NXEA almost leaving me stranded...

[blacknight]

But did not provide the OP with any proof they had authorised this routeing - sure to raise an eyebrow or two on the way with any ticket, never mind an advance one.

Am sure if OP had opted for this route NXEA control would have made a phone call to other TOC's involved advising them that Mr OP would be travelling this route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And here is a reason that a lot of people simply wouldn't attempt any long journeys late at night and take the car instead.

Even with rules that should stop someone being stranded, it seems people can be left stranded. Suggesting an incredibly complicated alternative route (and what happens if there was any delay or cancellation for the 2-3 other trains needed, including the long waiting time).

The OP could have ended up stranded somewhere a lot less convenient than London, where there would be plenty of hotel rooms (and likely cheap rooms given the time of night, which a TOC should have access to).

Complicated? direct train to Leeds & another to Manchester both stations are hardly village halts in the middle of no where, did the OP get caught up in disruption going via Birmingham the following day. Disruption is bit like Martini Any Time Any Place

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That is a totally unreasonable itinerary.

I agree with blacknight that while it may apprear "unreasonable" it was an offer, made presumably in response to the OP's questions.

I consider it to be 'reasonable' because it was being presented as an option, it then becomes a matter for the passenger to choose to accept or decline any offer, and under the circumstances, I find it 'reasonable' that options were being considered and offered. I'm sure that some people would accept that alternative journey. I disagree with jonmorris0844 that it is 'incredibly complicated'.

I don't have a view on the applicability of the published transfer times for separate tickets to / from different London stations, but I do have a view on the passenger's response to their difficulty, knowing in advance that their long journey would involve the last train of the day. Even if they were just within the published minimum transfer time and even if that time would apply to their journey, I am sure that it was a calculated risk and as with all risks, there should have been some expectation of failure, however slight. To manage that expectation by a demand for dismissal from employment is, in my view 'totally unresonable'.

 

[Yew]

I imagine if you had taken their wierd itinery, you would have got some impressive delay repay!

 

[blacknight]

I imagine if you had taken their wierd itinery, you would have got some impressive delay repay!

As 2 AP tickets were involved in this case I would have thought IMO you would only be able to claim refund on first ticket only for late running of that service. If NXEA were on the ball retain original tickets issue zero cost excess ticket for alternate route & save on delay repay aswell

 

[Wolfie]

As 2 AP tickets were involved in this case I would have thought you would only be able to claim refund on first ticket only for late running of that service.

To summarise your "customer caring" views on this thread:
a It is all the OPs fault;
b The OP should accept any half-assed route that the rail industry offers;
c The OP should not expect any compo for being messed around.

With customer care skills like those there MUST be a job opportunity with Ryan Air for you.

Seriously, if that is how you feel about customers you would be better placed finding alternative employment PDQ. Was the OP to go to the Daily Mail and cite your inflamatory views just how would the raiway industry look.

 

[jon0844]

Why have minimum connection times if you are in fact supposed to assume that things could go wrong, so you best add a bit more. And what? 5 minutes, 15 minutes, an hour, two hours?

Who decides what extra time, beyond the time given that should already cover most problems anyway?

The idea is that the railway won't leave you stranded, and will have existing arrangements with taxi firms and hotels. In return for this liability on them, you agree to at least give the industry a 'fighting chance'. But, now you should really do more than that to do everything in your power to make sure a TOC won't have to deal with you if things do go wrong.

Maybe 'complicated' was the wrong word to use, but the fact that you had to take a number of services - with dead time in between - I wouldn't consider that an option someone should be forced to accept. Of course, if the OP had accepted it then so be it.

For the least hassle, and least expense for the TOC, I'd have thought a hotel stay would have been best for all. The OP would have been mad to have taken a taxi such a distance, but if it had been a life or death situation then I suppose that would be different. Given the travel was on advanced tickets, I am guessing it wasn't a journey to see a dying relative.

 

[blacknight]

To summarise your "customer caring" views on this thread:
a It is all the OPs fault;
b The OP should accept any half-assed route that the rail industry offers;
c The OP should not expect any compo for being messed around.

With customer care skills like those there MUST be a job opportunity with Ryan Air for you.

Seriously, if that is how you feel about customers you would be better placed finding alternative employment PDQ. Was the OP to go to the Daily Mail and cite your inflamatory views just how would the raiway industry look.

By all means go to press claim to have been left stranded & then in right of reply find that an alternative option was given but declined.
Wolfie only thing I will say is dont go complaining about cost of rail fares when in your world company should be providing hotels & taxis that then have to be paid for.
Most of complaints about bad customer service araise when said customer gets an answer that they dont hear.

 

[Mr Spock]

According to NRES by getting the 19.00 from Norwich arrival time in Stoke would be 06.07 - that means getting the 22.00 to Crewe and waiting there for the 05.47 in the morning (no connection to 21.40).

Looking at the sites of NXEA and Virgin (the 2 TOC's involved) neither of them show the 19.00 from Norwich but only show the 19.40 which is change at Ely for train to Brum, arr 23.38, and then get the 05.57 in the morning to Stoke.

East Coast also come up with a similar trip as the 2 above so without checking every site I can find no journey that connects the 19.00 from Norwich with the 21.40 from Euston.

 

[GB]

East Coast also come up with a similar trip as the 2 above so without checking every site I can find no journey that connects the 19.00 from Norwich with the 21.40 from Euston.

Probably because the OP split the route rather than just booking it direct. I don't know if this would have had a bearing on his out come.

Oh, and lets try and not through the toys out of the pram by demanding someone is fired.

 

[jon0844]

I've ignored the bit about getting someone fired as that was silly. I didn't ask for my FCC RPI to get fired - I merely made a complaint and let them decide what to do (and from what I've heard, he still works for them).

I would hope nobody would ever get fired for one complaint, but it could go on record and help support further action if that member of staff is getting lots of complaints along the same lines, and from different people. Even then, you'd expect them to have a chance to put things right.

Aren't NXEA doing engineering work now/soon? Could this have altered an itinerary if checked now?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Maybe 'complicated' was the wrong word to use, but the fact that you had to take a number of services - with dead time in between - I wouldn't consider that an option someone should be forced to accept.

I'm glad you agree that the route offered in a response to his enquiries for solutions to his situation wasn't 'incredibly complicated'.

But now you're suggesting that he was "forced" to accept it.

Where has that come from?

 

[34D]

The tickets combine at London Terminals, so providing the minimum interchange is allowed, it's a valid connection.

I disasgree - he does not have (in my view, and based on the information given so far) a series of tickets that covers his complete journey. If he already has a paper ticket or oyster travelcard from LST to EUS then that is different.

Can anyone show me where 45 Minutes interchange was written down please? I seemed to recall that an hour used to be quoted (but happy to be corrected)

 

[ainsworth74]

Can anyone show me where 45 Minutes interchange was written down please? I seemed to recall that an hour used to be quoted (but happy to be corrected)

Page 44 of this document Liverpool Street -> Euston transfer time 43 minutes.

 

[AlterEgo]

According to NRES by getting the 19.00 from Norwich arrival time in Stoke would be 06.07 - that means getting the 22.00 to Crewe and waiting there for the 05.47 in the morning (no connection to 21.40).

Looking at the sites of NXEA and Virgin (the 2 TOC's involved) neither of them show the 19.00 from Norwich but only show the 19.40 which is change at Ely for train to Brum, arr 23.38, and then get the 05.57 in the morning to Stoke.

East Coast also come up with a similar trip as the 2 above so without checking every site I can find no journey that connects the 19.00 from Norwich with the 21.40 from Euston.

No, but an industry journey planner available to booking clerks does indeed suggest that it is feasible:

1900 NRW-LST 2055
***transfer***
2140 EUS-SOT 2306

If the clerk has sold the tickets based on this, then I have sympathy for the OP. His itinerary may well be speculative on nothing going wrong whatsoever (and it is not one I would have taken myself!), but I well believe that the clerk has sold the tickets on the basis that his journey planner told him (and therefore the customer) that it was okay.

That said, I'm not sure the people at Liverpool Street even took this into account.

A six hour journey across the country to get home is a rather uncomfortable itinerary. I would have refused it.

 

[jon0844]

I'm glad you agree that the route offered in a response to his enquiries for solutions to his situation wasn't 'incredibly complicated'.

But now you're suggesting that he was "forced" to accept it.

Where has that come from?

Was he given that option along with others, like a hotel, or was it the case that this was the option and anything else was 'up to him'.

If the former, then he wasn't forced. If the latter, in effect he was being forced to accept this instead of a hotel/taxi.

I fail to see why you need to be so argumentative.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If I read this correctly, the OP had two separate Advance singles - one to Liverpool St and the second from Euston to Stoke. As it wasn't a single through Advance ticket to Stoke via London, how are NXEA obliged to assist teh passenger if they have two separate tickets with no cross London tube transfer?

Well we know for definate that with an Underground fare it is considered a through journey, so I'm not sure how not getting an Underground fare could change that (as they could easily walk or get a taxi or a bus). Also, the op had not had the opportunity to get the tube fare yet (which I'm sure they would have done if the train was on time.

 

[Mr Spock]

Page 44 of this document Liverpool Street -> Euston transfer time 43 minutes.

It also says at the bottom "All times are based on use of London Underground services and are shown as a guide only – extra time should be allowed during the early morning/late evening and on Sundays".

As for the industry journey planner saying that the connection is possible would this have been used with 2 seperate advance tickets?

Do we even know how the tickets were bought.

 

[jon0844]

What would be good as 'extra time' for late evenings? Surely it can't be that vague. If it is, then you could surely argue that an extra minute is extra time!

Who can determine what is acceptable? The TOC? I guess they'd give the extra time as being what ever needed to have made the train, which would vary from case to case.

Or the TOC is sensible and holds up its hands and admits it was wrong in this case.

 

[AlterEgo]

As for the industry journey planner saying that the connection is possible would this have been used with 2 seperate advance tickets?

Yes, you'd need to book the tickets separately but the journey planner suggests it's fine.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I consider it to be 'reasonable' because it was being presented as an option, it then becomes a matter for the passenger to choose to accept or decline any offer, and under the circumstances, I find it 'reasonable' that options were being considered and offered. I'm sure that some people would accept that alternative journey. I disagree with jonmorris0844 that it is 'incredibly complicated'....

I find it unreasonable that a person should be advised to take a train via the East Coast when the ticket would only be valid via the West Coast. It would be my belief that the Op would have been asked to pay again for his journey, that is unreasonable.

Am sure if OP had opted for this route NXEA control would have made a phone call to other TOC's involved advising them that Mr OP would be travelling this route....

I'd like to believe that, but based on the account given, I doubt the help desk staff would have done that, leading to the problem I mention above.

It seems to me that they are under no obligation to assist as Liverpool St and Euston are separate stations.
.....

I disasgree - he does not have (in my view, and based on the information given so far) a series of tickets that covers his complete journey. If he already has a paper ticket or oyster travelcard from LST to EUS then that is different....

And what if a it were a ticket from Cambridge to London Terminals (Kings Cross) and a ticket from London Terminals (St Pancras) to Leicester? Would they need an Underground ticket to cross the road?

 

[AlterEgo]

That is the way i always understood it. In the same way we now book hotels & travel seperate to save a few bob over package holidays. When one or the other let us down our whole holiday is up the chute. You pays your money & take your chance!

But it doesn't work like that, as other posters have pointed out. The Advance Fares FAQs tell us (depending on interpretation) that either the tickets join at London Terminals, or that buying a paper Tube ticket would have guaranteed a valid connection.

The whole episode is a bit of a shame, although DaveNewcastle does make a point that perhaps this itinerary is the first one that was offered. Perhaps if the OP had stood his ground and refused it, he may have been offered an alternative.

 

[yorkie]

AlterEgo - I quite agree! I'd like to please request that people do not make up their own rules and present them as fact.

Here are some facts to consider, and I have quoted the source (ie, they're not made up!)

b) If delays occur while
travelling, they will be
allowed to take the next
available train(s) to complete
their journey.

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey...

2) Once the journey has begun. If the passenger is delayed and the train company or it's partners [are] at fault, which should be check by [staff] control office, change to a train of the same company is allowed to get them to their destination with the least delay. This is irrespective of the combination of rail tickets held.

The minimum interchange time for tickets between the London Terminals of Liverpool Street and Euston is 43 minutes, the OP allowed 45 minutes, and internal industry systems show this as a valid connection.

The following tickets:

Norwich - London Terminals
London Terminals - Stoke-on-Trent

cover the entire journey, although I do accept that the transfer between members of London Terminals (which is not unique to London!) in this case is expected to be by LU, for which an additional ticket may be required. But that does not, in any way, mean that the lack of such a ticket being held means that the interchange is invalidated, and given that the first train was so late that, as I said before, only instant teleportation may have resulted in the second train being caught, means this is a moot point anyway, and anyone using that excuse really is struggling to construct a sensible argument.

I think this the terms are quite clear, however if anyone has any doubt, then I trust this legislation clarifies which way the terms should be interpreted:-

Written contracts
7. - (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

 

[ainsworth74]

It also says at the bottom "All times are based on use of London Underground services and are shown as a guide only – extra time should be allowed during the early morning/late evening and on Sundays".

Can we have a definition of 'extra time' please? The OP allowed 45 minutes which is in fact 2 more than the document says is required. Is that enough time? Or should more be allowed? What is the source that tells us how much extra time is required?

I don't agree that those words at the end are sufficient to claim that the OP did not leave enough time to travel between Liverpool Street and Euston. Especially in light of the fact that an industry journey planner gives that as a valid journey!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can we have a definition of 'extra time' please?

Well, we're not really likely to receive that definition, but perhaps the issue here is that those words 'extra time' are presented as advice to a passenger, and it seems to me that its quite appropriate for a TOC (or their collective rep. ATOC) to give advice like this. But its not a Contractural Term, nor is it a Condition. People who draft documents which may be tested in Law know perfectly well when to use 'should' and when to use 'must'.

What I will add to this question is that in my opinion, the additional time at evenings and weekends are offered to the passenger as helpful and appropriate advice.
It is not a Term or Condition of any Contract.
The OP may have been aware of the advice and may not - that might affect how we as observers respond to the difficulty he encountered and even how much extra effort staff would commit to looking for alternative solutions for him, but that advice to allow more time does not, and cannot, become a Condition of their Contract to be conveyed to their destination.
All that the advice can do is to trigger internal discretionary policies which determine whether or not to offer assistance beyond the contractural minimum - though I don't know if any TOC actually applies that advice in such a structured policy.

 

[34D]

Well we know for definate that with an Underground fare it is considered a through journey, so I'm not sure how not getting an Underground fare could change that (as they could easily walk or get a taxi or a bus). Also, the op had not had the opportunity to get the tube fare yet (which I'm sure they would have done if the train was on time.

No ticket = no contract. the other day when there was disruption on the EC I'd planned to get a first class open return kgx to waverley. I never actually bought it, but please will you help me claim delay repay, night in a hotel, and air fare. Do you see the point?

London Terminals isn't a place!

Thanks to the guy who linked to that pdf with page 43/44 in - most useful.

 

[jon0844]

So no refund for the tube portion then, as the ticket hadn't been purchased. Doesn't end the rest of the contract.

Sent from my Sinclair Spectrum via Tapatalk

 

[ainsworth74]

London Terminals isn't a place!

In terms of ticketing I'm pretty sure it is!

Condition 19 tells us that:

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey

The OP was undertaking the journey from Norwich to Stoke. For this they held two tickets Norwich - London Terminals and London Terminals to Stoke. As long as the minimum interchange time of that connection has been allowed (43 minutes minimum, 45 actually allowed by the OP) then the OP had tickets to cover their entire journey. The method they use to get from Liverpool Street to Euston is immaterial. As Condition 19 allows multple tickets to be used for one journey then the rest of the condition apply in the same way that they would as if the OP held a Norwich to Stoke ticket. Admittadly life would be easier if the OP had a through ticket or a Norwich to ZoneU12 and ZoneU12 to Stoke (ZoneU12 also not being a place ) it doesn't actually matter that they don't.

Otherwise all I can assume is that you are trying to tell me that Condition 19 does not apply to journeys that require travelling across London on tickets that start or end from London Terminals? In which case could you tell me where this is documented?

Thanks to the guy who linked to that pdf with page 43/44 in - most useful.

No problem

 

[AlterEgo]

To the people who dispute that the tickets join at London Terminals, consider this:

I have a Stourbridge Jn - Birmingham Stns ticket, and an Advance between Birmingham Stns and Watford Jn. If my Stourbridge train is late into Moor St, causing me to miss my booked train, does that mean when I cross the road and present myself at New Street, that I'm not covered for the delay?

Bear in mind I can only walk between the two.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

No ticket = no contract. the other day when there was disruption on the EC I'd planned to get a first class open return kgx to waverley. I never actually bought it, but please will you help me claim delay repay, night in a hotel, and air fare. Do you see the point?

London Terminals isn't a place!....

So in your opinion, would I need an Underground ticket to walk from Kings Cross to St Pancras? Would I have to Walk through the Underground station? Or would that allow me to cross the road outside?

If I wouldn't, why would the Op need one from Liverpool St. to Euston? If I do, what service am I being provided?

 

[34D]

So in your opinion, would I need an Underground ticket to walk from Kings Cross to St Pancras? Would I have to Walk through the Underground station? Or would that allow me to cross the road outside?

If I wouldn't, why would the Op need one from Liverpool St. to Euston? If I do, what service am I being provided?

The recognised interchange between KX and STP is walking across the road. The recognised interchange between LST and EUS is tube, for which a ticket is needed.

I think Barry Doe wrote about the issue of continuous tickets needed to 'protect' your through journey - by having a tube/maltese ticket for the cross-London bit, and how getting a taxi etc breaks the chain.

Returning to the question, I still say that the diversionary route wasn't unreasonable. Thered be the opportunity to sleep on the HST etc. Given that he (possibly) doesn't have the required continuity of through journey, this is possibly over and above what was entitled.