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, 12:08*pm, TonySK14 wrote:
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)

As others have said, it is the case that TOCs will honour each others'
tickets in such cases, but that's no use if someone doesn't say so.
Also, and with good reason, people don't necessarily trust such
announcements. There are too many stories repeated in the media where
people are told by the staff at one station, who work for TOC A, that
they can travel on TOC B's train from somewhere else in the event of
disruption, only to find that TOC B's staff deny all knowledge of this
and in the worst case, impose PFs.

My thoughts about such a contingency plan would be something like:

FGW and NR to have sufficient on-call staff available.
Frequent announcements to say that "we do not know the expected delay
but that train services are not expected to resume before a certain
time", so that people can leave the premises with confidence, and that
if such an announcement is made, to ensure that if the lines reopen
earlier, no last trains to any destination depart before the
previously-stated time.
Some form of texting system and emergency number, so that in the event
of such an incident, you can text, say, "Reading" to it and it will
update you, when the system has information, as to when the next train
to Reading is expected to depart.
FGW staff reps to go to Waterloo and Marylebone (both main line and
Underground stations) so that they can liaise with SWT and Chiltern's
staff on the spot about accepting tickets and to be a reassuring face
at an unfamiliar location.
FGW and NR reps at Paddington to have timetable info available about
alternative Chiltern or SWT services, or indeed the Oxford Tube coach
service.
FGW to arrange for taxis for passengers who cannot use the
Underground, eg MIPs.
FGW to run a DMU shuttle service to somewhere like High Wycombe to
allow pax to Oxford to travel that way using Chiltern services. The
works over Christmas showed that it is possible to run 2 tph between
Paddington and Banbury over the single line sections via Greenford.
Ideally, an FGW rep could be at High Wycombe to arrange shared taxis
for passengers wanting (for example) Reading.

Last but not least, there should be someone on the spot who has the
authority to make decisions. I recall an incident some years ago on
the ECML, when passengers were being directed to go via the MML to
Luton Airport Parkway and that buses had been laid on to Stevenage and
Hitchin. This was after FCC had taken over, so at least there were no
problems about ticket acceptance! Unfortunately, by the time I got to
LAP, the ECML had just been cleared and someone from "on high" had
ordered the buses to be stood down, although there were still about
40-50 pax at LAP wanting Hitchin. There was no-one at LAP who had the
authority to countermand the order from "on high" and we had the
farcical situation of a bus filled with pax wanting Hitchin, a driver
who wanted to take them there but no-one in authority to say so. It
was about 1830 and the station supervisor could not get through to
anyone as TPTB had all gone home! Eventually, the supervisor took it
on his head to instruct the driver to go to Hitchin, but I never heard
what happened next. I had wanted to write to FCC to compliment them on
the initiative of their employee at LAP but I was afraid that I might
drop him in it if they decided to accuse him of exceeding his
authority.

"The Gardener" wrote

My thoughts about such a contingency plan would be something like:

FGW and NR to have sufficient on-call staff available.

Realistically, how long would it take 'on-call staff' to be called in,
travel to Paddington, and be briefed? Even with an efficient 'call' system,
it has to be implemented, when the first priority for Control will be to
deal with those aspects of the incident that are their responsibility, then
to advise stations and train crew (either directly or via signallers) what
is happening so that they can brief passengers already on trains, and
arrange as far as possible for trains to be held at platforms. Bringing in
'on-call staff' probably can't commence in teh first 20 minutes of an
incident. Who would brief them - do you want the duty station manager to be
called away for lengthy periods as the 'on-call staff' turn up?

In this sort of situation you'll never get enough staff to advise people
with the information that's on screens or in tannoy announcements anyway.
Admittedly the quantity and quality of on screen and tannoy information is
not what it could be, particularly in reassuring passengers, and advising
them when and where they can expect more detailed information. It's no use
Paddington trying to give detailed information about onward connections when
they don't know how long the disruption will last. But when passengers get
on the move they should be able to tell the conductor their ultimate
destination and expect onward travel arrangements to be made and advised to
them.

Peter

On 5 Apr, 19:51, The Gardener wrote:
On Apr 5, 12:08*pm, TonySK14 wrote:



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)

As others have said, it is the case that TOCs will honour each others'
tickets in such cases, but that's no use if someone doesn't say so.
Also, and with good reason, people don't necessarily trust such
announcements. There are too many stories repeated in the media where
people are told by the staff at one station, who work for TOC A, that
they can travel on TOC B's train from somewhere else in the event of
disruption, only to find that TOC B's staff deny all knowledge of this
and in the worst case, impose PFs.

My thoughts about such a contingency plan would be something like:

FGW and NR to have sufficient on-call staff available.
Frequent announcements to say that "we do not know the expected delay
but that train services are not expected to resume before a certain
time", so that people can leave the premises with confidence, and that
if such an announcement is made, to ensure that if the lines reopen
earlier, no last trains to any destination depart before the
previously-stated time.
Some form of texting system and emergency number, so that in the event
of such an incident, you can text, say, "Reading" to it and it will
update you, when the system has information, as to when the next train
to Reading is expected to depart.
FGW staff reps to go to Waterloo and Marylebone (both main line and
Underground stations) so that they can liaise with SWT and Chiltern's
staff on the spot about accepting tickets and to be a reassuring face
at an unfamiliar location.
FGW and NR reps at Paddington to have timetable info available about
alternative Chiltern or SWT services, or indeed the Oxford Tube coach
service.
FGW to arrange for taxis for passengers who cannot use the
Underground, eg MIPs.
FGW to run a DMU shuttle service to somewhere like High Wycombe to
allow pax to Oxford to travel that way using Chiltern services. The
works over Christmas showed that it is possible to run 2 tph between
Paddington and Banbury over the single line sections via Greenford.
Ideally, an FGW rep could be at High Wycombe to arrange shared taxis
for passengers wanting (for example) Reading.

Last but not least, there should be someone on the spot who has the
authority to make decisions. I recall an incident some years ago on
the ECML, when passengers were being directed to go via the MML to
Luton Airport Parkway and that buses had been laid on to Stevenage and
Hitchin. This was after FCC had taken over, so at least there were no
problems about ticket acceptance! Unfortunately, by the time I got to
LAP, the ECML had just been cleared and someone from "on high" had
ordered the buses to be stood down, although there were still about
40-50 pax at LAP wanting Hitchin. There was no-one at LAP who had the
authority to countermand the order from "on high" and we had the
farcical situation of a bus filled with pax wanting Hitchin, a driver
who wanted to take them there but no-one in authority to say so. It
was about 1830 and the station supervisor could not get through to
anyone as TPTB had all gone home! Eventually, the supervisor took it
on his head to instruct the driver to go to Hitchin, but I never heard
what happened next. I had wanted to write to FCC to compliment them on
the initiative of their employee at LAP but I was afraid that I might
drop him in it if they decided to accuse him of exceeding his
authority.

I wonder how well you would do if faced with just such a situation on
the ground.

You say that it's no use another TOC honouring your tickets if you
don't tell people, but then you say that no-one trusts an announcement
anyway.

FGW and NR to have sufficient on-call staff available:
Sadly most rail staff cannot afford to live in the centre of London so
they'd have to be called back in, presumably using the trains that are
not able to run! And all that will do is to ensure chaos the following
day when safety critical staff are not able to work because they've
exceeded their permitted hours.

Frequent announcements to say that "we do not know the expected delay
but that train services are not expected to resume before a certain
time", so that people can leave the premises with confidence

But that's just the point as explained above - only BTP can say when
the line is likely to reopen. They try to do so as quickly as possible
but often they don't know when that will be until immediately before
it happens. If the victim's head is missing you have to keep on
looking until it's found. Station staff would just be guessing if they
tried to give you a time and then you'd accuse them of deceiving you.

In the meantime, people cannot leave the station "with confidence". It
is almost always quicker to wait until services resume than set off on
some alternative route, whether by rail or road. I remember after the
July 7 bombings, a much worse situation than that described here, when
I wanted to get back to Norwich. There were no trains out of Liverpool
Street so I decided to set off from Fenchurch Street via Upminster and
Romford. I arrived at Shenfield just in time to catch the first train
out of Liverpool Street. Your tale about your experience on the ECML
backs that up.

And the idea that FGW would have enough drivers just sitting around at
Paddington who happen to have route knowledge to High Wycombe and
sufficient hours available to get there and back is just pure
fantasy.

The problem is that these incidents happen and there are often no
instant answers to the questions that some people insist must be
answered immediately. The real answer is "be patient and wait. You are
better off waiting here than dashing off round the country. We will
get you home as soon as we can." but very few people want to hear
that.

In message
, at
15:10:37 on Tue, 5 Apr 2011, W14_Fishbourne
remarked:
You say that it's no use another TOC honouring your tickets if you
don't tell people, but then you say that no-one trusts an announcement
anyway.

It's all very well assuming everyone has a season ticket, but other
people can have issues with changing route.

And not just the extent to which a train-specific advance purchase
ticket might be inter-available on another TOC, at another time, with
other train-specific connections further on in the journey being made
without news of the initial disruption having spread that far.

What if it's around 4pm and St Pancras has seized up. By the time you
get to Kings Cross or Euston your ticket isn't valid in the evening peak
(or they have different rules for when off-peak is).
--
Roland Perry

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