Permitted Connecting Times Between Stations

[hollharrington]

Hi all

Does anyone have any knowledge on how many minutes train companies “allow” to make connections between stations? My delay repay is failing as operator is saying I boarded my connecting train (ultimately delayed) quicker than I should have?!

Thanks in advance

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It varies from station to station. Where are we talking about?

 

[hollharrington]

It varies from station to station. Where are we talking about?

London Pad - Stratford
Stratford - Wickford

 

[AlterEgo]

London Pad - Stratford
Stratford - Wickford

How long did you allow between trains? Did you have an itinerary with your ticket?

The minimum connection time at Stratford is 7 minutes.

 

[mangyiscute]

London Pad - Stratford
Stratford - Wickford

Minimum Connection Time at Stratford is 7 mins: https://www.brtimes.com/!board?stn=SRA&date=20260112

This is a situation where I would advise a white lie - say that you got the earlier lizzie line train that meets the greater anglia train you subsequently took outside the minimum connection time.
Moderator note: this should not be attempted; it could be considered fraudulent

I always have an issue going across London - the other day I got into Kings Cross 35 minutes late and I still made the train in my itinerary from Paddington (I had 55 mins to connect across London, and it only took me 20 mins to get there). Do I not deserve any delay repay in this situation, because I did make it to Reading at the intended time. However had we got into London on time, I would've made a train from Paddington 30 mins earlier, so I was effectively 30 mins late.

 

[hollharrington]

Thanks so much for your help!

This is the same problem i face! i am a quick traveller so board trains quicker than they allow but end up getting penalised for it even though the delay i face is real!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2026 ==

Minimum Connection Time at Stratford is 7 mins: https://www.brtimes.com/!board?stn=SRA&date=20260112

This is a situation where I would advise a white lie - say that you got the earlier lizzie line train that meets the greater anglia train you subsequently took outside the minimum connection time.

I always have an issue going across London - the other day I got into Kings Cross 35 minutes late and I still made the train in my itinerary from Paddington (I had 55 mins to connect across London, and it only took me 20 mins to get there). Do I not deserve any delay repay in this situation, because I did make it to Reading at the intended time. However had we got into London on time, I would've made a train from Paddington 30 mins earlier, so I was effectively 30 mins late.

Thanks so much for your help!

This is the same problem i face! i am a quick traveller so board trains quicker than they allow but end up getting penalised for it even though the delay i face is real!

 

[zwk500]

Thanks so much for your help!

This is the same problem i face! i am a quick traveller so board trains quicker than they allow but end up getting penalised for it even though the delay i face is real!

Did you get this offered as an itinerary from a journey planner or similar?

If not then the railway's position is that it never offered you the faster journey, and that it only offered to get you to Wickford on the next train. Claiming compensation from the railway for a journey they never offered is understandably a hard pitch.

 

[Haywain]

This is the same problem i face! i am a quick traveller so board trains quicker than they allow but end up getting penalised for it even though the delay i face is real!

In the view of the railway they have got you to your destination in the time they will advise as possible. Therefore they have not delayed you and you have no right to compensation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is the same problem i face! i am a quick traveller so board trains quicker than they allow but end up getting penalised for it even though the delay i face is real!

The itinerary is what the railway agrees is the time it will take for them to get you from your origin to your destination.

If you make an interchange quicker than that on the itinerary, you have not been delayed. And if you have not been delayed, you are not eligible for Delay Repay.

This is a situation where I would advise a white lie - say that you got the earlier lizzie line train that meets the greater anglia train you subsequently took outside the minimum connection time.

That is, quite simply, fraud.

 

[fandroid]

I just see it as a bonus. There are interchanges where it's possible to make extremely tight connections which can save a lot of time. Knowledge, preparation (and flexible tickets!) are the thing.

 

[dastocks]

In this case I would have thought it's quite simple: the Stratford=>Wickford train was delayed so you claim for that delay. They don't need to know how you got to Stratford.

This is how it worked for me on a few delayed journeys between Brighton and Manchester. I don't think I ever followed the itinerary offered when I booked the tickets, there being a number of ways to cross London for this journey. In at least one case I had caught a previous train from Euston which wasn't the one I had the seat reservation for. There were no problems with any of claims, which were settled against the full value of the ticket(s), not just the Euston=>Manchester legs that were delayed.

Obviously, if there is more than one train and the delay means you miss a connection things are more complicated and you would have to go into finer detail to justify the claim. I don't think you could ever claim Delay Repay against TfL because of a problem on London Underground, but I'm sure there is someone here who knows the rules better than me.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In this case I would have thought it's quite simple: the Stratford=>Wickford train was delayed so you claim for that delay. They don't need to know how you got to Stratford.

That is also, quite simply, fraud.

Delay Repay is specifically to be paid on the delay for your entire journey, not cherry-picked parts of it.

 

[mangyiscute]

I don't think you could ever claim Delay Repay against TfL because of a problem on London Underground, but I'm sure there is someone here who knows the rules better than me.

TFL offer some sort of compensation if your tube is delayed over 30 mins, but I dunno how it works with connecting services, and whether this may change for the lizzie line or overground since those are national rail.

 

[blueberry11]

TFL offer some sort of compensation if your tube is delayed over 30 mins, but I dunno how it works with connecting services, and whether this may change for the lizzie line or overground since those are national rail.

Keep in mind TfL only do so when it comes to situations under their control. So this means that if its delayed due to (for example) weather conditions, then I'm afraid no compensation is available. This is unlike the main NR network where you can get compensation even if the delay is not their fault.

 

[Watershed]

Keep in mind TfL only do so when it comes to situations under their control. So this means that if its delayed due to (for example) weather conditions, then I'm afraid no compensation is available. This is unlike the main NR network where you can get compensation even if the delay is not their fault.

The threshold for TfL's Service Delay Refund policy is 15 mins for Tube & DLR journeys and 30 minutes for Overground & Elizabeth line journeys.

A reduced amount of compensation (50%) is available regardless of 'fault'/cause for 60+ minute delays on the Overground & Elizabeth line as per NRCoT condition 32.1.

 

[redreni]

This idea that you cannot choose how you define the journey you were making at the time you were delayed isn't actually supported, in my view, by the NRCoT.

The NRCoT doesn't define "journey". If you hold a flexible ticket without break of journey restrictions, then you might be making partial use of your ticket and so the journey you were making at the time you were delayed may be one of several separate journeys you made, or intended to make, using that ticket.

This may be controversial, but given the extreme padding in the London MCTs and cross-London transfer times, it would be very much in most passengers' interests to define their travel either side of a London terminal as separate journeys.

Consider a passenger who buys a flexible ticket from Crayford to Manchester Stations, gets to Euston in time for the 18:00 (albeit by making unofficial connections), boards the train at Euston before its scheduled departure time and then sits on the train as it picks up a 30 minute delay between Euston and Manchester Piccadilly. The idea the delay doesn't count because you weren't slow enough through London, is just not what the NRCoT says. It sets out an entitlement to compensation "if you are delayed in reaching your destination as a result of a delay or cancellation of
a train service."

To meet that condition, you have to show that if a particular train that you used or intended to use had not been delayed or cancelled, according to the timetable you would have arrived at least X minutes earlier than you did (where X is the TOC's delay threshold). There is absolutely nothing to say you can't take the view that Crayford to Euston was one journey and Euston to Manchester was another journey.

It is also fanciful to describe a claim submitted on that basis as "fraudulent", when the railway hasn't defined the term "journey".

Unless I'm missing something? Where does it say you can't opt to begin a new journey whenever you find yourself at a station before the MCT from your previous journey has elapsed?

Edit: Just to add, I'm not disagreeing with those posters who have advised the OP against attempting to resubmit her claim with revised journey details. Once you've defined your journey by submitting a claim, I do agree that if you then start tweaking it on appeal in order to try to get them to pay, that is potentially going to get you in trouble, maybe rightly so in some cases.

 

[tumbledown]

There is absolutely nothing to say you can't take the view that Crayford to Euston was one journey and Euston to Manchester was another journey.

Yes there is: the fact that the ticket says "Crayford to Manchester Stns".

 

[redreni]

Yes there is: the fact that the ticket says "Crayford to Manchester Stns".

You might live in Crayford, work in central London and need to go to Manchester after work. Nothing at all to stop you making a journey from Crayford to City Thameslink, breaking your journey there, walking to the office, walking to Euston after work, then travelling to Manchester.

Do you still think it's one journey?

There is no requirement for the journey claimed for to match the ticket, only for the ticket to cover the journey.

 

[tumbledown]

Do you still think it's one journey?

Absolutely. If you are claiming compensation with respect to the amount payed for a ticket or tickets, the journey must be that stated on the ticket or tickets.

You will need to state the scheduled departure time of the train or trains you intended to use for your journey and provide a Ticket or Tickets or other authority to travel which was valid for that whole journey....Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination station, as compared to the arrival time shown in the timetable in place on the day that you travel.

It would be a nonsense to allow you to pick and choose where the journey starts and finishes to maximise compensation.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I do appreciate the point redreni is making.

Absolutely. If you are claiming compensation with respect to the amount payed for a ticket or tickets, the journey must be that stated on the ticket or tickets.

It would be a nonsense to allow you to pick and choose where the journey starts and finishes to maximise compensation.

I disagree - specifically regarding the bit in bold.

For a journey I often make, in the case of delay repay I'm faced with a different - but not unrelated - scenario.

I make a journey from A-B, but use a return ticket for A-C valid via B (the ticket is cheaper). Most of the time I don't then make use the B-C validity.
If there is a delay on say my return journey from B to A, I claim for that - the alternative would be to invent a hypothetical delayed journey from C to A (via B)... I'm not doing that.

The delay repay gets paid without fuss.

The other issue of course would be if attempting to make such a claim alerted the TOC to the existence of such a fare anomaly... but in this case it's long established and pretty well known about.

 

[blimmo]

. If you are claiming compensation with respect to the amount payed for a ticket or tickets, the journey must be that stated on the ticket or tickets.

Absolutely not. The UK rail ticketing system has a long established principle that you can make journeys that are more complicated than just between the stations named on the ticket (except when explicitly prohibited such as on advances but even then the journey can still be longer than on any given ticket if used in combination with another).

The fact that the amount of compensation for delay repay is calculated by reference to the cost of the ticket does not change that the only prerequisite is that the ticket is valid for the journey, not how much of the ticket validity the journey "used".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2026 ==

It would be a nonsense to allow you to pick and choose where the journey starts and finishes to maximise compensation.

The TOCs have failed to properly define journey (in my view the specific question is when your "intended journey" is fixed). Until they do I mostly agree with @redreni. Certainly in the hypothetical before work scenario there can be no claim of fraud.

 

[tumbledown]

I accept that if you only use a ticket valid from A to C via B to travel A-B, then B is your destination and lateness at B relative to your planned arrival time is valid for a claim. If however you merely break your journey at B, continuing to C at a later time after the minimum connection time, C is your destination on that ticket and only lateness at C relative to your planned arrival time is relevant.
If you have split tickets you can of course claim for either separately, or for the combined journey.
That's what I consider to be right and proper.

 

[Tester]

I accept that if you only use a ticket valid from A to C via B to travel A-B, then B is your destination and lateness at B relative to your planned arrival time is valid for a claim. If however you merely break your journey at B, continuing to C at a later time after the minimum connection time, C is your destination on that ticket and only lateness at C relative to your planned arrival time is relevant.
If you have split tickets you can of course claim for either separately, or for the combined journey.
That's what I consider to be right and proper.

It is perfectly reasonable for you to consider things to be right and proper, but others, and the conditions, are not necessarily with you.

 

[Watershed]

I accept that if you only use a ticket valid from A to C via B to travel A-B, then B is your destination and lateness at B relative to your planned arrival time is valid for a claim. If however you merely break your journey at B, continuing to C at a later time after the minimum connection time, C is your destination on that ticket and only lateness at C relative to your planned arrival time is relevant.
If you have split tickets you can of course claim for either separately, or for the combined journey.
That's what I consider to be right and proper.

Ok, but how do you then claim Delay Repay? If you've broken your journey in B, particularly overnight or for multiple nights, you won't be able to input the 'full' journey from A as the trains you took won't appear as an option whichever Delay Repay claim system the TOC uses.

If you're suggesting you should input B to C as your journey when claiming, then how is that any different from @redreni 's suggestion of just entering London to Manchester?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Ok, but how do you then claim Delay Repay? If you've broken your journey in B, particularly overnight or for multiple nights, you won't be able to input the 'full' journey from A as the trains you took won't appear as an option whichever Delay Repay claim system the TOC uses.

If you're suggesting you should input B to C as your journey when claiming, then how is that any different from @redreni 's suggestion of just entering London to Manchester?

But breaking your journey - as permitted by the terms of the ticket you hold - is a whole different kettle of fish than ignoring minimum connection times and claiming for a journey which - in the eyes of the railway - isn't possible, no?

In the OP's instance, they have travelled from A to C and arrived at C earlier than the railway said it would get them there. There's no basis for a claim. If you board a train from X to Z - with a ticket from X to Z - and the train starts off late and is delayed up until Y, but then recovers time and arrives at Z on time, you can't claim that your journey was only X to Y in order to claim delay repay.

 

[zwk500]

But breaking your journey - as permitted by the terms of the ticket you hold - is a whole different kettle of fish than ignoring minimum connection times and claiming for a journey which - in the eyes of the railway - isn't possible, no?

It is indeed. Breaking your journey is explicitly permitted.

16.2 Generally, you may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the Ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. However, this may not be the case with some through services that take an indirect route. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) before the destination shown on the Ticket.

Ignoring minimum connection times is explicitly prohibited:

20. Changing Trains If your journey requires a change of trains, you must allow sufficient time to make your connection when selecting the trains, you wish to use. Train times shown at www.nationalrail.co.uk or on any journey plan provided by a Train Company or Licensed Retailer will allow sufficient time for making your change of trains. You can also ask for advice on this when purchasing your Ticket at a station.

 

[Tester]

Ignoring minimum connection times is explicitly prohibited:

That's not how it reads to me.

'You must allow sufficient time' does not equal 'You are prohibited from travelling on a train departing earlier than the minimum connecting time'.

 

[zwk500]

That's not how it reads to me.

'You must allow sufficient time' does not equal 'You are prohibited from travelling on a train departing earlier than the minimum connecting time'.

It's badly written, I agree (the whole Conditions of Travel document suffers from an 'insider's perspective' throughout, IMO, such as the lack of definition of 'journey') but given that you 'must' do so, there needs to be a precise definition of what 'sufficient' time is. Is there any other dataset than the minimum connection times that could be used?

 

[Tester]

It's badly written, I agree (the whole Conditions of Travel document suffers from an 'insider's perspective' throughout, IMO, such as the lack of definition of 'journey') but given that you 'must' do so, there needs to be a precise definition of what 'sufficient' time is. Is there any other dataset than the minimum connection times that could be used?

You must allow sufficient time

Does not mean

Your ticket is invalid on a train departing before the minimum connecting time has elapsed

 

[redreni]

Condition 20 seems, if anything, to almost compel me to regard myself as making two or three separate journeys, rather than one, if I want to get anywhere within a reasonable time.

Take a commute from Slade Green to City Thameslink, for example. In reality it is always quicker - as long as your ticket permits it e.g. a Travelcard or PAYG - to change at Abbey Wood and Farringdon rather than travel direct. But, according to journey planners, there's often nothing in it. That is because the MCT at Abbey Wood is about 2 minutes longer than a typical commuter needs, and the MCT for Elizabeth Line to Thameslink connections at Farringdon is about 4 maybe 5 minutes longer. So you rarely get any delay repay even if a delay on the Thameslink leg(s) costs you more than 15 minutes.

Obviously the sole reason one might choose to make two changes of train rather than using a direct train in those circumstances is because it is quicker. It's not a case of *hoping* you might be able to make quicker connections than are officially allowed for planning purposes: the tapping history on a commuter's Smartcard would demonstrate beyond any doubt how long the connections take on a regular basis over time. Insofar as Condition 20 is saying a commuter *must* allow more time than they know they need if they regard their commute as one journey within the NRCoT, that is absurd. Realistically, it makes perfect sense to look at journey planner results, see that the journey time from City Thameslink to Slade Green is 48 minutes whereas the journey time from Farringdon to Abbey Wood is only 21 minutes - with separate journeys City Thameslink to Farringdon and Abbey Wood to Slade Green taking 2 minutes and 6 to 10 minutes respectively - and conclude that it is bound to be quicker to make three separate journeys than to make one through journey. Sometimes separate tickets are cheaper than through tickets. Sometimes separate journeys are quicker than through journeys. I agree you can't claim delay repay based on a through journey that doesn't respect the MCTs. All I'm saying is once you are on a train - provided you were at the station in time to catch it assuming it left on time - then any delay to that train may cause a delay to your arrival at your destination. It may also a cause of delay to your journey if you define your journey as starting at the point where you boarded that train, which is not disallowed by the NRCoT.

I accept that's not how TOCs will see it and if you are using an e-ticket or Smartcard, and they see you had made a journey prior to the one you are claiming for, they are likely to consider it all as one journey if that gets them out of paying compensation or lessens the amount they have to pay. Like many things TOCs do, however, I don't think the NRCoT necessarily supports that approach.