Permitted Connecting Times Between Stations

[Watershed]

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?

The problem is that there is no definition of what "break of journey" means.

Is stopping off for a coffee for 5 minutes a break of journey? In some cases it could mean you miss a train you would otherwise have caught. In other cases it could make no difference at all.

Coming back to @redreni 's example, you would exit the National Rail barriers at City Thameslink and enter the Underground barriers (e.g. at Blackfriars, Farringdon etc.) and vice versa at Euston. That happens regardless of how long you have in between. So what makes it a break of journey?

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.

They have ultimately gone from A to C that day, but so has our hypothetical passenger in @redreni 's example. How do you draw a distinction between the two?

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.X

That is rather different as you are staying on the same train throughout. Regardless of the definition you decide that "break of journey" has, I don't think anyone could reasonably say it was possible when you're staying on a train.

 

[Lewisham2221]

The problem is that there is no definition of what "break of journey" means.

Is stopping off for a coffee for 5 minutes a break of journey? In some cases it could mean you miss a train you would otherwise have caught. In other cases it could make no difference at all.

Coming back to @redreni 's example, you would exit the National Rail barriers at City Thameslink and enter the Underground barriers (e.g. at Blackfriars, Farringdon etc.) and vice versa at Euston. That happens regardless of how long you have in between. So what makes it a break of journey?


They have ultimately gone from A to C that day, but so has our hypothetical passenger in @redreni 's example. How do you draw a distinction between the two?


That is rather different as you are staying on the same train throughout. Regardless of the definition you decide that "break of journey" has, I don't think anyone could reasonably say it was possible when you're staying on a train.

It's two completely different scenarios.

If you choose to break your journey (any definition of break of journey is irrelevant in this case) and travel on a later train for the final leg of your journey, but that train arrives on time, you can't claim delay repay - the railway could've got you there earlier, but it was your choice not to and the train you chose to take was not delayed. If that final train was delayed beyond the delay repay threshold, you would of course be entitled to claim.

The OP is trying to claim delay repay for arriving earlier than the railway says is possible. By that argument, someone could finish work at 1700, walk to the station with the intent of catching the 1715. They get to the station and the 1615 is delayed and turns up at 1710. They get on that train, arrive at their destination early but claim delay repay because the train they caught was delayed, even though they weren't. Absolutely not on.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

Journey is not defined by the NRCoT and the legal principle is that, where something is not defined, you start with the ordinary dictionary definition.

I appreciate the point that you are making, and with flexible tickets for cross-London travel it is entirely reasonable that someone would use the one ticket for two journeys: A to London then, after dinner/a show/coffee with a friend, for London to B. Although where that also becomes complicated is if someone chose submit a Delay Repay claim based on the full ticket price for A to B, rather than a pro-rata for amount for either A to London or London to B. That feels a bit too much like having your cake and eating it, to me.

However, that isn't the situation that was raised by the OP. She was making one through journey but, because of the interchange padding for cross-London journeys, was able to catch a train earlier than the one shown on the timetable/itinerary. This train was delayed but she herself was not delayed; she still arrived earlier than the train shown on the timetable/itinerary. Submitting a claim that she was actually making two journeys or that her origin was Stratford would, in my opinion, be fraud by misrepresentation.

The other situation I replied to, "telling a white lie" by saying you caught an earlier train than the one you did, is even more clearly fraud by misrepresentation.

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.

This I disagree with. The NRCoT specifically refers to delays compared to the timetable/itinerary on the day you travelled.

To use your example, say you aim for the (theoretical) 0800 from Slade Green. The itinerary will have you arrive at City Thameslink at 0845 on the direct train or, because of the minimum connection times, at 0855 if you interchange at Abbey Wood and Farringdon. In reality you will normally be able to beat the minimum connection times and normally you would get to City Thameslink at 0839. But you don't have any claim for Delay Repay if, on a particular day, you don't arrive until 0855, as that is when the railway contracted with you as to when they would get you there by.

 

[blimmo]

Although where that also becomes complicated is if someone chose submit a Delay Repay claim based on the full ticket price for A to B, rather than a pro-rata for amount for either A to London or London to B. That feels a bit too much like having your cake and eating it, to me

I agree with this but it appears the TOCs have decided that working out a system to decide a smaller amount of compensation when making journeys that are shorter than the full ticket validity is too difficult and they'd rather just pay the whole value.

 

[AlterEgo]

There really is a massive amount of overthinking that goes on on this forum ahout Delay Repay.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I agree with this but it appears the TOCs have decided that working out a system to decide a smaller amount of compensation when making journeys that are shorter than the full ticket validity is too difficult and they'd rather just pay the whole value.

Yeah, much of it is automated and they just pay out based on what the computer says. Sometimes it says yes when it should say no, sometimes it says no when it should say yes.

But if they look back at it, as this recent thread in disputes shows, then you will have awkward questions to answer if you have perhaps bent the truth.

 

[The exile]

Possibly another bit of overthinking but how would this play out: Travelling on a fully flexible ticket from A to C changing at B where there is a minimum connecting time of 5 minutes. I manage to catch an earlier train from B to C as it’s a cross-platform interchange which takes me all of 30 seconds. Incident then occurs delaying the train I am on by 1 hour and I arrive at C 45 minutes later than had I waited for the official connection which was unaffected. DR or no DR?

 

[Haywain]

I arrive at C 45 minutes later than had I waited for the official connection which was unaffected. DR or no DR?

It's a delay compared to your original itinerary and the time the railway advertised it would get you to your destination, so there is a clear DR claim.

 

[bcarmicle]

Possibly another bit of overthinking but how would this play out: Travelling on a fully flexible ticket from A to C changing at B where there is a minimum connecting time of 5 minutes. I manage to catch an earlier train from B to C as it’s a cross-platform interchange which takes me all of 30 seconds. Incident then occurs delaying the train I am on by 1 hour and I arrive at C 45 minutes later than had I waited for the official connection which was unaffected. DR or no DR?

I think it would be legitimate to make a claim as you were in fact delayed compared to both the official and actual itineraries, but I would expect the claim to be refused in the first instance.

 

[redreni]

The NRCoT specifically refers to delays compared to the timetable/itinerary on the day you travelled.

To use your example, say you aim for the (theoretical) 0800 from Slade Green. The itinerary will have you arrive at City Thameslink at 0845 on the direct train or, because of the minimum connection times, at 0855 if you interchange at Abbey Wood and Farringdon. In reality you will normally be able to beat the minimum connection times and normally you would get to City Thameslink at 0839. But you don't have any claim for Delay Repay if, on a particular day, you don't arrive until 0855, as that is when the railway contracted with you as to when they would get you there by.

Agreed, but it depends what stations you put in the "from" and "to" fields. By the way, I have, in the past, claimed for a journey from Tottenham Court Road to Slade Green where the delay occurred on the Abbey Wood to Slade Green leg (caused by Thameslink cancelling a train). I ended up submitting a paper claim because Thameslink's online delay repay form won't accept Tottenham Court Road as an origin. They specifically told me I should have entered Abbey Wood as my origin, despite the fact I had made it clear to them I was making a through journey from Tottenham Court Road. I should be clear that, on that occasion, the delay was 15-29 minutes irrespective of whether you consider the through journey or just the final Abbey Wood to Slade Green leg, but the point is, GTR obviously think it's okay to cherry pick the delayed part of the journey and I have an email from them that proves it.

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

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

To try to get this thread back on track, for future reference, if you ever need to know what the minimum connection times are in future, an easy way to check is on brtimes.com. Enter the name of the station, select "station info" and click search. It will tell you the minimum connection time (MCT) for connections at the station and will also tell you about "fixed links" to other stations (minimum times needed for recognised transfers that can be made on foot or by tube).

Don't expect logic or consistency: the amount of time you have to allow when crossing London is often padded to the point of being faintly ridiculous (since the fixed link minimum times and the MCTs for both stations must all be added together). At the same time, some are actually a bit too short (e.g. connecting from Whitechapel Elizabeth Line to Fenchurch Street via the Tube is 5 minutes transfer time plus 5 minutes for the connection at Whitechapel and 7 minutes for the connection at Fenchurch St - giving an optimistic 17 minutes).

 

[blimmo]

Yeah, much of it is automated and they just pay out based on what the computer says. Sometimes it says yes when it should say no, sometimes it says no when it should say yes.

But if they look back at it, as this recent thread in disputes shows, then you will have awkward questions to answer if you have perhaps bent the truth.

What is mean is they could write some rules that determine a smaller amount of compensation for journeys that don't use the entire ticket. They haven't because they can't be bothered so claiming for the full value for a journey that doesn't use the full value is entirely legitimate even though it does seem a bit silly.

 

[agk2126]

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

Does it, however, mean that your Delay Repay claim is invalid if (a) you experience a delay on a train departing before the minimum connection time has elapsed, (b) you still reach your final destination within 15 minutes of the scheduled arrival of the first train after the minimum connection time, and (c) you submit a Delay Repay claim for the entire journey from start to finish, not just the delayed segment?

Seems entirely valid, if you hold valid tickets for A-B and B-C and catch an earlier-than-minimum B-C train, to claim Delay Repay for B-C against the fare subtotal for that segment. Not for A-C.

 

[redreni]

What is mean is they could write some rules that determine a smaller amount of compensation for journeys that don't use the entire ticket. They haven't because they can't be bothered so claiming for the full value for a journey that doesn't use the full value is entirely legitimate even though it does seem a bit silly.

It sometimes seems silly. Other times not at all. It depends how short the journey claimed for is compared to a ticket between the stations travelled from and to, and how much cheaper a ticket covering only the journey made would have been. Sometimes, a ticket covering only the journey made would be more expensive than the over-distance ticket held (which may or may not be the only reason the person holds a ticket that would cover a longer journey), in which case paying based on the full value of the ticket held is entirely reasonable.

 

[Tester]

Does it, however, mean that your Delay Repay claim is invalid if (a) you experience a delay on a train departing before the minimum connection time has elapsed, (b) you still reach your final destination within 15 minutes of the scheduled arrival of the first train after the minimum connection time, and (c) you submit a Delay Repay claim for the entire journey from start to finish, not just the delayed segment?

Seems entirely valid, if you hold valid tickets for A-B and B-C and catch an earlier-than-minimum B-C train, to claim Delay Repay for B-C against the fare subtotal for that segment. Not for A-C.

Absolutely so - an entirely separate matter.

 

[mangyiscute]

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

If i'm transferring through London day from King's Cross to Paddington, i will intend to take a train about 20-25 mins after my train gets into Kings Cross. My flexible ticket is valid for that whole journey.

I know what times the tubes are at, and the tube journey is only 10 minutes running every 5 mins. With 2-3 mins to run either end if necessary, 20 mins is to be expected every time.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Absolutely so - an entirely separate matter.

Sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I guess some people just have a broken moral compass.

Presumably if the A-B train was delayed by 5 minutes, but this caused you miss the B-C train and thus you have to catch a later train - which runs in time- and you arrive at C 15+ minutes late than originally, you wouldn't dream of making a claim because both trains were delayed below the threshold and you hold split tickets so you were counting them as separate journeys? Of course, such a claim would be perfectly valid, as split tickets for a through journey a treated as a complete ticket in that sense. Suddenly deciding you want to treat it as two separate tickets for two separate journeys to try and game the system is just plain dishonest IMHO.

 

[agk2126]

There really is a massive amount of overthinking that goes on on this forum about Delay Repay.

Yes, in no small part due to highly ambiguous Delay Repay rules and exceptions.

My own simplified interpretation is that if I (a) am on a delayed train, or (b) take the next possible permitted train (taking into account applicable route restrictions) following a cancellation, then I'm eligible for Delay Repay against the fare for the affected segment. Minimum connection times are irrelevant here.

Connection times become relevant if I'm trying to claim Delay Repay for the value of one or more previous segments that operated on time, or with fewer than 15 mins delay. If the previous segments were on time and I catch a different onward service than offered in trip planners, then I can't claim Delay Repay against the price of the segments prior to the one delayed.

 

[redreni]

Sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I guess some people just have a broken moral compass.

Presumably if the A-B train was delayed by 5 minutes, but this caused you miss the B-C train and thus you have to catch a later train - which runs in time- and you arrive at C 15+ minutes late than originally, you wouldn't dream of making a claim because both trains were delayed below the threshold and you hold split tickets so you were counting them as separate journeys? Of course, such a claim would be perfectly valid, as split tickets for a through journey a treated as a complete ticket in that sense. Suddenly deciding you want to treat it as two separate tickets for two separate journeys to try and game the system is just plain dishonest IMHO.

Is it a moral failing when certain TOCs bend over backwards to find anti-passenger interpretations of rules, often in direct contradiction to the way they have applied the same rule previously when it was convenient for them? Should they be expected to interpret the rules consistently?

Or is being consistent even when it's inconvenient for us a moral obligation you place only on the non-drafting party to the contract, who must accept whatever badly written rules the railway decides to invent and implement without even consulting adequately within the industry, let alone more widely?

I have no objection if you have a moral compulsion to only claim for certain delays. I can see the logic in the suggestion that you need to decide before you start travelling whether you're making one through journey or a series of separate ones. It seems a bit much to accuse those who are reluctant to guarantee that they will always adhere to a standard that is not required of us, and not consistently achieved by the TOCs, of having a broken moral compass, though.

 

[Tester]

Sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I guess some people just have a broken moral compass.

Presumably if the A-B train was delayed by 5 minutes, but this caused you miss the B-C train and thus you have to catch a later train - which runs in time- and you arrive at C 15+ minutes late than originally, you wouldn't dream of making a claim because both trains were delayed below the threshold and you hold split tickets so you were counting them as separate journeys? Of course, such a claim would be perfectly valid, as split tickets for a through journey a treated as a complete ticket in that sense. Suddenly deciding you want to treat it as two separate tickets for two separate journeys to try and game the system is just plain dishonest IMHO.

I would recommend you to be a little circumspect with your allegations of 'broken moral compass'.

The two issues are:

1. Can you claim delay repay for a through journey which fails the minimum connecting time - answer no.

2. Can you make a through journey which fails the minimum connecting time - answer yes.

Quite how that becomes having cake and eating it escapes me.

An apology would be appropriate.

Whether you choose to give such an apology depends on your moral compass I guess

 

[sot]

I personally think GTR are overt in their attempts at trying to refuse DR in these cases whereas some other TOCs are happy for you to have a claim where you broke the MCT but have proof of your 'unofficial' connection being made.

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

Sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I guess some people just have a broken moral compass.

The same argument could be held against the TOC involved.

I have seen GTR claims be denied for not meeting the official MCT, despite being offered as an itinerary on NRE using its "Allow less time to cross London' feature.

I have then seen them decline for being a couple of minutes over MCT with passengers that may require more time to navigate between stations saying that your delay should have been this and you should have caught the MCT/MCT+1minute train, so tough no DR.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I would recommend you to be a little circumspect with your allegations of 'broken moral compass'.

The two issues are:

1. Can you claim delay repay for a through journey which fails the minimum connecting time - answer no.

2. Can you make a through journey which fails the minimum connecting time - answer yes.

Quite how that becomes having cake and eating it escapes me.

An apology would be appropriate.

Whether you choose to give such an apology depends on your moral compass I guess

My apologies if I have misunderstood your post.

I thought that you were suggesting that "1. Can you claim delay repay for a through journey which fails the minimum connecting time - answer no." would be "answer = yes, if you hold split tickets and can claim that A to B and B to C are separate journeys", which is how I interpreted the post you were responding to. If that's not the case, then yes, I do indeed apologise.

 

[sheff1]

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.

Someone arrives at Stratford and sees a train advertised to Wickford at xxxx with an advertised arrival time of yyyy. Clearly the railway is offering that train to someone wishing to travel to Wickford.
The passenger boards the train before xxxx, but it is delayed en route and arrives in Wickford at yyyy+20.

It is irrelevant what the person did before they got to Stratford, they got there before the time being advertised on the departure screen and their ticket was valid on that train. After boarding the offered train the railway failed to get them Wickford at the advertised time and the delay was over the Delay Repay threshold. I see no grounds for refusing DR compensation.

 

[dastocks]

Connection times become relevant if I'm trying to claim Delay Repay for the value of one or more previous segments that operated on time, or with fewer than 15 mins delay. If the previous segments were on time and I catch a different onward service than offered in trip planners, then I can't claim Delay Repay against the price of the segments prior to the one delayed.

In the case I had above (Brighton=>Manchester, Euston=>Manchester delayed) it would be impossible to work out a price for the previous segments because there is no combination of tickets that would offer the same validity and add up to the face value of the ticket I held.

It gets even sillier when you consider cancellations: for a return journey back to Brighton I was checking the live running information on my 'phone and noticed that my planned train was cancelled. I left the office early and caught an earlier train. So:
- I (or my employer, who was paying for all this) had clearly suffered a loss.
- I held a seat reservation that showed a clear intention to travel on the cancelled train.

I didn't put in a claim on the basis of travelling on the next train that ran after the cancellation, but I think I really should be able to.

 

[redreni]

My apologies if I have misunderstood your post.

I thought that you were suggesting that "1. Can you claim delay repay for a through journey which fails the minimum connecting time - answer no." would be "answer = yes, if you hold split tickets and can claim that A to B and B to C are separate journeys", which is how I interpreted the post you were responding to. If that's not the case, then yes, I do indeed apologise.

The answer may be that if it's two separate journeys then it's not a through journey.

If it is a through journey where the connection fails the MCT, then it cannot form the basis of a valid delay repay claim.

If it's two separate journeys, MCTs don't enter into it as each journey is direct. You just have to be there in time for the intended train you're claiming against, in each case.

Just as it would be if you make a rail journey A to B, then cycle or take a bus or get a lift to C and make a second journey to D. If you can get to C in time for a given train, then you can claim delay repay against that train if it is delayed or cancelled. If you don't manage to get there in time, you can't. The test is not what the railway deems feasible for planning purposes, but simply whether you get there in time.

 

[sot]

I tend to find TOCs require more prodding to do DR when the 'journey' isn't the same origin and destination of the ticket.

I imagine they don't like it as it may increase their liabilities heavily, especially on a slightly convoluted journey, for example what would be only a £7.00 leg being undertaken on part of a broken journey with a £100 ticket say.

The answer may be that if it's two separate journeys then it's not a through journey.

If it is a through journey where the connection fails the MCT, then it cannot form the basis of a valid delay repay claim.

If it's two separate journeys, MCTs don't enter into it as each journey is direct. You just have to be there in time for the intended train you're claiming against, in each case.

Just as it would be if you make a rail journey A to B, then cycle or take a bus or get a lift to C and make a second journey to D. If you can get to C in time for a given train, then you can claim delay repay against that train if it is delayed or cancelled. If you don't manage to get there in time, you can't. The test is not what the railway deems feasible for planning purposes, but simply whether you get there in time.

I see no issue in these cases.

Intention to do A-B cross London C-D (or maybe in more locations as changing trains in place of cross London).

Intention for A-D with some given (MCT) arrival time.

Maybe get to B early allowing quick change to C or the MCT is 'too long' between B and C.

Upon arrival at C and noticing earlier arrival available the original itinerary is abandoned.

New intention and itinerary is to travel C to D at new time.

At which time this supposedly faster train incurs say 30 minutes delay.

Claim C-D, 30 minutes delay.

What would be fraudulent is to say A-D 30 delay.

However some TOC will not imediately pay on this C-D submission due to the origin and destination mismatch. Also there is no pro-rata-ing of the compensation thus financially the TOC will end up effectively paying the same as the fraudulent A-D claim.

Perhaps this is why some people may feel it is 'easier' to enter the fraudulent claim as the end result for both parties is identical (maybe internally the TOC's compensation for Network rail caused delays could be argued to be attributed differently). With the passenger getting their compensation quicker due to the lack of having to push back, resubmit and fight with customer services due to their origin and destination mismatch.

 

[Lewisham2221]

The answer may be that if it's two separate journeys then it's not a through journey.

If it is a through journey where the connection fails the MCT, then it cannot form the basis of a valid delay repay claim.

If it's two separate journeys, MCTs don't enter into it as each journey is direct. You just have to be there in time for the intended train you're claiming against, in each case.

Just as it would be if you make a rail journey A to B, then cycle or take a bus or get a lift to C and make a second journey to D. If you can get to C in time for a given train, then you can claim delay repay against that train if it is delayed or cancelled. If you don't manage to get there in time, you can't. The test is not what the railway deems feasible for planning purposes, but simply whether you get there in time.

If it's genuinely two separate journeys, then yes.

I suppose the only person who can make that call is the person making the journey(s).

That's me done on the matter anyway, I think I've made it clear where I stand on the matter - if you're genuinely delayed then by all means put in a claim; if you arrive earlier than any itinerary would've suggested, don't.

 

[sot]

Each situation needs to be treated on its merits.

What about this hypothetical scenario?
Original intention Manchester to Euston, meeting friend at Rugby.

1) Leave Manchester

2) Rugby friend is delayed not due to any railway issues, e.g. woke up late. You alight at Rugby

3) Friend turns up, you continue travel, held up on the way arrive Euston +29 to this trains arrival time, some.+89 to original itinerary.

Surely at 2) you abandon the original intention of travel and commence a new one from Rugby only?

I would see no moral issues with my intent to travel Rugby to Euston, with a delay of +29 minutes. If this second train was on time I would be 1 hour late to my original timings but I delayed myself. But that part was abandoned anyway.

 

[DelW]

I seem to be in a situation where I can't claim for an actual delay, because of the excessive cross-London time allowance.

My first train arrived at Euston on time. I made a quick connection to Waterloo, as (i) I know the route well and (ii) a Northern Line train arrived as I reached the platform, so I was at Waterloo within 20 minutes, in good time for the 16.00 departure, which I boarded. Unfortunately because of earlier disruption, it didn't leave until around 16.40, by which time I and many others were squeezed onto a very overcrowded 16.30, which left only a minute or two late. Because of additional and protracted station stops, I didn't arrive at my home station until about 40 minutes later than the 16.00 should have got me there.

But if I submit my full itinerary, the long EUS - WAT allowance means the 16.30 is shown as my first available train, so it shows me as only 10 minutes late (just due to the station delays) and no DR due. Since I'd made the transfer in good time and was actually aboard the 16.00 when it failed to depart, why shouldn't I be allowed to claim for the 40 minute late arrival home?

 

[saismee]

The problem is that there is no definition of what "break of journey" means.

And to make it more ambiguous, some gatelines are extremely strict on BoJ restrictions on tickets. Making a 30-minute connection? Sorry, you have to wait inside the station. At my gateline we get people show up with advances with long connection times (or delays) and we let them all out to smoke or buy food. I think restricting people from leaving because they stopped short on their journey is ridiculous... even restricting starting short I think is jobsworth-y IMO.

It always amuses me when someone asks to "break my journey" because it sounds so much more technical than "popping out for a vape". As long as someone has a valid ticket which passes through the station, they can leave. It's only entering the station where we look closely at restrictions.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

Someone arrives at Stratford and sees a train advertised to Wickford at xxxx with an advertised arrival time of yyyy. Clearly the railway is offering that train to someone wishing to travel to Wickford.
The passenger boards the train before xxxx, but it is delayed en route and arrives in Wickford at yyyy+20.

It is irrelevant what the person did before they got to Stratford, they got there before the time being advertised on the departure screen and their ticket was valid on that train. After boarding the offered train the railway failed to get them Wickford at the advertised time and the delay was over the Delay Repay threshold. I see no grounds for refusing DR compensation.

I agree. In effect the TOC is inventing a rule that along the lines "If you leave Paddington on the 1100 then you immediately lose any right to Delay Repay if you catch a connection from Stratford before 1145". A flexible ticket with Delay Repay rights shouldn't become a flexible ticket without those rights just because you know where to go and walk a bit faster than than the Minimum Connection Time assumes.