Proposal to remove 15 Minute Delay Repay - what could be done instead?

[Bletchleyite]

Separating this off from the main thread as that isn't speculative.

What does, let's say, £10-15m (not a fortune btw) buy you in that respect?

Small but beneficial things like cross TOC acceptance by default in the event of a cancellation or longer delay? (Once it's all GBR that costs a princely £0)? And the right to travel earlier if a connection appears at the time of the previous train to be likely to miss on an Advance?

Adopting the SWR "book your own taxi" policy across the UK? (Not sure what that would cost, more than £0, but it seems very effective)?

Not declaring "do not travel" in the event of relatively minor issues?

Your Advance becomes an Anytime Day Single automatically in the event of a cancellation, likely missed connection, or posted delay in excess of 15 minutes even where it drops back down again later? (Certainly with regard to cancellation this is what DB does).

Not just a refund in the case of disruption meaning you don't travel, but also the right to rebook at zero cost to a future date? (A refund is often a poisoned chalice if next weekend is much costlier). Budget airlines offer this!

Personally I'd quite happily bin off all Delay Repay if my rights in disruption were much stronger. And most of these improved rights (bar the taxi one) would cost either nothing or very little.

 

[35B]

Separating this off from the main thread as that isn't speculative.



Small but beneficial things like cross TOC acceptance by default in the event of a cancellation or longer delay? (Once it's all GBR that costs a princely £0)? And the right to travel earlier if a connection appears at the time of the previous train to be likely to miss on an Advance?

Adopting the SWR "book your own taxi" policy across the UK? (Not sure what that would cost, more than £0, but it seems very effective)?

Not declaring "do not travel" in the event of relatively minor issues?

Your Advance becomes an Anytime Day Single automatically in the event of a cancellation, likely missed connection, or posted delay in excess of 15 minutes even where it drops back down again later? (Certainly with regard to cancellation this is what DB does).

Not just a refund in the case of disruption meaning you don't travel, but also the right to rebook at zero cost to a future date? (A refund is often a poisoned chalice if next weekend is much costlier). Budget airlines offer this!

Personally I'd quite happily bin off all Delay Repay if my rights in disruption were much stronger.

I was at St Pancras yesterday evening. The queuing was a nightmare, and plenty of people missed trains because there simply wasn't capacity - Sheffield trains were being closed for boarding 10-15 minutes before departure.

Granting rights that can't be delivered is meaningless. If I'd been delayed on an itinerary, Delay Repay would acknowledge my actual issue - not provide a fix for the future that may be completely irrelevant.

 

[AlterEgo]

Small but beneficial things like cross TOC acceptance by default in the event of a cancellation or longer delay? (Once it's all GBR that costs a princely £0)?

That could be delivered for nothing already, but as you say the direction of travel is that this will cost zero anyway as this issue evaporates.

And the right to travel earlier if a connection appears at the time of the previous train to be likely to miss on an Advance?

That could be delivered for nothing already.

Adopting the SWR "book your own taxi" policy across the UK? (Not sure what that would cost, more than £0, but it seems very effective).

Now I agree this would be good, but that's in severe disruption, and that is, in essence, already the law when the TOC cannot move you by train or other comparable means. They should really be providing the transport themselves, and this policy only exists because it can be impractical to source buses and taxis for 5,000 people all at once.

Personally I'd quite happily bin off all Delay Repay if my rights in disruption were much stronger.

You do actually have quite a lot of rights in disruption, they are just not actually delivered by TOCs, who routinely have selective amnesia about the law (like PRO).

Elsewhere other rights have been set light to in recent NRCoT changes. Removal of post facto refunds, hideous Timetable of the Day nonsense (sorry you need to stay up until 10pm to see if your train is cancelled, lol, no recourse if it gets cancelled a few minutes before then), widened scope of when a ticket is invalid so Penalty Fare applies, etc etc. What's been bought with all these savings?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now I agree this would be good, but that's in severe disruption, and that is, in essence, already the law when the TOC cannot move you by train or other comparable means. They should really be providing the transport themselves, and this policy only exists because it can be impractical to source buses and taxis for 5,000 people all at once.

Yes and no. I think the way taxis work has changed, it is now much easier for a passenger to book an Uber than it is for the TOC to arrange one. The downside is that the taxis are used less efficiently, with only one travelling group in each. But I think overall if you give passengers the ability to get themselves out of trouble (and thus out of the way) and you guarantee in writing their right to reimbursement (not "write to customer services and we'll think about it") then that is probably the best option. That way you've just massively reduced the number of inevitably angry people your staff have to deal with.

It's true of air travel too. Once upon a time one in the event of a cancellation had to join a queue of 500 other people to be told when you got there that they were struggling to get hotels. Now you pull your phone out, quickly rebook your flight then fire up booking.com (other booking sites are available) and find something yourself, stick it on your card and can be reassured it will be paid as you have an absolute legal right to it and that right is clearly known (so if it came to using the Small Claims Track you *would* win). And the airport staff have to deal with maybe 50 people rather than 500. Benefits all round.

 

[cactustwirly]

Yes and no. I think the way taxis work has changed, it is now much easier for a passenger to book an Uber than it is for the TOC to arrange one. The downside is that the taxis are used less efficiently, with only one travelling group in each. But I think overall if you give passengers the ability to get themselves out of trouble (and thus out of the way) and you guarantee in writing their right to reimbursement (not "write to customer services and we'll think about it") then that is probably the best option. That way you've just massively reduced the number of inevitably angry people your staff have to deal with.

It's true of air travel too. Once upon a time one in the event of a cancellation had to join a queue of 500 other people to be told when you got there that they were struggling to get hotels. Now you pull your phone out, quickly rebook your flight then fire up booking.com (other booking sites are available) and find something yourself, stick it on your card and can be reassured it will be paid as you have an absolute legal right to it and that right is clearly known (so if it came to using the Small Claims Track you *would* win). And the airport staff have to deal with maybe 50 people rather than 500. Benefits all round.

Only in big cities

Uber is very patchy otherwise - try booking an Uber from somewhere Reading (you will be waiting a very long time...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was at St Pancras yesterday evening. The queuing was a nightmare, and plenty of people missed trains because there simply wasn't capacity - Sheffield trains were being closed for boarding 10-15 minutes before departure.

Granting rights that can't be delivered is meaningless. If I'd been delayed on an itinerary, Delay Repay would acknowledge my actual issue - not provide a fix for the future that may be completely irrelevant.

I've popped that out into another thread as it's a bit of a different issue specifically relating to LNER's poor planning:

Avoiding the MML overcrowding during planned ECML disruption?

I was at St Pancras yesterday evening. The queuing was a nightmare, and plenty of people missed trains because there simply wasn't capacity - Sheffield trains were being closed for boarding 10-15 minutes before departure. Granting rights that can't be delivered is meaningless. If I'd been...

www.railforums.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

Here's one I forgot. Change the actual (not published) thresholds from 30, 60 and 120 minutes to 27, 57 and 117 minutes.

Why? Because it makes the railway look unbelievably petty when claims are denied because of a cancelled half hourly service, which means that de-facto the passenger is delayed by 30 minutes, because the following half hour's service shows as arriving at the terminus one or two minutes early due to excessive recovery time padding. Because if that service did, so would the cancelled one have done, so the actual delay IS 30 minutes.

I did actually get one paid on appeal when I pointed this out, but changing the actual thresholds (but still publicising them as being 30/60/120) would remove this absolute trite nonsense.

Actually, to be honest, I'd bin the 120 minute one entirely. It's hardly ever reached, and it's unfair to holders of return journeys booked as single tickets that they don't get it. Much simpler to always base it on single journeys even if a return ticket is used. If you wanted to do something more for very severe delays, you could do something like "free refund plus e-voucher for a free Advance Single journey up to a certain value" or something like that regardless of ticket held.

 

[Belperpete]

It is much easier to book an Uber, provided that you are lucky enough to live in those few places where Uber operates. I think that trying to book a taxi from say Pwllheli to Shrewsbury, or Blaenau Ffestiniog to Llandudno, at short notice could be more problematic - particularly if you are the last to know about the cancellation, and other people have already booked those available. My concern is that SWR seem to be using their "book your own" policy to get out of doing that themselves. That may work in places like Woking, but won't work in Whatstandwell.

 

[AlterEgo]

Here's one I forgot. Change the actual (not published) thresholds from 30, 60 and 120 minutes to 27, 57 and 117 minutes.

I've mentioned before but back in the Good Old Days at Virgin West Coast, the thresholds were something like 28/58 to cater for trains managing to arrive one minute early. To be honest if something came in at 56 minutes or whatever, most agents would just have a quick check of the train running data and could use some discretion (pay delay repay and then add top-up ex-gratia comp to threshold).

Actually, to be honest, I'd bin the 120 minute one entirely. It's hardly ever reached, and it's unfair to holders of return journeys booked as single tickets that they don't get it. Much simpler to always base it on single journeys even if a return ticket is used. If you wanted to do something more for very severe delays, you could do something like "free refund plus e-voucher for a free Advance Single journey up to a certain value" or something like that regardless of ticket held.

Very severe trains (over 2 hours stationary, incident train at a fatality etc) were Code Red trains at Virgin and XC; details were taken by staff on board and handed in a job lot to customer relations, who would offer additional compo - as you say, often this was DR comp plus a free ticket, or a voucher code, or some other gesture. I like to think this still happens.

 

[blimmo]

Why? Because it makes the railway look unbelievably petty when claims are denied because of a cancelled half hourly service, which means that de-facto the passenger is delayed by 30 minutes, because the following half hour's service shows as arriving at the terminus one or two minutes early due to excessive recovery time padding. Because if that service did, so would the cancelled one have done, so the actual delay IS 30 minutes.

This more frequently occurs for me when connecting into an hourly service (likely if your destination isn't on a main line). If you miss the connection you're officially delayed by 59 mins but ofc the small branch line was always going to be 1 min early.

 

[Belperpete]

Actually, to be honest, I'd bin the 120 minute one entirely. It's hardly ever reached, and it's unfair to holders of return journeys booked as single tickets that they don't get it. Much simpler to always base it on single journeys even if a return ticket is used. If you wanted to do something more for very severe delays, you could do something like "free refund plus e-voucher for a free Advance Single journey up to a certain value" or something like that regardless of ticket held.

You may not use DR120 much, but as someone who lives somewhere where the trains only run every 2 or 3 hours, I use it quite a lot. The longer the delay, the more important that DR is paid. Personally, I would introduce additional compensation that increases for every extra hour over two hours that you are delayed.

One of the things that really annoys me is when I get delayed by over two hours on a return journey, and I am repeatedly told to claim DR, but the claim is rejected because I have already claimed for a similar delay on the outward journey. The change that they made to limit payments in this way should be removed. Telling you that you are going to get nothing for a 3 hour delay because they have already subjected you to a similar delay on the outward journey is plain insulting. If as you say the number of DR120 claims is small, then they must be saving very little by this insulting tactic.

I would also do something to enforce the provision of assistance to customers who suffer significant delays. At the very minimum, the passengers rights to assistance should receive the same level of publicity as DR is publicised. Too many staff seem to be totally unaware or indifferent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is much easier to book an Uber, provided that you are lucky enough to live in those few places where Uber operates. I think that trying to book a taxi from say Pwllheli to Shrewsbury, or Blaenau Ffestiniog to Llandudno, at short notice could be more problematic - particularly if you are the last to know about the cancellation, and other people have already booked those available. My concern is that SWR seem to be using their "book your own" policy to get out of doing that themselves. That may work in places like Woking, but won't work in Whatstandwell.

Aside from proper rural nowhereness, app based taxis are the norm even if not Uber or Bolt. Most small firms in towns have an app of some sort and finding out which one it is is not at all hard.

What might work if you're stuck at Altnabreac (replacement helicopter?) or Dyfi Junction doesn't need to inform a decision on what additional options are offered to people throughout the network. They're such a tiny proportion of journeys that they don't even need significant input provided the other "offline" options exist.

Deciding any form of rail policy based on Dyfi Junction and Altnabreac (or even Grange over Sands) would be silly to be honest.

As for Whatstandwell, it's close enough to Derby that I'd be astonished if Uber didn't work. Uber works in all big towns across the UK now and some smaller ones, even if it's via a licence from the nearest big city (e.g. Uber in MK is operated on the London licence). Getting a taxi in rural areas may be hard, but most train journeys aren't in rural areas so it's not a reason to offer the option. Similarly I know it works for Ormskirk but on the Liverpool licence (my parents use it a fair bit now ever since I put it on my Dad's phone when we were in South Africa, where it's the only safe way for tourists to get around the cities), and that's a similar distance out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

One of the things that really annoys me is when I get delayed by over two hours on a return journey, and I am repeatedly told to claim DR, but the claim is rejected because I have already claimed for a similar delay on the outward journey. The change that they made to limit payments in this way should be removed. Telling you that you are going to get nothing for a 3 hour delay because they have already subjected you to a similar delay on the outward journey is plain insulting. If as you say the number of DR120 claims is small, then they must be saving very little by this insulting tactic.

To be honest as I said I'd fix this by removing the "two hours for return" option. There's not much case, except VERY serious delays (e.g. cases where people were stuck on trains overnight), to be compensating above the sum paid. If you still got where you were going on the same day (and they were reasonably generous with stuff like a taxi if you missed your last bus or Tube home), I think a full refund is ample.

 

[VT 390]

To be honest as I said I'd fix this by removing the "two hours for return" option. There's not much case, except VERY serious delays (e.g. cases where people were stuck on trains overnight), to be compensating above the sum paid. If you still got where you were going on the same day (and they were reasonably generous with stuff like a taxi if you missed your last bus or Tube home), I think a full refund is ample.

If the 2 hours (120+) option was removed for return tickets you would only ever be able to get 50% the full amount paid as at 60-119 minutes it is 50% the total cost of a return ticket.
I do agree that you should not get delay repay compensation above the full ticket cost. In extreme cases you have the option to claim additional reasonable expenses (such as alternative transport costs, hotels...) if these are not directly provided by the operator.

 

[35B]

I've popped that out into another thread as it's a bit of a different issue specifically relating to LNER's poor planning:

Avoiding the MML overcrowding during planned ECML disruption?

I was at St Pancras yesterday evening. The queuing was a nightmare, and plenty of people missed trains because there simply wasn't capacity - Sheffield trains were being closed for boarding 10-15 minutes before departure. Granting rights that can't be delivered is meaningless. If I'd been...

www.railforums.co.uk

No, it belongs here. The point is not about what happened last night specifically (I agree that it was about poor planning, though I'd disagree about which TOC was culpable), but that there are circumstances in which the granting of rights are simply irrelevant to the reality of a travel situation. The answer is not DR or travel rights, but should be that travel rights are provided, and DR deals with the consequences of delay to the traveller.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the 2 hours (120+) option was removed for return tickets you would only ever be able to get 50% the full amount paid as at 60-119 minutes it is 50% the total cost of a return ticket.

50% of return, yes, or 100% of single - the full amount paid for that leg of the journey. Aside from very serious cases I struggle to see it as being justified to pay more than that.

I do agree that you should not get delay repay compensation above the full ticket cost. In extreme cases you have the option to claim additional reasonable expenses (such as alternative transport costs, hotels...) if these are not directly provided by the operator.

Yes, expenses may need to be covered, I note upthread that making taxis easier to claim would be a good thing, as SWR already do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

No, it belongs here. The point is not about what happened last night specifically (I agree that it was about poor planning, though I'd disagree about which TOC was culpable), but that there are circumstances in which the granting of rights are simply irrelevant to the reality of a travel situation. The answer is not DR or travel rights, but should be that travel rights are provided, and DR deals with the consequences of delay to the traveller.

When there's not unlimited money you do sometimes have to choose between two only loosely related things, though, and I think this is one of them. I would after all rather be on time than claim Delay Repay.

 

[35B]

When there's not unlimited money you do sometimes have to choose between two only loosely related things, though, and I think this is one of them. I would after all rather be on time than claim Delay Repay.

I stand by my view; they are an "and" not an "or".

 

[VT 390]

50% of return, yes, or 100% of single - the full amount paid for that leg of the journey. Aside from very serious cases I struggle to see it as being justified to pay more than that.

I do think that for delays over 2 hours the full ticket cost should be repaid as even for longer journeys that amount of delay is starting to become very inconvenient and distruptive to passengers.

Perhaps as they could introduce new rules that mean you can only claim the full return fare when the delay is within the control of the railway (staff shortage, train faults...).

Yes, expenses may need to be covered, I note upthread that making taxis easier to claim would be a good thing, as SWR already do.

I definitely agree with this, a form like that used for delay repay but for additional costs would be very useful.

 

[Belperpete]

Aside from proper rural nowhereness, app based taxis are the norm even if not Uber or Bolt. Most small firms in towns have an app of some sort and finding out which one it is is not at all hard.

What might work if you're stuck at Altnabreac (replacement helicopter?) or Dyfi Junction doesn't need to inform a decision on what additional options are offered to people throughout the network. They're such a tiny proportion of journeys that they don't even need significant input provided the other "offline" options exist.

And there lies the problem. You seem to be turning a determinedly blind eye to the fact that SWR don't seem to be using it as an additional option, but as the defacto standard option. And that is what the other TOCs would inevitably do too, as it saves them resources. Those in the urban areas where taxis are readily available would win, while those in the rural areas would suffer badly.

What you are effectively saying is that the needs of passengers in rural areas can be ignored for the greater good. Any policy must absolutely ensure that the needs of passengers from rural areas don't get treated any worse than they do now.

To be honest as I said I'd fix this by removing the "two hours for return" option. There's not much case, except VERY serious delays (e.g. cases where people were stuck on trains overnight), to be compensating above the sum paid. If you still got where you were going on the same day (and they were reasonably generous with stuff like a taxi if you missed your last bus or Tube home), I think a full refund is ample.

The problem with limiting compensation to one hour is that once that limit is reached, there is no incentive for a TOC to do anything to further limit the delay. We've delayed you by an hour, why bother if we delay you by another hour or two would be the inevitable consequence. As I say, if they are going to cut the payments for small delays, they should at least properly compensate those who suffer severe delays.

Remember that delay repay is NOT a refund, it is compensation. The compensation you receive for flight delays is not based on ticket price, and I can see no justification whatsoever for arbitrarily limiting delay repay to the ticket price. The amount paid should be based on how much you have been disrupted, not how much you paid for your ticket.

What I would support is a scheme similar to Northern's, where you get a free ticket. Say one free open return ticket for each hour you are delayed. However, it would need tuning for a national scheme. I can't see someone delayed for an hour between Woking and Surbiton getting a free ticket for a return Penzance to Wick.

 

[island]

Bearing in mind the Consumer Rights Act would also cap compensation for poor performance of the service at the amount paid for a ticket, I think the question of someone claiming the value of a full return ticket on the outbound leg plus something on the return leg being capped at the total paid, rather than being at a profit and still having made their journey, is reasonable.

This is separate from the reimbursement of expenses where arising.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with limiting compensation to one hour is that once that limit is reached, there is no incentive for a TOC to do anything to further limit the delay. We've delayed you by an hour, why bother if we delay you by another hour or two would be the inevitable consequence. As I say, if they are going to cut the payments for small delays, they should at least properly compensate those who suffer severe delays.

If things have got so bad that the delay is over an hour, TOCs aren't thinking about delay repay, I can assure you. It is not motivation. It might feel like it is (you can slap them a bit by making a claim) but it's not what they're worried about. They're worried about the far higher sums they're being charged for causing delays by Network Rail, for one.

Remember that delay repay is NOT a refund, it is compensation.

It is compensation by way of a partial or full refund of the ticket price. Hence "repay".

The compensation you receive for flight delays is not based on ticket price, and I can see no justification whatsoever for arbitrarily limiting delay repay to the ticket price.

Personally I agree with Ryanair that it should be based on the ticket price (the full ticket price, not only the "fare" element) for air travel too, to be fair. The fixed sums can either be derisory or excessive depending what you paid.

The amount paid should be based on how much you have been disrupted, not how much you paid for your ticket.

Disagree.

What I would support is a scheme similar to Northern's, where you get a free ticket. Say one free open return ticket for each hour you are delayed. However, it would need tuning for a national scheme. I can't see someone delayed for an hour between Woking and Surbiton getting a free ticket for a return Penzance to Wick.

The logic would be to base it on something easily identifiable such as, er, what they paid for the ticket.

 

[YorksLad12]

Here's one I forgot. Change the actual (not published) thresholds from 30, 60 and 120 minutes to 27, 57 and 117 minutes.

Why? Because it makes the railway look unbelievably petty when claims are denied because of a cancelled half hourly service, which means that de-facto the passenger is delayed by 30 minutes, because the following half hour's service shows as arriving at the terminus one or two minutes early due to excessive recovery time padding. Because if that service did, so would the cancelled one have done, so the actual delay IS 30 minutes.

I did actually get one paid on appeal when I pointed this out, but changing the actual thresholds (but still publicising them as being 30/60/120) would remove this absolute trite nonsense.

Actually, to be honest, I'd bin the 120 minute one entirely. It's hardly ever reached, and it's unfair to holders of return journeys booked as single tickets that they don't get it. Much simpler to always base it on single journeys even if a return ticket is used. If you wanted to do something more for very severe delays, you could do something like "free refund plus e-voucher for a free Advance Single journey up to a certain value" or something like that regardless of ticket held.

Who uses 120 minutes for Delay Repay? LNER didn't last year, when I was delayed by four hours at Kings Cross. All I got for my four hours of standing and not being able to buy any food or drink (and the loos were shut off) was 100% of my single ticket. And a stiff back.

But I agree it should be a percentage of whatever the appropriate single ticket would have been, and there being a WTT equivalent for Delay Repay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who uses 120 minutes for Delay Repay?

Anyone who sells return tickets. LNER, obviously, mostly if not entirely does not.

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem with limiting compensation to one hour is that once that limit is reached, there is no incentive for a TOC to do anything to further limit the delay.

TOCs are not incentivised by Delay Repay and I have never seen a Control decision influenced by one. What is more relevant is delay attribution and Schedule 8, plus any penalties for skip-stopping and partial cancellation.

We've delayed you by an hour, why bother if we delay you by another hour or two would be the inevitable consequence.

Has train performance increased, and have train companies been more motivated to resolve delays faster, as DR crept from 60 minutes to 30 minutes and then to 15? No.

 

[mike57]

It might also be worth thinking about how delay repay came about. When it started fare box revenue went to the ToC and I assume delay repay ate into profits, so was a penalty to the ToC unless they could blame someone else, and then back charge them. Now I assume it all comes out of the same government dft pot.

So what would be reaonable. I personally dont think 15 mins delay is worthy of compensation, half an hour, maybe, 1 hour or more defiinitely. The problem is an hours delay on a £30 ticket delivers a lot less than the same delay on a £200 one, but the personal disruption maybe similar. I also agree that it should actually be 29, 59 and 119 minutes to trigger the compensation.

I also feel that delays over 1 hour not caused by 'acts of god', e.g. TPE when they were in trouble sometimes had 3 hour gaps in service towards York from Scarborough, should attract some element of compensation based on time as well as fares. Maybe a minimum amount based on ticket price + fixed amount per hour.

Northern operate a 'free' ticket option, valid for Northern trains, and this can be a good alternative for low cost journeys.

Whatever system you have will have winners and losers, but my pet frustration is ToCs trying to buck pass when you are delayed, its one area where GBR should administer and payout.

 

[YorksLad12]

Anyone who sells return tickets. LNER, obviously, mostly if not entirely does not.

That is the problem with using LNER, I've been buying singles for a great many years now. Partly because I travel down (up) to London in Standard, and back in First.

 

[Belperpete]

Disagree.

I know that you disagree, but I fail to see any logic behind your disagreement.

We currently have a scheme where the amount of compensation received is based on how long you have been delayed for. It is therefore illogical to say that someone who has been delayed three hours should receive no more compensation than someone who has been delayed one hour. And insulting to say that someone who has been delayed by three hours should receive no compensation whatsoever.

If you don't think that people who have been delayed for a long time should receive extra compensation, then why not just have a flat rate compensation scheme. Anybody who has been delayed over the threshold (be that 15 minutes or whatever), just receives a set percentage refund regardless of how long they have been delayed?

The logic would be to base it on something easily identifiable such as, er, what they paid for the ticket.

You do seem to be fixated on how much someone has paid for their ticket. If you base it on that, someone who had been lucky enough to get a very cheap advance might find it almost impossible to redeem their equivalent value free ticket. I would base it on an equivalent journey, based on the full single fares.

The advantage of the free tickets is that they can seem valuable to the passenger, but are cost neutral for the railway. Trying to be miserly with them would defeat the objective. A bit like Club Avanti, that just leaves you feeling short-changed rather than appreciated.

 

[VT 390]

So what would be reaonable. I personally dont think 15 mins delay is worthy of compensation, half an hour, maybe, 1 hour or more defiinitely. The problem is an hours delay on a £30 ticket delivers a lot less than the same delay on a £200 one, but the personal disruption maybe similar. I also agree that it should actually be 29, 59 and 119 minutes to trigger the compensation.

If 15-29 delay repay is removed I agree the 29. 59, 119 thresholds would be a good compromise as it would save some money through eliminating generally smaller 15-19 minute payments but offer a genuine improvement for passengers.


Rather than eliminating 15 minute delay repay altogether I would rather it be kept, but only for local journeys.
This would mean either only offering 15 minute delay repay for local operators or whatever they become under Great British Railways (such as West Midlands Railway) or for journeys under a certain length such as up to 30 minutes or 1 hour. Going by total journey length is probably easier and more simple for passengers to understand.
This approach would be fairer than removing 15 minute delay repay entirely, as a 15 minute delay on a short journey increases the journey time more substantially as a percentage of the overall journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

Who uses 120 minutes for Delay Repay? LNER didn't last year

Yes they do. https://www.lner.co.uk/support/delay-repay/

If you arrive at your destination late because an LNER train was cancelled or delayed, you can submit a claim. The kind of claim depends on how late you were:

• 
  

  30-59 minutes delay​

  50% of the cost of a single ticket
  50% of the cost of the relevant portion* of a return ticket
• 
  

  60-119 minutes delay​

  100% of the cost of a single ticket
  100% of the cost of the relevant portion of a return ticket
• 
  

  120+ minutes delay​

  100% of the cost of a single ticket
  100% of the cost of a return ticket*

, when I was delayed by four hours at Kings Cross. All I got for my four hours of standing and not being able to buy any food or drink (and the loos were shut off) was 100% of my single ticket

As per the Delay Repay policy.

120+ minutes compensation is enhanced only for return tickets, which you didn't have.

 

[Belperpete]

It might also be worth thinking about how delay repay came about. When it started fare box revenue went to the ToC and I assume delay repay ate into profits, so was a penalty to the ToC unless they could blame someone else, and then back charge them. Now I assume it all comes out of the same government dft pot.

It also came about because there was a perception that TOCs were raking it in from delay attribution, with it all going into their shareholders pockets and nothing coming the passengers way. There is still the perception that the TOCs get far more in delay attribution payments than they pay out in DR, particularly now that the government is effectively underwriting the DR.

 

[RT4038]

The advantage of the free tickets is that they can seem valuable to the passenger, but are cost neutral for the railway. Trying to be miserly with them would defeat the objective. A bit like Club Avanti, that just leaves you feeling short-changed rather than appreciated.

How are they cost neutral? I make a journey costing £100 each week. I get a free ticket due a delay this week, and use it instead of paying out £100 next week. Net cost to railway = £100. It is only cost neutral if I make a journey with the free ticket that I wouldn't otherwise have made - I suspect this would only be a minority of free ticket redemptions.

 

[Belperpete]

Rather than eliminating 15 minute delay repay altogether I would rather it be kept, but only for local journeys.
This would mean either only offering 15 minute delay repay for local operators or whatever they become under Great British Railways (such as West Midlands Railway) or for journeys under a certain length such as up to 30 minutes or 1 hour. Going by total journey length is probably easier and more simple for passengers to understand.

Trying to draw a line between what counts as local and long distance would inevitably cause similar problems to the current 15/30/60 thresholds, You would likely end up with situations where somebody making a local journey could end up with compensation when someone making a slightly longer journey on the same train receives nothing.

it might be simpler to just base it on a ratio of the journey time. So for a 30 minute journey it would be 10 minutes, for a 60 minute journey it would be 20 minutes, and so on pro rata. Having said that, I would not be happy getting nothing for a two hour delay on a 6 hour journey. However, setting the threshold ratio at 1 hour for a 6 hour journey, would mean pro rata a 5 minute threshold for a 30 minute journey. That might be seen to be too generous.

This approach would be fairer than removing 15 minute delay repay entirely, as a 15 minute delay on a short journey increases the journey time more substantially as a percentage of the overall journey.