Ignoring gateline staff if they're incorrect about ticket validity

Hi all,

*No prosecution or penalty fare issued, this was just a verbal dispute - delete or move if not allowed*

Sorry if the title is a little tabloid-y, I couldn't think of anything else short enough that made sense.

On my regular weekly commute from Brighton to Leicester, I encountered several difficulties that led to a verbal argument between me and a member of EMR's St Pancras gateline staff. Here's the brief series of events:

- Due to an error in the updated routing guide, no '&connections' tickets were available for my journey, for the particular period I happened to book my ticket in. It transpired this was an error that was promptly fixed, but not prompt enough for when I needed my ticket. So I just bought the St Pancras to Leicester leg, hoping a cheap Southern advance would appear the day before I travelled (it didn't).

- This meant I had to purchase an anytime day single from BTN-London St Pancras (I think it was London Thameslink) for vastly more money than that journey would've been on the '&connections' ticket, I did so reluctantly nonetheless because I don't think I would get very far citing some chat on a forum about the routing guide if I were caught on a peaktime train with no ticket.

- So all in all, the tickets I have are: BTN-STP anytime, and STP-LEI advance for the 10:05 departure

- I used the 08:26 Thameslink out of BTN, scheduled to arrive STP at 09:50 exactly (15 minutes connection, STP has 10 minimum)

- Due to a fault with the doors that meant they had to be closed sequentially, TL was running later and later by each stop, and reached STP around 10:10, so I'd missed my EMR connection

- Next EMR service for Leicester is a 10:32 Sheffield train. I head to the gateline, and approach a (non-agency, non-orange vest) member of staff to ask to be let through the barriers, as although I hadn't tried I'd just assumed they'd reject my advance, with the scheduled train having already departed. Turns out trying to be honest and transparent with them was a mistake.

- This staff member tells me in a very condescending tone (not even mentioning the split tickets) that
"there are different train operating companies; you've been delayed by Thameslink, and this is EMR. You'll need a new ticket."

Me: "No, I don't. I've arrived for my itenrary on time and my connections are within the minimums, I am entitled to use the next available service"

Him: "Your smart argument is gonna cost you a lot of money if you board that train, let me tell you. You'd best hope revenue aren't onboard or you're gonna get bruk (inner city slang for 'thoroughly hung out to dry')"


Now by this point I was very worked up, almost being made late to work and then having someone imply I'd need to pay heavily for the privilege. So I just ignored him, scanned my ticket and yes, it did operate the barriers. I boarded the 10:32, and lo and behold, we did have a revenue inspection. The RPI scanned both tickets, checked something (presumably the TL arrival time) on his phone, then said it was all perfectly fine, and when I mentioned what I'd been told at the gateline, he said "I dunno what he was on about".

Okay, so not a big deal since I didn't end up in court or out of pocket, but had I not been as tenacious, or not known my rights under the CoC, I likely would've taken Mr Gateline at face value and forked out for a walk-up single to LEI, which IIRC is north of £60. I find that to be absolutely outrageous and bordering on fraudulent, given that the passenger is misled to believe they don't have a valid ticket when they do, and part with more money as such. Looking around these forums, blatant misinformation from a small minority of staff can have a profoundly negative effect on the passenger experience, but how do they get staff this poorly trained behind the gateline? And what motivates said minority of staff to take this 'jobsworth' attitude to fares?

I have complained to EMR, who told me the following (quoted from email):

I am sorry for the problems that you had on your recent journey.

Looking at the tickets provided, these are sufficient for a split ticket journey as the connection time is 15 minutes. With the minimum connection time being 10 minutes at London St Pancras these tickets are within a reasonable time to be a split ticketed journey.

We have sent this across to the managers responsible at London St Pancras, and do hope you do not have this problem when travelling with us again.

As you were delayed by the Thameslink service, if you arrived at your end destination with a delay of 15 minutes or more you would be entitled to delay repay which you can apply for by submitting a delay repay claim directly with Thameslink.

Thanks again for getting in touch. I hope your next journey with us goes more smoothly.

Click to expand...

I mean sure, TL are to blame for the delay, but I can stomach a short hold-up, I do build a bit of leeway into my commute for that reason, what I cannot is being rudely told to pay a fortune when I owe nothing, so my issue here is really with EMR. I will put in a claim with TL of course, but I really do feel quite offended by the way EMR handled this situation. Was I potentially in breach of anything when I chose to act against the first staff member's advice and proceed to board? What would you have done? Sorry for such a long post, and interested to hear your thoughts.

dontteleport said:

I mean sure, TL are to blame for the delay, but I can stomach a short hold-up, I do build a bit of leeway into my commute for that reason, what I cannot is being rudely told to pay a fortune when I owe nothing, so my issue here is really with EMR. I will put in a claim with TL of course, but I really do feel quite offended by the way EMR handled this situation. Was I potentially in breach of anything when I chose to act against the first staff member's advice and proceed to board? What would you have done? Sorry for such a long post, and interested to hear your thoughts.

Click to expand...

My thoughts? (N.B. I do not pretend to speak for all contributors to this forum)

I think that EMR's response is in the positive half of what might have happened:
- the validity of your point has been acknowledged
- action will be taken ('We have sent this across to the managers responsible at London St Pancras')
- you have been advised how you (may) be able to recover some of the fare you paid.
- an apology has been made ('I am sorry for the problems that you had on your recent journey')

For sure, you haven't received any tangible compensation from EMR, but the response is not on the basis that you're the problem rather than the railway.

I'd chalk this one up as - more or less - being a win.

If any member of staff is going to use "street slang" with customers then that marks them down to start with - totally unprofessional!

dontteleport said:

Hi all,

*No prosecution or penalty fare issued, this was just a verbal dispute - delete or move if not allowed*

Sorry if the title is a little tabloid-y, I couldn't think of anything else short enough that made sense.

On my regular weekly commute from Brighton to Leicester, I encountered several difficulties that led to a verbal argument between me and a member of EMR's St Pancras gateline staff. Here's the brief series of events:

- Due to an error in the updated routing guide, no '&connections' tickets were available for my journey, for the particular period I happened to book my ticket in. It transpired this was an error that was promptly fixed, but not prompt enough for when I needed my ticket. So I just bought the St Pancras to Leicester leg, hoping a cheap Southern advance would appear the day before I travelled (it didn't).

- This meant I had to purchase an anytime day single from BTN-London St Pancras (I think it was London Thameslink) for vastly more money than that journey would've been on the '&connections' ticket, I did so reluctantly nonetheless because I don't think I would get very far citing some chat on a forum about the routing guide if I were caught on a peaktime train with no ticket.

- So all in all, the tickets I have are: BTN-STP anytime, and STP-LEI advance for the 10:05 departure

- I used the 08:26 Thameslink out of BTN, scheduled to arrive STP at 09:50 exactly (15 minutes connection, STP has 10 minimum)

- Due to a fault with the doors that meant they had to be closed sequentially, TL was running later and later by each stop, and reached STP around 10:10, so I'd missed my EMR connection

- Next EMR service for Leicester is a 10:32 Sheffield train. I head to the gateline, and approach a (non-agency, non-orange vest) member of staff to ask to be let through the barriers, as although I hadn't tried I'd just assumed they'd reject my advance, with the scheduled train having already departed. Turns out trying to be honest and transparent with them was a mistake.

- This staff member tells me in a very condescending tone (not even mentioning the split tickets) that
"there are different train operating companies; you've been delayed by Thameslink, and this is EMR. You'll need a new ticket."

Me: "No, I don't. I've arrived for my itenrary on time and my connections are within the minimums, I am entitled to use the next available service"

Him: "Your smart argument is gonna cost you a lot of money if you board that train, let me tell you. You'd best hope revenue aren't onboard or you're gonna get bruk (inner city slang for 'thoroughly hung out to dry')"


Now by this point I was very worked up, almost being made late to work and then having someone imply I'd need to pay heavily for the privilege. So I just ignored him, scanned my ticket and yes, it did operate the barriers. I boarded the 10:32, and lo and behold, we did have a revenue inspection. The RPI scanned both tickets, checked something (presumably the TL arrival time) on his phone, then said it was all perfectly fine, and when I mentioned what I'd been told at the gateline, he said "I dunno what he was on about".

Okay, so not a big deal since I didn't end up in court or out of pocket, but had I not been as tenacious, or not known my rights under the CoC, I likely would've taken Mr Gateline at face value and forked out for a walk-up single to LEI, which IIRC is north of £60. I find that to be absolutely outrageous and bordering on fraudulent, given that the passenger is misled to believe they don't have a valid ticket when they do, and part with more money as such. Looking around these forums, blatant misinformation from a small minority of staff can have a profoundly negative effect on the passenger experience, but how do they get staff this poorly trained behind the gateline? And what motivates said minority of staff to take this 'jobsworth' attitude to fares?

I have complained to EMR, who told me the following (quoted from email):



I mean sure, TL are to blame for the delay, but I can stomach a short hold-up, I do build a bit of leeway into my commute for that reason, what I cannot is being rudely told to pay a fortune when I owe nothing, so my issue here is really with EMR. I will put in a claim with TL of course, but I really do feel quite offended by the way EMR handled this situation. Was I potentially in breach of anything when I chose to act against the first staff member's advice and proceed to board? What would you have done? Sorry for such a long post, and interested to hear your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Strikes me as quite good that your reply from EMR at least addressed the issue! (as opposed to 'thanks for your feedback, we always welcome views form our customer' type standard reply)

I think what I'd have done is scanned the ticket at the barrier before asking any questions and then gone towards the train. But obv is the csan then did not open the gate it's another problem to overcome....

If I was going to ask anyone it would have been the Train Manager who I might have tried to go and find and explain things to before boarding (the risk being that if they said no, it's worse to then get on their train as it risks an argument where the only way out may be an Anytime fare or a report for prosecution etc).
If I was 100% certain of my rights I'd maybe not ask anyone until they asked me about it at ticket inspection point on board, I'd then have the debate at that stage.

But you are correct - the vast majority of passengers will not know these rules and take the word of the 1st person they ask, and get stung, and avoid using the train ever again.

More generally I suspect the problem is that gate line staff are some of the lowest paid and probably high turnover staff - the TOCs will never want to invest the training in complex rules to that level of staff - even tho they are 'gatekeepers' to the trains.

The issue for me is that if the industry wants to have complex ticketing rules, the downsides of that is the costs that the industry must bear in training people who administer those rules. You can't have it both ways.

You were in breach of no bylaw and were correct to reject the member of staff’s advice, which was, as you correctly judged, a load of old toss.

Bletchleyite said:

If any member of staff is going to use "street slang" with customers then that marks them down to start with - totally unprofessional!

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.

Are the gateline staff at St Pancras employed by EMR directly or are they agency staff?

Kite159 said:

Are the gateline staff at St Pancras employed by EMR directly or are they agency staff?

Click to expand...

Directly employed (the vast majority, at least) and a low turnover of staff based on my observations.

Haywain said:

Directly employed (the vast majority, at least) and a low turnover of staff based on my observations.

Click to expand...

This was what I thought too, I do see the same faces a lot including a few for years, although I don't think I've seen the individual I dealt with before.

He was in a full EMR uniform, although I don't know if this has any bearing on their employer, like it does with GTR and OnTrak where it's very obvious.

Fawkes Cat said:

My thoughts? (N.B. I do not pretend to speak for all contributors to this forum)

I think that EMR's response is in the positive half of what might have happened:
- the validity of your point has been acknowledged
- action will be taken ('We have sent this across to the managers responsible at London St Pancras')
- you have been advised how you (may) be able to recover some of the fare you paid.
- an apology has been made ('I am sorry for the problems that you had on your recent journey')

For sure, you haven't received any tangible compensation from EMR, but the response is not on the basis that you're the problem rather than the railway.

I'd chalk this one up as - more or less - being a win.

Click to expand...

I'd agree - I was bracing myself for a long argument in the vestibule, and an even longer written dispute, had the RPI taken the same line as the gateline worker (although that would be even more egregious given the job title). And hopefully STP will pass this around to ensure staff are a bit more clued up.

Bletchleyite said:

If any member of staff is going to use "street slang" with customers then that marks them down to start with - totally unprofessional!

Click to expand...

Agreed. Although I'm from a city estate myself and do have a similar turn of phrase in casual conversation, I'd never use slang in my workplace - it didn't really bother me at the time as I knew what he meant but it's not the best way to communicate with customers, especially given I'd wager most people have never heard 'bruk' before lol.

WesternLancer said:

Strikes me as quite good that your reply from EMR at least addressed the issue! (as opposed to 'thanks for your feedback, we always welcome views form our customer' type standard reply)

I think what I'd have done is scanned the ticket at the barrier before asking any questions and then gone towards the train. But obv is the csan then did not open the gate it's another problem to overcome....

If I was going to ask anyone it would have been the Train Manager who I might have tried to go and find and explain things to before boarding (the risk being that if they said no, it's worse to then get on their train as it risks an argument where the only way out may be an Anytime fare or a report for prosecution etc).
If I was 100% certain of my rights I'd maybe not ask anyone until they asked me about it at ticket inspection point on board, I'd then have the debate at that stage.

But you are correct - the vast majority of passengers will not know these rules and take the word of the 1st person they ask, and get stung, and avoid using the train ever again.

More generally I suspect the problem is that gate line staff are some of the lowest paid and probably high turnover staff - the TOCs will never want to invest the training in complex rules to that level of staff - even tho they are 'gatekeepers' to the trains.

The issue for me is that if the industry wants to have complex ticketing rules, the downsides of that is the costs that the industry must bear in training people who administer those rules. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm glad they acted on it by hopefully circulating the message or possibly scheduling further training for gateline staff. I absolutely agree about the ticketing system, I do think that it only benefits a very small minority of travellers (many of whom will be RUK users) who know 'the nitty gritty' but most people just find it confusing, and I'm sure you won't leave with a great impression of train travel if you get hit with a huge fine for a small misunderstanding. I also think you're probably right about the working conditions of gateline staff, I have encountered numerous other situations where they've lacked very important knowledge, so clearly many TOCs are under-investing in supporting these staff. Many will know the reputation of a certain agency that supplies a certain large TOC in the South East!

AlterEgo said:

You were in breach of no bylaw and were correct to reject the member of staff’s advice, which was, as you correctly judged, a load of old toss.

Click to expand...

Thanks and good to know - this was actually the part I was most unsure about.

dontteleport said:

Although I'm from a city estate myself and do have a similar turn of phrase in casual conversation, I'd never use slang in my workplace - it didn't really bother me at the time as I knew what he meant but it's not the best way to communicate with customers, especially given I'd wager most people have never heard 'bruk' before lol.

Click to expand...

Slang is a tricky one as we probably all use what was once considered slang more than we realise. However, speaking 'street' is likely to be incomprehensible to a lot of people so isn't ideal.

That's a good response from the EMR staff onboard the train and also from EMR customer service. Thank heavens someone's managed to get it right - well done to them.

Starmill said:

That's a good response from the EMR staff onboard the train and also from EMR customer service. Thank heavens someone's managed to get it right - well done to them.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I was genuinely suprised that an actual revenue officer didn't take the hardest possible line - maybe given how many people (I can attest being employed at a major midlands university, many university staff live in London and SE and commute north to teach) use these connecting tickets from the more 'clockface' (not officially I know) services around London, revenue officers would encounter too many cases similar to mine and know this is a perfectly legal situation.

Perhaps further evidenced from when I was on my way home a few months ago, and I had a 15:50 mandatory reservation + coupon for my connecting Thameslink, everything on TL was running late, and I boarded *a train* bound for my destination that pulled in around 15:48. Completely unbeknownst to me, this was actually a delayed earlier service, and GTR revenue staff boarded at Blackfriars. They informed me this wasn't actually the booked service, as that was running some 15-20 minutes later behind mine, but that they'd "never fine anyone for that" since unless you knew the headcodes of each train, any customer would assume a train pulling in at 2 minutes before their booked departure, with the same destination, was the correct train. I have to say I've always found GTR and EMR's revenue staff very reasonable and polite (not that'd I'd intentionally fall foul) in such situations, and GTR's people seem to understand that with a service as high-intensity as Thameslink, booked trains can be a bit of a non-concept when there's disruption going on.

The only thing I'd caution is that the minimum connection time at St Pancras is 15 minutes. 10 minutes would certainly be a feasible interchange time for getting between any of the National Rail platforms - but the official connection time is 15 minutes regardless.

Therefore, if you were booked to travel on either the 10:01 or 10:04 services to Leicester you were indeed travelling on an invalid connection and so didn't have the right to take a later service with your existing Advance. If so, you were technically in breach of the Byelaws by travelling on an invalid ticket.

That being said, as you saw - the RPI you encountered was pragmatic about it. Even if you had been in the wrong, the way that the member of gateline staff spoke to you and the excuse they gave you about Thameslink being a separate company are both wrong.

On the separate company trope, I've heard this countless times from various staff but just struggle to see where they get the idea from. All of the train companies are controlled by the government, they all run on the same tracks from the same stations, and you can travel on all of them on through tickets under a single set of conditions (NRCoT).

The oft-made comparison of Ryanair and easyJet really couldn't be more different. A closer comparison would be the various operating subsidiaries of those airlines (Ryanair UK, Malta Air, Buzz for Ryanair, or easyJet Europe and easyJet Switzerland for easyJet). No-one would seriously suggest that if your Ryanair UK flight is cancelled, you're unable to take the next Malta Air flight - so where do these people get it from? I really don't understand it.

Watershed said:

The only thing I'd caution is that the minimum connection time at St Pancras is 15 minutes. 10 minutes would certainly be a feasible interchange time for getting between any of the National Rail platforms - but the official connection time is 15 minutes regardless.

Therefore, if you were booked to travel on either the 10:01 or 10:04 services to Leicester you were indeed travelling on an invalid connection and so didn't have the right to take a later service with your existing Advance. If so, you were technically in breach of the Byelaws by travelling on an invalid ticket.

Click to expand...

Hmm... This is interesting since we now have three differing perspectives on this matter. As in my earlier quote, the EMR response suggested the connection time at STP was in fact 10 minutes, while I'd been under the impression that the minimum connection at STP was 15 minutes, and the scheduled times displayed on ticket itenararies here was a gap of exactly 15 minutes. Obviously we can both rule out the third perspective that the gateline worker gave me as incorrect. Did you get 10:04 from an operational as opposed to 'retail' source, as 10:05 is the time of the weekday Nottingham service shown on all journey planners? Similarly, that TL connection is scheduled for departure at 10:51 but JPs invariably show it as a 10:50 arrival. I suppose we'd be getting even more 'into the weeds' here about which of those times actually reflects ticket validity regarding minimum connection times, but given I'm sure I've generated an itenrary with the 08:26 BTN-STP and 10:05 STP-LEI, surely this is a valid connection?

dontteleport said:

Agreed. Although I'm from a city estate myself and do have a similar turn of phrase in casual conversation, I'd never use slang in my workplace - it didn't really bother me at the time as I knew what he meant but it's not the best way to communicate with customers, especially given I'd wager most people have never heard 'bruk' before lol.

Click to expand...

Well, living in a hamlet, near a village, near a town out in the provinces not a word I've ever seen or heard, so my complaint would have included "Can you also ensure your staff use standard English when dealing with customers please?"

6Gman said:

Well, living in a hamlet, near a village, near a town out in the provinces not a word I've ever seen or heard, so my complaint would have included "Can you also ensure your staff use standard English when dealing with customers please?"

Click to expand...

Totally understandable and I fully agree. I grew up speaking very 'street' and am still able to moderate my language in the workplace to better suit an inter/national audience. That's surely a basic requirement of any customer-facing job, railway or not.

dontteleport said:

Hmm... This is interesting since we now have three differing perspectives on this matter. As in my earlier quote, the EMR response suggested the connection time at STP was in fact 10 minutes, while I'd been under the impression that the minimum connection at STP was 15 minutes, and the scheduled times displayed on ticket itenararies here was a gap of exactly 15 minutes. Obviously we can both rule out the third perspective that the gateline worker gave me as incorrect. Did you get 10:04 from an operational as opposed to 'retail' source, as 10:05 is the time of the weekday Nottingham service shown on all journey planners? Similarly, that TL connection is scheduled for departure at 10:51 but JPs invariably show it as a 10:50 arrival. I suppose we'd be getting even more 'into the weeds' here about which of those times actually reflects ticket validity regarding minimum connection times, but given I'm sure I've generated an itenrary with the 08:26 BTN-STP and 10:05 STP-LEI, surely this is a valid connection?

Click to expand...

Ah sorry, that's my mistake. I had in my head that the EMR departures were xx01 and xx04, but in fact it's xx01 and xx05. So it is a valid connection as you were on the 10:05.

09:50 is the arrival time of the 08:26 from BTN whilst 09:51 is the departure time, so it is a valid connection, precisely meeting the minimum connection time.

And as you say, if you were offered this as a through itinerary by an accredited retailer, it would be a valid connection even if they had made a mistake. Perhaps surprisingly, I have heard of some bugs arising in booking engines when it comes to minimum connection times.

Watershed said:

Ah sorry, that's my mistake. I had in my head that the EMR departures were xx01 and xx04, but in fact it's xx01 and xx05. So it is a valid connection as you were on the 10:05.

09:50 is the arrival time of the 08:26 from BTN whilst 09:51 is the departure time, so it is a valid connection, precisely meeting the minimum connection time.

And as you say, if you were offered this as a through itinerary by an accredited retailer, it would be a valid connection even if they had made a mistake. Perhaps surprisingly, I have heard of some bugs arising in booking engines when it comes to minimum connection times.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying this - :04 departures do ring a bell for me so I think that might've been how it was for a while until recently. Goodness knows where EMR got 10 minutes from in their email to me, my non-insider guess is that it might pertain to the numbered STP platforms as these are a shorter walk than the A/B platforms used by TL? Only thinking that because on BRTimes there is more than one 'St Pancras' that appears.

Bletchleyite said:

If any member of staff is going to use "street slang" with customers then that marks them down to start with - totally unprofessional!

Click to expand...

Yes I was just thinking that. Telling customers "you're going to get bruk" is honestly an embarrassment.

dontteleport said:

What would you have done? Sorry for such a long post, and interested to hear your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I would not have engaged with any gateline staff unless my ticket was rejected by the barrier. Best not to involve the clueless unless you have to.

Bletchleyite said:

If any member of staff is going to use "street slang" with customers then that marks them down to start with - totally unprofessional!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have had the first idea what he was talking about.

Starmill said:

That's a good response from the EMR staff onboard the train and also from EMR customer service. Thank heavens someone's managed to get it right - well done to them.

Click to expand...

Although they didn't get the minimum connection time right (but at least the error was, unusually, in favour of the passenger - not specifically in this case as the real minimum connection time was met anyway).

dontteleport said:

Agreed. I was genuinely suprised that an actual revenue officer didn't take the hardest possible line

Click to expand...

As you were travelling in an entirely valid manner the hardest possible correct line was to accept your ticket, as they rightly did.
Of course, a brief perusal of the threads in this section would find many instances of RPIs etc issuing Penalty Fare illegally, so I am not surprised that you were maybe expecting the worst

dontteleport said:

and I had a 15:50 mandatory reservation + coupon for my connecting Thameslink, everything on TL was running late, and I boarded *a train* bound for my destination that pulled in around 15:48. Completely unbeknownst to me, this was actually a delayed earlier service, and GTR revenue staff boarded at Blackfriars. They informed me this wasn't actually the booked service, as that was running some 15-20 minutes later behind mine, but that they'd "never fine anyone for that" since unless you knew the headcodes of each train, any customer would assume a train pulling in at 2 minutes before their booked departure, with the same destination, was the correct train.

Click to expand...

In fact, it is explicitly stated in the internal knowledgebase that you can take any GTR service provided the main TOC for the advance isn't GTR (with a few exceptions)! The fact your train was delayed shouldn't have even played a role, but it's unsurprising that staff wouldn't be aware of this easement as it's rather hidden away on the website.

• Where a journey involves using a Gatwick Express, Great Northern, Southern or Thameslink as a connection into a different operators service (not a different Gatwick Express, Great Northern, Southern or Thameslink service). For example Advance Tickets routed “AP SLOUGH”, or “AWC & Connections”, the passenger can use any Gatwick Express, Great Northern, Southern or Thameslink service to complete their journey, even though retail systems will force a reservation to be made.

The one exception is with journeys that involve changing at CAMBRIDGE to use Greater Anglia services where the tickets are routed AP GRTANG&CONCTS.

For these journeys the passenger MUST travel on the booked Great Northern, Southern or Thameslink train.

To avoid any misunderstanding this exception doesn’t apply if the connection with Greater Anglia services is at London Liverpool Street or Stratford.

Click to expand...

MrJeeves said:

In fact, it is explicitly stated in the internal knowledgebase that you can take any GTR service provided the main TOC for the advance isn't GTR (with a few exceptions)! The fact your train was delayed shouldn't have even played a role, but it's unsurprising that staff wouldn't be aware of this easement as it's rather hidden away on the website.

Click to expand...

That's really interesting to know, I honestly did think you had to travel on your exact GTR connecting service IF a specific service was referenced in the reservation - at least for BTN-LEI I can attest that retail sites seem to always produce a 'counted place' reservation for Thameslink services straight up to STP, but if you route via Victoria and use GX, you just get an '&connections' ticket with no reservation for the GTR service.

(off topic but interestingly the Thameslink-routed advance always has a maltese cross that you, in theory, wouldn't be allowed to use if I'm not mistaken?)

I'd been trying to route via Victoria wherever possible for this reason as it allows me to take a short break from travelling when I reach London if I feel like it, or leave BTN earlier in the morning if I can see things aren't going well on EMR. I suppose that is good news though as that's a very reasonable approach from GTR, and if they really did hold people to such reservations I'm sure they'd catch a lot of people out!

dontteleport said:

I honestly did think you had to travel on your exact GTR connecting service IF a specific service was referenced in the reservation

Click to expand...

You're not alone in having believed that, I can assure you.

dontteleport said:

off topic but interestingly the Thameslink-routed advance always has a maltese cross that you, in theory, wouldn't be allowed to use if I'm not mistaken?

Click to expand...

You could, theoretically, get an itinerary crossing London on the tube if the Thameslink core was closed I suppose?

dontteleport said:

Hi all,

- Due to an error in the updated routing guide, no '&connections' tickets were available for my journey, for the particular period I happened to book my ticket in. It transpired this was an error that was promptly fixed, but not prompt enough for when I needed my ticket. So I just bought the St Pancras to Leicester leg, hoping a cheap Southern advance would appear the day before I travelled (it didn't)

Click to expand...

This seems to be the root cause of the problem and I'm guessing left @dontteleport out of pocket?

But who's responsible and how would they go about obtaining compensation to put them back in the financial position they would have been in were they able to buy the correct ticket?

Watershed said:

The only thing I'd caution is that the minimum connection time at St Pancras is 15 minutes. 10 minutes would certainly be a feasible interchange time for getting between any of the National Rail platforms - but the official connection time is 15 minutes regardless.

Therefore, if you were booked to travel on either the 10:01 or 10:04 services to Leicester you were indeed travelling on an invalid connection and so didn't have the right to take a later service with your existing Advance. If so, you were technically in breach of the Byelaws by travelling on an invalid ticket.

That being said, as you saw - the RPI you encountered was pragmatic about it. Even if you had been in the wrong, the way that the member of gateline staff spoke to you and the excuse they gave you about Thameslink being a separate company are both wrong.

On the separate company trope, I've heard this countless times from various staff but just struggle to see where they get the idea from. All of the train companies are controlled by the government, they all run on the same tracks from the same stations, and you can travel on all of them on through tickets under a single set of conditions (NRCoT).

The oft-made comparison of Ryanair and easyJet really couldn't be more different. A closer comparison would be the various operating subsidiaries of those airlines (Ryanair UK, Malta Air, Buzz for Ryanair, or easyJet Europe and easyJet Switzerland for easyJet). No-one would seriously suggest that if your Ryanair UK flight is cancelled, you're unable to take the next Malta Air flight - so where do these people get it from? I really don't understand it.

Click to expand...

The airline analogy is useful for breaking it down in the case of someone buying a "TOC Only" ticket and just getting on another TOC's train regardless, without making reference to any delays or disruption as the level of understanding that there are in fact different TOCs is often lacking. Trying to explain to someone that they've paid £3.50 for a Northern Advance on a Cheshire Lines stopping train from Manchester to Liverpool that takes 70 minutes and that they can't just hop on another company's faster train because they want to can be surprisingly difficult which is why I'm heavily in favour of dragging pricing managers out on trains and making them do revenue checks by the book.

That being said I've always taken the view that it's the National Rail Network and in the event of a train being binned or heavily delayed I want people to get to where they're going so I have a policy of never making a charge even when I might have the authority to do so.

talldave said:

But who's responsible and how would they go about obtaining compensation to put them back in the financial position they would have been in were they able to buy the correct ticket?

Click to expand...

As the only tickets affected would be Advance tickets, and there is no automatic right to purchase these, I can't see that there is a case for compensation. And I suspect that a complaint to customer services at EMR about that will not be understood.

talldave said:

This seems to be the root cause of the problem and I'm guessing left @dontteleport out of pocket?

But who's responsible and how would they go about obtaining compensation to put them back in the financial position they would have been in were they able to buy the correct ticket?

Click to expand...

There won't be any "compensation". TOCs aren't required to sell advance tickets at all.

dontteleport said:

That's really interesting to know, I honestly did think you had to travel on your exact GTR connecting service IF a specific service was referenced in the reservation - at least for BTN-LEI I can attest that retail sites seem to always produce a 'counted place' reservation for Thameslink services straight up to STP, but if you route via Victoria and use GX, you just get an '&connections' ticket with no reservation for the GTR service.

(off topic but interestingly the Thameslink-routed advance always has a maltese cross that you, in theory, wouldn't be allowed to use if I'm not mistaken?)

I'd been trying to route via Victoria wherever possible for this reason as it allows me to take a short break from travelling when I reach London if I feel like it, or leave BTN earlier in the morning if I can see things aren't going well on EMR. I suppose that is good news though as that's a very reasonable approach from GTR, and if they really did hold people to such reservations I'm sure they'd catch a lot of people out!

Click to expand...

Gatwick Express services don't allow reservations in the timetable data, whereas (most) Southern and Thameslink ones do. Hence when buying an Advance ticket, the booking engine is forced to obtain and issue a reservation for any SN & TL services in the booking. However, as the internal 'easement' policy makes clear, GTR only introduced the ability to make reservations in order to quota-control sales of Advances for journeys within their own network - which is why they're happy to allow people on 'long distance' (or cross-TOC) journeys to use any GTR service. I only wish they'd make it public so that people would know about it and could fully rely upon it!

It certainly represents a much more pragmatic policy than most other TOCs, notably including Northern, who have issued quite a few people with Penalty Fares for deciding to take an earlier train to avoid a tight connection onto a long distance train. Indeed we've even seen cases where they have issued PFs for people who've pragmatically taken an earlier train to avoid a missed connection due to their booked train being delayed/cancelled (their claim being that the rules only allow you to take the next train, which is an interpretation I disagree with).

As for the use of the Maltese Cross validity to cross London using Thameslink, you make a fair point in that - by the letter of the rules - you wouldn't be allowed to take reservable Thameslink services (i.e. most of them) to cross London unless your ticket specifies that service. But clearly, this would not align with the intent of the rules. I would go so far as to suggest that the normal booked-train Advance rules don't apply for the cross-London transfer element of the journey, since the rules that describe how you can make this transfer make no reference to having to take (or avoid) particular Thameslink services.

LowLevel said:

The airline analogy is useful for breaking it down in the case of someone buying a "TOC Only" ticket and just getting on another TOC's train regardless, without making reference to any delays or disruption as the level of understanding that there are in fact different TOCs is often lacking. Trying to explain to someone that they've paid £3.50 for a Northern Advance on a Cheshire Lines stopping train from Manchester to Liverpool that takes 70 minutes and that they can't just hop on another company's faster train because they want to can be surprisingly difficult which is why I'm heavily in favour of dragging pricing managers out on trains and making them do revenue checks by the book.

That being said I've always taken the view that it's the National Rail Network and in the event of a train being binned or heavily delayed I want people to get to where they're going so I have a policy of never making a charge even when I might have the authority to do so.

Click to expand...

For a walk-up ticket, I agree it's one way of explaining it. But the fact that the TOCs are so closely connected contractually (and in terms of overall control and operations) makes somewhat of a mockery of the comparison. It's only really accurate in the strictest legal sense, in that e.g. TPE is a separate legal entity to Northern even though both are owned by the DfT.

I can't say that I would be particularly keen in enforcing such restrictions if I were to be checking tickets.

With Advances it's a little bit different as the "booked train only" principle is very simple to convey and is hardly unique in the transport sector.

Watershed said:

As for the use of the Maltese Cross validity to cross London using Thameslink, you make a fair point in that - by the letter of the rules - you wouldn't be allowed to take reservable Thameslink services (i.e. most of them) to cross London unless your ticket specifies that service. But clearly, this would not align with the intent of the rules. I would go so far as to suggest that the normal booked-train Advance rules don't apply for the cross-London transfer element of the journey, since the rules that describe how you can make this transfer make no reference to having to take (or avoid) particular Thameslink services.

Click to expand...

As it is also possible to buy 'TOC only' tickets to London U12 type destinations as well as 'TOC only' Travelcards, I doubt that the nororiously fussy LUL staff would turn a hair at the route restriction as long as the Maltese cross is present and it's a CCST ticket. This also convinces me of the validity of the ticket in question for an underground based cross-London transfer.