Theoretical - missed connection

[yorkie]

If you missed your London to stevenage virgin train, they might be strict and make you wait 2 hours, or let you on the great northern anyway.

This is incorrect. Passengers may take any appropriate connecting train between London and Stevenage, regardless of whether it is operated by GTR or VTEC.

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps the clerk will have put King's Cross to Nottingham into his/her computer, and the only train departing King's Cross that will have come up is the one that allowed the shortest connection time at Grantham before the next connecting train to Nottingham.

My best guess is that this was exactly what happened.

 

[highspeed990]

This is incorrect. Passengers may take any appropriate connecting train between London and Stevenage, regardless of whether it is operated by GTR or VTEC.

It is correct if you're on an advance ticket : ) But you're right in the sense that, and we all agree, they'll most likely let you take a GN train, as it's a downgrade anyway.

 

[yorkie]

It is correct if you're on an advance ticket : ) But you're right in the sense that, and we all agree, they'll most likely let you take a GN train, as it's a downgrade anyway.

An Advance ticket where one of the legs is between Stevenage and London (e.g. Stevenage to Crewe or Stevenage to Bristol etc) is valid on any appropriate train between Stevenage and London.

Have you read the Advance Fares FAQ pages within the internal Knowledgebase? A copy of this is in our Fares Guide.

 

[highspeed990]

An Advance ticket where one of the legs is between Stevenage and London (e.g. Stevenage to Crewe or Stevenage to Bristol etc) is valid on any appropriate train between Stevenage and London.

Have you read the Advance Fares FAQ pages within the internal Knowledgebase? A copy of this is in our Fares Guide.

But advance tickets require you to catch a certain train, if there are exceptions to Stevenage, I apologise, I was trying to give an example, but there are lots of other routes served by multiple operators.

 

[221129]

But advance tickets require you to catch a certain train, if there are exceptions to Stevenage, I apologise, I was trying to give an example, but there are lots of other routes served by multiple operators.

If you don't know, don't make the rules up.

 

[highspeed990]

If you don't know, don't make the rules up.

I do know the rules thank you very much. Did the OP mention going to Stevenage? No? Pointless comment, it doesn't affect the OP.

 

[yorkie]

I do know the rules thank you very much.

With all due respect, I wouldn't claim to know every single rule, and which rule trumps another rule, and one of my jobs is to know a bit about fares.

Did the OP mention going to Stevenage? No? Pointless comment, it doesn't affect the OP.

Very true, but may I remind you the Stevenage comment was introduced in this post:

. If you missed your London to stevenage virgin train, they might be strict and make you wait 2 hours, or let you on the great northern anyway.

But it wasn't correct.

There is no 'one size fits all' answer to the generic question for all potential journeys. The example given is a case where there are three parties involved (and that isn't even taking the retailer into account) and is a particularly problematical one. The example of a late running InterCity type train being late into London to connect with a London to Stevenage train is about as different an example as you can possibly get, and would definitely not be a problem.

 

[roversfan2001]

It is correct if you're on an advance ticket : ) But you're right in the sense that, and we all agree, they'll most likely let you take a GN train, as it's a downgrade anyway.

That's entirely subjective and so would never a discussion on whether a passenger would be granted travel on a service other than the one printed on the reservation coupon.

 

[sheff1]

Many posters refer to "completing the journey", but NRCoT 28.1 actually states "completing the journey shown on your Ticket".

For an Advance ticket (which is what the OP is about) the journey shown on your ticket is a journey on a specific train or trains. If a specified train is missed due to a late running connection then that disruption has quite clearly prevented the passenger from completing the journey shown on their Ticket. In such circumstances, NRCoT 28.1 then goes on to say that ANY TOC "will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination" - there is no suggestion that the passenger must wait for the next train provided by the TOC which operated the missed train specified on the ticket.

 

[kieron]

Many posters refer to "completing the journey", but NRCoT 28.1 actually states "completing the journey shown on your Ticket".

I'd been wondering about that, too. The thing is that less restrictive tickets give the traveller fewer rights under that condition. If you have an anytime day return from Chathill to Newcastle, you'd be entitled to help if the morning train is cancelled. If you have an anytime short return to Sunderland, meanwhile, you wouldn't be as you could still catch the evening train and stop overnight at your own expense.

I'm not going to argue that ATOC can't have done it as you say because they wouldn't do something which doesn't make sense, though.

 

[sheff1]

I'd been wondering about that, too. The thing is that less restrictive tickets give the traveller fewer rights under that condition.

Indeed, and for a more mainstream example than the Chathill one, what about the following -

The way condition 28.1 is written, someone holding an LM Advance from Crewe to London should reasonably be conveyed by any TOC, if the specified LM train was missed due to late connection, as the journey shown on the ticket cannot be completed. However, other than for the last train, someone using the outward portion of a LM Only Off Peak ticket (valid one day) would need to wait for the next LM service as the disruption has not prevented completion of the journey shown on their ticket whilst it remained valid.

Of course the condition in the, now superseded, NRCoC was very different, viz:
"If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination printed on or stored on your ticket, and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you."

When ATOC (i) removed any mention of being stranded and (ii) replaced " before you have reached your destination printed on or stored on your ticket" with "completing the journey shown on your Ticket" (the key change being from "destination" to "journey") they presumably did so deliberately to widen the scope of the assistance to be provided. If that presumption is correct, the fact that the wording they used made things better for holders of a more restricted ticket than a less restricted one is down to poor drafting which could be easily rectified. In the meantime we can only go on Condition 28.1 as it is written.

 

[najaB]

In such circumstances, NRCoT 28.1 then goes on to say that ANY TOC "will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination" - there is no suggestion that the passenger must wait for the next train provided by the TOC which operated the missed train specified on the ticket.

The devil is in the details - what is or is not reasonable?

 

[bb21]

Is there legal precedent as to what that means? To the layman, the journey shown on the ticket might include the times. Does it to a Court?

(I agree with you in so much as Railway policy is as you state, but if they write it down wrong they could still end up on the thick end of a Court case).

No legal precedent as far as I am aware.

I can kind of see your point, but unless one of us fancies being the guinea pig, I can only state what the current practice and widely accepted interpretation are.

 

[Joe Paxton]

The devil is in the details - what is or is not reasonable?

Ultimately that'd be up to a court to decide - but the chances of any cases revolving around this question getting as far as a court are surely minimal, as the TOCs would rather not start having legal precedents being set.

 

[sheff1]

I can kind of see your point, but unless one of us fancies being the guinea pig, I can only state what the current practice and widely accepted interpretation are.

If I was ever in this position and was refused 'reasonable' travel I would certainly be happy to be a guinea pig. However, :

... the chances of any cases revolving around this question getting as far as a court are surely minimal, as the TOCs would rather not start having legal precedents being set.

 

[bb21]

If I was ever in this position and was refused 'reasonable' travel I would certainly be happy to be a guinea pig. However, :

I await the outcome of your court case with enormous interest.

 

[AnkleBoots]

I'm not sure what would happen in practice but do bear in mind GC/VTEC have very narrow acceptance arrangements; I would not be terribly confident that 300 people at King's Cross can just get on the next VTEC and stuff it to the rafters without consequence.

Are there examples of where this has gone wrong for a passenger holding a GC ticket? Before reading this thread I would have been inclined just to jump on the next VTEC service and be nice to the guard. Are the acceptance arrangements wider for Hull Trains?

 

[yorkie]

Are there examples of where this has gone wrong for a passenger holding a GC ticket? Before reading this thread I would have been inclined just to jump on the next VTEC service and be nice to the guard.

I think it would depend on the Guard; I can think of at least one who is going to charge you in those circumstances and almost certainly won't budge; several forum members have fallen victim to him, under a range of circumstances despite holding valid tickets (all refunded though). For example, a couple were charged for new tickets from Peterborough to York, because their train from Norwich to Peterborough was delayed, causing them to be on a later VTEC train than booked.

Are the acceptance arrangements wider for Hull Trains?

I don't quite understand the question.

 

[AnkleBoots]

I don't quite understand the question.

Of GC, HT and VTEC, which one is the least sniffy about accepting "other operator" tickets in the event of disruption?

 

[sheff1]

Are there examples of where this has gone wrong for a passenger holding a GC ticket?

AlterEgo quoted 300 people. I doubt very much that there has ever been a situation where 300 people have missed a GC train due to a late running connection.

 

[Starmill]

That's not really how it works. It varies depending on the situation and how many people are affected.

If the disruption is serious enough and thousands of customers are unable to travel on their planned trains (which is usually the case when CSL2 is declared) another operator can't refuse to take any other passengers just because. They might if they have no capacity to physically carry any more people.

Train operators are signed up to an approved code of practice to follow in these situations, which is probably somewhere on the RDG website. It used to be very clear that during significant disruption customers were not to be discriminated against on the basis of operator.

 

[yorkie]

Of GC, HT and VTEC, which one is the least sniffy about accepting "other operator" tickets in the event of disruption?

If you are talking of major disruption, ticket acceptance will be automatic.

Assuming you are talking of a delay to a small number of passengers where automatic ticket acceptance is not in place, and it boils down to staff interpretation of the rules and/or application of discretion, in that case I'd say in general Hull Trains Guards are the most likely to be customer-friendly, pragmatic and have a highly sensible interpretation of what is reasonable.

With GC, the Sunderland ones tend to be, in general, more pro-customer than the Bradford ones. I've seen complaints about the Bradford ones, one of them apparently refused dozens of passengers from boarding a mostly empty train during a recent highly disruptive incident.

As for VTEC, you get the full range, though most are good.

 

[najaB]

...as the TOCs would rather not start having legal precedents being set.

It is unlikely that such a case would be heard in a court which could set precedent anyway.

 

[Joe Paxton]

It is unlikely that such a case would be heard in a court which could set precedent anyway.

True.

 

[highspeed990]

With all due respect, I wouldn't claim to know every single rule, and which rule trumps another rule, and one of my jobs is to know a bit about fares.

Very true, but may I remind you the Stevenage comment was introduced in this post:

But it wasn't correct.

There is no 'one size fits all' answer to the generic question for all potential journeys. The example given is a case where there are three parties involved (and that isn't even taking the retailer into account) and is a particularly problematical one. The example of a late running InterCity type train being late into London to connect with a London to Stevenage train is about as different an example as you can possibly get, and would definitely not be a problem.

I know, I apologised as I had no idea the system was so complex. I read a post in this forum stating that you may only use the train company on your ticket unless it is the last train, but I thought it applied everywhere. All I know are basic ticketing rules, but i don't know the exemptions. Is there any pattern to follow so you can tell the exemptions? For example if my virgin train was cancelled at birmingham, would i be allowed on the next london midland? I'm not trying to spread misinformation and I apologised for the mistake, and despite them a certain someone stepped in and told me not to make stuff up.

 

[yorkie]

For example if my virgin train was cancelled at birmingham, would i be allowed on the next london midland?

It would almost certainly be faster to take the next Virgin Trains service. Typically that would be 20min later, and the journey time is typically around an hour quicker than LM.

If there was major disruption, acceptance would be automatic.

 

[AlterEgo]

AlterEgo quoted 300 people. I doubt very much that there has ever been a situation where 300 people have missed a GC train due to a late running connection.

Well probably not, no - but there have been GC cancellations before and when that does happen there’s a specific VTEC service which can be taken (which is not always the “next available”). My example was a bit extreme.

 

[Starmill]

It's common for there to be a message if a GC train is cancelled saying that tickets will be accepted on certain trains only. For example if the 1702 GC service from York to London is cancelled, the message might say that tickets will be accepted on the 1635, 1731 and 1802 East Coast services, but not the 1657 or 1757 services.

There might also be an instruction to take a TransPennine or Northern service to Leeds and then use the 1745, 1815 or 1845 services from Leeds to London Kings Cross.

On one memorable occasion a Hull Trains service from Hull to London was cancelled due to a failed 180, and the services tickets were being accepted on were all Sheffield to London St Pancras! Road transport was provided from Selby and Howden to Sheffield to connect with the nominated services, and Northern / TransPennine accepted tickets between from Doncaster, Brough and Hull to Sheffield.

 

[alistairlees]

It's common for there to be a message if a GC train is cancelled saying that tickets will be accepted on certain trains only. For example if the 1702 GC service from York to London is cancelled, the message might say that tickets will be accepted on the 1635, 1731 and 1802 East Coast services, but not the 1657 or 1757 services.

Ah, the slow trains. Can't say I blame them though, considering how many trains there are, and how full the fast trains tend to get.