Updated National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) - Effective from 6th February 2022

[pelli]

Does this mean that it will essentially force TOCs to start posting bus timetables online when journeys are cancelled before 22:00 the day before, else they become liable for delay repay?

No it's the opposite - if bus timings are published before 22:00 then they become a promise that delay repay can be claimed against if the buses run late. Instead, the Train Operating Companies would want to make sure to publish the bus timings only after 22:00 (but cancel the trains before) so that no valid itineraries existed at 22:00 and hence no delay repay liabilities exist. (And this doesn't just apply to rail replacement buses - in theory every evening all train companies could delete all trains for the next day just before 22:00 and then reinstate them just after, so that the "Published Timetable Of The Day" is empty, even though a full service is running.)

 

[robbeech]

as we all know, buses replacing 'cancelled' trains do not show up in journey planners, only buses which are specifically in the system show up

And not even then. It took EMR over a month and several telephone conversations to get them to agree to add the buses into the RobinHood line timetable. They didn’t bother at first, and admit they had no intention of doing so and that provided “no tickets available” to many destinations.

Between then and 22:00 on the day of travel, you will only be liable for compensation if your journey is changed by more than 30 minutes.

This sounds like another level of complexity that the railway will manipulate and use to their advantage.

in theory every evening all train companies could delete all trains for the next day just before 22:00 and then reinstate them just after, so that the "Published Timetable Of The Day" is empty, even though a full service is running.)

Even I don’t think any operator would go to that extreme.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

50p says they don't understand the question and point you to the usual journey planner.

I owe you 50p.

I was impressed by the promptness of response, but not the content:

[in response to my request, asking National Rail to tell me where on their website the "Passenger Timetable of the Day" was published, as promised in the NRCot Glossary]

"I can confirm that there is no specific page or timetable for the above request. The link provided on the National Rail Conditions of Travel will redirect you to our journey plaanner, where you will be required to plan the specific journey online."

 

[ABB125]

I owe you 50p.

I was impressed by the promptness of response, but not the content:

[in response to my request, asking National Rail to tell me where on their website the "Passenger Timetable of the Day" was published, as promised in the NRCot Glossary]

"I can confirm that there is no specific page or timetable for the above request. The link provided on the National Rail Conditions of Travel will redirect you to our journey plaanner, where you will be required to plan the specific journey online."

Is the "journey plaanner" better than the "journey planner"?

 

[AM9]

I owe you 50p.

I was impressed by the promptness of response, but not the content:

[in response to my request, asking National Rail to tell me where on their website the "Passenger Timetable of the Day" was published, as promised in the NRCot Glossary]

"I can confirm that there is no specific page or timetable for the above request. The link provided on the National Rail Conditions of Travel will redirect you to our journey plaanner, where you will be required to plan the specific journey online."

So having created a journey plan when booking a ticket, the holder then has to go through the whole planning exercise again the evening before travelling, just to check whether their ticket is still of any value for the journey and if not, whether they have to (plan and) buy another one that is.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

So having created a journey plan when booking a ticket, the holder then has to go through the whole planning exercise again the evening before travelling, just to check whether their ticket is still of any value for the journey and if not, whether they have to (plan and) buy another one that is.

And of course the passenger needs to do this at precisely 2200 the evening before travel (because if they leave it any later, the Journey Planner may be incorporating timing changes or cancellations that have been introduced since 2200 and so don't affect the Published Timetable of the Day), and they need to do this for every journey just in case they encounter delays when they come to travel. Because if they wait until they suffer a delay on the day, there is apparently no way to go back to see how things stood at 2200 the night before.

 

[P Binnersley]

Is there actually a "Published timetable of the day" on the national rail website? I can't find one a searching the term only directed me to temporary timetable changed.

As a contractual "document" it should be able to be viewed retrospectively. Otherwise how are people to know which database changes were done before "publication" and which after?

 

[robbeech]

Is there actually a "Published timetable of the day" on the national rail website? I can't find one a searching the term only directed me to temporary timetable changed.

As a contractual "document" it should be able to be viewed retrospectively. Otherwise how are people to know which database changes were done before "publication" and which after?

No. There isn’t at all.

And yes a contractual document should normally be viewable retrospectively but this doesn’t apply to the railway it seems. They can do as they please.

 

[py_megapixel]

Does it actually say in the NRCOT that the NRE journey planner is an authoritative source of information on this matter?

What is the legal position, in general, in cases where a contract depends on a document which does not exist, or is unavailable to one of the parties to the contract because the other party refuses to publish it?

Why can't they just put Published Timetables as PDFs on a web page somewhere and add new ones at 22:00 every day?

All genuine questions.

 

[td97]

I've recently (today) purchased from the Northern Mobile app which links to the March 2018 NRCoT (link at bottom of screenshot).
Surely that means the 2018 NRCoT applies to this purchase?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Since last weekend, https://www.brtimes.com/ reloads each night at exactly 22:00 and will therefore show the timetable of the day (a few mintues after 22:00, after reloading has finished). This is only guaranteed to be accurate for 48 hours though - after that, although the site allows you to look up dates in the past, already expired schedules (i.e. those not scheduled to run on any dates in the future) could be missing.

And of course the passenger needs to do this at precisely 2200 the evening before travel (because if they leave it any later, the Journey Planner may be incorporating timing changes or cancellations that have been introduced since 2200 and so don't affect the Published Timetable of the Day

You won't have that issue with BRtimes.com - it doesn't incorporate any real time updates so the published timetable of the day will remain static for a given day from 22:00 the night before until 22:00 the day after.

 

[furlong]

So perhaps we need another update with a new Information Box. "While the rail industry only lets you query the PTOD once a day at exactly 22:00, third parties such as brtimes.com may let you view it retrospectively."

 

[CyrusWuff]

My take on it is that it's an attempt to clarify the point at which the timetable is "locked down" for compensation purposes, bringing it into line with delay attribution. But, as so often happens, they've gone about it the wrong way.

To summarise: If a train is cancelled or altered by 2200 the day before, any performance issues will be measured against the revised timetable for delay attribution purposes. Changes after 2200 will be measured against the "base" timetable.

As we know, some TOCs are better at advertising such changes than others, however. Though Network Rail also "sit" on changes that are submitted late - even when they've caused the late submission - and don't load them into the database until a few days in advance.

 

[yorkie]

What concerns me is this: Say I book a train from York to Newcastle departing at 9am, arriving at 10am.

Let's say the timetable changes (due to engineering work) so I can either depart at 8:10am and arrive on time at 10am, or I can depart at 9:10am and arrive an hour late at 11am.

If the retailer contacts me and asks me to "choose" between those options, am I obliged to actually make a decision before the day of travel and "re-book"?

Previously there would have been no doubt that I would have the right, on the day, to either catch the earlier or later train. If I ended up on the later one, I'd be entitled to Delay Repay compensation.

I feel I shouldn't have to choose in advance; I may be on a bus that arrives at 8:10am and be unsure if I will make the earlier train or not; when I booked I had 50 minutes but now I end up with a zero connection or an hour wait; do I now have to choose before the day for my ticket to remain valid?

Then, as well as the question regarding whether the ticket is valid or not, there is the question that if I do arrive late, the suggestion of the new NRCoT is that I am no longer entitled to Delay Repay because it would no longer be based on the original contract. But would this interpretation, no matter what the wording of the NRCoT happens to be, actually be compliant with consumer and contract law? (The rail industry doesn't always comply)

My argument is that the original contract should not be deemed 'null & void' and I shouldn't have to do anything before the day of travel and my ticket should remain valid.

If we try to get out of the contract we are told the fare is "not refundable" and if we want to change it we are told we have to pay a £10 "admin fee" and yet the rail industry wants to do whatever it wants to us with impunity?

 

[3rd rail land]

What concerns me is this: Say I book a train from York to Newcastle departing at 9am, arriving at 10am.

Let's say the timetable changes (due to engineering work) so I can either depart at 8:10am and arrive on time at 10am, or I can depart at 9:10am and arrive an hour late at 11am.

If the retailer contacts me and asks me to "choose" between those options, am I obliged to actually make a decision before the day of travel and "re-book"?

Previously there would have been no doubt that I would have the right, on the day, to either catch the earlier or later train. If I ended up on the later one, I'd be entitled to Delay Repay compensation.

I feel I shouldn't have to choose in advance; I may be on a bus that arrives at 8:10am and be unsure if I will make the earlier train or not; when I booked I had 50 minutes but now I end up with a zero connection or an hour wait; do I now have to choose before the day for my ticket to remain valid?

Then, as well as the question regarding whether the ticket is valid or not, there is the question that if I do arrive late, the suggestion of the new NRCoT is that I am no longer entitled to Delay Repay because it would no longer be based on the original contract. But would this interpretation, no matter what the wording of the NRCoT happens to be, actually be compliant with consumer and contract law? (The rail industry doesn't always comply)

My argument is that the original contract should not be deemed 'null & void' and I shouldn't have to do anything before the day of travel and my ticket should remain valid.

If we try to get out of the contract we are told the fare is "not refundable" and if we want to change it we are told we have to pay a £10 "admin fee" and yet the rail industry wants to do whatever it wants to us with impunity?

Personally I would make a decision in advance so as to be able to plan my day but I agree one shouldn't have to make a decision in advance in such a situation. Prior to 6th February one wouldn't have to make such a decision in advance.

It does seem like the railway is trying to save money in a really sly way which also causes significant inconvenience to passengers. Changing timetables at the very last minute and not having to pay delay repay, charging £10 to refund a ticket, not releasing advances till very close to the travel date etc... It all stinks and I very much doubt any other industry could get away with such tactics. I would be tempted to boycott the railway in protest as I don't what to give them any of my hard earned money but alas I don't drive so need public transport to get around.

I hope many people who are able to travel by car instead of the railway do so as this will help force the railway to change their attitude. Actually they won't change, all they'll do is cut more services and update the NRCoT to further disadvantage of the passenger in response to falling passenger numbers. People like you and me will lose out either way.

I understand the railway is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money and savings need to be made but this is absolutely not the way to go about it.

 

[AlterEgo]

My argument is that the original contract should not be deemed 'null & void' and I shouldn't have to do anything before the day of travel and my ticket should remain valid.

If we try to get out of the contract we are told the fare is "not refundable" and if we want to change it we are told we have to pay a £10 "admin fee" and yet the rail industry wants to do whatever it wants to us with impunity?

I have to say, the £10 admin fee really ought to have been abolished for online bookings.

Many airlines now fanfare that they have no change fees at all, even on their cheapest tickets. It's been a game changer for that industry; airlines have been able to hold a lot of revenue in the form of vouchers or delayed tickets and been able to use that to make investments.

Book with Confidence should have become a permanent thing, IMO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say, the £10 admin fee really ought to have been abolished for online bookings.

Many airlines now fanfare that they have no change fees at all, even on their cheapest tickets. It's been a game changer for that industry; airlines have been able to hold a lot of revenue in the form of vouchers or delayed tickets and been able to use that to make investments.

Book with Confidence should have become a permanent thing, IMO.

I don't think the refundable part should be as it sort of negates the point of Advances, but I would absolutely abolish the £10 admin fee, so walk-up tickets are refundable without fee and Advances changeable for just the difference in fare if higher, provided either it was e-ticketed or the ToD had not yet been collected. (There is admin associated to changing a paper ticket so I see the fee as reasonable there).

 

[Jason12]

Book with Confidence should have become a permanent thing, IMO.

Even 'Book with Confidence' doesn't allow the customer to 'get out of the contract', as @yorkie describes when the booked service is cancelled. It merely offers rebooking, though not necessarily limited to the service immediately before or after that which was cancelled.

 

[Haywain]

Even 'Book with Confidence' doesn't allow the customer to 'get out of the contract', as @yorkie describes when the booked service is cancelled. It merely offers rebooking, though not necessarily limited to the service immediately before or after that which was cancelled.

I think the scenario that @yorkie discussed is completely unrelated to Book with Confidence which allows a ticket to be cancelled/refunded up to 18:00 the day before travel.

 

[Tom]

Since last weekend, https://www.brtimes.com/ reloads each night at exactly 22:00 and will therefore show the timetable of the day (a few mintues after 22:00, after reloading has finished). This is only guaranteed to be accurate for 48 hours though - after that, although the site allows you to look up dates in the past, already expired schedules (i.e. those not scheduled to run on any dates in the future) could be missing.

You won't have that issue with BRtimes.com - it doesn't incorporate any real time updates so the published timetable of the day will remain static for a given day from 22:00 the night before until 22:00 the day after.

I think this in itself is problematic and quite probably won't work on certain days. The CIF as published by Network Rail can come out at any time between 7pm and 2am from past experience and most downstream systems won't reload their timetables until 2am. The PTOD could also be varied by VSTP additions to the planned base schedule made before 10pm which could, of course, be inserted directly into Darwin or NR's VSTP systems (which aren't connected either).

Therefore I think no system actually has the planned timetable of the day at 10pm when there's going to be severe variation to the plan (e.g. snow plan loaded at last minute).

If you process the timetable update from CIF as soon as they come in from NR (or RSP I guess, not sure where their processing works), then I think you're close but not completely there.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

For anyone who is a regular bus user, none of the above one-sided treatment of 'valued customers' will come as a surprise. Even ensuring the last bus of the day runs (or has sufficient capacity) has become an optional extra. Read the First conditions of carriage to see what I mean. Paraphrased: You buy an e-ticket, our machine doesn't work, or doesn't recognise it, you pay again, we don't offer any refund. You commit to travel, we can't be ar**ed running the bus, you make other arrangements at your own cost.

Given the heavy involvement in the rail industry of bus bandits since privatisation, it just surprises me that it has taken them so long to exert their 'lets decline the business until it goes pop' mentality.

 

[island]

I don't think the refundable part should be as it sort of negates the point of Advances, but I would absolutely abolish the £10 admin fee, so walk-up tickets are refundable without fee and Advances changeable for just the difference in fare if higher, provided either it was e-ticketed or the ToD had not yet been collected. (There is admin associated to changing a paper ticket so I see the fee as reasonable there).

I would stop short of abolishing the £10 fee for changes to advance tickets, as its presence incentivises people requiring flexibility to book flexible tickets rather than booking the last train they might want and changing if they decide to travel earlier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would stop short of abolishing the £10 fee for changes to advance tickets, as its presence incentivises people requiring flexibility to book flexible tickets rather than booking the last train they might want and changing if they decide to travel earlier.

The railway doesn't like flexible tickets (other than Anytimes), it prefers the granular yield management and lack of confusion of Advances (plus them getting all the revenue). This being the case, I don't think this will be much of a concern. They might chuck £20 in on a cheap Advance 3 months out, but then up it to a more expensive one nearer the time. So I think there would be an overall benefit.

Advances aren't what they were. It's now, led by the low cost airlines, no longer a case of "2 months in advance = cheap", it's about dynamic yield management to spread loads and extract the most money.

 

[island]

Let me have a go.

What concerns me is this: Say I book a train from York to Newcastle departing at 9am, arriving at 10am.

Accepting for the purpose of the thread that the timings are of the essence of the contract, then...

Let's say the timetable changes (due to engineering work) so I can either depart at 8:10am and arrive on time at 10am, or I can depart at 9:10am and arrive an hour late at 11am.

This is an "anticipatory breach" of the contract: the service provider has told you that it no longer proposes to honour the contract. You get the options to accept the proposed alternative, rescind the contract, or claim for damages.

If the retailer contacts me and asks me to "choose" between those options, am I obliged to actually make a decision before the day of travel and "re-book"?

Debatable. You are under a duty to mitigate your losses at common law. I don't think rebooking before the day of travel would count as mitigating your losses, but I am open to being convinced.

Previously there would have been no doubt that I would have the right, on the day, to either catch the earlier or later train. If I ended up on the later one, I'd be entitled to Delay Repay compensation.

Agreed.

I feel I shouldn't have to choose in advance; I may be on a bus that arrives at 8:10am and be unsure if I will make the earlier train or not; when I booked I had 50 minutes but now I end up with a zero connection or an hour wait; do I now have to choose before the day for my ticket to remain valid?

For the reasons suggested above, I don't think so.

Then, as well as the question regarding whether the ticket is valid or not, there is the question that if I do arrive late, the suggestion of the new NRCoT is that I am no longer entitled to Delay Repay because it would no longer be based on the original contract. But would this interpretation, no matter what the wording of the NRCoT happens to be, actually be compliant with consumer and contract law? (The rail industry doesn't always comply)

Yes.

DelayRepay is one of several ways a passenger can claim compensation for a TOC's failure to deliver them to their rail destination by the designated time. They could be described as "liquidated damages" in that the amount of the payment to be made in respect of certain breaches has been pre-specified.

I will accept for the purpose of the thread that DelayRepay is a contractual entitlement*, as nothing turns on whether it is or not. It is clear that it is, at most, a creature of contract, and not of statute or case law. Parties to a contract are free for the most part to contract on such terms as they wish. A TOC is not obliged by statute or case law to offer DelayRepay at all. (It is probably obliged by its franchise agreement, but passengers do not have a right to enforce the franchise agreement as against the TOC; that is a matter for the DaFT.) Looking at the counterfactual, most heritage railways do not offer DelayRepay or similar schemes, even where a passenger uses one for long-distance journeys. It cannot be said that "not offering DelayRepay at all" is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ("the CRA").

The calculation method for DelayRepay is set down in the relevant TOC's customer charter and the National Rail Conditions of Travel. The TOC decides on what terms it will offer its services; these include the terms of DelayRepay.

It seems to me that any offering of DelayRepay, however limited or poor, is "fairer" than not offering DelayRepay at all. So no form of DelayRepay can be "unfair".

Naturally, a passenger who feels that a delay has caused them a loss is free to seek remedies under statute law such as part 1 chapter 4 of the CRA, or under common law. They cannot, of course, seek to recover for the same loss under two different heads. And a term of a contract which restricted the ability to claim thusly would be ousted by section 57 of the CRA.

My argument is that the original contract should not be deemed 'null & void' and I shouldn't have to do anything before the day of travel and my ticket should remain valid.

I think that's correct. It's voidable at the instance of the passenger.

If we try to get out of the contract we are told the fare is "not refundable" and if we want to change it we are told we have to pay a £10 "admin fee" and yet the rail industry wants to do whatever it wants to us with impunity?

In general, yes; in this specific instance if the TOC has committed an anticipatory breach, you may treat the contract as at an end and claim a refund. Since there is this option of cancelling with a fee-free refund, the TOC's conditions are, in my view, not unfair within the meaning of the CRA.

The passenger retains the right at common law to claim against the TOC for consequential losses of the journey being retimed, if they can prove them.

*But not accepting generally; this has been discussed to death elsewhere ending in an agreement to disagree.

 

[Watershed]

I would concur with what @island has said, except as follows:

A TOC is not obliged by statute or case law to offer DelayRepay at all.

That is not correct. Article 17 of EU Regulation 1371/2007 establishes a statutory right to a minimum level of compensation, of 25% of the relevant portion of the ticket for a 60-119 minute delay and 50% for 120+ minutes. The only proviso being that carriers need not pay out compensation of less than €4.

The exemption which domestic British carriers previously benefitted from was not renewed, and thus the provisions of the EU Regulation came into effect for domestic journeys in 2019. The EU Regulation has been retained in British law as part of Brexit arrangements.

Unfortunately, the definition of "delay" provided in Article 3 of the Regulation is somewhat ambiguous, as the term "published timetable" is not further defined:

‘delay’ means the time difference between the time the passenger was scheduled to arrive in accordance with the published timetable and the time of his or her actual or expected arrival

In the unlikely event someone were to bring a legal claim for their entitlement of compensation under the Regulation, I would imagine the TOC in question would seek to argue that the Published Timetable of the Day set out in the NRCoT is the "published timetable" which should be considered.

I am doubtful of whether that argument would succeed, given that this timetable is not truly "published" - it is only stated as being available through the journey planner of a (rather unreliable) industry website, and as others have said, there is no way of definitively proving what was showing in there at 22:00 the night before (unless someone happened to screenshot it for example).

Looking at the counterfactual, most heritage railways do not offer DelayRepay or similar schemes, even where a passenger uses one for long-distance journeys.

Heritage railways and railtour operators are outside the scope of Regulations cited above, because they do not exist to provide carriage (i.e. transport from A to B), but rather to provide an experience (a nice train ride, possibly with some food or other entertainment).

The rights contained in Article 17, for example, are exercisable against a "railway undertaking", a term defined as:

a railway undertaking as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2001/14/EC, and any other public or private undertaking the activity of which is to provide transport of goods and/or passengers by rail on the basis that the undertaking must ensure traction; this also includes undertakings which provide traction only;

On a separate note, I would suggest that the new PToD arrangements could fall foul of one or more of the examples of potentially unfair terms, as listed in Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

2. A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations

The PToD arrangements purport to allow TOCs to completely change, if not cancel, the timetable without any recourse beyond a refund

7. A term which has the object or effect of authorising the trader to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer

TOCs apparently have total discretion as to how they vary the timetable to come up with the PToD, including being allowed to remove all services from the timetable if they wish. There is nothing saying that this will only be done "where necessary" or "in extreme circumstances" for example. Yet passengers can't get a full refund on their tickets if they change their mind - a refund is always subject to an administration fee, and in some cases is not available at all.

11-13 have much the same tests as each other:

11. A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.

The NRCoT do not apply any limitations on the reasons why TOCs might vary the timetable, therefore by definition, there cannot be a "valid reason which is specified in the contract".

12. A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to determine the characteristics of the subject matter of the contract after the consumer has become bound by it.

TOCs are apparently authorised to change the timetable as they wish, anytime until 22:00 the night before.

13. A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the goods, digital content or services to be provided.

See above - although here the reason need not be specified in the contract to qualify as potentially valid. So it is a question of whether there is a valid reason at all.

Now of course it's very unlikely that anyone will try to take the TOCs (and the DfT, if we're being real here) to task on these potentially unfair terms. But I certainly think there are grounds for arguing that the whole PToD mechanism, at least in the way the NRCoT have worded it, is unfair and not binding.

It is certainly disappointing to see an arm of the government signing off on terms which could fall foul of the unfair terms legislation which Parliament saw fit to enact. But I would expect nothing less from the DfT - they are only interested in minimising the liability of running the railway.

 

[robbeech]

If the retailer contacts me and asks me to "choose" between those options, am I obliged to actually make a decision before the day of travel and "re-book"?

No. But it may be in the passengers interest to do so for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, by rebooking onto an alternative service it will likely give them a seat reservation which may be appealing to them.

They can plan ahead and should have less trouble claiming delay repay should there be further disruption on the day.

You may have looked at the 0800 originally but booked the 0900 as it was £30 cheaper, so you may actually end up in a better position.

You may look at the 1000 and notice that there are still advances cheaper than what you paid and realise that as you can’t get the 0800 and the 0900 is cancelled then you may aswell buy a new cheaper ticket for the 1000 and refund your 0900.

But it comes with a number of complications which show how it simply cannot work (or if any operator tried it they’d be causing more problems than they’d solve).

A direct point to point advance on one train is simple enough, but the minute you add connections in, especially on advances this causes issues.
Take an example of Reading to Grantham, you have an itinerary and seat booked on a through advance from Reading to Paddington, cross London and an itinerary and seat reservation for King’s Cross to Grantham. They’re both booked trains so there is no flexibility.
Say GWR cancel your train and contact you and offer you an earlier or a later one, are they going to offer you a later hull trains or LNER service from kings cross too? How? If the next LNER has only higher tier advances left, or non left, how can gwr deal with this? I don’t see how this can work on anything with more than one booked train.

Direct trains and +connections which have no booked trains perhaps although they still can’t reasonably expect this.

Overall I think communication is important and I would sooner the retailer or operator contact me and let me know there has been a change of timetable (I appreciate I’d probably know before they did anyway but for general passengers) . The data is available to all retailers but it’s too much effort for most to bother pushing it to customers but whilst I’m in favour of being given the options I’m very much against being forced to do so and see no possible way they could do this without breaking the law (although the railway do this daily so we shouldn’t be surprised)

 

[Paul Kelly]

The PTOD could also be varied by VSTP additions to the planned base schedule made before 10pm

That's an interesting point. I don't think I agree, but you saying it has made me realise it's open to interpretation! I had just automatically assumed that what is meant by PTOD is the nightly schedule data as issued by Network Rail and post-processed by RDG, before finally being published for use by retail journey planners in the RDG Data Transformation and Distribution system. Does the journey planner data used by NRE include VSTP additions? That is new to me if so, but I admit I am not certain. I think it would at least reduce arguments if someone "in the know" was able to clarify what was meant, although I acknowledge the contractual position will still be unclear as it's not defined clearly in the NRCoT. One point I would note is that the defintion:

"Published Timetable of the Day" means the schedule of services, including rail replacement services, applicable on the day you travel or plan to travel (different to May or December timetable). These changes will be published no later than 22:00 the day before travel and available at www.nationalrail.co.uk

does not actually say the data will be available on NRE at 22:00 the day before, just that it will be published before then! As you noted most journey planners do not reload until much later than this - indeed the PMS fares data can be incorrect if it is loaded before midnight, so most systems would probably need changes to load the new timetable data along with fares data from the day before.

Therefore I think no system actually has the planned timetable of the day at 10pm when there's going to be severe variation to the plan (e.g. snow plan loaded at last minute).

If you mean that it is not published on DTD before 10pm on those cases, my reading of it is that delay repay claims would then be based on the out-of-data data from the day before, i.e. that most recently published before 10pm (more than 24 hours before in this case).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So, I travel outwards from Stoke-on-Trent to Fort William and there are no travel issues actual or forecast. I stay in my accommodation until the last day and there are no travel issues actual or forecast. Just before 2200 the train operator, on one or more legs of the return journey, cancels my booked train. They even notify me by text rather than me having to pro-actively seek an update. I have what choice exactly? To refund my ticket and be stranded hundreds of miles from home with no accommodation, or clean clothes to wear. To return a day early, oops to late for that. To return home a day (or several days) later when the TOC deigns to provide a service?

 

[tspaul26]

So, I travel outwards from Stoke-on-Trent to Fort William and there are no travel issues actual or forecast. I stay in my accommodation until the last day and there are no travel issues actual or forecast. Just before 2200 the train operator, on one or more legs of the return journey, cancels my booked train. They even notify me by text rather than me having to pro-actively seek an update. I have what choice exactly? To refund my ticket and be stranded hundreds of miles from home with no accommodation, or clean clothes to wear. To return a day early, oops to late for that. To return home a day (or several days) later when the TOC deigns to provide a service?

NRCOT n.28.2:

Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.

New NRCOT n.30.1:

Conditions 30.1 – 30.4 cover all Tickets other than Season Tickets, and also applies if you have begun your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of, your service. In such cases, you are permitted to return to your point of origin and still get a refund.

 

[island]

NRCOT n.28.2:


New NRCOT n.30.1:

I believe these apply to customers who have already started travelling by train or are at the station.

If the traveller is using a return ticket there is more of an argument that the ticket is "being used" or the journey has begun than if he or she is using two single tickets.