My thoughts on protection whilst using a combination of tickets

[Ziggiesden]

Not this again. Stop spreading misinformation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==


So nobody would ever go via Northampton or use the Chiltern route - both routes which are priced low to attract customers who wouldn't or can't pay £52 return. Now you shove all the custom on Avanti which runs the fastest train yet costs the same as the Chiltern route and, even more bizarrely, costs less now than taking the slow train via Northampton. Why?

Passengers are generally happy with this though. Those people aren't going to pay several times the price for that trip. How are you going to make best use of capacity and assets with your price hikes? The majority of passengers on long distance trips don't require flexibility and there are already products available for those who do - which as has been pointed out are already often cheaper than your flat mileage fare.


*Frequent bargains.


But how? What sort of trips do you hope to move from cars by charging £52 London to Birmingham? That trip would be done for £25 in my Defender and I'd have my wife with me. £104 is a laughable price.


And expensive. As well as completely ignoring the realities of how you'd kill a load of rural routes with this as well. A mile in the Highlands isn't worth the same as a mile in London. We all know that.

How do you think a railway our size and with its capacity constraints would function without advance tickets?

In regard to your erroneous comment "Not this again. Stop spreading misinformation." above:

We regularly ger Passengers who have bought a Combination of Tickets for the Shotts line, who miss their chosen train and have to wait a number of hours as clearly that combination is not valid on the express route via Falkirk High or pay the appropriate excess, which is quite substantial in relation to what they have already paid.

A nice little earner.

As to Clause 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel it has been confirmed by Lord Peter Hendy and others that a Combination of Tickets is not protected, and you need a through ticket to qualify.

Furthermore, since Brexit we have not been keeping up with European Law is it is yet another way to reduce liability to the Train Operating Companies and make the Passenger pay more when things go wrong, which as we all know is increasingly the case:

REGULATION (EU) 2021/782

Clause 25

“The offer of through-tickets should be promoted. However, correct information concerning the rail service is essential also when passengers buy tickets from a ticket vendor or a tour operator. Where the ticket vendors or the tour operators sell separate tickets as a bundle, they should clearly inform the passenger that those tickets do not offer the same level of protection as through-tickets and that those tickets have not been issued as through-tickets by the railway undertaking or railway undertakings providing the service. Where ticket vendors or tour operators fail to comply with this requirement, their liability should go beyond the reimbursement of the tickets.”

Also read Article 12:

“4. Where a ticket or tickets are purchased in a single commercial transaction and the ticket vendor or tour operator has combined the tickets on its own initiative, the ticket vendor or tour operator that sold the ticket or tickets shall be liable to reimburse the total amount paid for that transaction for the ticket or tickets and, moreover, to pay compensation equivalent to 75 % of that amount in the event that the passenger misses one or more connections.”

As you know, we do not Retail a Combination of Tickets, unless specifically requested under the National Rail Manual Regulations:

“Combination of Tickets

The Fares Finder has fares for most through journeys. Tickets should always be sold for the throughout journey required unless a customer specially requests more than one ticket for the journey. In such cases the combination of tickets should cover the entire journey being made.”

As yet, I have not seen any online retailer specifically warning of the danger of “SplitSave” etc. Just merely promoting it as an initial saving to get a sale. I’ve covered how this actually does increase fares and taxes in earlier posts to the general public over time. Quite funny, if you think about it, They’ve actually managed to throw the old adage back in our face, “Saving Pennies, losing Pounds”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is very little truth in this. The EU Regulation quoted gives you minimum rights; it does not reduce your rights.

The thing that makes the use of a combination of tickets give the same protection as a through ticket is Condition 14, which is thus:

https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/3Y9UXuFziljwsGFCUAwKAA/0aa50a101febffda28c070aae2572570/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel.pdf

14.1 Some Tickets specifically exclude their use in conjunction with other Tickets. This will
be made clear in the terms and conditions when buying such Tickets

14.2 Unless Condition 14.1 applies, you may use a combination of two or more Tickets
to make a journey provided that the train services you use Call at the station(s) where
you change from one Ticket to another.

14.3 Unless Condition 14.1 applies, if you are using a Season Ticket, daily Zonal Ticket, or
another area based Ticket such as a concessionary pass, ranger, or rover, in
conjunction with another Ticket and the last station at which one Ticket is valid and the
first station that the other Ticket is valid are the same, then the train does not need to
Call at that station for your combination to be valid.

14.4 In all cases you must comply with the specific terms and conditions of each of the
Tickets you are using (for example, keeping to the valid route(s) and train services for
which each Ticket is valid). It is your responsibility to check that you comply with
the Conditions listed above.

Other provisions within the NRCoT give you protection for your journey.

Given that TOCs routinely pay Delay Repay for through journeys consisting of multiple tickets, I'm really not sure why you are seeking to impart this misinformation. It might be that you consider that this protection SHOULD not apply (and I would disagree - personally I actually think that one route to simplification is that Advance type tickets should be specifically sold on a "one ticket per vehicle journey" basis and thus pretty much always split unless it's a direct train), but it is very clear that at present it does.

 

[ainsworth74]

We regularly ger Passengers who have bought a Combination of Tickets for the Shotts line, who miss their chosen train and have to wait a number of hours as clearly that combination is not valid on the express route via Falkirk High or pay the appropriate excess, which is quite substantial in relation to what they have already paid.

Why would they need to wait "a number of hours"? The Shotts line has 2tph through most of the day? Or is this something that only happens on Sundays when there is a more limited service. Though even then I'm not sure how that's relevant to when things go wrong as it's the passenger's fault at the end of the day that they missed a train (or are you saying that you'd excess or charge again when a train has been missed due to a broken connection?).

As to Clause 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel it has been confirmed by Lord Peter Hendy and others that a Combination of Tickets is not protected, and you need a through ticket to qualify.

It has? Where?

Furthermore, since Brexit we have not been keeping up with European Law is it is yet another way to reduce liability to the Train Operating Companies and make the Passenger pay more when things go wrong, which as we all know is increasingly the case:

REGULATION (EU) 2021/782

Clause 25

“The offer of through-tickets should be promoted. However, correct information concerning the rail service is essential also when passengers buy tickets from a ticket vendor or a tour operator. Where the ticket vendors or the tour operators sell separate tickets as a bundle, they should clearly inform the passenger that those tickets do not offer the same level of protection as through-tickets and that those tickets have not been issued as through-tickets by the railway undertaking or railway undertakings providing the service. Where ticket vendors or tour operators fail to comply with this requirement, their liability should go beyond the reimbursement of the tickets.”

Also read Article 12:

“4. Where a ticket or tickets are purchased in a single commercial transaction and the ticket vendor or tour operator has combined the tickets on its own initiative, the ticket vendor or tour operator that sold the ticket or tickets shall be liable to reimburse the total amount paid for that transaction for the ticket or tickets and, moreover, to pay compensation equivalent to 75 % of that amount in the event that the passenger misses one or more connections.”

I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. The NRCoT provide a greater level of contractual protection than that EU regulation does, as it has done for quite a while now.

As yet, I have not seen any online retailer specifically warning of the danger of “SplitSave” etc. Just merely promoting it as an initial saving to get a sale.

I mean, there is no danger beyond some railway staff making up rules and not following the law and contractual provisions laid out. So it's not surprising that the retailers don't "warn of danger". I mean perhaps there is an argument that they should be warning that "These are your contractual and legal protections whilst travelling by train, unfortunately you may find it difficult to enforce these rights as many train companies ignore the law and contractual arrangements that are provided for".

 

[Bletchleyite]

We regularly ger Passengers who have bought a Combination of Tickets for the Shotts line, who miss their chosen train and have to wait a number of hours as clearly that combination is not valid on the express route via Falkirk High or pay the appropriate excess, which is quite substantial in relation to what they have already paid.

This is the one bit that is true - unless you're stranded a combination of tickets via Shotts is functionally the same as one ticket routed Shotts. Now, such a ticket may not exist (I can't be bothered to look it up as it would not inform this discussion whether it does or not, because the situation does exist in other locations), but if it did then the passenger wouldn't be in a position any different with a split than not - they would have to wait for the next train via Shotts unless acceptance was in place or unless their combination was accepted the other way because e.g. of them being stranded otherwise (edit: or they were rerouted as per the provisions of the PRO).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==

I mean, there is no danger beyond some railway staff making up rules and not following the law and contractual provisions laid out.

It is indeed quite concerning that the poster appears to be (a) railway staff, and (b) making stuff up.

 

[Adam Williams]

The misconceptions set out here in this initial post have been corrected time and time again.

The cited "evidence" (communications and legislation) do not support the points that @Ziggiesden continues to try to make.

What is the point of doing this all over again in a new thread?

 

[35B]

REGULATION (EU) 2021/782

Clause 25

“The offer of through-tickets should be promoted. However, correct information concerning the rail service is essential also when passengers buy tickets from a ticket vendor or a tour operator. Where the ticket vendors or the tour operators sell separate tickets as a bundle, they should clearly inform the passenger that those tickets do not offer the same level of protection as through-tickets and that those tickets have not been issued as through-tickets by the railway undertaking or railway undertakings providing the service. Where ticket vendors or tour operators fail to comply with this requirement, their liability should go beyond the reimbursement of the tickets.”

Also read Article 12:

“4. Where a ticket or tickets are purchased in a single commercial transaction and the ticket vendor or tour operator has combined the tickets on its own initiative, the ticket vendor or tour operator that sold the ticket or tickets shall be liable to reimburse the total amount paid for that transaction for the ticket or tickets and, moreover, to pay compensation equivalent to 75 % of that amount in the event that the passenger misses one or more connections.”

As you know, we do not Retail a Combination of Tickets, unless specifically requested under the National Rail Manual Regulations:

“Combination of Tickets

The Fares Finder has fares for most through journeys. Tickets should always be sold for the throughout journey required unless a customer specially requests more than one ticket for the journey. In such cases the combination of tickets should cover the entire journey being made.”

As yet, I have not seen any online retailer specifically warning of the danger of “SplitSave” etc. Just merely promoting it as an initial saving to get a sale. I’ve covered how this actually does increase fares and taxes in earlier posts to the general public over time. Quite funny, if you think about it, They’ve actually managed to throw the old adage back in our face, “Saving Pennies, losing Pounds”.

If Regulation EU 2021/782 applied in the UK (which it does not), the text you've quoted actually reinforces the provisions in the NRCOT. Clause 25 is explicit that, where an operator does not state that tickets sold as a bundle don't constitute a through ticket, enhanced rights apply.

YOU may not sell combinations of tickets, but other vendors do. Those tickets are subject to a contract and, whatever ministers or senior executives say, the laws of contract apply. As a consumer, they may work for me (e.g. protection of through travel rights), or they may work against me (no entitlement to re-routing because I've chosen the bargain basement route).

 

[Haywain]

As you know, we do not Retail a Combination of Tickets, unless specifically requested under the National Rail Manual Regulations:

Because YOU, in a ticket office, are (supposed to be) an impartial retailer. That is not a requirement of a website and anyone buying from an accredited website has the same contractual rights as someone buying a ticket from your ticket office.

 

[Ziggiesden]

Why would they need to wait "a number of hours"? The Shotts line has 2tph through most of the day? Or is this something that only happens on Sundays when there is a more limited service. Though even then I'm not sure how that's relevant to when things go wrong as it's the passenger's fault at the end of the day that they missed a train (or are you saying that you'd excess or charge again when a train has been missed due to a broken connection?).


It has? Where?

I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. The NRCoT provide a greater level of contractual protection than that EU regulation does, as it has done for quite a while now.

I mean, there is no danger beyond some railway staff making up rules and not following the law and contractual provisions laid out. So it's not surprising that the retailers don't "warn of danger". I mean perhaps there is an argument that they should be warning that "These are your contractual and legal protections whilst travelling by train, unfortunately you may find it difficult to enforce these rights as many train companies ignore the law and contractual arrangements that are provided for".

Try a Sunday, as to frequency. As an example, your split is at Slateford and you miss the 20:30. Note also as the algorithm develops it splits at differing locations – not always at the cheapest point depending on when it was last updated. What was true one day is not true another, just like our old friend the Routeing Guide.

I had my MSP, along with myself, make enquiries in relation to the Combination of Tickets issues. As you can see in the attachments below the policy is to cut subsidy, in detriment to the Passenger experience, now they are happy that no-one will beat them at Law.

There has been the assurance that GBR will correct all these ills. I don’t believe it.

When you ask for help for Passengers and it is refused by the “Duty manager” as “Control” will not pay for a taxi and / or hotel citing that 28.2 above states, “Ticket” and not tickets, that is pretty conclusive to me along with my research on development of the Law in other jurisdictions. You also need to read Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 in full, as that what 28.2 is based upon, in particular note “The ticket shall be prima facie evidence of the conclusion and the contents of the contract of carriage.”

When I rejoined the Booking Offices after working in other departments I was told specifically that the old rule of a “combination of tickets bought at the same time at the same location no longer applies” I didn’t quite believe it, but I found it to be true. Allegedly, it was just an old BR instruction but was never written into the National Rail Conditions of Travel as such. The wording made people “think” that the journey was protected – it is – but only in relation to the contract in force at the time. Contract Law dictates that separate tickets are indeed separate contracts and only Delay Repay applies to all the tickets in a journey as that is a specific instruction from Rail Delivery Group, currently in force.

What you perceive once to be true, simply is not. The money men were let in – they don’t want to give up control until they have to. Write yourselves and specifically ask the question as we did and publish what you get back – perhaps if enough of us do that and write to the media we can change things for the better a bit quicker?

 

[redreni]

Worth mentioning the Lord Hendy's views on how the NRCoT, PRO or anything else ought to be interpreted, if he has any, would carry no more weight than anyone else's. As Rail Minister he might have a number of duties and powers, but 'confirming' what rights passengers currently have under the industry arrangements, consumer law or retained EU law isn't one of them.

 

[Ziggiesden]

Because YOU, in a ticket office, are (supposed to be) an impartial retailer. That is not a requirement of a website and anyone buying from an accredited website has the same contractual rights as someone buying a ticket from your ticket office.

I suppose that statement is also qualified depending on the site, according to the current Ticket and Settling Agreement:



6-20 INTERNET SITES, TELEPHONE SALES OFFICES AND SITES THAT ARE IMPARTIAL POINTS OF SALE



(1) ATOC Standards



An Operator providing train service information and Selling Rail Products through an Internet Site or Telephone Sales Office or Site that is an Impartial Point of Sale will comply with the provisions of the appropriate ATOC Standard shown in Schedule 44.

Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA)

The Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) sets out the various arrangements between the operators relating to the carriage of passengers and the retailing of t

www.raildeliverygroup.com

 

[AlterEgo]

As to Clause 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel it has been confirmed by Lord Peter Hendy and others that a Combination of Tickets is not protected, and you need a through ticket to qualify.

He woild be wrong if he has said that, but you need to substantiate that with a quote because I do not recall him saying that.

 

[Adam Williams]

need to substantiate that with a quote because I do not recall him saying that

You're completely right - he did not say what it is suggested he said.

What Peter Hendy said to OP was already posted in this thread, we're just going around in circles now.

 

[Watershed]

Try a Sunday, as to frequency. As an example, your split is at Slateford and you miss the 20:30. Note also as the algorithm develops it splits at differing locations – not always at the cheapest point depending on when it was last updated. What was true one day is not true another, just like our old friend the Routeing Guide.

If the anticipated arrival delay is more than 60 minutes, the passenger is entitled to require re-routing at the earliest opportunity. That will oblige the TOC at fault to arrange ticket acceptance, endorse the ticket or provide a new ticket which allows the fastest available route/itinerary in the circumstances.

So the passenger can, at worst, be inconvenienced by a 60 minute delay. Even that isn't acceptable and I agree it's a drawback of split ticketing, but it does not mean waiting around "a number of hours" as you claimed.

I had my MSP, along with myself, make enquiries in relation to the Combination of Tickets issues. As you can see in the attachments below the policy is to cut subsidy, in detriment to the Passenger experience, now they are happy that no-one will beat them at Law.

It says nothing of the sort. You need to stop misquoting documents; it damages your credibility.

The intended policy as to railway subsidies also has nothing to do with passenger rights. The RDG reply explicitly states that if a passenger believes those rights have been breached, they have the right to take it up in Court.

There has been the assurance that GBR will correct all these ills. I don’t believe it.

I'm not sure that it's been promised GBR would fix everything, but I share your scepticism. From what I have seen, it will involve much the same people and - crucially - the same anti-passenger attitudes.

When you ask for help for Passengers and it is refused by the “Duty manager” as “Control” will not pay for a taxi and / or hotel citing that 28.2 above states, “Ticket” and not tickets, that is pretty conclusive to me along with my research on development of the Law in other jurisdictions.

Duty Managers/Control are not experts on the law. They are likely to just be applying their own personal view of how things should work - much in the same way you are making up your own interpretations of the protections split afford.

You also need to read Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 in full, as that what 28.2 is based upon, in particular note “The ticket shall be prima facie evidence of the conclusion and the contents of the contract of carriage.”

I have read it in full and the part you quote has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

When I rejoined the Booking Offices after working in other departments I was told specifically that the old rule of a “combination of tickets bought at the same time at the same location no longer applies” I didn’t quite believe it, but I found it to be true. Allegedly, it was just an old BR instruction but was never written into the National Rail Conditions of Travel as such. The wording made people “think” that the journey was protected – it is – but only in relation to the contract in force at the time.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Old BR instructions are irrelevant; NRCoT condition 14.2 is clear that multiple tickets can be used to make one journey so it is still one contract.

Contract Law dictates that separate tickets are indeed separate contracts and only Delay Repay applies to all the tickets in a journey as that is a specific instruction from Rail Delivery Group, currently in force.

Contract law provides that the wording of the contract is what counts. NRCoT condition 14.2 therefore refers. Your notion that RDG are doing people a favour is not exactly credible given you elsewhere say their policy is to cut subsidy! The instruction came to ensure consistency across the industry, to reflect the correct interpretation of condition 14.2. There is no way RDG would have issued that instruction if they believed otherwise!

What you perceive once to be true, simply is not. The money men were let in – they don’t want to give up control until they have to. Write yourselves and specifically ask the question as we did and publish what you get back – perhaps if enough of us do that and write to the media we can change things for the better a bit quicker?

The media is, by and large, useless. There are very few journalists out there who understand the topics well enough and who can write things up in an article that gets traction. But the issue here is not the law - it is rogue train companies and staff (like yourself) making up their own interpretations of the rules and leaving customers with limited options to pursue recourse. Improving the Rail Ombudsman would be a good starting point.

 

[Tom]

I read this last time around and it feels like to me that there is somewhat of a misunderstanding on the OP's part about how defined terms work in contracts. Capitalised terms may be very different to what they could be as defined.

I feel like an outrageous example would be saying that all Mushrooms are poisonous - which is complete nonsense of course, but if I defined Mushroom as the amanita phalloides ...

 

[MrJeeves]

I don't think this conversation is worth a repeat, after the points raised here have already been raised before and clearly debunked in a previous thread.

To reiterate the same point as before, however:

It's also worth noting that none of the letters from RDG, DfT or Peter Hendy himself in that PDF file are explicitly setting out support for the mis-interpretation of NRCoT 28.2 that has been perpetuated in a number of posts.

The PDF attachment contains nothing in writing from Scotrail, as @MrJeeves has already set out.