4 reasonable and potentially 5 as well, because they'd be avoiding the busiest and possible overcrowded alternative, which would probably be Carlisle - Manchester - Leeds, and 5 avoids already overcrowded CrossCountry services.

 

[Amaranthe]

But the definition of reasonable depends on what has happened, too.

If it's a Northern strike day, then I'd call 4 reasonable and potentially 5 as well, because they'd be avoiding the busiest and possible overcrowded alternative, which would probably be Carlisle - Manchester - Leeds, and 5 avoids already overcrowded CrossCountry services.

That's actually a really good point because options 2 and 3 wouldn't be available if Northern were on strike.

 

[modernrail]

Passengers should not be put through the hassle of finding and queuing at a ticket office (if indeed there is one), and potentially missing a train, to make amends for the failures of the railway.

Yeah, absolutely not this. Often the easiest way around a cancellation is to jump on a train before the one cancelled as you have often turned up at the station early - you don’t need any barriers to that. Also if you do spot it on the journey planner/alert on time you might get there earlier so as not to be late to your destination, even if that means being earlier to your destination that originally intended.

As for those who keep coming back to some very legalistic approach to defining reasonable - to say you are over egging the pudding is an understatement.

There will be no piling on. The railway does not need to protect itself from a flood or enthusiasts cleverly going from Manchester to wherever they fancy to Stockport. A few enthusiasts might do it - and so what. It’s nice that people get enthusiastic about trains and it is only ever going to be a tiny proportion of the travelling population that fall into that category. 99% of passengers will see their train is cancelled. They will look at the board and see the next one is not, and catch it.

Only if the board is showing nothing will passengers need to start getting very creative, a task that every guard should be fully engaged in helping them with, rather than spending their time fussing over nothing. It is, after all, what the Unions quote 100% of the time when saying why guards should stay - helping passengers in times of disruption.

 

[Minnietheminx]

That's actually a really good point because options 2 and 3 wouldn't be available if Northern were on strike.

Nor would the original journey, to be fair.

 

[Amaranthe]

Nor would the original journey, to be fair.

True, but ticket might have been bought before the strike was announced?

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

But my original question was more related to an incident on the day rather than pre-announced strike action.

 

[Watershed]

Let's say I had a Carlisle - Newcastle ticket and disruption on the line meant all direct trains for the next several hours would be cancelled (and for whatever reason I couldn't use a rail replacement bus) which of these might be considered a "reasonable route"?

1) Carlisle - Edinburgh - Newcastle
2) Carlisle - Leeds (via S&C) - Newcastle
3) Carlisle - Leeds (via Preston) - Newcastle
4) Carlisle - Birmingham NS - Newcastle
5) Carlisle - Euston - Kings Cross - Newcastle

In my view #1 - 3 should be considered reasonable, #4 I would consider borderline but probably not reasonable (although it would be 1 less change of train than #3) and of course #5 definitely not.

Anything shown by a journey planner, with or without fares. Which in the event of disruption may well include 1-3. Seems unlikely that 4 or 5 would be shown but the possibility can't be ruled out.

 

[tomoufc]

Generally, I agree. But if revenue staff are to be able to do their basic job of checking that people have a valid ticket, there needs to be some relationship between the ticket held, the disrupted route, and the revised one. Taking my Grantham to Manchester example, I might be able to say "going via Leeds is a problem" and use that as an excuse for going via London, but to go via Hexham would stretch that beyond breaking point.

Sorry I don't understand the point you're making.


Quite.

It is also worth pointing out it doesn't take many people to cause an issue for the railway operationally. What @tomoufc proposes is that if I hold this ticket: https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=SPT&dest=MAN&grpd=MCZ&rte=1000&tkt=FDS

and a train is cancelled I can use it to go literally anywhere I like. You'd get groups of people doing this and enthusiasts would be piling onto peak LNER trains and getting their hot dinners on trains which may in fact have few or no reservations left. It's a stupid scenario and one which, given that this is not my first rodeo with these sorts of loopholes, I can guarantee would happen. There is no way the railway will open itself up to these sorts of issues.

Assuming that the problem is that you could end up miles away from your purported destination, you’d still have the problem of getting home. In most cases, that would involve buying quite expensive train ticket, so again I don’t think much revenue would be abstracted, especially if the passenger wouldn’t have otherwise travelled.

By the way, I’m not proposing anything, just testing out what might be possible and the best solution.