LNER ‘false’ arrival times to avoid Delay Repay?

[GWVillager]

LNER seem to publicly present their trains as arriving a few minutes later than the working timetable actually has them do so. The consequence of this is that, if your train is cancelled and you catch the next one, you can’t claim compensation because anything that isn’t a few minutes’ delay is technically early.

For example, I had an advance ticket for the 12:40 Leeds to London Kings Cross today. It was scheduled to arrive at 14:50:30, according to the working timetable, but LNER advertises a 14:53 arrival:


This train was cancelled. Instead, I caught the following 13:10, which ran a few minutes late throughout its journey and arrived into Kings Cross a minute behind its WTT slot.


When I went to claim compensation, I was refused, as LNER claimed that the train arrived a minute early, and thus I was only delayed by 29 minutes.

This seems unfair. I had made alternative arrangements for a 30 minute delay (which meant over an hour’s total delay for my whole journey, though the tickets I’d used did not allow me to claim compensation for that), and the only reason that my delay was technically just 29 minutes is that LNER published a false arrival time for the train before. To add insult to injury, if I had waited for the 13:40 train from Leeds, something they permit, I would have been entitled to 64 minutes of delay repay - in other words, a full refund!

I cannot help but feel as if LNER have deliberately altered their published timetables for precisely this reason. Is there anything I could do to get my compensation, and I assume it would be fraud to claim travel on the 13:40 if I had taken the 13:10? It does not appear just to financially punish passengers who have reason to travel as quickly as possible after a cancellation, when those who deliberately and needlessly lengthen their journeys are given full refunds.

 

[jfollows]

British Rail did it, so do all the other operating companies, they don't do it for Delay Repay which is insignificant but for percentage of trains within so many minutes of the scheduled time, it is manipulation of the statistics. But it has been this way for many years now, you won't get it changed. Think John Major and "charter minutes" if my memory serves me correctly. The politicians brought in something related to final arrival times and so the operators added extra time to pad out the schedules at the end.

There's a private member's bill in the works for a new Rail Passengers' Charter. I don't think it would make much difference.

 

[Failed Unit]

I remember at the time they used Huddersfield - Lockwood as an example. 3 minutes journey time from Huddersfield and more then 10 towards Huddersfield.

It looked even worse when it took different times on single track routes (although still possible)

 

[GWVillager]

British Rail did it, so do all the other operating companies, they don't do it for Delay Repay which is insignificant but for percentage of trains within so many minutes of the scheduled time, it is manipulation of the statistics. But it has been this way for many years now, you won't get it changed.

All the other operating companies do not do it, though. Timetable padding is one thing, but having looked through the other London termini, no other operator does this specific thing, beyond maybe the occasional minute. LNER is the only one to consistently add 2/3 minutes.

 

[AlterEgo]

All the other operating companies do not do it, though. Timetable padding is one thing, but having looked through the other London termini, no other operator does this specific thing, beyond maybe the occasional minute. LNER is the only one to consistently add 2/3 minutes.

All operators have allowances at various places. Picked the first Avanti I could find, 6 minutes of allowance on this train. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W33917/2026-09-21/detailed#allox_id=0

This one has 2 minutes before the terminus from the last stop. Where it appears is irrelevant, it all does the same thing.

 

[GWVillager]

All operators have allowances at various places. Picked the first Avanti I could find, 6 minutes of allowance on this train. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W33917/2026-09-21/detailed#allox_id=0

This one has 2 minutes before the terminus from the last stop. Where it appears is irrelevant, it all does the same thing.

Is it irrelevant? Pathing/engineering allowances for specific reasons feel quite different to a uniform several minutes added onto the public facing timetable of every train, when the operator knows full well that this is not what they are timed for.

Either way, I do know and accept that I have no legal leg to stand on here. It is more a matter of if I had waited for the 13:40, I would have got a full refund. This does not seem a legitimate practice for the operator to be partaking in?

 

[Tetchytyke]

When I went to claim compensation, I was refused, as LNER claimed that the train arrived a minute early, and thus I was only delayed by 29 minutes.

You were only delayed by 29 minutes, though. LNER’s timetable had you down to arrive at 1453 and you arrived at 1522. The public timetable is what everything goes off, not the working timetable which may or may not have pathing or other types of allowances.

It is more a matter of if I had waited for the 13:40, I would have got a full refund

No you wouldn’t, whilst you can choose to take a later train you can’t artificially delay yourself then claim delay repay.

 

[JamesWatson]

Is it irrelevant? Pathing/engineering allowances for specific reasons feel quite different to a uniform several minutes added onto the public facing timetable of every train, when the operator knows full well that this is not what they are timed for.

Either way, I do know and accept that I have no legal leg to stand on here. It is more a matter of if I had waited for the 13:40, I would have got a full refund. This does not seem a legitimate practice for the operator to be partaking in?

If you did travel on the 13:40 and made a claim, would LNER not have been within their rights to decline it based on the fact that you could have travelled on the 13:10 and only been delayed by 29 mins? Or have I missed something

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it irrelevant? Pathing/engineering allowances for specific reasons feel quite different to a uniform several minutes added onto the public facing timetable of every train

Indeed they may feel that way but they are not actually any different.

How long does it take you to get ready in the morning? And if I ask you the same question again, but this time tell you that you owe me £50 for every one minute you are late every day, would your answer change?

 

[D1537]

All the other operating companies do not do it, though. Timetable padding is one thing, but having looked through the other London termini, no other operator does this specific thing, beyond maybe the occasional minute. LNER is the only one to consistently add 2/3 minutes.

In no way is LNER alone in this. Let's take Avanti.

Today isn't a good example because there was an issue around Euston which caused delays getting into the terminus but even so
1M11 makes up 7 minutes from its last stop (1M11 RTT)
1A25 makes up 5 minutes from Lichfield (1A25 RTT)

Going north (especially into Glasgow) it happens as well
1S37 is given 80 minutes from Carlisle to Glasgow (for comparison 1S42 is given 71 and still arrives early sometimes).
1S69 made up 6 minutes between Oxenholme and Glasgow today.
1S72 was running 6 minutes early past Carstairs before it got stuck behind a stopper.

And so on.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

TfW do this at several termini, including Manchester Piccadilly, where xx:11 arrivals are advertised at xx:13 (meaning with a 10 minute minimum connection time, the connection to the xx:21 TPE for Scotland is invalid).
Obviously there aren't too many routes that would do this connection, but nonetheless this is one of the many connections made invalid by this practice.

In no way is LNER alone in this. Let's take Avanti.

Pathing time is a different matter, this is purposefully advertising public arrival time after the Working Timetable arrival. They are timetabled to arrive at a certain time, and publicly tell a later time.

Apart from the Sleeper, I see no good reason for this practice, it is clearly just an attempt to make the figures look better, and saves on delay repay, and may be costing people by making otherwise available Advanced tickets unavailable.


The Looe Valley line does this in both ways, it shows an earlier time than WTT for the request stops (presumably in order to get people there in advance of when the train shows up), and then arrival at Looe itself is advertised 1 minute after the WTT arrival.

 

[GWVillager]

No you wouldn’t, whilst you can choose to take a later train you can’t artificially delay yourself then claim delay repay.

If you did travel on the 13:40 and made a claim, would LNER not have been within their rights to decline it based on.the fact that you could have travelled on the 13:10 and only been delayed by 29 mins? Or have I missed something

When the 12:40 was cancelled, we were told by LNER staff that we could take any other train up to 2 hours later, so the 13:10, 13:40, 14:10 or 14:40, and claim compensation. We were also given the option to go via York, as the disruption was expected to be much more severe than it actually ended up being.

I took the 13:10, as by the time the train to York had arrived, service had returned to normal. When I arrived in Kings Cross, I did not know the train was early, and did not consider it a possibility, as it had been running slightly late throughout. It took more than a minute to alight, such was the crowding, and by the time I was on the platform the clocks were showing 15:23.

When I went to the delay repay form, I was offered two options - one if I caught the 13:10, and one if I chose the 13:40.


I continued with the 13:10 option, and was told that because the train arrived a minute early, I was not entitled to any compensation.


To check, I decided to then select the 13:40 option, which verified a 64 minute delay and asked for my bank details to refund the entire ticket price. It is possible that a refund for the 13:40 would later be denied, but all indications suggest otherwise.

The practice of adding minutes to the public timetable (again, this is not allowances or pathing) is not, strictly speaking, relevant here, but I brought it up because I think it strengthens my case. Not only is LNER refusing delay repay because their service did not adhere to the timetable advertised as an alternative, but they know that the service is not pathed to take as long as they claim.

 

[D1537]

TfW do this at several termini, including Manchester Piccadilly, where xx:11 arrivals are advertised at xx:13 (meaning with a 10 minute minimum connection time, the connection to the xx:21 TPE for Scotland is invalid).
Obviously there aren't too many routes that would do this connection, but nonetheless this is one of the many connections made invalid by this practice.

Pathing time is a different matter, this is purposefully advertising public arrival time after the Working Timetable arrival. They are timetabled to arrive at a certain time, and publicly tell a later time.

Apart from the Sleeper, I see no good reason for this practice, it is clearly just an attempt to make the figures look better, and saves on delay repay, and may be costing people by making otherwise available Advanced tickets unavailable.

I don't think it really matters whether you pad the timetable with a difference between the GBTT and WTT, or whether you make them the same and pad the schedule instead. In the end, as you say they're both attempts to avoid delay repay.

 

[Kite159]

I remember at the time they used Huddersfield - Lockwood as an example. 3 minutes journey time from Huddersfield and more then 10 towards Huddersfield.

It looked even worse when it took different times on single track routes (although still possible)

Or the best example when Wrexham - Bidston was hourly and had a tight turnaround at Wrexham Central, the timetable had the train departing back towards Bidston before it had arrived due to the arrival time being padded.

Or even the Sleeper which for Inverness has around a 10 minute (if not more) difference between the working timetable arrival and public facing timetable arrival.

 

[mmh]

I don't think delay repay would be a consideration for anyone writing a timetable. It's a miniscule cost. Rather I'd expect allowances are added to make a timetable less likely to be unworkable.

We do have people who do this job for a living on here, so I'll defer to them, but as ever I think "it's to avoid delay repay" is never the answer to a question.

 

[tumbledown]

they're both attempts to avoid delay repay.

Money doesn't grow on trees.

 

[JamesWatson]

When the 12:40 was cancelled, we were told by LNER staff that we could take any other train up to 2 hours later, so the 13:10, 13:40, 14:10 or 14:40, and claim compensation.

I am pretty certain no one said take a train 2 hours later and then claim 2 hours delay repay. That isn't how the system works.

 

[GWVillager]

I am pretty certain no one said take a train 2 hours later and then claim 2 hours delay repay. That isn't how the system works.

No, the two are separate. They said claim compensation but that, also, any train within 2 hours was fair game.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I don't think it really matters whether you pad the timetable with a difference between the GBTT and WTT, or whether you make them the same and pad the schedule instead. In the end, as you say they're both attempts to avoid delay repay.

I am not sure of the precise rules around "padding the schedule" as you put it, I think there are some rules when it comes to planning that mean they will always be a little slower than can be achieved in reality, I would assume "performance allowance" would be the most likely to be abused but that is just an assumption.

If I knew the rules I could probably make a more certain point, but I think they are very complicated so I don't think I can really make a judgement.

GBTT/WTT differences however are clearly visible, and there is no sensible reason for it, apart from the sleepers who have reason to advertise later arrivals due to long booking windows and higher likelihood of diversions.

 

[mmh]

Or the best example when Wrexham - Bidston was hourly and had a tight turnaround at Wrexham Central, the timetable had the train departing back towards Bidston before it had arrived due to the arrival time being padded.

Or even the Sleeper which for Inverness has around a 10 minute (if not more) difference between the working timetable arrival and public facing timetable arrival.

I'd just put the Wrexham example down to one or more of incompetence, bravado, or pragmatism.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think delay repay would be a consideration for anyone writing a timetable. It's a miniscule cost. Rather I'd expect allowances are added to make a timetable less likely to be unworkable.

We do have people who do this job for a living on here, so I'll defer to them, but as ever I think "it's to avoid delay repay" is never the answer to a question.

Indeed the timetables are written mostly to make them work (and the Working Timetable is not what the railway promises - that's the Public Timetable!). The main things the writers are avoiding are scheduling conflicts and the liability for inter-industry compensation under various Performance Schedules. Delay Repay is but a pittance of the costs of either.

 

[JamesWatson]

No, the two are separate. They said claim compensation but that, also, any train within 2 hours was fair

"Fair game" in what sense?

Surely, you agree that if you choose to add additional delay to your journey, the operator should not be held financially responsible.

 

[Failed Unit]

Actually, we probably all have situations where it is the other way around. You are stood a York for example waiting for your train to Edinburgh. You see it is late but the train before hasn’t left. Knowing that by waiting for your “booked train” you will miss your connection in Edinburgh and be 1 hour late at your final destination you ask a member of staff if you can take the train before. You explain your connections. They say ”no you must travel on your booked train” So you arrive 15 minutes late at Edinburgh (which results in a 1 hour delay at your destination.“

 

[Kite159]

Going north (especially into Glasgow) it happens as well
1S37 is given 80 minutes from Carlisle to Glasgow (for comparison 1S42 is given 71 and still arrives early sometimes).
1S69 made up 6 minutes between Oxenholme and Glasgow today.
1S72 was running 6 minutes early past Carstairs before it got stuck behind a stopper.

Sometimes heading towards Glasgow on the WCML, the timetable needs to take into account conflicts north of Carstairs with the slightly irregular Edinburgh - Glasgow Central via Carstairs service, the Motherwell area & the busy Cambuslang section of 2 tracks.

 

[318266]

I suspect in a number of occasions (but probably not this one), this is done in order to prevent passengers making particular connections - perhaps to assist with load balancing (i.e. prevent overcrowding), or because the connection is often missed (which can bring complaints, confusion and delay).

 

[GWVillager]

"Fair game" in what sense?

Surely, you agree that if you choose to add additional delay to your journey, the operator should not be held financially responsible.

I do - by fair game I mean to travel on, not claim. But LNER’s delay repay system does not seem to agree. I am tempted to submit a claim just to see if it is approved, and donate to charity if so - I do not exactly want to defraud the railway for my own financial gain.

 

[Egg Centric]

I see no problem in principle with LNER stacking the padding time at the end of the journey. I understand your point but if you're interested in Delay Repay as an opportunity (for want of a better way of putting it) then because of the "end loading" where much is put at the arrival station then you have quite a few tight connections at Stevenage, many even at the minimum connection time due to this where because everything has been concentrated at the end there's much more chance of LNER coming into Stevenage a minute or two late which can be crucial. Something to think about when constructing your journey and perhaps thank LNER for if this describes you! Now in your case the 1240 you would have had to change at Peterborough to get onto a Stevenage service and I've not checked what actually happened but you'd have had further "chances" there usually.

If alternatively you are interested in Delay Repay because of the pure delay in literal minutes at the destination then they've adhered to it perfectly, so no problem there either in my view.

 

[gray1404]

I do - by fair game I mean to travel on, not claim. But LNER’s delay repay system does not seem to agree. I am tempted to submit a claim just to see if it is approved, and donate to charity if so - I do not exactly want to defraud the railway for my own financial gain.

Just because the money would be donated to charity does not make it all right and it does not mean that the railway will not have been defrauded.

 

[Starmill]

I do - by fair game I mean to travel on, not claim. But LNER’s delay repay system does not seem to agree. I am tempted to submit a claim just to see if it is approved, and donate to charity if so - I do not exactly want to defraud the railway for my own financial gain.

You can't claim for a delay you didn't actually experience.

 

[Failed Unit]

I suspect in a number of occasions (but probably not this one), this is done in order to prevent passengers making particular connections - perhaps to assist with load balancing (i.e. prevent overcrowding), or because the connection is often missed (which can bring complaints, confusion and delay).

You remind me Central trains used to play that game at Newark Northgate. Helps overcrowding and delay repay if you pad the arrival time to give you a 6 minute connection. (It was done more for the overcrowding in my opinion people still took the gamble back then as super-saver tickets had a reasonable price)