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

"Hils" wrote in message

Chris Tolley wrote:
Hils wrote:
Odd how we read more about Asian [sic] women being "victims" than
about unemployed men.

I suspect that it isn't odd at all, but predetermined by our
selection of what we read.

Moreover, the women of Asian heritage who are driven to take their
lives often have been victims of abuse from an identifiable abuser,
whereas someone who is unemployed has rarely been victimised by one
person, unless you are going to lay the blame for their state at the
door of the person who puts the figures in the spreadsheet.

Semantic sophistry. Asian-heritage women choose to stay in abusive
environments. If some of them don't understand enough about British
culture or the English language to go to the police or social services
before they reach the stage of stepping in front of a train, the
questions to be asked are why don't they understand those things?

I've read that these are educated women imported from the subcontinent
for arranged marriages to young men who turn out not to live up to their
billing (less eductaed than claimed, or much older/uglier). Their
families would lose face if they returned home to India, and they have
no local support network here to help when they're bullied by their
mothers-in-law who treat them little better than slaves.

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!

On Apr 5, 12:53*pm, Sailor wrote:
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!

What would Gerry Fiennes have done??

"tony" wrote

What would Gerry Fiennes have done??

Get the Spitalfields Pilot out to drag the failure up the bank to Bethnal
Green
Shunt the truck train for the express (unless Masher May was on the front of
the truck train, it was a Saturday morning, and March Town were playing at
home).
What he wouldn't do is to forget to tell Upminster that the direct line to
Pitsea was blocked by a derailment and everything would have to be diverted
via Ockendon and Tilbury.

Peter

Hils wrote:

Chris Tolley wrote:
Hils wrote:
Odd how we read more about Asian [sic] women being "victims" than about
unemployed men.

women of Asian heritage who are driven to take their lives
often have been victims of abuse from an identifiable abuser

Asian-heritage women choose to stay in abusive environments. If some
of them don't understand enough about British culture or the English
language to go to the police or social services before they reach the
stage of stepping in front of a train, the questions to be asked are
why don't they understand those things?

They may not even understand the language. How on earth do you suppose
they are meant to understand the support structures? NB There is ample
information about specific cases out there if you actually do wish to
become informed, rather than to engage in wordplay.

--
..sig down for maintenance

On 5 Apr, 10:51, bob wrote:
The problem is the railways are not following a "keep calm, carry on"
approach, they are following a "pack up and go home" approach, leaving
passengers stranded. *There should be contingency plans for how to
deal with the closure of key points on the network, ready to act on
with half an hour's notice. *It should be clear to management within
half an hour whether the situation is a "open again in a few minutes"
or "closed for the rest of the evening" situation.

Don't agree. A suicide could be cleared up in 30 minutes, it could
take five hours (if the train couldn't be moved, for example), or any
time in-between.....they DO NOT know until the BTP give NR the
clearance - then they can start guesstimating. But the BTP, rightly in
my view - sorry - refuse to guesstimate saying it'll take as long as
it takes.

Your dealing with an horrific death here, not a broken down train.

*For management to
just sit on that information and neither pass it on, nor advise
passengers (who may have train-specific non flexible tickets) how to
go about getting home, nor give them advice on alternative routes that
are available, is bad management. *Just sticking a "we're really
sorry, your train is cancelled" message on the information display is
not a contingency plan, and it's not keeping calm and carrying on.

Yes, it is. The real problem is Joe Public's complete lack of patience
these days. Previously, they'd work it out for themselves that the
likely delay is a couple of hours, do I want to try a different route
or shall I wait - but with the advent of e-everything, they expect
instantaneous answers. Well, in this case, someone's life comes before
someone's trip home.

BTW - THIS PERSON LIVED LASST NIGHT......

"SB" wrote in message
...
Sadly there was yet another person hit by a train at Southall on
Monday evening (yesterday).

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/co...c=669.msg87663

This is very sad - but why so many at Southall anyway? It does seem to
be a regular occurance.

Anyway you would have thought that First Great Western might have had
a contingency plan for such occurrences by now.

I suspect they had. BTP's target time for reopening a railway after a
fatality is 2 hours. If you could get a fleet of buses to Paddington to take
all the passengers it would almost certainly take the best part of 2 hours.
So no point. It would also be likely to take nearly as long to call in off
duty managers and staff from home. Again no point.
What should have been done is to keep passengers informed as far as possible
(via tannoy and screens), reassure those with connections down the line to
contact the conductor when they do get away, so that arrangements (hold last
connections, arrange taxis) can be made. Make tickets available on LUL and
SWT and advise passengers for Heathrow that they may travel via LUL and that
passengers may also make their way to Waterloo for Windsor, Reading, via
Basingstoke, etc.
Trains in the station, which would be the first ones out when the line
reopened, should be loaded - so they can be got away quickly when this
becomes possible, and, to the seating capacity of the trains, to give
passengers somewhere warm to sit and wait.
Presumably the Greenford shuttle kept running until end of service, carrying
passengers to Acton Main Line, Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, and the
Greenford branch
If there was a train crew with route knowledge via Banbury after the
Christmas diversions, a train to Bristol or Siouth Wales should have been
diverted via Banbury, calling at Oxford, Swindon and usual stations.
I'll leave it to BAA and the airlines how they cope when passengers arrive
late at Heathrow because BAA's HEx and HConn trains were not running.

Peter