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

[Fawkes Cat]

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?

Is it worth pointing out that this is something of an edge case (even accepting <any English or Welsh origin> in lieu of Stoke on Trent)? That's not to say that it shouldn't be coped with - but as something that we could reasonably expect only to happen occasionally, is it appropriate to say 'we will rely on the good sense of the railway staff involved to cope with this unusual state of affairs'?

 

[Watershed]

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!

It doesn't - but it would be stretching incredulity to suggest that the timetable had been "published", if the only place where it is guaranteed to be available for public consumption is not yet displaying it.

But yes, it's yet another example of how badly thought through the concept of the PToD is. And if the DfT and RDG had stopped for even a moment to consider a public consultation, I'm sure issues like this would have been pointed out to them.

The document is riddled with ambiguities and potentially unfair terms. It definitely appears as if it's not been drafted, let alone looked over, by anyone with legal qualifications. It tries to avoid legalese, but in doing so it only causes more ambiguity.

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.

Although it's worth noting that under the PToD definition, there is no guarantee that journey planners other than NRE will have accurate information.

In fact it's quite possible for someone to buy a ticket after 22:00 the night before, for a train that has actually been cancelled according to the PToD, and for the TOC to claim they're not entitled to any compensation because the PToD had already been published without that train.

That such an outcome is even theoretically possible, given the PToD definition wording, shows how flawed a concept it is.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Is it worth pointing out that this is something of an edge case (even accepting <any English or Welsh origin> in lieu of Stoke on Trent)? That's not to say that it shouldn't be coped with - but as something that we could reasonably expect only to happen occasionally, is it appropriate to say 'we will rely on the good sense of the railway staff involved to cope with this unusual state of affairs'?

Long distance leisure travel is not an edge case.

'we will rely on the good sense of the railway staff involved to cope with this unusual state of affairs' is what I would undoubtedly encounter in practice, but cannot be guaranteed or insisted upon contractually.

If the railway wishes to destroy itself by being seen to be wholly unreliable and unreasonable, so be it. Most people (not me) have cars available if need be. Look at the road statistics vs rail statistics post lockdown. I think a pattern is emerging.

 

[Haywain]

Look at the road statistics vs rail statistics post lockdown. I think a pattern is emerging.

That is much more connected to 2 years of being told to avoid public transport than anything else.

 

[AlterEgo]

'we will rely on the good sense of the railway staff involved to cope with this unusual state of affairs' is what I would undoubtedly encounter in practice, but cannot be guaranteed or insisted upon contractually.

There have always been unusual states of affairs on the railway; sometimes resolved well, and sometimes not.

Rather too much is being made of the Published Timetable of the Day stuff - I reiterate it is a bad, and unwelcome development, but only a few thousand people have probably even noticed it had changed and of those only a handful will ever be negatively affected in the way you describe.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

'we will rely on the good sense of the railway staff involved to cope with this unusual state of affairs' is what I would undoubtedly encounter in practice, but cannot be guaranteed or insisted upon contractually.

My emphasis. But if that is undoubtedly the outcome, where is the need for the braces of of the contract as well as the belt of undoubtedly encountering?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

My emphasis. But if that is undoubtedly the outcome, where is the need for the braces of of the contract as well as the belt of undoubtedly encountering?

Because, not being on a train driver or BBC presenters salary, I cannot afford to pay, especially unexpectedly, for a taxi all the way home. Because I don't want to spend 1/3/7 days sleeping on the bench outside Fort William Station in the same pair of socks and underpants. Because if I can no longer rely on the 'get you to your destination' guarantee, I will simply not make that type of journey. It's my loss and the rail industry's loss. I don't make such journeys by National Express / Scottish Citylink for exactly that reason, even though it would be equally scenic.

As an aside, such journeys would be made on Advance tickets so 'out' and 'return' would be regarded as separate journeys. Being abandoned at a distant destination, because I had not yet commenced my 'single' journey so not entitled to anything other than a full fee-free refund will become a serious disincentive to travel - or I'll have to buy a return ticket instead.

 

[tspaul26]

It definitely appears as if it's not been drafted, let alone looked over, by anyone with legal qualifications. It tries to avoid legalese, but in doing so it only causes more ambiguity.

I suspect it is more likely that this mess has arisen because a lawyer has attempted to render whatever the underlying objective was in plain language.

Sometimes we use complex or arcane language for a reason!

Rather too much is being made of the Published Timetable of the Day stuff - I reiterate it is a bad, and unwelcome development, but only a few thousand people have probably even noticed it had changed and of those only a handful will ever be negatively affected in the way you describe.

I agree that it is badly drafted and unwelcome, but frankly I think too much fuss is being made of it: rail staff often ignore the NRCOT anyway (and always have) and if there were ever a serious dispute as to the correct interpretation of these contractual provisions then I would expect the courts to interpret them benevolently in favour of the passenger.

As an aside, such journeys would be made on Advance tickets so 'out' and 'return' would be regarded as separate journeys. Being abandoned at a distant destination, because I had not yet commenced my 'single' journey so not entitled to anything other than a full fee-free refund will become a serious disincentive to travel - or I'll have to buy a return ticket instead.

NRCOT n.28.2 already deals with this

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect it is more likely that this mess has arisen because a lawyer has attempted to render whatever the underlying objective was in plain language.

I suspect the underlying objective was to prevent huge payouts in the case of long-term stuff that wasn't the railway's fault in the context of a situation where more and more people book in advance. For instance, the bridge issue near Carlisle of a few years ago would have netted almost every passenger due to go that way a full refund of both legs for pretty much the entire period of disruption (though tailing off towards the end) as well as the loss of walk-up revenue from people who didn't pay on the day and drove/flew instead. And necessary service cuts due to high staff sickness due to COVID would do the same sort of thing. That's near financial ruin.

They also need to do it within the constraints of the relevant EU regulation which remains part of UK law, which might mean the obvious (switching to "if it's force majeure, we won't pay out") wouldn't legally work.

I do however think 2200 the night before is too tight, and would have used something like 5 or 7 days before.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I suspect the underlying objective was to prevent huge payouts in the case of long-term stuff that wasn't the railway's fault in the context of a situation where more and more people book in advance. For instance, the bridge issue near Carlisle of a few years ago would have netted almost every passenger due to go that way a full refund of both legs for pretty much the entire period of disruption (though tailing off towards the end). And necessary service cuts due to high staff sickness due to COVID would do the same sort of thing. That's near financial ruin.

They also need to do it within the constraints of the relevant EU regulation which remains part of UK law, which might mean the obvious (switching to "if it's force majeure, we won't pay out") wouldn't legally work.

I do however think 2200 the night before is too tight, and would have used something like 5 or 7 days before.

My suggestion would be that 'the industry' does not like the idea of having to deliver the 'long term timetable' and prefers to be able to fiddle about with it on a daily basis; as resources allow; as scheduled engineering works requuire; as weather forecasts (not actuality) suggest. If we are to have a flexible timetable rather than a fixed one I would prefer it if that was explicitly stated. There are very good reasons why bus operators have to 'register' their services in advance and thus can be monitored against that agreed timetable (in theory anyway) rather than run some random 'timetable of the day' leaving passengers to guess what time, if at all, their bus will run.

 

[island]

I suspect the underlying objective was to prevent huge payouts in the case of long-term stuff that wasn't the railway's fault in the context of a situation where more and more people book in advance. For instance, the bridge issue near Carlisle of a few years ago would have netted almost every passenger due to go that way a full refund of both legs for pretty much the entire period of disruption (though tailing off towards the end) as well as the loss of walk-up revenue from people who didn't pay on the day and drove/flew instead. And necessary service cuts due to high staff sickness due to COVID would do the same sort of thing. That's near financial ruin.

I think this is very accurate. The execution has been quite a Horlicks, though.

They also need to do it within the constraints of the relevant EU regulation which remains part of UK law, which might mean the obvious (switching to "if it's force majeure, we won't pay out") wouldn't legally work.

Though of course Parliament is at liberty to revoke that.

I do however think 2200 the night before is too tight, and would have used something like 5 or 7 days before.

That would have been reasonable.

 

[Jason12]

For instance, the bridge issue near Carlisle of a few years ago would have netted almost every passenger due to go that way a full refund of both legs for pretty much the entire period of disruption (though tailing off towards the end) as well as the loss of walk-up revenue from people who didn't pay on the day and drove/flew instead. And necessary service cuts due to high staff sickness due to COVID would do the same sort of thing. That's near financial ruin.

The thing is, the question of a refunds over such an extended period of disruption only applies because refundable tickets have been bought well in advance. The natural and obvious response to being potentially stuffed by the new conditions is that customers will wait until after 22:00 on the day before travel to purchase, so they will be aware of any disruption and won't purchase the ticket in the first place. Revenue-wise, there's no difference between a non-purchase and a refund.

 

[stew]

I don't have the knowledge of many on here but......

is there a way to see which trains have been removed from the pre-2200 published timetable once the PTOD has been published?

Ie: Compare the "original timetable" vs the "updated @ 2200 the day before" version? Is that data available in such a format that a comparison could be made?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is, the question of a refunds over such an extended period of disruption only applies because refundable tickets have been bought well in advance. The natural and obvious response to being potentially stuffed by the new conditions is that customers will wait until after 22:00 on the day before travel to purchase, so they will be aware of any disruption and won't purchase the ticket in the first place. Revenue-wise, there's no difference between a non-purchase and a refund.

Except they won't, because most people are on Advances on long journeys, and Advances are generally cheaper if bought more in, umm, advance.

Most people won't even notice or care unless they claim Delay Repay and it's denied. Most people don't even claim Delay Repay!

 

[Jason12]

Most people won't even notice or care unless they claim Delay Repay and it's denied. Most people don't even claim Delay Repay!

In post #309, you were suggesting the "near financial ruin" which would result in periods of extended disruption, because full refunds would be due to "almost every passenger".

Now you say "most people don't even claim".

How would the supposed "financial ruin" manifest itself, even under the previous conditions, if "most people don't even claim"?

If the change to conditions is being made to stem the flow of compensation being paid, then self evidently that compensation is being claimed by customers who do care enough to claim it. Those are the very customers who are likely to notice the changes in conditions and modify their behaviour accordingly in relation to which tickets they purchase and when they make those purchases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, I can tell you this. I won't change my ticket buying habits based on Delay Repay availability, and as most of the time I'm not relying on first or last trains I won't change it based on that, either.

 

[Jason12]

I also won't be changing my purchasing based on the changes to Delay Repay. But I have always been able to rely on the backstop that whenever I purchased my ticket, in the event of subsequent change or disruption to services I had the right to choose not to travel and to a full refund of my unused ticket. Now that has changed, I won't be purchasing walk-up tickets until after 22:00 the day before I intend to travel.

Necessarily that will mean, in the event of disruption resulting in changes to schedules pre-22:00, there will be times I won't actually purchase the ticket I would have done, had the conditions remained as they were pre Feb 6th.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I also won't be changing my purchasing based on the changes to Delay Repay. But I have always been able to rely on the backstop that whenever I purchased my ticket, in the event of subsequent change or disruption to services I had the right to choose not to travel and to a full refund of my unused ticket. Now that has changed, I won't be purchasing walk-up tickets until after 22:00 the day before I intend to travel.

Necessarily that will mean, in the event of disruption resulting in changes to schedules pre-22:00, there will be times I won't actually purchase the ticket I would have done, had the conditions remained as they were pre Feb 6th.

Why would you buy walk up tickets the day before anyway? Surely the term walk up means just that.

 

[Class800]

Some websites and TVMs don't seem to sell the full range on the day, from my experience - not sure why

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would you buy walk up tickets the day before anyway? Surely the term walk up means just that.

It can be worth it if the TOC offers seat reservations, coupled with using Trainsplit to ensure a preferred seat. That's the reason I've switched to buying them a couple of days before.

With most of my long distance trips I know the outward train I will use, just often not the return. But without single-fare pricing this usually means an Advance out doesn't save anything.

I also won't be changing my purchasing based on the changes to Delay Repay. But I have always been able to rely on the backstop that whenever I purchased my ticket, in the event of subsequent change or disruption to services I had the right to choose not to travel and to a full refund of my unused ticket. Now that has changed, I won't be purchasing walk-up tickets until after 22:00 the day before I intend to travel.

It doesn't actually say that.

The only thing that has changed is with regard to Delay Repay. Everything else is people inferring stuff.

 

[plugwash]

Why would you buy walk up tickets the day before anyway? Surely the term walk up means just that.

Because the railway introduced psuedo-compulsary reservations and planner based ticket machines. So there is a real possibility you could rock up at the station and be told no tickets are available for your journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the railway introduced psuedo-compulsary reservations and planner based ticket machines. So there is a real possibility you could rock up at the station and be told no tickets are available for your journey.

Those also don't help, but unless you can't get an itinerary for that journey at any point on that day where the ticket you want was available, you can just buy a ticket for a different train and throw the reservation in the bin.

To be fair, the utterly dire UI of Avanti's TVMs motivates me to use something else to buy the ticket anyway, even if I then collect it from one.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have always been able to rely on the backstop that whenever I purchased my ticket, in the event of subsequent change or disruption to services I had the right to choose not to travel and to a full refund of my unused ticket. Now that has changed

It has not changed! You still have the same refund rights as before.

 

[furlong]

Dear National Railways on the website,

At what Time Of the Day did you Publish today's Published Timetable Of the Day?

Yours Faithfully,
Mrs. Trellis

 

[Jason12]

It doesn't actually say that.

The only thing that has changed is with regard to Delay Repay. Everything else is people inferring stuff.

I'm looking at condition 30 and what is actually stated in 30.1 w.r.t the Published Timetable of the Day (PTotD). I am also looking at the definition of PTotD.

What I infer is that, where a customer purchases a ticket for travel on a particular train, but that train is subsequently cancelled or rescheduled, provided that change is "published" before 22:00 on the day before travel, the retailer is not obliged to give the customer a fee-free refund.

I'm happy to be corrected by the experts here if I've inferred incorrectly.

 

[Haywain]

I'm looking at condition 30 and what is actually stated in 30.1 w.r.t the Published Timetable of the Day (PTotD). I am also looking at the definition of PTotD.

What I infer is that, where a customer purchases a ticket for travel on a particular train, but that train is subsequently cancelled or rescheduled, provided that change is "published" before 22:00 on the day before travel, the retailer is not obliged to give the customer a fee-free refund.

I'm happy to be corrected by the experts here if I've inferred incorrectly.

There may be some ambiguity around the rescheduled piece, but there is none at all in the event of cancellation.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

There may be some ambiguity around the rescheduled piece, but there is none at all in the event of cancellation.

T&Cs for Advance tickets say:

• If the train you purchased a ticket for is cancelled or is delayed and you still decide to travel, special arrangements will be made to accommodate you on another train (although a seat cannot be guaranteed).

In combination with the new NRCoT, am I right in reading this as meaning the following?

CHANGES MADE AFTER PToD (Published Timetable of the Day) CUTOFF

If I show up on time with an Advance ticket for a train to find it that it was cancelled after the PToD cutoff, then clearly I can travel on a later train with my ticket, and qualify for DP against the time shown in the PToD . And if I find out about its cancellation in enough time to catch the previous train, then I can do that too.

If my booked train is rescheduled after the PToD cutoff to arrive later, then I can presumably catch an earlier train with my ticket, because the revised timetable shows that the booked train will be delayed relative to PToD. If I travel on the retimed train, then any DP would be measured against its arrival time indicated in the PToD.

CHANGES MADE BEFORE PToD CUTOFF

If the service is cancelled after I buy my ticket but before the PToD cutoff, the NRCot changes seem to make no difference to ticket acceptance - I am presumably still able to rely on "special arrangements" to allow me to travel on another train, which could (at my option) be an earlier train that would get me in by the time that I had expected to arrive when I booked. But DP would only apply if my chosen alternative train was late against its timing in the PToD.

But if my booked train is rescheduled before the PToD cutoff to arrive later, then I cannot catch an earlier train with that ticket, because my train is not delayed compared to the PToD. To catch an earlier train that would get me in by the arrival time that I had expected when booking, I would have to pay a £10 admin fee and any higher cost of an Advance for the earlier train (which would be the combination of any extra cost because it was a pricier train, and any increase in the price of available Advance tickets in the period since I had bought the original ticket). And if I only found out about the retiming after the point at which the relevant TOC stopped selling Advance tickets for the next day (eg 1800 for GWR), then I would have the choice of travelling on the retimed train or losing my stake fare entirely.

 

[Jason12]

There may be some ambiguity around the rescheduled piece, but there is none at all in the event of cancellation.

I defer to your expert assessment.

If it wasn't done to change my right to a fee-free refund, what is your assessment of the intended purpose of the changes in 30.1?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I defer to your expert assessment.

If it wasn't done to change my right to a fee-free refund, what is your assessment of the intended purpose of the changes in 30.1?

Ah, I missed this:

30. Your Right to a Refund If Your Train Is Disrupted and You Choose Not to Travel
30.1 Conditions 30.1–30.4coverall Tickets other than Season Tickets, and also apply 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.
You may return an unused Ticket to the original retailer or Train Company from whom
it was purchased, where you will be given a full refund with no administration fee
charged, if you decide not to travel because the train you intended to use is:
• cancelled, or
• delayed, or
• rescheduled from that in Published Timetable of the Day after you have purchased a
Ticket or Tickets, or
• your reservation will not be honoured

The grammar there is so messy that it looks like a find-replace error that it is even in there.

 

[Jason12]

The grammar there is so messy that it looks like a find-replace error that it is even in there.

Not just the grammar, but the formatting of sub-clauses as bullet points.

Perhaps I'm unduly cynical to think that 30.1 has been written in a deliberately messy way, intentionally to remove the right to a fee-free refund in the event an intended itinerary is changed between the purchase of a ticket and the day of travel. In due course, when customers are faced with changed schedules, choose not to travel and submit their unused tickets for refund, it will become apparent how individual retailers will apply the new conditions and whether any will take advantage of the "messy grammar", as you put it, to deduct an admin fee.