On Apr 5, 9:31*am, bob wrote:

It's not just a question of "damn the crime scene, get the trains
running", there are other railway lines and other ways of getting
there (eg via Waterloo, coaches).

And a passenger is ill-advised to act outside staff advice at that
time of night, as if they're then stranded you can be sure "it's your
own fault" will be the answer. So there needed to be staff to decide
what to do and to confirm it to passengers.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:

On Apr 5, 9:31*am, bob wrote:

It's not just a question of "damn the crime scene, get the trains
running", there are other railway lines and other ways of getting
there (eg via Waterloo, coaches).

And a passenger is ill-advised to act outside staff advice at that
time of night, as if they're then stranded you can be sure "it's your
own fault" will be the answer. So there needed to be staff to decide
what to do and to confirm it to passengers.

Until those investigating at the scene have actually said, "okay, we've
finished now" all rail staff can do is offer guesses, though.

Information about alternative routes home could also be overtaken by
events - e.g. people being directed to H&C line trains by fGW staff
could find them cancelled because of overcrowding.

It's very hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all answer in these
circumstances, apart from "keep calm and carry on".

--
..sig down for maintenance

On Apr 5, 11:12*am, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Until those investigating at the scene have actually said, "okay, we've
finished now" all rail staff can do is offer guesses, though.

What they can do is offer the ability to say "we were told to do
that". Which can be very useful when someone gets stuck further down
the line.

They can also reassure people that they aren't being ignored. The LUL
requirement for a "we are being held at a red signal" announcement
after N minutes (N=2?) is a good example. It does not provide useful
information, but it does provide reassurance that someone gives a
monkeys about the passengers and they are not just an operational
inconvenience.

It's very hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all answer in these
circumstances, apart from "keep calm and carry on".

And reassurance. The human factor is very important, but often
neglected.

Oddly, said human factor can sometimes be provided via technology. I
find LM's Twitter feed very good for this.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:12*am, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Until those investigating at the scene have actually said, "okay, we've
finished now" all rail staff can do is offer guesses, though.

What they can do is offer the ability to say "we were told to do
that". Which can be very useful when someone gets stuck further down
the line.

They can also reassure people that they aren't being ignored. The LUL
requirement for a "we are being held at a red signal" announcement
after N minutes (N=2?) is a good example. It does not provide useful
information, but it does provide reassurance that someone gives a
monkeys about the passengers and they are not just an operational
inconvenience.

Well, I'd certainly agree that an announcement every so often saying
"Unfortunately we do not have any firm information about when trains
will be able to leave" would convey the idea that somebody was
interested in the passengers, but I can't see what else could be said
when there is no information to convey. Some of the more strident
comments in this thread seem to assume that managers on the scene would
somehow be able to convey information that was not otherwise being
conveyed.

It's very hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all answer in these
circumstances, apart from "keep calm and carry on".

And reassurance. The human factor is very important, but often
neglected.

That may be a by-product of compensation culture. In the past, I reckon
there was much more of a "we're all in this together" attitude, whereas
nowadays, there's a prevalent, "whose fault is this and how much can I
screw them for?"

Oddly, said human factor can sometimes be provided via technology. I
find LM's Twitter feed very good for this.

So I gather from your previous postings. The only time I've bothered
with Twitter (not railway related) I haven't found anything sufficiently
interesting to persevere with it.

--
..sig down for maintenance

On Apr 5, 11:44*am, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Well, I'd certainly agree that an announcement every so often saying
"Unfortunately we do not have any firm information about when trains
will be able to leave" would convey the idea that somebody was
interested in the passengers, but I can't see what else could be said
when there is no information to convey.

That's roughly the same as the Tube one. It might also be worth
suggesting alternatives that are known to exist as others have posted
and cross-ticket acceptance arranged where sensible. But such an
announcement does have value - or LU clearly believe so!

And reassurance. *The human factor is very important, but often
neglected.

That may be a by-product of compensation culture. In the past, I reckon
there was much more of a "we're all in this together" attitude, whereas
nowadays, there's a prevalent, "whose fault is this and how much can I
screw them for?"

I disagree. It may well be that the railway used to leave people
stranded or ignore them through its own self importance. That doesn't
mean to say they should now. Airlines are atrocious at this, I find,
the railway is rather better. Is that not a good thing?

FWIW, I do not claim Delay Repay money from the railway in an event
causing delay that is beyond its control, such as the one this thread
is discussing; that would seem unreasonable to me. But it does seem
reasonable to me that regardless of the cause of the delay the railway
should assist the passengers and provide them information, even if
that information is "we haven't forgotten you, but by the way there is
no information". It might similarly mean that the railway isn't in a
position to pay for hotel accommodation, but will assist you in
finding it, for instance, or might even pay for it out of goodwill, or
park a train in the platform to let people kip on there (as I believe
Eurostar have done once or twice). It's not about who is strictly
liable, it's about a company's moral responsibility to its customers.

So I gather from your previous postings. The only time I've bothered
with Twitter (not railway related) I haven't found anything sufficiently
interesting to persevere with it.

I haven't found a use for it other than transport information. But it
does pretty well at that if the TOC do their job. I have LM, VT and
Chiltern on there, and while they differ in how they work, all of them
are useful. Vastly more up to date and relevant than the Nexus Alpha
sites, or the now uselessly out of date NRE site.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:44*am, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

And reassurance. *The human factor is very important, but often
neglected.

That may be a by-product of compensation culture. In the past, I reckon
there was much more of a "we're all in this together" attitude, whereas
nowadays, there's a prevalent, "whose fault is this and how much can I
screw them for?"

I disagree. It may well be that the railway used to leave people
stranded or ignore them through its own self importance. That doesn't
mean to say they should now. Airlines are atrocious at this, I find,
the railway is rather better. Is that not a good thing?

I wasn't talking about what the railway was up to. I was talking about
the collective attitude of the public. People used to be more patient
than they are now, and because there was "some such thing as society"
they were probably more sympathetic.

As to the railways, I am sure that corporately the view has always been
that the customers should be treated well, but at the sharp end it is
all very much dependent on the person on the spot, and also on the mood
of the member of the public involved in the interaction. Some people can
become very irate very quickly when there is nothing realistic that the
railway servant could offer to ameliorate the situation.

FWIW, I do not claim Delay Repay money from the railway in an event
causing delay that is beyond its control, such as the one this thread
is discussing; that would seem unreasonable to me. But it does seem
reasonable to me that regardless of the cause of the delay the railway
should assist the passengers and provide them information, even if
that information is "we haven't forgotten you, but by the way there is
no information". It might similarly mean that the railway isn't in a
position to pay for hotel accommodation, but will assist you in
finding it, for instance, or might even pay for it out of goodwill, or
park a train in the platform to let people kip on there (as I believe
Eurostar have done once or twice). It's not about who is strictly
liable, it's about a company's moral responsibility to its customers.

It's an interesting area of discussion where the moral responsibility of
the railway lies in a situation where control has been wrested from it
by some external contingency. Clearly enough, when the railway itself
goes pear-shaped, that's where responsibility lies, but otherwise?


--
..sig down for maintenance

It seems to me like the OP states, that there does just to seem to be
any contingency plan for what is, unfortunatly, a regular event.

When I was an old fashioned guard at Manchester Piccadilly in the
early 80's the contingency manual for a blockage of all four lines
south of Rugby was like the Encyclopedia Brittanica and everybody new
what to do when depending on exact circumstances.

Also if all the managers and high grade supervisors had gone home then
a van was sent round to bring them all back again.

But then of course, those were the days when, if such an occurance
happened Piccadilly - Euston trains simply had a diesel hung on the
front and off they went vis the Dore curve and Derby to St Pancras.

Plus ca change (sorry I don't know how to do accents)

On Apr 5, 12:52*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

It's an interesting area of discussion where the moral responsibility of
the railway lies in a situation where control has been wrested from it
by some external contingency. Clearly enough, when the railway itself
goes pear-shaped, that's where responsibility lies, but otherwise?

I'd say it was morally the responsibility of a company to assist its
customers as far as is reasonably feasible in the event of being
unable, for whatever reason, to deliver the advertised service. At
the very least this would extend to a refund for services not rendered
and information on where else those services may be obtained, and
would also extend to the provision of adequate information.

To use another example, if a hotel was closed due to being subject to
an arson attack, it might be reasonable for the hotel to have a member
of staff on hand (or at least a notice saying how to contact one there
and then, perhaps at a nearby hotel of the same chain) who could give
out information on where else they might be able to stay, as such
information is often hard to come by late at night.

In situations where a civil emergency is going on (say an earthquake)
what can be done is rather limited, of course. But we aren't talking
about that, we're talking about the closure of part (not all) of the
railway system.

Neil

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:52:26AM +0100, Chris Tolley wrote:

As to the railways, I am sure that corporately the view has always been
that the customers should be treated well, but at the sharp end it is
all very much dependent on the person on the spot ...

Hah! I'm sure it's the other way round.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Arbeit macht Alkoholiker

On 5 avr, 12:11, Neil Williams wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:44*am, Chris *Tolley (ukonline

really) wrote:
Well, I'd certainly agree that an announcement every so often saying
"Unfortunately we do not have any firm information about when trains
will be able to leave" would convey the idea that somebody was
interested in the passengers, but I can't see what else could be said
when there is no information to convey.

That's roughly the same as the Tube one. *It might also be worth
suggesting alternatives that are known to exist as others have posted
and cross-ticket acceptance arranged where sensible. *But such an
announcement does have value - or LU clearly believe so!

And reassurance. *The human factor is very important, but often
neglected.

That may be a by-product of compensation culture. In the past, I reckon
there was much more of a "we're all in this together" attitude, whereas
nowadays, there's a prevalent, "whose fault is this and how much can I
screw them for?"

I disagree. *It may well be that the railway used to leave people
stranded or ignore them through its own self importance. *That doesn't
mean to say they should now. *Airlines are atrocious at this, I find,
the railway is rather better. *Is that not a good thing?

FWIW, I do not claim Delay Repay money from the railway in an event
causing delay that is beyond its control, such as the one this thread
is discussing; that would seem unreasonable to me. *But it does seem
reasonable to me that regardless of the cause of the delay the railway
should assist the passengers and provide them information, even if
that information is "we haven't forgotten you, but by the way there is
no information". *It might similarly mean that the railway isn't in a
position to pay for hotel accommodation, but will assist you in
finding it, for instance, or might even pay for it out of goodwill, or
park a train in the platform to let people kip on there (as I believe
Eurostar have done once or twice). *It's not about who is strictly
liable, it's about a company's moral responsibility to its customers.

So I gather from your previous postings. The only time I've bothered
with Twitter (not railway related) I haven't found anything sufficiently
interesting to persevere with it.

I haven't found a use for it other than transport information. *But it
does pretty well at that if the TOC do their job. *I have LM, VT and
Chiltern on there, and while they differ in how they work, all of them
are useful. *Vastly more up to date and relevant than the Nexus Alpha
sites, or the now uselessly out of date NRE site.

Neil

My railway experience of yesteryear was that in general the system was
flexible to the point where trains could be provided at very little
notice. In those days of course, the railway staff themselves were
very much users of the system as their primary ( and free) means of
daily transport. Todays railways by their basic organisation is less
able to react at short notice and has resurrected all the petty
weaknesses of mid 19th century wars of access and running rights!