Ticket acceptance during disruption

[al78]

Lots of passengers are not agile and cannot run up and down platforms looking for a guard who may or may not make an appearance on the platform during a short stop. Most are unfamiliar with esoteric legal and contractual obligations during disruption. Many do not have the wherewithal to advocate for themselves.

With all that mind, it's utterly crazy that we expect passengers to be able to make journeys during disruption and not fall foul of the "rules" as enforced by specific members of staff. Travelling during disruption does not need to be any more stressful than it already is.

The industry needs to agree a simple rule that can be printed on tickets. Something like, if your booked train is disrupted with a delay of more than 30 minutes expected, you are authorised to take any subsequent alternative service that will reduce the delay. You are also permitted to take the prior service if possible.

For simplicity, and recognising that most passengers do not have the knowledge and or psychic powers to predict arrival times, a 30-minute delay at departure or any stopping or connecting point should be considered as sufficient grounds to activate this clause. Passengers cannot be expected to know/understand what mitigating measures may have been enacted (such as skipping stops) that may cause the delay on arrival to be less than 30 minutes.

Why 30 minutes? Because frankly, that's plenty long enough a delay, and passengers should not be expected to wait an hour or more if there's an alternative service that can reduce that.

Of course, if we had a joined-up railway under a single Train Operating Company, much of the problem of cross-ticket-acceptance (but not all granted) goes away.

Just out of interest, given the situation I had last year where I had split tickets from Manchester to Euston with the join at Nuneaton and I was booked on a 1:30pm train which was cancelled, in your opinion, should I be allowed to get on any other train bound for Euston rather than, if I were to strictly stick to the regulations, wait an hour for the next Euston via Nuneaton service?

 

[trainophile]

It was down to a combination of the train company's failing and the passenger's decision to travel early that he arrived at Brum early. It was the passenger's decision alone to take advantage of that and arrive two hours early at Liverpool, when he could have caught his booked train and arrived on time.

If I had waited for the train after my cancelled ex-Hereford train I would have arrived at destination an hour late. What if I had a hospital appointment or some such time critical need to arrive at the time I booked and paid for? That's "not the railway's problem" presumably?

Buying a train ticket, even an Advance one, is forming a contract with the operator via the third party ticket vendor to get you where you need to be at or as near as possible to the time agreed.

 

[MKB]

Just out of interest, given the situation I had last year where I had split tickets from Manchester to Euston with the join at Nuneaton and I was booked on a 1:30pm train which was cancelled, in your opinion, should I be allowed to get on any other train bound for Euston rather than, if I were to strictly stick to the regulations, wait an hour for the next Euston via Nuneaton service?

I've been in similar situations many times. My view is that I wouldn't want to lobby for allowing acceptance of split tickets on a route ignoring the split, unless there was no other way to reach the destination within a couple of hours (in which case I'd seek permission from an authorised person), otherwise the pressure on the industry to find a way to prevent use of split tickets generally becomes too intense.

In an alternative situation where you have a through ticket with a geographical routing restriction, I would advocate that the industry should allow passengers to ignore the restriction if that reduces their delay versus sticking to the route.

 

[daveo]

Basic rule of thumb it seems to me - where there is a situation that needs clarification then assume the option least favourable to the passenger to be the one in force, unless there is clear written information otherwise!!!

 

[WAB]

Presumably the “point” is to maintain a difference between cheaper advance tickets and more expensive flexible ones. The correct remedy in your situation is recourse to delay repay.

I'd argue that if the railway is unable to fulfil its contract and provide travel between A and B at the times booked, then it loses the moral right to get pissy if people get an earlier train than booked. The customer has had to rearrange their day to fit around the railway's inability to run the service, so having sacrificed their own time to try and arrive at their destination as booked they should not be subjected to undue delay or inconvenience.

Advances are clearly what the industry wants to progress to for most medium and long-distance journeys; they're not the bargain basement tickets anymore so passengers holding these tickets should be treated very reasonably.

 

[trainophile]

Just look at the whopping great compensation packages the airlines give to disrupted passengers. Hotels plus meals plus a couple of hundred quid, and maybe even a free upgrade for the flight they are eventually offered.

 

[43066]

I'd argue that if the railway is unable to fulfil its contract and provide travel between A and B at the times booked, then it loses the moral right to get pissy if people get an earlier train than booked. The customer has had to rearrange their day to fit around the railway's inability to run the service, so having sacrificed their own time to try and arrive at their destination as booked they should not be subjected to undue delay or inconvenience.

I’m not sure how morals really come into it?

The customer could have chosen to pay for a more expensive flexible ticket. Instead they’ve opted for a cheaper, much less flexible one. The ticket they’ve purchased also has a defined compensation method and clearly set out entitlements re. catching later trains.

Yet in this case the customer now seems to be demanding they should be treated as if they’ve paid for a more expensive and more flexible product. That strikes me as cakeism. It’s also true they no amount of moralising changes the potential consequences of travelling without a valid ticket.

Advances are clearly what the industry wants to progress to for most medium and long-distance journeys; they're not the bargain basement tickets anymore so passengers holding these tickets should be treated very reasonably.

Your idea of “reasonably” might differ from mine. Hence, to ensure fairness and consistency to all, surely the default position should be that people are treated precisely in accordance with the terms of the ticket they’ve purchased. Most passengers are fully on board with that, in my experience.

The industry also isn’t exactly short of repeat custom, which suggests it isn’t getting things too badly wrong, even under the present arrangements!

As noted above, if anyone has a genuine sob story re. an advanced ticket, they can ask the guard and discretion will often be shown.

Just look at the whopping great compensation packages the airlines give to disrupted passengers. Hotels plus meals plus a couple of hundred quid, and maybe even a free upgrade for the flight they are eventually offered.

Airlines also have a force majeure get out clause, which the rail industry lacks. Railway advanced tickets also tend to cost rather less than most flights in my experience, so I’m not convinced you’re comparing like with like here.

 

[trainophile]

Your idea of “reasonably” might differ from mine. Hence, to ensure fairness and consistency to all, surely the default position should be that people are treated precisely in accordance with the terms of the ticket they’ve purchased. Most passengers are fully on board with that, in my experience.

So I should have insisted that my booked 10:40 train from Hereford to New Street ran? That's "precisely in accordance with the terms of the ticket I purchased". See where that gets me.

Ironically if I'd waited for the 11:40 that did run, I wouldn't have been on my booked LNR train either. But that's okay, even though it was probably triple packed with three loads of disrupted travellers whose cancelled train meant they didn't get there in time for their booked train, which would probably have been half empty. Not to mention the crowding from Hereford on the 11:40, with people booked for the 09:39 and 10:40 squeezed on.

Whatever the ins and outs of the rules, I am baffled as to what would be the point of not permitting a passenger with a genuine ticket that's adrift from the originally confirmed timings due to the railway's fault, to take the necessary measures to reach their destination in a timely manner. It's a bit like the old "computer says no" nonsense.

 

[Lewisham2221]

So I should have insisted that my booked 10:40 train from Hereford to New Street ran? That's "precisely in accordance with the terms of the ticket I purchased". See where that gets me.

Ironically if I'd waited for the 11:40 that did run, I wouldn't have been on my booked LNR train either. But that's okay, even though it was probably triple packed with three loads of disrupted travellers whose cancelled train meant they didn't get there in time for their booked train, which would probably have been half empty. Not to mention the crowding from Hereford on the 11:40, with people booked for the 09:39 and 10:40 squeezed on.

Whatever the ins and outs of the rules, I am baffled as to what would be the point of not permitting a passenger with a genuine ticket that's adrift from the originally confirmed timings due to the railway's fault, to take the necessary measures to reach their destination in a timely manner. It's a bit like the old "computer says no" nonsense.

Surely the issue here is that your booked train from New Street wasn't cancelled, so - strictly speaking - you had no right to board an earlier train for that part of the journey as there was no further disruption likely to be caused to your journey, just an (admittedly annoying) longer than planned wait at New Street. You would've still arrived at Liverpool on time, so the argument about being late for an appointment would be an irrelevance.

 

[norbitonflyer]

If I had waited for the train after my cancelled ex-Hereford train I would have arrived at destination an hour late. What if I had a hospital appointment or some such time critical need to arrive at the time I booked and paid for? That's "not the railway's problem" presumably?

Buying a train ticket, even an Advance one, is forming a contract with the operator via the third party ticket vendor to get you where you need to be at or as near as possible to the time agreed.

Quite so, but there are two separate contracts, usually with separate providers. Just as an airline is not required to put you on a later flight if your train to the airport is delayed, it is up to you to get to the station where the second half of the split departs from before it does so - the operator of the first train has completed its contract by delivering you to the split station, and paid you any delay repay due. As far as the second one is concerned, it is no concern of theirs how you intended to get to the split station - if you failed to arrive before the train left, that's down to you.
Tough, I know, but that's the risk you take with a split.

It shouldn't be like that - in a sensible ticketing system a journmey from A to B should always cost no more than a journey from A to C plus a journey from C to B, (and usually less, as much of the cost of a ticket is the cost of issuing tickets, plus the cost of maintaining the two stations between which at the ticket is issued)

lndeed , I would advocate that there should only be one set of fares between any two stations, valid by any route. No normal passenger would deliberately choose a longer or slower route than the most direct one unless there was no suitable service on the direct one - an example I have cited before is the higher fare charged between Lincoln and London if the only available train is via Retford. It is twenty miles longer, and nearly an hour slower, so no-one would take that route unless thay had no choice.

 

[Par]

Quite so, but there are two separate contracts, usually with separate providers. Just as an airline is not required to put you on a later flight if your train to the airport is delayed, it is up to you to get to the station where the second half of the split departs from before it does so - the operator of the first train has completed its part of the contract by delivering you to the split station, and paid you any delay repay due. As far as the second one is concerned, it is no concern of theirs how you intended to get to the split station - if you failed to arrive before the train left, that's down to you.
Tough, I know, but that's the risk you take with a split. It shouldn't be like that - in a sensible ticketing system a journmey from A to B should always cost no more than a journey from A to C plus a journey from C to B, (and usually less, as much of the cost of a ticket is the cost of issuing tickets, plus the cost of maintaining the two stations between which at the ticket is issued)

lndeed , I would advocate that there should only be one set of fares between any two stations, valid by any route. No ordinary passenger would deliberately choose a longer or slower route than the most direct one unless there was no suitable service on the direct one - an example I have cited before is the higher fare charged between Lincoln and London if the only available train is via Retford. It is twenty miles longer, and nearly an hour slower, so no-one would take that route unless thay had no choice.

He was on a through ticket, not a split, as per post #52.

 

[signed]

Airlines also have a force majeure get out clause, which the rail industry lacks. Railway advanced tickets also tend to cost rather less than most flights in my experience, so I’m not convinced you’re comparing like with like here.

Air passenger rights, especially in Europe, are absolutely more important than rail or bus passenger rights which are puny. Why? I don't know, but ticket costs may be a thing.

Granted, an airline may fly a city pair once a day, granted there is a force majeure clause

But EU 1337 or whatever does nothing to rail passengers, clauses or not. Why isn't there a compensation clause, especially as 2h delays are quite rare compared to airlines? You could see a €/£100/150/200 on a comparable journey length scale.

 

[WAB]

I’m not sure how morals really come into it?

The customer could have chosen to pay for a more expensive flexible ticket. Instead they’ve opted for a cheaper, much less flexible one. The ticket they’ve purchased also has a defined compensation method and clearly set out entitlements re. catching later trains.

Yet in this case the customer now seems to be demanding they should be treated as if they’ve paid for a more expensive and more flexible product. That strikes me as cakeism. It’s also true they no amount of moralising changes the potential consequences of travelling without a valid ticket

I suspect your perspective will be coloured by being a pass holder and entitled to a PRIV. Us mere mortals who don’t have the same entitlements also have places to be and want to minimise our discomfort. It actually seems like cakeism on the part of the railway, in that there’s no consequences for them changing your itinerary, but you could be prosecuted for changing yours. Do the benefits of corralling passengers onto the later train make it worthwhile disrupting people’s travel?

The industry also isn’t exactly short of repeat custom, which suggests it isn’t getting things too badly wrong, even under the present arrangements!

Tolerating it is not beneficial in the long term, and doesn’t align itself with modal shift targets from government and the need to encourage the leisure market at quieter times.

 

[yorkie]

How’s this - I’ve an Advance Hereford to Liverpool today, timed departure from Brum 12:34. However I discovered on checking first thing that both the 09:39 and 10:40 from Hereford are cancelled.

I managed to get to Hereford for the 08:37, and headed for the Liverpool 10:34 platform at New Street. Asked three different people in LNR uniform if they were the guard, all said no but he’d be along before the train departed. The third chap asked what I needed the guard for, and when I explained he said he didn’t think there’d be any problem and watched me get on.

Just had a ticket check and explained about the cancellations, to be told he didn’t have a problem but I should always ask the guard first. He also said the rules are that if there’s a cancellation you can take the train after but not the one before, whereupon we had an animated discussion about missing appointments etc.

Unfortunately the rail industry has insufficient policies and safeguards in place, to ensure that all staff take an appropriate, pragmatic response. The proposed new rules should go someway into addressing that; I still expect some staff to attempt to deny travel on earlier services, however in future it should at least be possible to point them to the new rules.

For those of us who have much more stringent expectations in our duties, it is frustrating that frontline rail industry jobs don't have more robust safeguards in place in respect of staff behaviour and actions, but sadly it is a not a surprise to those of us who have experienced this lack of pragmatism on so many occasions.

 

[43066]

So I should have insisted that my booked 10:40 train from Hereford to New Street ran? That's "precisely in accordance with the terms of the ticket I purchased". See where that gets me.

Ironically if I'd waited for the 11:40 that did run, I wouldn't have been on my booked LNR train either. But that's okay, even though it was probably triple packed with three loads of disrupted travellers whose cancelled train meant they didn't get there in time for their booked train, which would probably have been half empty. Not to mention the crowding from Hereford on the 11:40, with people booked for the 09:39 and 10:40 squeezed on.

Whatever the ins and outs of the rules, I am baffled as to what would be the point of not permitting a passenger with a genuine ticket that's adrift from the originally confirmed timings due to the railway's fault, to take the necessary measures to reach their destination in a timely manner. It's a bit like the old "computer says no" nonsense.

I’m not going to debate it further. You clearly know the score. You can keep pushing it but it will be you who potentially ends up being clobbered by revenue and with a criminal record as a result.

You should look at the terms of the condition of the ticket you purchase and, as you have been advised by people both on this thread, and in real life, ask the guard if in doubt. Why not just do the sensible thing to avoid conflict?

I suspect your perspective will be coloured by being a pass holder and entitled to a PRIV. Us mere mortals who don’t have the same entitlements also have places to be and want to minimise our discomfort.

Really having passes makes no difference. I’m also an enthusiast, for the record. So I do get it. I don’t want people to get into trouble over silliness, that’s what motivates many of my posts on here. Which I realise are not always popular!

 

[AdamWW]

Quite so, but there are two separate contracts, usually with separate providers. Just as an airline is not required to put you on a later flight if your train to the airport is delayed, it is up to you to get to the station where the second half of the split departs from before it does so - the operator of the first train has completed its part of the contract by delivering you to the split station, and paid you any delay repay due. As far as the second one is concerned, it is no concern of theirs how you intended to get to the split station - if you failed to arrive before the train left, that's down to you.
Tough, I know, but that's the risk you take with a split. It shouldn't be like that

Actually, my undersetanding is that it isn't like that - in this respect the rules are fairly customer friendly.

If you have split tickets you can claim delay repay for the whole journey, and likewise an advance doesn't become invalid if you miss the booked train because a previous train on a different ticket was cancelled or late (so long as you respect minimum connection times).

 

[trainophile]

I think this thread has run its course, we'll all have to agree to disagree in various aspects.

Just to wrap it up though, I must emphasise that there's no reason I should have bought a flexible ticket - I was completely happy with the itinerary for the ticket I'd booked, and would have adhered to it totally but for the railway not keeping its side of the deal. That is absolutely out of my control.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite so, but there are two separate contracts, usually with separate providers. Just as an airline is not required to put you on a later flight if your train to the airport is delayed, it is up to you to get to the station where the second half of the split departs from before it does so - the operator of the first train has completed its contract by delivering you to the split station, and paid you any delay repay due. As far as the second one is concerned, it is no concern of theirs how you intended to get to the split station - if you failed to arrive before the train left, that's down to you.
Tough, I know, but that's the risk you take with a split.

It shouldn't be like that

It isn't like that. Your rights don't differ with a split than without. A split is functionally equivalent to a routed ticket with a requirement to stop at the changeover station, that's all.

 

[Krokodil]

Is "safety" an arbitrary thing? Back in the fairly recent days of 2-coach TfW 150s Cardiff to Holyhead, when almost every day people posted photos on social media of trains rammed to the gunnels, standing all down the aisles nose to armpit, querying whether it was safe, TfW always replied that they wouldn't operate a service that wasn't safe. This was always met with some disdain as to their interpretation of 'safe' in the case of a sudden stop or emergency.

There's not really any guidance on what makes a train "unsafely overcrowded". Newer guards are vulnerable to pressure from Control or station staff to take a train anyway.

Too many people being on a train isn't a safety issue by itself though. It would only become a safety issue if, say, the train was too hot. Or if it were stopped not at a platform for too long.

A couple of years back, I had station staff have a go at me because I wouldn't make passengers move down to pack more in. Two stations later (some 20 minutes down the line) the driver came back and told me that a call for aid button had been pressed. I fought my way into a door and found out that a girl had fainted, banging her head on the way down. Obviously the next thing I did was call an ambulance (eta multiple hours) but once I had time to think back about the situation I was very glad that I hadn't bowed to pressure. If I had allowed the unit to become even more packed, if the unit had been a BR-era one, and if a passcom had been activated instead of a CFA the train could well have been stopped in the middle of nowhere, with the brakes on, and it would be physically impossible for me to get down and reset the passcom. Since then I've held some red lines:

• The front cab door is an emergency exit for the driver (obstruction on the line etc.) and must not be obstructed.
• The rear cab door allows me access to the train in an emergency and must not be obstructed.
• It must also be possible for me to get through the entire train without doing a Tarzan from the luggage racks.
• If the aircon is playing up, I must have enough room in unaffected vehicles that if anyone is overheating I can move them (not necessarily to a seat)
• Luggage must not block doors or aisles.

It logically follows from the above that traincrew could unilaterally deny ticket acceptance on grounds of safety

In the case of severe overcrowding, it's more likely that whoever boarded last (and hence are the ones blocking doors etc.) will be the ones turfed off. Ticket validity won't come into it.

 

[43066]

In the case of severe overcrowding, it's more likely that whoever boarded last (and hence are the ones blocking doors etc.) will be the ones turfed off. Ticket validity won't come into it.

Absolutely agreed. I just wouldn’t exclude it as a hypothetical possibility.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The industry also isn’t exactly short of repeat custom, which suggests it isn’t getting things too badly wrong, even under the present arrangements!

Much repeat custom is from people travelling from necessity, not choice.

 

[Starmill]

Since then I've held some red lines:

• The front cab door is an emergency exit for the driver (obstruction on the line etc.) and must not be obstructed.
• The rear cab door allows me access to the train in an emergency and must not be obstructed.
• It must also be possible for me to get through the entire train without doing a Tarzan from the luggage racks.
• If the aircon is playing up, I must have enough room in unaffected vehicles that if anyone is overheating I can move them (not necessarily to a seat)
• Luggage must not block doors or aisles.

Desirable in theory, but in reality these are all but an impossibility to actually enforce. The idea of not allowing anyone at all, or maybe only one or two people depending on your chosen definition, to stand between the front or rear cab doors and the first set of saloon exit doors is hilarious. There's no way you're deploying that one as a red line - you'd refuse more trains than you worked.

Reality is people stand in the narrow aisles on trains and it's commonplace. Yes, it's unpleasant, but everyone does it, or experiences others right by them doing it, from time to time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2024 ==

Air passenger rights, especially in Europe, are absolutely more important than rail or bus passenger rights which are puny. Why? I don't know, but ticket costs may be a thing.

Granted, an airline may fly a city pair once a day, granted there is a force majeure clause

But EU 1337 or whatever does nothing to rail passengers, clauses or not. Why isn't there a compensation clause, especially as 2h delays are quite rare compared to airlines? You could see a €/£100/150/200 on a comparable journey length scale.

The main driving factor was that the old rules were perceived as being widely ignored or bent by the airlines in their own favour. For years the industry was asked to play nice and still gave the press ample ammunition to fill column after column with outrage about their business practices.

To fix it, new laws were adopted that heavily tilt the stage against the business, and in favour of the consumer, and that's widely perceived as justified because it's "righting a wrong" - even if it causes totally disproportionate costs to airlines on some passenger's cases (think the metaphorical people who pay €25 for a flight which is cancelled by rare and genuinely exceptional illness of the flight crew, who can't be replaced, and get €300 compensation plus costs for food and drink, accommodation, telephone calls abroad and so on).

Could be worse, they could have the Financial Conduct Authority half-telling them they have to make a loss on certain types of business "or else". But then if there was a sector more hated in the press a few years ago than low cost airlines, it may be retail banks.

 

[Belperpete]

If I had waited for the train after my cancelled ex-Hereford train I would have arrived at destination an hour late. What if I had a hospital appointment or some such time critical need to arrive at the time I booked and paid for? That's "not the railway's problem" presumably?

Buying a train ticket, even an Advance one, is forming a contract with the operator via the third party ticket vendor to get you where you need to be at or as near as possible to the time agreed.

Agreed, if you arrive late for a hospital appointment, flight departure, or whatever, it is not the railway's problem. The railway will pay delay compensation, but that is it. If you were late for a flight, for example, your travel insurance company would likewise expect you to have allowed suitable time for disruption, and to have taken action to mitigate it, and if you didn't, would refuse to pay out.

Agreed that you had a contract to get you to the destination at the agreed time, but that contract also specifies what should happen if they fail to achieve that. There is no provision in that contract entitling you to get there earlier. You were entirely reliant on the goodwill of the particular staff involved.

 

[Krokodil]

Desirable in theory, but in reality these are all but an impossibility to actually enforce. The idea of not allowing anyone at all, or maybe only one or two people depending on your chosen definition, to stand between the front or rear cab doors and the first set of saloon exit doors is hilarious. There's no way you're deploying that one as a red line - you'd refuse more trains than you worked.

The red line mostly concerns luggage (getting standees to shift in a hurry is easier than dealing with cases). And you don't need the area completely devoid of people, just enough that you can swing the door.

Do you remember those sliding car park puzzles? With a gap you can shuffle the pieces around and get the red one to the exit. If there's no give in the onboard crowd then it's not safe.

Reality is people stand in the narrow aisles on trains and it's commonplace. Yes, it's unpleasant, but everyone does it, or experiences others right by them doing it, from time to time.

There's a difference between having people standing but it still being possible to squeeze past (I'm quite slight, which helps), and so rammed that access is impossible.

 

[Starmill]

Is he correct in saying I’m only ‘entitled’ to take the train after a cancelled one, not the one before?

No. If your booked service is cancelled, you're entitled to arrive on time if that's possible by an alternative service. The operator isn't in any position to argue against that, whether they appreciate it or not. They can't argue that you must be delayed needlessly, and claim the relevant compensation.

However, in your case you wished to arrive early. There's obviously no right of contract there, so it's all down to what they think is reasonable. As such they could have given you a choice between:
- leave two hours early and arrive on time, with no compensation
- leave an hour late and arrive an hour late, with the relevant compensation
- cancel your booking and get your money back (even on this ticket where this isn't usually an option)

They might say that's reasonable, and that's what your contract entitles you to, and you can simply choose between those options. I'd say that's bad customer service, but if they offered you that, you wouldn't have good arguments against it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2024 ==

The red line mostly concerns luggage (getting standees to shift in a hurry is easier than dealing with cases). And you don't need the area completely devoid of people, just enough that you can swing the door.

Do you remember those sliding car park puzzles? With a gap you can shuffle the pieces around and get the red one to the exit. If there's no give in the onboard crowd then it's not safe.


There's a difference between having people standing but it still being possible to squeeze past (I'm quite slight, which helps), and so rammed that access is impossible.

Fair enough. In general I think it is possible to get past one person at a time even in the narrow aisle of a class 158 say, as people can slightly lean into the space otherwise used by the person who is sitting down. It's slow but it's physically possible, and people do it themselves in order to get in and out of the toilets on very busy trains. Usually the toilets themselves remain unoccupied when someone isn't using them so people can briefly step out of the way by opening the door, then step back.

 

[AF91]

Do what’s right for the customer, not what is ‘right’ for the train comcompany

Agree with you there in terms of travel during disruption. I tended to take the view that I'd rather do whatI could to leave customers with a positive experience of the railways so that they were more likely to use rail over road in the future. Mind you that would depend on the customers attitude. If they were rude to me or the station staff then I'd be sticking rigidly to the rules.

 

[Starmill]

Agreed, if you arrive late for a hospital appointment, flight departure, or whatever, it is not the railway's problem. The railway will pay delay compensation, but that is it. If you were late for a flight, for example, your travel insurance company would likewise expect you to have allowed suitable time for disruption, and to have taken action to mitigate it, and if you didn't, would refuse to pay out.

This is also not really true. If the cause of the delay was a failure of the operator (e.g. trains cancelled due to a shortage of train crew) then direct losses could easily be claimed even if they exceeded the value of the ticket used. It's just easier to claim delay repay instead of this. For obvious reasons, both together isn't an option.

 

[trainophile]

No. If your booked service is cancelled, you're entitled to arrive on time if that's possible by an alternative service. The operator isn't in any position to argue against that, whether they appreciate it or not. They can't argue that you must be delayed needlessly, and claim the relevant compensation.

However, in your case you wished to arrive early. There's obviously no right of contract there, so it's all down to what they think is reasonable. As such they could have given you a choice between:
- leave two hours early and arrive on time, with no compensation
- leave an hour late and arrive an hour late, with the relevant compensation
- cancel your booking and get your money back (even on this ticket where this isn't usually an option)

They might say that's reasonable, and that's what your contract entitles you to, and you can simply choose between those options. I'd say that's bad customer service, but if they offered you that, you wouldn't have good arguments against it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2024 ==


Fair enough. In general I think it is possible to get past one person at a time even in the narrow aisle of a class 158 say, as people can slightly lean into the space otherwise used by the person who is sitting down. It's slow but it's physically possible, and people do it themselves in order to get in and out of the toilets on very busy trains. Usually the toilets themselves remain unoccupied when someone isn't using them so people can briefly step out of the way by opening the door, then step back.

I didn't *want* (sorry my bold isn't working on this Mac on this website for some reason, it is on my other one) to arrive early, I wanted to arrive at the time agreed not an hour late. Funnily enough I didn't have any problem in Hereford, even though my departure would theoretically have been in peak time, if such a thing applies on that route.

If the railway thinks it's fine for people to wait around cluttering up a station for over two hours when there are opportunities to mitigate this, and by the same company that caused the situation in the first place, then I give up.

Gonna buy a car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Be careful what you wish for here, LNERs new approach is all about removing fully flexible tickets, but in your case you would have been able to use the train before you’re booked one, Sounds great doesn’t it, but the devil is in the detail, namely pricing. Pay more for less. Anyway, it would have benefited you on this occasion.

Two before and two after is now effectively the standard.

 

[Starmill]

I didn't *want* (sorry my bold isn't working on this Mac on this website for some reason, it is on my other one) to arrive early, I wanted to arrive at the time agreed not an hour late. Funnily enough I didn't have any problem in Hereford, even though my departure would theoretically have been in peak time, if such a thing applies on that route.

Luckily there's no concept of peak and off peak as applied to Advance tickets. Sometimes that's also used as an excuse to deny early departures for on time arrivals, if there's a last-minute cancellation.

By a simple reading of the contract you were entitled to arrive at the booked time i.e. wait for two hours in Birmingham. You were also, explicitly by the terms, entitled to depart on the next available WMT service or entitled to a refund. It's your totally free choice between these options. You don't need any permission or a conversation with anyone to rely on them, although as the first one is more open to interpretation than the latter two then I'd advise a message on social media. It's still something you can rely on though because the arrival time is evidenced in your booking confirmation and clearly the booked time of arrival forms part of the contract which you rely on when you pay.

In my view arriving two hours early was a reasonable and sensible thing to allow given the needless delay repay bill that could otherwise have been generated by the company. But was it an entitlement? No, it wasn't, unfortunately.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Aug 2024 ==

If the railway thinks it's fine for people to wait around cluttering up a station for over two hours when there are opportunities to mitigate this, and by the same company that caused the situation in the first place, then I give up.

Gonna buy a car.

There's nothing that can be done about that beyond politely seeking permission and accepting that the answer may be no. It's a matter of poor customer care I quite agree and I'd like to see the policy changed. But that doesn't mean it's not the policy.

If your service is cancelled, subject to the route on the ticket, you are entitled to depart at and after booked time. Alternatively, you are entitled to try to arrive at booked time instead. Allowances on top of that may be made, but sometimes the operators are clueless or careless and that doesn't happen.