Should there be, relatively, blanket ticket acceptance between OLR TOCs?

[ainsworth74]

It occurred to me this evening having seen several Northern cancellations in a row at Carlisle towards Newcastle whilst LNER are running diversions that surely the Operator of Last Resort (OLR) TOCs should just have blanket ticket acceptance in the event of the cancellation of one or another of each others services. Specifically up here thinking about LNER, Northern and TPE. Not sure that Southeastern is really much help

But looking at Carlisle this evening for example towards Newcastle:

TOC	Booked Time of Departure	Status
Northern	1754	Ran as Booked
LNER	1818	Ran as Booked
Northern	1848	Cancelled
Northern	1948	Cancelled
LNER	2000	Ran as Booked
Northern	2038	Delayed to 2053 ran non-stop to Newcastle

This, as can be appreciated, has not gone well for Northern evening! However, as far as I can tell, it would seem that despite LNER running two trains at suitable times to help out at least for passengers to Newcastle no ticket acceptance was arranged/given. It would seem that passengers for the 1848 and 1948 would have to wait for the 2038 (likely to be heavily overcrowded as a result). Certainly the LNER guard at Carlisle on the 2000 announced multiple times that any passengers with Northern Only ticket would have to buy a new ticket if they travelled on their train.

This is surely somewhat bonkers? Considering the ownership of Northern and LNER along with the fact that certainly the 2000 is very quiet passengers for the 1848 and 1948 should simply have been accommodated on the 1818 and 2000.

It strikes me that far better for all involved would simply be a blanket rule that passengers with TPE, Northern or LNER tickets can use the others services in the event of a cancellation of their booked train. I can appreciate there might be sometimes that this is sub-optimal (for instance a 9-car LNER trying to pile onto a 5-car TPE at York heading towards Newcastle). But surely in general its madness that this insistance on passengers being inconvinced to the tune of an over two hour delay (in the case Northern passengers for the 1848 waiting for the further delayed 2038) when they could easily fit on the 2000 and I bet they'd have fit on the 1818 as well if they'd been there early enough continues when all the relevant operators are all state operations?

 

[Djgr]

Better approach is nationalise the lot, get rid of the TOCs and have an integrated network. Perhaps British Rail might be a good name for this.

 

[Starmill]

I imagine it'd save a good chunk of public money that's currently being wasted. For example Northern will be dealing with unnecessary claims for compensation, plus the admin costs of dealing with complaints about these cancellations. Frequently we see replacement buses being procured or taxis where these could have been reduced in number or capacity. Frequently we see claims for refunds and loss of customer goodwill which otherwise wouldn't occur and this leads to loss of repeat business in the future, so seats go unsold.

After all, it's overwhelmingly public money we're talking about here. Doesn't the industry have the same responsibility as the rest of the public sector to manage it well (appreciating that certain senior executives may wish to challenge that point)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In case of disruption having a material effect on the journey (which should be defined, eg a delay in excess of 30 minutes or an hour), an Advance should automatically become an Any Permitted Anytime Day Single.

This is how Deutsche Bahn does things and it removes so much hassle (and would save a lot of Delay Repay payouts).

It would be particularly good if, if the passenger bought an e-ticket online, they were notified automatically when this happened by email and/or text to show staff, and the e-ticket automatically endorsed thus, but to start with just making it the rule would be good.

 

[JonathanH]

Better approach is nationalise the lot, get rid of the TOCs and have an integrated network. Perhaps British Rail might be a good name for this.

The premise of this thread is that the operators involved are already nationalised.

 

[A S Leib]

Less to do with the premise, but why did the 20:38 keep running nonstop once it was ahead of schedule? RTT says it was one minute late at Corbridge and eleven minutes early through Dunston and arriving at Newcastle. Would it likely have been too busy to pick up any passengers, and less likely to have passengers for intermediate stations onboard if it was announced as nonstop at Carlisle?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The premise of this thread is that the operators involved are already nationalised.

But they are still running under separate DfT contracts, with the pretence they are to be re-franchised at some point.
We know that's not going to happen, but until GBR staggers into life there's no prospect of "unification".
The underlying problem is Northern's inability to deliver its timetable, which "nationalisation" has not solved..

 

[JonathanH]

We know that's not going to happen, but until GBR staggers into life there's no prospect of "unification".

Ironically, other threads suggest keeping "Intercity" and "Regional" separate even when the "unification" happens.

The underlying problem is Northern's inability to deliver its timetable, which "nationalisation" has not solved..

Well yes. It isn't clear that nationalisation will sort that out unless the money saved is going to be spent on the problem to the benefit of the workers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ironically, other threads suggest keeping "Intercity" and "Regional" separate even when the "unification" happens.

Absolutely no reason they shouldn't have cross-acceptance though. That said, if the likes of Horne end up in charge he'll just push his little empire and end up it looking totally disconnected like a number of other European countries are, that's how people like that work. (At least at present within something like GWR connections get held and the likes).

 

[PG]

That said, if the likes of Horne end up in charge he'll just push his little empire

Best we can hope for is that he gets a 'too good to refuse' offer from one of the OA operators...

 

[Topological]

The whole ticket acceptance thing is a mess.

However, it need not be a function of privatisation. The problem is the mechanisms for handling delays. If the delay is due to a company decision (e.g. staffing, change to the timetable etc., these to be agreed at the industry level prior to implementation) then the company with which the passengers travel (here LNER) should receive the ticket revenue from the company who do not run trains (here Nothern). If the delay is due to a set of causes not in the control of the operator (e.g. weather), then blanket acceptance takes place with no compensation. One one day this agreement may hurt Northern, on another day it may hurt LNER. Over time it should balance.

Passengers will not start buying Northern advances to travel on LNER. Because if the Northern train does run then the passenger is on Northern.

Having an incentive structure like this in place may focus minds about the topics that are agreed to be "company decisions".

For delays, a fair number (e.g. 30 minutes) would be agreed as the point at which tickets become flexible.

Either way, the passenger gets to travel and appreciates a "joined-up" railway.

 

[HerneHill]

Has anyone already tried taking this up with the Revenue teams at these TOCs? Seems like the kind of thing they might be receptive to trying out tbh…!

 

[yorkie]

Has anyone already tried taking this up with the Revenue teams at these TOCs? Seems like the kind of thing they might be receptive to trying out tbh…!

And how would we get a meeting with "revenue teams" at these TOCs? These are the same revenue teams that we see mistreating customers? I don't think they would want to meet us.

This is not a completely novel idea; the revenue teams are already well aware of this concept, but they choose not to implement it, which increases the liabilities on taxpayers and puts people off travelling by train.

In any case, TPE and Northern already do mutual ticket acceptance periodically in a manner that is as proposed in this thread. It is unadvertised, and it's very hit-and-miss as to when it's on. Even then, some staff members ignore the instructions to accept tickets, and charge customers regardless. I don't think it's on at the moment, for which there is absolutely no justifiable reason. A few weeks ago it was on.

There is no good reason why the proposal in this thread should not be immediately implemented; there would be no cost to the railway in doing so; indeed there would actually be savings, if anything!

 

[Starmill]

Has anyone already tried taking this up with the Revenue teams at these TOCs? Seems like the kind of thing they might be receptive to trying out tbh…!

Rather a lot of people do complain when they see things going wrong, in hopes of one day securing better experiences for customers. It's very difficult under the current system to achieve even minor improvements and sometimes it's impossible to stop changes which make things worse for consumers from happening. If you contact a customer service department of a TOCs you're very unlikely to receive a useful response.