Mitigating disruption of GWR services where split tickets limit available routes

[John Palmer]

For my future guidance I'd appreciate clarification of my available options for dealing with disruption.

It's my usual practice to to attend an event occuring annually in May at Bracknell (BCE). To this end I had purchased rickets for my journey there today from Highbridge (HIG), returning same day. I had congratulated myself on achieving a saving of about £18 by planning to travel via Bristol with split tickets, the relevant split points being Yatton and Didcot, with a change at Reading (RDG) from GWR to SWR services.

Journey times/distances between HIG and RDG are broadly similar whether the route is via Bristol or via Taunton. Without having checked, I suspect that these are both permitted routes for travel between these points on the same ticket

There appear to have been no issues with services for the RDG-BCE and BCE-RDG legs of my journey. Not so with the GWR services to and from RDG, however.

I had planned to catch the GWR service departing HIG at 0715 (0657 ex Taunton). However, the service was evidently affected by late arrival of an inbound service leading to “an issue with the train crew”, and was consequently cancelled between Taunton and Bristol. I contemplated circumventing this by catching the 0659 departure from HIG to Taunton, thence up the Berks & Hants line, which would have got me to RDG in time to regain my original onward itinerary to BCE. This, however, involved services that obviously would not call at my Yatton and Didcot split points, and I was obliged to assume that my split tickets would not be valid via the B&H.

Arrival at the event one hour later than planned was feasible by means of Bristol-routed services, and would have been acceptable (suitably mitigated by delay-repay). However, on further checking prior to departure I discovered that my intended GWR service RDG-HIG, departing RDG 1655 (1630 ex Paddington) had ALSO been cancelled due to “an issue with the train crew”! Next return service to HIG via Bristol with calls at the Didcot and Yatton split points was scheduled to depart RDG 90 minutes later at 1825.

Disappointingly, disruption of both outbound and homeward services was such as to make my planned attendance at the Bracknell event impractical, and I have been obliged to cancel my travel arrangements and seek reimbursement of my fare.

I presume that, had I purchased an off-peak HIG-BCE return ticket, the disruption of my intended itinerary could have been mitigated by my being authorised to travel on services via Taunton rather than Bristol, and that the loss of that degree of flexibility in my travel arrangements is the price I must pay for having chosen to avail myself of split tickets involving calls at Yatton and Didcot. Am I correct?

 

[Haywain]

I'd appreciate clarification of my available options for dealing with disruption.

In the first instance I would always advice speaking to the train operator (whether that be in person, by phone or by some form of text based service). As the party causing the problem they are legally bound to provide alternative routeing if you are delayed by more than an hour but you can't reroute yourself. Even if your delay is not going to be more than 60 minutes, and especially when the bulk of your journey is with the same operator, you should still be assisted if there is a suitable way of doing this, and I would envisage travel via Taunton and the B&H for you as being appropriate.

 

[John Palmer]

Thanks, @Haywain. Yes, I agree that speaking to the operator must be the appropriate and prudent course, but it's not hard to foresee problems arising notwithstanding an ostensible readiness on the operator's part to assist. Taken at their face value, my chain of tickets via Bristol were plainly not going to be valid on the B&H route, and I wasn't going to set off in reliance upon a purely verbal assurance from a GWR representative that I was being allowed to re-route – no better than “but the man on the platform said...”

GWR would in any case have been under no obligation to re-route or otherwise mitigate my problem on the outbound journey as the delay resulting from taking the next following service should not have exceeded 60 minutes.

I would have been on stronger ground obtaining assistance for the return journey, given that strict adherence to the splitting rules governing my tickets was sure to lead to a 90 minute delay. However, discovery of the cumulative disruption of my plans that would be caused by the two cancellations sufficed to convince me that the safest and best course was to swallow my disappointment about missing an enjoyable day out and reclaim the fare paid.

 

[Haywain]

I think you have taken an unnecessarily pessimistic view of what might have happened, had you asked. Whilst there may not be an obligation to reroute you in the event of a delay of less than 61 minutes, I think there is a strong possibility that an operator would do so if asked. The worst case scenario is that asking gets you the same result as not asking. As for evidence, a good number of train operators have slips that they can write and hand out when they have authorised a different routeing, and if you have authority for that by a text service (X, WhatsApp, SMS) than you have it in writing anyway.

 

[Adam Williams]

I think @John Palmer raises some good points that the passenger rights here haven't evolved properly and also aren't as concrete as they should really be.

The recent "Timetable Comparator Code of Practice" does very little to properly clarify the passenger's position even for multi-leg journeys, let alone cases where split ticketing is involved. There remains ambiguity over whether the "mandatory principles" apply to all cancellations, or just those triggered by a service removal from the CIF (excluding on-the-day cancellations?). It's poor for such a recent document.

Pragmatically, as @Haywain suggests, I would expect most frontline staff to help you re-route yourself, and this has been my experience e.g. at Birmingham New Street, where the Network Rail staff - who I cannot fault at all - printed me a completely different replacement itinerary on headed paper.

 

[John Palmer]

Almost all my interactions with train crew have been positive, so yes, perhaps I was unduly pessimistic about securing staff agreement to a re-routing via Taunton on my outbound journey.

That said, as someone who has found no compelling need to update his 20 year old mobile phone technology, I couldn't see a basis on which I might get written approval of a re-routing in the minimal time available prior to departure of the alternative morning service via Taunton. In addition, I thought it unreasonable to accost a guard pre-occupied with despatch of his train from Highbridge with an explanation of why I wanted to re-route via the B&H. In the circumstances, my starting point had to be seeking permission to board when not in possession of a ticket valid for the journey on which I was embarking. I had to make a snap decision on whether to attempt outbound re-routing and, rightly or wrongly, I decided not to do so.

With an hour to kill prior to departure of a service on which my tickets would unquestionably have been valid, I took advantage of the opportunity to check my return travel arrangements. Discovery that the service on which I had planned to rely was also cancelled so exasperated me that I decided to call the whole thing off. Yes, following arrival at Reading in the morning I could have argued forcefully that a re-routed return journey over the B&H should be authorised to pre-empt the 90 minute delay before departure of the next homeward service for which my split tickets were valid. Regardless of my rights in the matter, the uncertain outcome of any such exchange with the operator undoubtedly influenced my decision to abandon. As @Adam Williams' comments on the "Timetable Comparator Code of Practice" suggest, the degree of that uncertainty seems considerable.

 

[Egg Centric]

That said, as someone who has found no compelling need to update his 20 year old mobile phone technology,

until now?

 

[John Palmer]

until now?

Well, the imminent demise of the PSTN also supplies an inducement to reconsider (reluctantly) the suitability of my ancient mobile! Replacement of our landline with something more up-to-date might also help us escape the blizzard of scam calls.

 

[Haywain]

Replacement of our landline with something more up-to-date might also help us escape the blizzard of scam calls.

I think doing away with a landline is the best chance of achieving that.

 

[rocrat]

In my experience of re-routeing requests, if you even so mention PRO (https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...2007-on-rail-passengers-right-and-obligations), most guards will simply accept that you know your rights and will often chat after departure... unless you're trying to get out of Paddington on an 'off-peak' ticket during the alleged evening 'peak' and can't access the train itself to ask!

 

[Haywain]

In my experience of re-routeing requests, if you even so mention PRO (https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...2007-on-rail-passengers-right-and-obligations), most guards will simply accept that you know your rights and will often chat after departure... unless you're trying to get out of Paddington on an 'off-peak' ticket during the alleged evening 'peak' and can't access the train itself to ask!

But the OP didn't have any rights under PRO as the expected delay was 60 minutes.

 

[Egg Centric]

In my experience of re-routeing requests, if you even so mention PRO (https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...2007-on-rail-passengers-right-and-obligations), most guards will simply accept that you know your rights and will often chat after departure... unless you're trying to get out of Paddington on an 'off-peak' ticket during the alleged evening 'peak' and can't access the train itself to ask!

You're fortunate - ime if you mention PRO no one has a clue what you're on about

 

[W-on-Sea]

Officially, you have to go to the ticket split points. Unofficially, though, when there is disruption, I've found staff (on LNER, XC, and GWR, at least) to be extremely helpful, certainly on longer journeys, and are generally happy to be flexible, and keen to help you get to your final destination as quickly as possible.

Just check with the train captain either before you get on the train or before you reach the point at which you deviate from the official route.(and indeed, I've made a similar journey: Exeter St Davids to Didcot, splitting at Bristol TM, but with delays meaning it was far quicker to go via Westbury and Reading and avoiding Bristol, I was allowed to travel that way)

 

[rocrat]

But the OP didn't have any rights under PRO as the expected delay was 60 minutes.

Is PRO article 15 (for re-routeing) not just "reasonable expectation that a delay that will lead to arrival at the final destination 60 minutes or more late." So 60 minutes therefore included?

I'd perhaps go one step further to say that "reasonable expectation" means unless there's a direct service running that will ensure you arrive under 60 minutes late, you've a reasonable expectation (given reliability of national rail services) that you may encounter a subsequent delay too... I suspect this would only be a problem if a TOC refused to pay for a more expensive new ticket for re-routeing in any case, else it's somewhat academic!

Article 18 (for refreshments) is over 60 minutes, I agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2025 ==

You're fortunate - ime if you mention PRO no one has a clue what you're on about

This can work to your favour if you are personable! I've had some very helpful re-routeings done for me by LNER, and some well-intentioned ones from AWC...

I successfully obtained refreshments (snacks and drinks, though no meal vouchers available) at Paddington this weekend thanks to article 18 and the usual GWR cancellations... Beats the bottle of water I once got from EMR at St Pancras!

 

[Haywain]

Is PRO article 15 (for re-routeing) not just "reasonable expectation that a delay that will lead to arrival at the final destination 60 minutes or more late." So 60 minutes therefore included?

I was under the impression that it's more than 60 minutes but I'm no expert in this. Perhaps @Watershed can confirm.

 

[Watershed]

The version of the PRO that remains in retained British law (EU Regulation 1371/2007) states the anticipated delay needs to be "more than 60 minutes". That seems to exclude an anticipated delay of exactly 60 minutes, i.e. what you would expect if there's a clockface hourly service.

The Interpretive Guidelines on gov.uk talk about a delay of at least 60 minutes but this does not seem to match what the UK PRO actually says.

 

[rocrat]

The version of the PRO that remains in retained British law (EU Regulation 1371/2007) states the anticipated delay needs to be "more than 60 minutes". That seems to exclude an anticipated delay of exactly 60 minutes, i.e. what you would expect if there's a clockface hourly service.

The Interpretive Guidelines on gov.uk talk about a delay of at least 60 minutes but this does not seem to match what the UK PRO actually says.

Thank you for this. It's interesting that the interpretative guidelines differ... as mention of PRO is in NRCOT, are the interpretative guidelines from gov.uk therefore nonetheless within the contract as a reasonable source (passengers can't reasonably be expected to differentiate this nuance), even if not in the regulation itself? (Not that I think this would stand up well...)

 

[Watershed]

Thank you for this. It's interesting that the interpretative guidelines differ... as mention of PRO is in NRCOT, are the interpretative guidelines from gov.uk therefore nonetheless within the contract as a reasonable source (passengers can't reasonably be expected to differentiate this nuance), even if not in the regulation itself? (Not that I think this would stand up well...)

In any legal action I would be surprised if the Interpretive Guidelines were deemed to took precedence over the clear wording of the legislation itself. It is incumbent on the passenger to familiarise themselves with any legislation/conditions they are relying on. Any loss caused by relying on inaccurate summaries would not be the train company's fault.