Southern Advance - Cancelled Train help

[JonathanH]

So why should passengers be disadvantaged just because some politician or civil servant in the 1990s arbitrarily decided to allocate some services to one operator and other services to another?

The cheaper Southern fare only exists because some politician or civil servant in the 1990s arbitrarily decided to allocate some services to one operator and other services to another.

It is quite simple. If you have a TOC-only ticket, you wait until the next train provided by that operator turns up. If you have a ticket via a restricted route, you wait until the next service on that route. (It might be different for the last connection of the day, but until then, this has to be observed.)

This is typical of the nonsense that gives the railway its (deservedly) crap reputation.

It is easy to suggest that this gives the railway a bad reputation but equally it has enabled some people to have cheaper fares for a time. As I note, the ultimate answer will be to remove the restricted tickets and align fares between different routes.

 

[Watershed]

The cheaper Southern fare only exists because some politician or civil servant in the 1990s arbitrarily decided to allocate some services to one operator and other services to another.

No. It exists because the revenue analysts at Southern decided, some years ago, to offer some very cheap Advance fares. They do so on flows even where there is no competition from other TOCs and there is no reason to suspect that this would be any different in an alternate reality where GTR also encompassed Southeastern.

It is quite simple. If you have a TOC-only ticket, you wait until the next train provided by that operator turns up. If you have a ticket via a restricted route, you wait until the next service on that route. (It might be different for the last connection of the day, but until then, this has to be observed.)

Yes, the railway's current rules are easy enough to summarise. That doesn't make them customer friendly.

It is easy to suggest that this gives the railway a bad reputation

You say that as if you are suggesting that the current policies might improve the railway's perception!

but equally it has enabled some people to have cheaper fares for a time.

I see no connection whatsoever between the availability of cheap Advances and the limitation that they may not be used on SE services in the event of small-scale disruption.

As I note, the ultimate answer will be to remove the restricted tickets and align fares between different routes.

I don't doubt that the cheap Advances are unlikely to last, but I fail to see how there is any correlation with a putative abolishment of policies that provide terrible customer service?

The cheapest tiers of Advances didn't suddenly get removed when the Consumer Rights Act started applying to the rail industry, or when the NRCoT increased delay compensation minima.

I suspect you are just being a devil's advocate here.

 

[Wolfie]

No. It exists because the revenue analysts at Southern decided, some years ago, to offer some very cheap Advance fares. They do so on flows even where there is no competition from other TOCs and there is no reason to suspect that this would be any different in an alternate reality where GTR also encompassed Southeastern.


Yes, the railway's current rules are easy enough to summarise. That doesn't make them customer friendly.


You say that as if you are suggesting that the current policies might improve the railway's perception!


I see no connection whatsoever between the availability of cheap Advances and the limitation that they may not be used on SE services in the event of small-scale disruption.


I don't doubt that the cheap Advances are unlikely to last, but I fail to see how there is any correlation with a putative abolishment of policies that provide terrible customer service?

The cheapest tiers of Advances didn't suddenly get removed when the Consumer Rights Act started applying to the rail industry, or when the NRCoT increased delay compensation minima.

I suspect you are just being a devil's advocate here.

So your position, under a rather spurious claim of being customer friendly, could be summed up as being that passengers should get all of the advantages and should suffer none of the disadvantages.... And l'm the one accused of being anti-railway on here!

 

[Watershed]

So your position, under a rather spurious claim of being customer friendly, could be summed up as being that passengers should get all of the advantages and should suffer none of the disadvantages.... And l'm the one accused of being anti-railway on here!

I struggle to see how it is unreasonable to expect the railway to try and mitigate delays it has caused. And I suspect the average person on the street would be of much the same persuasion.

Why should the passenger "suffer" anything where it's the railway that is (potentially) in breach of contract?

The railway's duty to get people to their destination safely, for example, isn't reduced just because someone has a cheap ticket. Why should recourse in the event of disruption be any different?

Nobody is accusing you of being anti-railway, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Wolfie]

I struggle to see how it is unreasonable to expect the railway to try and mitigate delays it has caused. And I suspect the average person on the street would be of much the same persuasion.

Why should the passenger "suffer" anything where it's the railway that is (potentially) in breach of contract?

The railway's duty to get people to their destination safely, for example, isn't reduced just because someone has a cheap ticket. Why should recourse in the event of disruption be any different?

Nobody is accusing you of being anti-railway, quite the opposite in fact.

Not on this thread they haven't, lol

 

[AlterEgo]

The restriction, as far as most people are concerned, being that you have to take the booked train.

Okay but that is not actually the only restriction on an Advance ticket, which is important.

But when the railway is at risk of reneging on its side of the deal by cancelling the train, it should do everything reasonably its power to mitigate the delay, including allowing people to travel on other TOCs and routes. That would seem a prime example of what might be considered reasonable care and skill.

Not this again. The passenger, when booking connections like the one described in the OP, has to also allow for cockups. I don't care about the legalese, that's just good practice when doing something like this. No Plan B means you run the risk of getting shafted by a single cancellation. This is my advice to the OP and people who try to practice parsimony when doing stuff like this. Be under no illusion you sacrifice flexibility, understand the risks, plan for cockups. Even if that means baking in a two hour connection in London which you can either have eaten up by a delay or spend idling in a cafe or a shop. This is good sense and I don't care what anyone else says; it's my advice to people who want to try to do this.

What has that got to do with anything? They may just as well be flying out to Spain.

If you were flying to Spain from Stansted and you only took the cheapest, non-restricted railway ticket to that airport and didn't think "well, what actually DOES happen if I'm delayed or I get stiffed with a rail delay?" then...I don't have much sympathy to be honest.

Yes, of course it's sensible to allow some slack when transferring between modes, but it seems little more than victim blaming suggest that the passenger is at fault where the railway has delayed them!

Nobody is suggesting the railway has no responsibilities here, but it's good sense to...have a Plan B. Or at least think about what happens if you get shafted. I do this all the time on itineraries that can cost thousands of pounds if they go awry.

If the connection at London were onto another train with a split ticket, would you, absent the clear position in the NRCoT, be suggesting "well it's their own damn fault for splitting their ticket"?

No, because if you split your tickets properly then you are covered. I do not think the NRCoT is ambiguous in that regard.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This does all sound like the railways are so, so bad even their advocates say make a plan B they really can't be relied on at all.
I just take my car and drive, no plan B needed. I have never been left in the cold and wet. I've never had to incur additional expense to get to my destination.
Returning to rail travel isn't looking attractive with this thread.
On average we spent £300 a month on rail travel, but their customer service (or lack thereof) just meant we got a car. We now save a lot of time and money. Threads like this make it easy to see we made the right choice.

 

[trainophile]

What sort of plan B doesn’t involve having to forget buying an Advance ticket altogether, and pay possibly five times as much for a any operator/time ticket? That’s going to get people back on the trains… not.

 

[yorkie]

After several days we still don't have all the information that would be relevant to this case, so I'm going to close this thread until / unless further information comes to light.

Given what @paul1609 says regarding minimising the delay, I do think there are absolutely grounds for complaint to the operator of the station where advice was sought, that the alternative GTR option via Brighton was not offered.

Normally, a refund would be available for the unused ticket if a new ticket was issued; in this case the original cost of the ticket has already been discounted from the cost of replacement tickets, due to the issuing of a excess fare.

If anyone wishes to debate the rights and wrongs of what should or shouldn't happen in cases such as this, a new dedicated thread can be created.

Going forward, my advice in future would be to book this as a through journey by rail (splitting tickets is absolutely fine; sites such as Trainsplit will handle this automatically) or alternatively to allow a lengthy break at the point where you change travel mode, to allow for delays. If everything is on time, you can visit a cafe or pub etc in the spare time.

 

[blakey1152]

Evening everyone,
Wanted to say that after sending in an e-mail to Southern's customer service team they were good enough to agree to refund the £43 in rail travel vouchers for the excess tickets.

A good result for everyone concerned

 

[WesternLancer]

Evening everyone,
Wanted to say that after sending in an e-mail to Southern's customer service team they were good enough to agree to refund the £43 in rail travel vouchers for the excess tickets.

A good result for everyone concerned

V pleased to hear this. IIRC you were helping a friend and their mum so hope this creates a better impression of the railway than things before had done. Well done Southern.