Trainline - giving misleading information

[Iron Girder]

A friend of mine bought an Advance Single ticket from Paddington to Carmarthen to travel today. Earlier this morning, she received an email from Trainline saying "Your train has been cancelled". Not being quite as much of a railway nerd as yours truly, this threw her into something of a panic, but she decided that she'd catch an earlier Swansea train, and get the (much slower) TfW connection from there to Carmarthen.

The upshot was that she had to buy another ticket, which she did, as the conductor advised her that "the cancellation of your train hasn't been confirmed yet".

This all seems a bit strange - it is certainly true that the original train apparently isn't cancelled, just the Swansea to Carmarthen leg (per the GW site, due to "staff shortages"). But it seems at the least unhelpful that Trainline are making statements like that. On trying to get a refund of her original ticket, the Trainline website is now saying it can't process the refund because it hasn't been confirmed that the train has been cancelled (which, technically, it hasn't - just from Swansea onwards).

How do they get away with making such misleading statements, and does she have a leg to stand on given that they have?

 

[Watershed]

What train(s) was she due to travel on, and which ones did she actually travel on?

Which train was she on when she was charged for the new ticket - the train to Swansea or the one to Carmarthen?

If she can share a copy of the email received perhaps that can shed some light on exactly what it said and whether this was misleading.

It is possible that she was wrongly charged and is entitled to be reimbursed for the new ticket she was forced to buy.

 

[Iron Girder]

What train(s) was she due to travel on, and which ones did she actually travel on?

Which train was she on when she was charged for the new ticket - the train to Swansea or the one to Carmarthen?

If she can share a copy of the email received perhaps that can shed some light on exactly what it said and whether this was misleading.

It is possible that she was wrongly charged and is entitled to be reimbursed for the new ticket she was forced to buy.

She was booked onto the 1748 ex PAD, to CMN.

She ended up on the 1448 ex PAD, to SWA. She's not protesting having to buy the ticket, more the misleading nature of the message from Trainline which led her to catch a train she's had to buy a new ticket for. She has bought a through ticket to CMN, and plans to change at SWA.

 

[AlterEgo]

She was booked onto the 1748 ex PAD, to CMN.

She ended up on the 1448 ex PAD, to SWA. She's not protesting having to buy the ticket, more the misleading nature of the message from Trainline which led her to catch a train she's had to buy a new ticket for. She has bought a through ticket to CMN, and plans to change at SWA.

Does she have proof of the communication regarding the cancellation?

 

[Iron Girder]

Does she have proof of the communication regarding the cancellation?

Yes, she does - it was an email, which I've told her to make sure she's kept.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, she does - it was an email, which I've told her to make sure she's kept.

Then she should absolutely not have been penalised.

 

[greatkingrat]

The problem is that even when a train is cancelled, you can normally only travel up to two hours before or after, so travelling on the 1448 instead of the 1748 may not be considered a reasonable alternative.

 

[Watershed]

She was booked onto the 1748 ex PAD, to CMN.

She ended up on the 1448 ex PAD, to SWA. She's not protesting having to buy the ticket, more the misleading nature of the message from Trainline which led her to catch a train she's had to buy a new ticket for. She has bought a through ticket to CMN, and plans to change at SWA.

Is there a particular reason she travelled 3 hours earlier rather than on, say, the train before or after?

 

[yorkie]

She was booked onto the 1748 ex PAD, to CMN.

She ended up on the 1448 ex PAD, to SWA. She's not protesting having to buy the ticket, more the misleading nature of the message from Trainline which led her to catch a train she's had to buy a new ticket for. She has bought a through ticket to CMN, and plans to change at SWA.

If she'd bought it from the forum's site and was travelling within 2 hours, I would absolutely be offering to help get a refund from GWR!

But this one, there is probably not much that can be done, as she was travelling 3 hours earlier, which is beyond the 2 hours allowed when a train is cancelled. If there was no onward connection within 2 hours, e.g. due to a very infrequent timetable, then it would be a different matter.

She was booked onto the 1748 ex PAD, to CMN.

This is the link anyone who books through Trainsplit (which powers the forum site) would get:

London Paddington to Carmarthen on 24/09/2026 | Train Timetable

You can see here it is cancelled beyond Swansea, so she would have been permitted to take:

​

1548 PAD-SWA​

1845 SWA-CMN​

or

1618 PAD-CMN​

or

1648 PAD-SWA​

1943 SWA-CMN​

All these would have arrived significantly earlier than she had originally booked to arrive.

The good news is that she can get a full refund of the original unused ticket. However, if it was scanned at Paddington, this may be problematic; she should submit evidence of the replacement ticket in her claim, to demonstrate the original ticket was unused, but Trainline can be awkward with this sort of thing, so it may be a battle to get the original money back.

Let us know how she gets on!

 

[Iron Girder]

If she'd bought it from the forum's site and was travelling within 2 hours, I would absolutely be offering to help get a refund from GWR!

But this one, there is probably not much that can be done, as she was travelling 3 hours earlier, which is beyond the 2 hours allowed when a train is cancelled. If there was no onward connection within 2 hours, e.g. due to a very infrequent timetable, then it would be a different matter.


This is the link anyone who books through Trainsplit (which powers the forum site) would get:

London Paddington to Carmarthen on 24/09/2026 | Train Timetable

You can see here it is cancelled beyond Swansea, so she would have been permitted to take:

​

1548 PAD-SWA​

1845 SWA-CMN​

or

1618 PAD-CMN​

or

1648 PAD-SWA​

1943 SWA-CMN​

All these would have arrived significantly earlier than she had originally booked to arrive.

The good news is that she can get a full refund of the original unused ticket. However, if it was scanned at Paddington, this may be problematic; she should submit evidence of the replacement ticket in her claim, to demonstrate the original ticket was unused, but Trainline can be awkward with this sort of thing, so it may be a battle to get the original money back.

Let us know how she gets on!

Fortunately, the gateline at Paddington was open, so she never scanned the original ticket. Which, from your feedback (for which many thanks!), would suggest that she will be able to get a refund on the outbound leg.

 

[Kilopylae]

This all seems a bit strange - it is certainly true that the original train apparently isn't cancelled, just the Swansea to Carmarthen leg (per the GW site, due to "staff shortages").

Does anyone know whether Trainline sends the cancellation e-mail in this case because the original train is removed from the timetable and a new one is re-added (as a convenience for planners) or whether cancelling part of a train's route marks the train as cancelled and automatically triggers the message for all customers?

 

[Haywain]

Does anyone know whether Trainline sends the cancellation e-mail in this case because the original train is removed from the timetable and a new one is re-added (as a convenience for planners) or whether cancelling part of a train's route marks the train as cancelled and automatically triggers the message for all customers?

I would expect it to be the latter, and it makes sense that if the train at your destination has been cancelled you'd want to know.

 

[yorkie]

Fortunately, the gateline at Paddington was open, so she never scanned the original ticket. Which, from your feedback (for which many thanks!), would suggest that she will be able to get a refund on the outbound leg.

It's an entitlement either way, but the lack of scan should avoid the claim being disputed. It should be refunded almost instantly. Let us know how they get on.