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

[Haywain]

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.

I can't see 3 or 4 being reasonable when they involve passing several other opportunities to get between the West and East Coast routes.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Not really, you just use the ticket again on the same day. You go Stockport to London to Newcastle to Manchester for example.

This is why the concept of reasonableness is there.

 

[tomoufc]

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

I can't see 3 or 4 being reasonable when they involve passing several other opportunities to get between the West and East Coast routes.

So what we really mean by reasonable route isn’t anything to do with the route, but the shortest travel time now available to the passenger, regardless of route?

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

Not really, you just use the ticket again on the same day. You go Stockport to London to Newcastle to Manchester for example.

This is why the concept of reasonableness is there.

Very few people would do that, but yes that’s why it’s there I guess

 

[Wolfie]

A First Class ticket holder with someone like LNWR or CrossCountry WILL be entitled to the same First Class catering / service on an Avanti train as an Avanti ticket holder

LNWR don't have First Class.

 

[AlterEgo]

So what we really mean by reasonable route isn’t anything to do with the route, but the shortest travel time now available to the passenger, regardless of route?

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


Very few people would do that, but yes that’s why it’s there I guess

You don't need many people to do it for it to be an issue. Years ago a retailer offered truly bonkers itineraries alongside £5 tickets like Southampton to Portsmouth via Inverness. And people of course took advantage! Now those journeys wouldn't have been made otherwise but it isn't an argument to let it just occur because oh well, the railway got a fiver more than nothing and it was just enthusiasts.

(It was fun while it lasted!)

 

[Amaranthe]

I can't see 3 or 4 being reasonable when they involve passing several other opportunities to get between the West and East Coast routes.

I get your point about 4 not being reasonable but why not 3?

 

[tomoufc]

You don't need many people to do it for it to be an issue. Years ago a retailer offered truly bonkers itineraries alongside £5 tickets like Southampton to Portsmouth via Inverness. And people of course took advantage! Now those journeys wouldn't have been made otherwise but it isn't an argument to let it just occur because oh well, the railway got a fiver more than nothing and it was just enthusiasts.

(It was fun while it lasted!)

Not saying it wouldn’t be an issue, but how much of an issue compared to alternative approaches?

 

[Wolfie]

I would not advise that. It is an offence under Byelaw 6 (Unacceptable Behaviour) (2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.

You must speak in a normal voice or it will be deemed as being abusive, with the consequence that you will be denied travel.

Ask nicely and you may receive.

Interesting, particularly since I've seen rail staff shout at passengers on several occasions..... Should they be prosecuted?

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

You don’t need to be loud and animated to get your point across or hold firm. In fact, being calm and collected is usually far more effective.

There is a definite cultural element comes into play too. My OH is African. When she gets assertive she gets louder. Carribbean folk, not to mention those from Mediterranean countries, are similar.

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

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

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


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 ==


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

Re FOI almost certainly. Not to mention that the same question could be put to DfT who most are the very least be copied in.

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

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.

Longer can sometimes be faster.

 

[modernrail]

I can't see 3 or 4 being reasonable when they involve passing several other opportunities to get between the West and East Coast routes.

I think they would be reasonable if there is any element of genuine passenger confusion involved. For instance, I thought that change wasn’t available, I missed the change etc. Let’s remember, in those cases 99% of passengers have hurt themselves far more than anybody else, by giving themselves a crazy journey to complete.

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

Not saying it wouldn’t be an issue, but how much of an issue compared to alternative approaches?

Did people take advantage, or did they take up an offer that has been badly put together?

Is it also a dreadful example to carry across to this because all of those people had a great opportunity to pre-plan.

The only time anybody is having an opportunity to preplan with this is where the railway is cancelling enough trains to make pre planning possible. That means a LOT of cancellations.

Even then, it would be a seriously niche sport, of no real consequence but the inconveniencing of hundreds of people per cancellation is a very real consequence and where all effort should be placed by railway staff because they should prioritise what is important over what isn’t.

 

[Starmill]

I really, really don't think it's worth worrying about an enthusiast occasionally getting a slighy cheaper ticket if the other side of the equation is about supporting the general public and the industry reputation. The former is hardly worth worrying about compared with the latter. This sort of thing isn't at all open to a consistent pattern of abuse, not in the way that, say, a season ticket holder over-claiming by submitting false delays at all random times of the day in the past was.

 

[modernrail]

So what we really mean by reasonable route isn’t anything to do with the route, but the shortest travel time now available to the passenger, regardless of route?

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


Very few people would do that, but yes that’s why it’s there I guess

It isn’t the shortest travel time. Passengers will regularly not pick the shortest travel time because information will be poor, they will be stressed, there won’t be staff on hand to advise of the best alternative option, they are being thrown off their normal route by the cancellation, there will be staff but they don’t know/can’t be bothered engaging/work at Euston or Paddington or the EMR gateline at St P etc. So it will be whatever they have managed to cobble together in the circumstances, and that will be reasonable.

Nobody needs to get their calculator out checking timings against each other.

Most of the time the best thing will be to get the next train on the same route with whatever operator turns up. That will probably account for the vast majority of cancellations. It will be up to station staff/those controlling the info screens and tannoys to make that clear.

I do hope they get rid of that deeply deeply irritating and gaslighting platform announcement now that goes something like ‘We have cancelled your train to x due to an utterly lame [insert excuse] that we have been throwing at you regularly for years now. The next fastest train to x is the [yy:yy]. You must have a valid ticket to travel on this train.’

To ‘The yy:yy to x id cancelled. The next fastest train to x is the yy:yy, which may be used by any passenger affected by the cancelled train’

 

[sot]

There definitely needs to be some clarification either way if a split point can/cannot be ignored in the event of major disruption.

For example if a passenger holds Stoke to Euston WMT/LNR only and there is cancellations of services for example a block between Stone and Stafford then this would allow direct Euston travel via Avanti.

Contrast to a passenger with Stoke to Stafford any permitted (to allow the XC connections rather than the hourly LM), alongside a Stafford to Euston WMT only. It seems without any clear guidance this passenger could have major issues when starting to travel direct via avanti or could fully allowed to travel direct via Avanti.

(Note 1404 today for an actual example, next Stafford is quite a wait and someone may miss or not aim for the ~1359).

 

[Watershed]

There definitely needs to be some clarification either way if a split point can/cannot be ignored in the event of major disruption.

For example if a passenger holds Stoke to Euston WMT/LNR only and there is cancellations of services for example a block between Stone and Stafford then this would allow direct Euston travel via Avanti.

Contrast to a passenger with Stoke to Stafford any permitted (to allow the XC connections rather than the hourly LM), alongside a Stafford to Euston WMT only. It seems without any clear guidance this passenger could have major issues when starting to travel direct via avanti or could fully allowed to travel direct via Avanti.

(Note 1404 today for an actual example, next Stafford is quite a wait and someone may miss or not aim for the ~1359).

The internal guidance is that split points can be ignored, and the through journey is what counts for the purposes of determining what "reasonable routes" can be used. But as mentioned multiple times in this thread, the policy really needs to have clear rules publicised to avoid potential disputes with frontline staff who haven't read or received a briefing.

 

[modernrail]

The internal guidance is that split points can be ignored, and the through journey is what counts for the purposes of determining what "reasonable routes" can be used. But as mentioned multiple times in this thread, the policy really needs to have clear rules publicised to avoid potential disputes with frontline staff who haven't read or received a briefing.

I agree. There is a lot of scope for staff to be stuck on the old world on a lot of this.

This announcement doesn’t seem to deal with delayed trains unless I am mistaken? That is a point that definitely needs work as for many people a delayed train is as bad as a cancelled one and there is definitely scope for people misinterpreting this announcement.

I would favour a very simple rule. If your train is delayed by 15 minutes or more at the station you are catching at, you can catch any other train to get to your destination that ends up leaving before your train.

I would not distinguish between local and longer distance journeys.

The reason I choose 15 minutes is because that is when the railway already thinks you should be compensated in the majority of cases.

If you are trying to get somewhere for a specific time, the best compensation is an alternative solution that gets you there as close to the original time as possible.

The vast majority of delays are under 15 minutes so this only catches the more extreme examples. It also seems to be the magic number where the delay gets worse and worse and can turn into ‘your train is cancelled full stop’ or ‘your train is running so late it is going to stop short of its destination’ and those are two of the biggest wind ups on the railway. Allowing people to take a chance on an earlier service of another operator or another route is to be totally reasonable.

If something is not done on this there will definitely be passengers who (quite rightly in my view) view a large delay as equivalent to a cancellation and expect to be able to work around it.

 

[Djgr]

The internal guidance is that split points can be ignored, and the through journey is what counts for the purposes of determining what "reasonable routes" can be used. But as mentioned multiple times in this thread, the policy really needs to have clear rules publicised to avoid potential disputes with frontline staff who haven't read or received a briefing.

I thought we weren't allowed to dispute staff but just say "yes sir, no sir, of course you are right"?

 

[Tester]

I agree. There is a lot of scope for staff to be stuck on the old world on a lot of this.

This announcement doesn’t seem to deal with delayed trains unless I am mistaken? That is a point that definitely needs work as for many people a delayed train is as bad as a cancelled one and there is definitely scope for people misinterpreting this announcement.

I would favour a very simple rule. If your train is delayed by 15 minutes or more at the station you are catching at, you can catch any other train to get to your destination that ends up leaving before your train.

I would not distinguish between local and longer distance journeys.

The reason I choose 15 minutes is because that is when the railway already thinks you should be compensated in the majority of cases.

If you are trying to get somewhere for a specific time, the best compensation is an alternative solution that gets you there as close to the original time as possible.

The vast majority of delays are under 15 minutes so this only catches the more extreme examples. It also seems to be the magic number where the delay gets worse and worse and can turn into ‘your train is cancelled full stop’ or ‘your train is running so late it is going to stop short of its destination’ and those are two of the biggest wind ups on the railway. Allowing people to take a chance on an earlier service of another operator or another route is to be totally reasonable.

If something is not done on this there will definitely be passengers who (quite rightly in my view) view a large delay as equivalent to a cancellation and expect to be able to work around it.

It reflects poorly on the 'railway mindset' that any of this is remotely controversial.

At what point is someone in a position to do something about this going to say, "Hang on - minimising passengers' delay in disruption is a good thing to do, and we will do it"?

 

[sot]

The internal guidance is that split points can be ignored, and the through journey is what counts for the purposes of determining what "reasonable routes" can be used. But as mentioned multiple times in this thread, the policy really needs to have clear rules publicised to avoid potential disputes with frontline staff who haven't read or received a briefing.

Maybe so the internal within TOC information says this, but even the RDG wide staff brief neglects to mention it. General poor show

 

[modernrail]

Maybe so the internal within TOC information says this, but even the RDG wide staff brief neglects to mention it. General poor show

I suppose one way of looking at it is why would it mean anything else? A split ticket is clearly still a ticket to get somewhere and so on what basis would the new approach not apply? Why is additional guidance required when common sense dictates the position anyway on the basis of what has already been confirmed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2026 ==

It reflects poorly on the 'railway mindset' that any of this is remotely controversial.

At what point is someone in a position to do something about this going to say, "Hang on - minimising passengers' delay in disruption is a good thing to do, and we will do it"?

Hiding behind the ‘it’s a different company mate, nothing to do with us’ and ‘until we are told something else, you have to get the exact train’ etc has been a mainstay of the railway attitude for a couple of decades now.

It has always been silly and a great way for the buck to be passed - usually from staff who are physically there to staff who are not.

Hopefully that changes now and the attitude is ‘how can I help you to get where you need/want/have paid to be’.

It will need some further guidance on the delays front as far as I can see though.

 

[tomoufc]

The internal guidance is that split points can be ignored, and the through journey is what counts for the purposes of determining what "reasonable routes" can be used. But as mentioned multiple times in this thread, the policy really needs to have clear rules publicised to avoid potential disputes with frontline staff who haven't read or received a briefing.

If one were to FoI the guidance, what is the name of the document and when was it published?

Also if there is internal guidance by TOCs, which have issued and when?

Thanks

 

[800002]

If one were to FoI the guidance, what is the name of the document and when was it published?

Also if there is internal guidance by TOCs, which have issued and when?

Thanks

Just reference the government announcement and request any toc specific brief which has been written or issued to its staff.

You'll find it by using the words 'Cross Operator Ticket Acceptance'.

So long as your clear on what it is your referring to and what you want, you'll get something back.

 

[redreni]

This announcement doesn’t seem to deal with delayed trains unless I am mistaken? That is a point that definitely needs work as for many people a delayed train is as bad as a cancelled one and there is definitely scope for people misinterpreting this announcement.

If only there were a simple test, defined in regulations adopted as retained EU law, that sets a floor on when passengers' rights to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity need to kick in?

A test that has nothing to do with whether a train is cancelled or not, but simply relates to the anticipated delay in getting the passenger to their destination.

 

[Watershed]

If only there were a simple test, defined in regulations adopted as retained EU law, that sets a floor on when passengers' rights to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity need to kick in?

A test that has nothing to do with whether a train is cancelled or not, but simply relates to the anticipated delay in getting the passenger to their destination.

Indeed. This new policy is more generous than the PRO (as retained in UK law) requires in some ways, such as ticket acceptance being automatic for cancellations.

But the exclusion of delays and missed connections as well as devolved TOCs means the TOCs are still far from compliant with the regulation, given that most refuse to comply with their re-routing obligations when asked.

 

[modernrail]

Indeed. This new policy is more generous than the PRO (as retained in UK law) requires in some ways, such as ticket acceptance being automatic for cancellations.

But the exclusion of delays and missed connections as well as devolved TOCs means the TOCs are still far from compliant with the regulation, given that most refuse to comply with their re-routing obligations when asked.

Just enjoyed a fantastic and helpful announcement about all the ways you can use alternative services to work around cancellations near Portsmouth. The future is bright.

 

[northernhunter]

Is ticket acceptance being granted on faster services like Avanti for cancelled slower trains (London Northwestern) to mitigate Delay Repay compensation costs? Trying to minimise money leaving the pipeline?

 

[MrJeeves]

Is ticket acceptance being granted on faster services like Avanti for cancelled slower trains (London Northwestern)

Yes

to mitigate Delay Repay compensation costs? Trying to minimise money leaving the pipeline?

I doubt it, given the systems won't be accounting for this (yet).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt it, given the systems won't be accounting for this (yet).

They will once adapted and it will indeed reduce DR payouts, and that is indeed part of the reason for it. Why upset passengers and pay them more money when you can make them happier and not pay them money?

 

[sot]

I was discussing this with someone the other day, doing as we have now but including saying 55min+ prospective delays.

Then scrap the DR and make it the compensation for over 1hr like is popular with OA and overseas? DR doesn't feel like a complaint. Many would probably not complain to get a compensation unlike more people doing the semi automated DRs

Admittedly this would ruffle some feathers but would reduce outgoings and would in the main keep pax happy by moving as quickly as is possible on the day in the direction of their destination

 

[AY1975]

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.

Presumably even with this new agreement in place, because the OAOs have not signed up to it, if you have an OAO only ticket and your train is cancelled, acceptance of such tickets by the any of the incumbent operators on the route in question will still be at the discretion of the said incumbent operator(s).

 

[redreni]

Presumably even with this new agreement in place, because the OAOs have not signed up to it, if you have an OAO only ticket and your train is cancelled, acceptance of such tickets by the any of the incumbent operators on the route in question will still be at the discretion of the said incumbent operator(s).

Yes, and if acceptance is not arranged and you're facing a delay of over an hour, and you wish to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity, the OA operator should be buying you a new ticket if that's what re-routeing entails.

In practice, sadly, it's generally necessary in that situation to ask the OA operator to re-route you on LNER or whoever, get evidence of their refusal (e.g. via WhatsApp), buy the new ticket yourself and then pursue them for a refund. This initiative, while positive insofar as it goes, does nothing to improve that unsatisfactory situation.

 

[WesternLancer]

Apols if I've missed it in this thread but the announcement seems to be about cancellations.
But the proportion of inconvenience for me (and I'm sure many others) is mostly about delays, not cancellations. Mostly when they are serious delays or when they miss a connection etc

Does the government not want the same general flexibility to apply to delays (or at least delays that are over a certain period of time)?

That would get more people on the move to their destinations more quickly and presumably also reduce payments from things like Delay Repay etc

With respect to operator specific tickets I guess