TheSel
Member
Very tabloid clickbait headline, makes it sound like the trains didn’t stop because the driver forgot. I’d expect better from the BBC.
I wouldn't. It's exactly what I'd expect from the BBC.
Very tabloid clickbait headline, makes it sound like the trains didn’t stop because the driver forgot. I’d expect better from the BBC.
I love how it says skip stops are a last resort. On Southern Metro it’s seemingly a first resort.
The thing is. Sometimes they skip stations and other times they delay trains to make additional stops. Both are valid but I suspect many don't unseeunder the reasons for it and think if one happens why is the other happening. Insert of course which ever course of action a passenger wants.
I think it depends on where one lives. For example on South Western Railway it's possible for some Portsmouth Harbour bound services to divert via Eastleigh but only if the driver and guard know the route.Can someone who is familiar with current rail industry processes clarify whether 'failure to call' is solely related to 'skipped' intermediate calls (with the train still completing its full diagram)?
To my mind a train that is terminated short also 'fails to call' albeit this is commonly described as 'part cancelled'.
In my own experience, typically on well over 1,000 train journeys per year, I have hardly ever experienced skip stopping purely for the purposes of service recovery. There have been more cases of services being diverted to avoid a problem suffering the side effect of having to miss a call. For example a Hull Trains journey diverted via Lincoln and thus missing Retford because of a line blockage near Retford. I have been on quite a few services that have been terminated short either for service recovery or line blocked ahead and can well believe an overall figure of around 1% of calls missed (besides full cancellations).
I take your point. Personally if I'm going to be delayed I want it to be an interesting experience. So maybe arriving on a platform the train rarely uses or maybe boarding a train that doesn't usually call at the station I'm going from.This is the typical reaction from many associated with the rail industry, as a job or an enthusiasm, to criticism. Passengers are a problem and how dare they expect to get home? Don't they know we have a railway to run?
Some passengers are dumb and/or unreasonable. But after 20 years of commuting you get to know why things happen. The problem is that understanding why you are stuck miles from home does nothing to get you there. In the final analysis the reason you have been dumped out or ended up 20 miles beyond your destination is of academic interest only - as a passenger you want to get to your destination without unreasonable delay and discomfort.
Why not? It is news and can impact large amounts of people so why shouldnt it be news when people pay a lot of money to travel?
Can someone who is familiar with current rail industry processes clarify whether 'failure to call' is solely related to 'skipped' intermediate calls (with the train still completing its full diagram)?
To my mind a train that is terminated short also 'fails to call' albeit this is commonly described as 'part cancelled'.
In my own experience, typically on well over 1,000 train journeys per year, I have hardly ever experienced skip stopping purely for the purposes of service recovery. There have been more cases of services being diverted to avoid a problem suffering the side effect of having to miss a call. For example a Hull Trains journey diverted via Lincoln and thus missing Retford because of a line blockage near Retford. I have been on quite a few services that have been terminated short either for service recovery or line blocked ahead and can well believe an overall figure of around 1% of calls missed (besides full cancellations).
I would much rather have skip stops on the District line, where the recovery strategy is instead to divert to "shorter" termini.
All too often (once or twice in a fortnight of 10 working days) I'll let two or more Wimbledon-bound trains go past, then board the Ealing/Richmond behind, only for it to also be redirected to Wimbledon — leaving a 20+ minute gap on the western branches in the morning peak, just to recover the off-peak service a little bit quicker!
Turfing out at Earl's Court leaves the poor choice between now-overcrowded Piccadilly line passageways, or an indeterminate wait for the next District to escape the controller's axe... A much more passenger-friendly solution would be to run the service on the right line and call at principal stations only.
EMT are awful at this too. Derby-Crewe runs short to Stoke and turns round, no provision made for Longport passengers at all, why don't TOC's think of passengers when making these decisions? Everything is done for their benefit, rather than trying to help their fare-paying passengers out
I saw this report on the news on TV yesterday. They were interviewing customers who werr affected.
One said he ended up in Eastbourne as it skipped his stop. Apparently it took an hour and a half to get back. At first I thought it must have been non stop from a fair distance, but turns out he took a taxi back. Not sure why he didn't just get a train back.
Apparently skipping stops cost customers money..how? I would have thought you can double back without buying an extra ticket if your train didn't stop as booked?
I'm not affected by the bombing in Syria right now so why should i be interested or it being on the front page?
Whether or not people read a story is irrelevant in whether it should be on the front page of the beebs website. It was something they investigated so of course they're going to push it.
Other than the fact that skip stopping results in large fines for the TOC. They don't just do it for their benefit, they also do it for the benefit of passengers on later workings whose train will now be on time.
... EMT are awful at this too. Derby-Crewe runs short to Stoke and turns round, no provision made for Longport passengers at all, why don't TOC's think of passengers when making these decisions? Everything is done for their benefit, rather than trying to help their fare-paying passengers out
But the solution is so simple. It’s just the railway never considers an option from a passenger perspective.
I get why it’s done, but more consideration could be made
But the solution is so simple. It’s just the railway never considers an option from a passenger perspective.
If the fines are so great for skip-stopping they wouldn’t do it. What you mean is, the fines are less than running a late train all day!
I get why it’s done, but more consideration could be made
But the solution is so simple. It’s just the railway never considers an option from a passenger perspective.
If the fines are so great for skip-stopping they wouldn’t do it. What you mean is, the fines are less than running a late train all day!
I get why it’s done, but more consideration could be made
We have this problem with Thameslink on the Sevenoaks line. If a 700 suffers a fault with the cameras (it does happen), they have to run fast from Sevenoaks, and can only call at Bromley South and Blackfriars, as those are the only stops with platform dispatchers.
So if 10 people are going to be inconvenienced or 200 who do you give more consideration to?
But that is my point! All of them!! I understand at some times you can't please everyone but lots of times everyone can be, but the railways always see it as "either or" never, we could do this and please everyone! Of course you can't everytime, but the attitude is always you can't everytime!
To go back to my original examples. Why was no arrangement made to stop the 10:00 at Hayle, or arrange a taxi onwards from St Erth? The only answer is, no one thought to!
This is a railway operating person's perspective. Railway accounts staff know full well that only about 10% of what is eligible for delay repay is ever actually paid.it is simply easier to miss the stop out, and pay out delay repay
But that is my point! All of them!! I understand at some times you can't please everyone but lots of times everyone can be, but the railways always see it as "either or" never, we could do this and please everyone! Of course you can't everytime, but the attitude is always you can't everytime!
Those writing here about "hey ho get the next one" or "slow news day for the media" really have no concept of customer service
So if 10 people are going to be inconvenienced or 200 who do you give more consideration to?