How do you enforce pick up and set down only?

[Bletchleyite]

Unless you are relying on the 'direct trains rule', then the validity of a ticket does depend on the route a train takes. But the nature of calls are not relevant unless you are splitting.

You could possibly manage a Byelaw prosecution:

10. Trains​

2. no person shall be in or on any train except the parts of it intended for use by that person

No part of a Lumo train to Kings Cross is intended for passengers from Stevenage.

You could argue it's tenuous, but so is Merseyrail's use of a few of the "conduct" related ones and they win most of those cases.

Notably, this could also be used to prosecute someone unwilling to move from the tip-up seats in the bicycle or wheelchair area.

Also:

13. Unauthorised access and loitering​

No person shall:

1. enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice:
   
   1. prohibiting access or
   2. indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that specified category

This could potentially apply if (and only if) the PIS was showing a notice that the train was set down only.

Now, I'm not suggesting a TOC would bother with this (though I'd not put it past all of them), but telling someone to get back off seems minor in comparison.

A proper clarification would certainly be good but I'm sure I've read in the past of travellers from Stevenage to London and Watford/Milton Keynes boarding East Coast/Virgin Trains services which were set-down only and being made to pay the single fare from York, Doncaster, Crewe etc etc.

I just presumed from these past tales that it was an entirely enforceable and indeed "set" thing if you get my gist.

There are certainly some guards that do this, though I have a suspicion a challenge might not work in Court. Most people won't challenge it, though. And as above, a Byelaw prosecution might work...

 

[Watershed]

A proper clarification would certainly be good but I'm sure I've read in the past of travellers from Stevenage to London and Watford/Milton Keynes boarding East Coast/Virgin Trains services which were set-down only and being made to pay the single fare from York, Doncaster, Crewe etc etc.

I just presumed from these past tales that it was an entirely enforceable and indeed "set" thing if you get my gist.

The fact that a practice is longstanding doesn't mean it is necessarily legitimate. See for example GTR with their (purportedly) brand-specific fares. They've now got a significant class action claim to defend for that. The difficulty is proving that it is a widespread practice, and hence that there are enough people out of pocket to make it worthwhile pursuing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact that a practice is longstanding doesn't mean it is necessarily legitimate. See for example GTR with their (purportedly) brand-specific fares. They've now got a significant class action claim to defend for that. The difficulty is proving that it is a widespread practice, and hence that there are enough people out of pocket to make it worthwhile pursuing.

Those brand-specific fares are such a reasonable thing to have in the GTR context that I don't understand in the slightest why they didn't manage to get the NRCoT modified to specifically allow for them. I can't see any TOC objecting. They're no different from Stagecoach "competing with itself" by way of Magic Bus services, for example, nor Ibis having both a budget and a "regular" hotel operation, often in the same building.

It is in the Feb 2022 edition as an "information note" but those carry no weight.

 

[Watershed]

Those brand-specific fares are such a reasonable thing to have in the GTR context that I don't understand in the slightest why they didn't manage to get the NRCoT modified to specifically allow for them. I can't see any TOC objecting.

It is in the Feb 2022 edition as an "information note" but those carry no weight.

The DfT has had every opportunity to change the NRCoT and TSA, at the very least since the claim was launched. There appears to be no evidence of them seeking to do so.

The GTR claim relates to more than just charging people excess fares and Penalty Fares in contravention of the validity under the NRCoT. It's fundamentally a Competition Act claim about misleading practices, but I won't get into it further on this thread.

10. Trains​

2. no person shall be in or on any train except the parts of it intended for use by that person

No part of a Lumo train to Kings Cross is intended for passengers from Stevenage.

You could argue it's tenuous, but so is Merseyrail's use of a few of the "conduct" related ones and they win most of those cases.

Notably, this could also be used to prosecute someone unwilling to move from the tip-up seats in the bicycle or wheelchair area.

Also:

13. Unauthorised access and loitering​

No person shall:

1. enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a notice:
   
   1. prohibiting access or
   2. indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that specified category

This could potentially apply if (and only if) the PIS was showing a notice that the train was set down only.

Now, I'm not suggesting a TOC would bother with this (though I'd not put it past all of them), but telling someone to get back off seems minor in comparison.

A prosecution under either Byelaw would face numerous challenges and certainly it is not within the "SOP" of any of the prosecutions departments to bring proceedings under any of these Byelaws. So I would regard even an attempt as rather unlikely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A prosecution under either Byelaw would face numerous challenges and certainly it is not within the "SOP" of any of the prosecutions departments to bring proceedings under any of these Byelaws. So I would regard even an attempt as rather unlikely.

I don't think it likely, but the point I'm making is that people need to stop coming up with ideas about why it's allowed on some sort of bizarre technicality and accept that the OP was in the wrong by boarding the train knowing full well it was not intended for their use.

There's generally no penalty for doing 71mph on a motorway but it doesn't make it legal.

It's a minor "crime", but if one does knowingly do something one knows isn't allowed, it's generally the right thing to accept being caught out and told to pack it in gracefully and with an apology, even if that is perhaps not as polite as it could have been because the conduct has annoyed the person doing the catching or created them work.

It was, after all, a fair cop.

 

[NSE]

Of course its your fault for having headphones in. I’d had a long day, sat down, train left Twickenham, tunes playing, lovely. Train seemingly became nice and empty at Teddington. In my A Day To Remember soundtracked state, I didn’t hear the train was now running non-stop to Waterloo. Balls. But that was my fault. I wasn’t in the wrong but it was my fault I had headphones in. I couldn’t blame SWR for not shouting at me.

 

[Watershed]

I don't think it likely, but the point I'm making is that people need to stop coming up with ideas about why it's allowed on some sort of bizarre technicality and accept that the OP was in the wrong by boarding the train knowing full well it was not intended for their use.

It's hardly a "bizarre technicality" to point out that they were travelling within the terms of their ticket. If anything is bizarre it's the notion, sadly quite prevalent across the rail industry, that you can just make up rules that suit you.

There's generally no penalty for doing 71mph on a motorway but it doesn't make it legal.

Hardly a very apt comparison. That's clearly illegal, even if not really enforced on the ground. Whereas here it is unclear that the OP did anything wrong at all.

It's a minor "crime", but if one does knowingly do something one knows isn't allowed, it's generally the right thing to accept being caught out and told to pack it in gracefully and with an apology, even if that is perhaps not as polite as it could have been because the conduct has annoyed the person doing the catching or created them work.

It was, after all, a fair cop.

Even if they had been in the wrong - two wrongs don't make a right. The member of staff should under no circumstances have threatened a Penalty Fare. Part of providing good customer service is treating people with respect and that clearly didn't happen here. The same message could have been delivered in a much more appropriate manner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if they had been in the wrong - two wrongs don't make a right. The member of staff should under no circumstances have threatened a Penalty Fare. Part of providing good customer service is treating people with respect and that clearly didn't happen here. The same message could have been delivered in a much more appropriate manner.

As I've said repeatedly I agree threatening a PF was rather silly though I think the importance of it is being overstated here, because the situation was that the train was not intended for the OP's use and so he needed to leave it (and so wasn't going to be charged anything anyway). However, I have no problem with the rest of the announcement.

This sort of "oi, you, yes, you with the red top on" announcement is very often used to tell people to pack things in on stations and almost always works.

 

[Starmill]

Lumo is a private, open access operator, to be compared with a charter. Do you think they'd let you on a charter for that trip without a charter ticket?

Sorry but you've totally made this up. NRCoT don't apply to charters but do to Lumo. Please please don't just make things up to support your point. You're of course right Lumo are entitled to place the restriction if they choose to. It should be sufficient to just say that. I

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry but you've totally made this up. NRCoT don't apply to charters but do to Lumo. Please please don't just make things up to support your point. You're of course right Lumo are entitled to place the restriction if they choose to. It should be sufficient to just say that.

NRCoT doesn't specifically say you can ignore pick up/set down regulations either, and the Byelaws provide ways in which people who ignore them could be prosecuted, though that seems about as common as prosecuting people for pulling the red handle or the door release, both of which often happen on "vomit comet" services on a Saturday evening. Indeed, the NRCoT now contains text in relation to split tickets that strongly implies that the ticket isn't valid either, though doesn't state it explicitly except with regard to splits.

So I think that's moot.

Either way, (a) Lumo receives no revenue from those tickets, (b) they don't want Stevenage passengers on them, and (c) they have said that clearly enough. What happened to just doing as asked and using the far more frequent LNER and GTR service on offer rather than looking for loopholes? This isn't like the whole Gatwick Express thing - it's not about overcharging, it's about them simply not wanting the business.

(And if you want an exception, e.g. because the OP as an enthusiast fancied trying out the seats, the traditional "ask the guard very nicely", or in Lumo's case the steward, has always been the best way to actually get one)

 

[skyhigh]

This is exactly why I wish to complain.

My only comment, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, would be that as I understand it any complaints/customer relations are dealt with by GWR's contact centre as part of the same owning group (similar to how Grand Central's Twitter page is manned by Cross Country staff). Assuming from your previous posts you secured the role with GWR you were interested in, effectively making a complaint against a colleague via your own company may earn yourself a bit of an unwelcome reputation. I tend to find a quiet word with 'someone who knows someone' who can deal with the matter with suitable discretion to yourself is a better option.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think it is completely ridiculous, the fact that members are going ott about enforcement is hilarious. Even suggesting byelaw convictions, that is ridiculous beyond belief!


In the grand scheme of things, 1 person travelling on Lumo to Kings Cross is so minor it isn't worth the hassle lmao

 

[Bletchleyite]

My only comment, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, would be that as I understand it any complaints/customer relations are dealt with by GWR's contact centre as part of the same owning group (similar to how Grand Central's Twitter page is manned by Cross Country staff). Assuming from your previous posts you secured the role with GWR you were interested in, effectively making a complaint against a colleague via your own company may earn yourself a bit of an unwelcome reputation. I tend to find a quiet word with 'someone who knows someone' who can deal with the matter with suitable discretion to yourself is a better option.

It would be further worth noting that getting caught doing something you shouldn't at a company owned by your employer is also rather inadvisable!

If the OP does indeed now work for FirstGroup, he might have found that flashing a FirstGroup staff pass at a steward as well as his ticket (BEFORE boarding) and asking if they minded him having a ride to Kings Cross to try the seats might have worked to have a ride with their blessing! (Obviously having identified himself, he would have to accept refusal gracefully).

In the grand scheme of things, 1 person travelling on Lumo to Kings Cross is so minor it isn't worth the hassle lmao

It's probably not. But nor is getting a minor admonishment for doing something fairly minor that you aren't meant to do. All one needs do if that happens is to stop doing it and apologise. Then nobody will even remember the incident the next day.

 

[Nottingham59]

they don't want Stevenage passengers on them

I rather suspect that Lumo's track access rights will not allow them to carry passengers between Stevenage and King's Cross. If this is the case, they will have strong incentives to show they are enforcing their set down/pick up only rules

 

[cactustwirly]

It would be further worth noting that getting caught doing something you shouldn't at a company owned by your employer is also rather inadvisable!

If the OP does indeed now work for FirstGroup, he might have found that flashing a FirstGroup staff pass at a steward as well as his ticket (BEFORE boarding) and asking if they minded him having a ride to Kings Cross to try the seats might have worked to have a ride with their blessing! (Obviously having identified himself, he would have to accept refusal gracefully).



It's probably not. But nor is getting a minor admonishment for doing something fairly minor that you aren't meant to do. All one needs do if that happens is to stop doing it and apologise. Then nobody will even remember the incident the next day.

So minor that it isn't worth apologizing.
Why are you even arguing with it.

I don't believe in set down only restrictions, I don't understand what they achieve. Except loads of unnecessary hassle as the OP discovered

 

[Bletchleyite]

So minor that it isn't worth apologizing.

I don't know about you, but I find that if you do something you shouldn't and you get caught, apologising is usually effective at making things right. Refusing to apologise for something where you know you're in the wrong tends to result in escalation.

Were it me (and I'm not saying I haven't boarded set down only trains, because I have) I'd have got straight back off and waved and mouthed "sorry" at the DOO cameras. I might have been a little embarrassed, but not at being called out over the PA, rather that my actions had resulted in that.

Why are you even arguing with it.

Why are you arguing it's OK?

I don't believe in set down only restrictions, I don't understand what they achieve. Except loads of unnecessary hassle as the OP discovered

Some are pointless, but others, e.g. Watford, are very useful in avoiding long distance trains being crowded out with commuters when an alternative high capacity commuter alternative is provided.

This is all the more important with Lumo operating very short trains compared with other TOCs.

You could argue it's pointless enforcing it, and it indeed largely is. But if you are caught and asked to leave, you do.

 

[Edsmith]

I think it is completely ridiculous, the fact that members are going ott about enforcement is hilarious. Even suggesting byelaw convictions, that is ridiculous beyond belief!


In the grand scheme of things, 1 person travelling on Lumo to Kings Cross is so minor it isn't worth the hassle lmao

I agree and these sort of silly restrictions make the railway industry look ridiculous. If the Lumo guard was really that bothered about it he could have made a more customer friendly announcement.

Seems SWR staff have a more relaxed attitude, the 16.20 Waterloo to Exeter is shown at Waterloo as fast to Basingstoke but does stop at Clapham Junction and Woking to pick up. I heard a passenger ask the guard at Clapham Junction if the train was calling at Woking and the guard confirmed that it was despite Woking not being mentioned in platform announcements. I fully understand the reason for it, don't want the train getting crowded with passengers to Woking who have other options to the detriment of those going further afield but I have noticed a few people getting off at Woking and I suspect regular users are wise to the fact that it stops there. It must be pretty nigh impossible to enforce these restrictions nowadays, anyone with just a little railway knowledge can check on their phone to find out exactly where the train is stopping.

 

[Three_Counties]

Between 2007 and 2012, I used to commute from London to a job based in Stevenage causing me to use First Capital Connect most days between KGX and SVG, but also GNER / NXEC as and when. Around the time of my homeward commute, most days a First Hull Trains service was scheduled to call at SVG to set down only that would go largely unnoticed. However on occasions of major disruption (especially to the OHL) this diesel unit would attract attention from desperate waiting commuters, especially as it would be in a very similar livery to FCC trains. On several such afternoons, I had approached the guard (or TM or ...), showed my season ticket and asked to travel to KGX. Not only was this always deemed acceptable but it was also made clear to me (and others) that the buffet would be open for teas and snacks until Finsbury Park whereas GNER etc would close theirs upon arrival at SVG if not sooner. I would repay the hospitality by buying a tea to put £2 or so in FHT's coffers as they would receive no allocation from my season ticket.

But this seemed to upset the FCC station staff at SVG who then took to arranging for almost the entire station staff to be on P2 on arrival of this train so as to actively block passengers from boarding, even when there had already been a lengthy wait and another hour on the desolate island P!/P2 at SVG looked likely due to an incident anywhere on the ECML.

This issue seemed to be resolved by removing all but Sunday calls at SVG for Hull Trains, making even these calls themselves rather redundant now.

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't know about you, but I find that if you do something you shouldn't and you get caught, apologising is usually effective at making things right. Refusing to apologise for something where you know you're in the wrong tends to result in escalation.

Were it me (and I'm not saying I haven't boarded set down only trains, because I have) I'd have got straight back off and waved and mouthed "sorry" at the DOO cameras. I might have been a little embarrassed, but not at being called out over the PA, rather that my actions had resulted in that.



Why are you arguing it's OK?



Some are pointless, but others, e.g. Watford, are very useful in avoiding long distance trains being crowded out with commuters when an alternative high capacity commuter alternative is provided.

This is all the more important with Lumo operating very short trains compared with other TOCs.

You could argue it's pointless enforcing it, and it indeed largely is. But if you are caught and asked to leave, you do.

I would be showing a big f you signal to the TM (for being such a jobsworth), and writing a formal complaint. For being completely unprofessional.

The affect of 1 person mistakingly boarding the service, which could happen. Especially as most people are unlikely to know Lumo have set down only restrictions.

It's only a box ticking exercise, the TMs should show discretion and turn a blind eye, as is good practice in a customer facing environment.

Same thing at Watford. A few people using Avanti to London isn't the end of the world so the restriction should be removed. It just creates unnecessary complications.

 

[Horizon22]

It's only a box ticking exercise, the TMs should show discretion and turn a blind eye, as is good practice in a customer facing environment.

Same thing at Watford. A few people using Avanti to London isn't the end of the world so the restriction should be removed. It just creates unnecessary complications.

Someone has suggested above that it isn't "box-ticking" and may be enshrined in track access rights.

What you aren't thinking about is that if those restrictions are removed how do you know that "a few people" won't turn into a flood? It is highly likely that by having restrictions the numbers using it are restricting it to just a few people which could increase a lot otherwise.

I'd also suggest that "turning a blind eye" to thing is anything but good practice in any industry and is going to irritate the vast majority of people that are following rules/guidelines/practices

 

[jfollows]

Same thing at Watford. A few people using Avanti to London isn't the end of the world so the restriction should be removed. It just creates unnecessary complications.

There is a logic behind this one, if it weren't enforced then it might be necessary to do barrier ticket checks on arrival at Euston for all trains which have stopped at Watford.
Otherwise, yes, it's only a problem when silly people make it one, there is no need to "enforce" set-down only calls.

 

[Edsmith]

Someone has suggested above that it isn't "box-ticking" and may be enshrined in track access rights.

What you aren't thinking about is that if those restrictions are removed how do you know that "a few people" won't turn into a flood? It is highly likely that by having restrictions the numbers using it are restricting it to just a few people which could increase a lot otherwise.

I'd also suggest that "turning a blind eye" to thing is anything but good practice in any industry and is going to irritate the vast majority of people that are following rules/guidelines/practices

There is only one southbound Lumo train that calls at Stevenage at 20.21 and I can't imagine masses of people are going to start using it if the restriction is removed. I can understand northbound Lumo trains not advertising the Stevenage stop at King's Cross so it effectively becomes pick up only but the set down only restriction does indeed seem nothing more than a box ticking exercise.

 

[Horizon22]

There is only one southbound Lumo train that calls at Stevenage at 20.21 and I can't imagine masses of people are going to start using it if the restriction is removed. I can understand northbound Lumo trains not advertising the Stevenage stop at King's Cross so it effectively becomes pick up only but the set down only restriction does indeed seem nothing more than a box ticking exercise.

I don't know about Stevenage; I was referring to Watford Junction in my comment.

The set down only / pick up only normally works in reverse for the equivalent up/down train so seems sensible enough to me.

 

[Edsmith]

I don't know about Stevenage; I was referring to Watford Junction in my comment.

The set down only / pick up only normally works in reverse for the equivalent up/down train so seems sensible enough to me.

Yes I think the current arrangements at Watford Junction are probably ok.

 

[greyman42]

I boarded a Lumo train at Stevenage, and in a very vulgar manner, the guard decided to make an announcement down the PA saying,
“Would the young customer in the red hoodie who decided to jump on this train at Stevenage despite signs saying Set Down Only, please leave this train now before you are issued with a penalty fare.”

I’ve never felt so humiliated in my life.

I don't think i would make a very good guard because with something as trivial as this, i could not care less. Or perhaps with my attitude i would make a good one?

 

[SargeNpton]

Not mentioned here but perhaps relevant...

I'd guess that Lumo's Open Access Agreement disbars them from carrying Stevenage < > Kings Cross passengers as it would fail the revenue abstraction test that applies to all Open Access operators.

 

[Watershed]

Not mentioned here but perhaps relevant...

I'd guess that Lumo's Open Access Agreement disbars them from carrying Stevenage < > Kings Cross passengers as it would fail the revenue abstraction test that applies to all Open Access operators.

The relevant clause in their Track Access Agreement (the footnote to Table 4.1 on page 87) merely stipulates that there are to be a maximum of 2 calls each way per day at Stevenage, and that they are to be advertised as pick up/set down only stops. This effectively prevents their services from being considered in ORCATS calculations.

There is nothing in the agreement which suggests they are barred from actually carrying passengers who choose to get on in spite of the non-advertised nature of the stop. Such a restriction that would not make sense, given the intention of the restriction is purely to prevent an impact on the Stevenage <-> London ORCATS distribution.

 

[Class800]

As you're well aware, I will not bring my employer into any conversations on this Forum; it is my personal policy that I do not discuss my employment in any public forum, ever.

However, other than the incorrect statement about Penalty Fares, I personally have no other issue with the announcement made, and I have heard that kind of announcement made on the railway a number of times, and they generally work in preventing the undesirable behaviour from continuing. So I will certainly state that, other than the incorrect statement about Penalty Fares, that I condone it, yes.

It wasn't rude. It just made sure the individual knew he was the one being spoken about, and asked him to desist from behaviour that was not allowed. The outcome was presumably that he did desist from it, i.e. leave the train. Problem solved.

If I was that member of staff's manager and the complaint appeared on my desk, I would thank them for ensuring that the Company's policy was followed, but ask nicely that they didn't make stuff up about Penalty Fares. Biscuits would be served with the metaphorical tea during the discussion.

Highlighting an individual is the height of rudeness - maybe says something about the manners of anyone who would condone this really.

The Lumo crew had no right to go about their conduct in the way that they did. @TT-ONR-NRN is right to be upset, and to be making a complaint about it. A polite “This train is drop off only at this station, if you’ve just boarded please return to the platform and board the following LNER or GTR service” announcement would have sufficed. Suggestions otherwise are frankly ridiculous.

Agreed - or just ignore it and focus on hundreds of people not one person

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The relevant clause in their Track Access Agreement (the footnote to Table 4.1 on page 87) merely stipulates that there are to be a maximum of 2 calls each way per day at Stevenage, and that they are to be advertised as pick up/set down only stops. This effectively prevents their services from being considered in ORCATS calculations.

There is nothing in the agreement which suggests they are barred from actually carrying passengers who choose to get on in spite of the non-advertised nature of the stop. Such a restriction that would not make sense, given the intention of the restriction is purely to prevent an impact on the Stevenage <-> London ORCATS distribution.

So the intent of the Track Access Agreement was that Lumo should carry any Stevenage–London passenger who wants to use their service, without recompense?

That's an interesting argument, I'll give you that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Highlighting an individual is the height of rudeness - maybe says something about the manners of anyone who would condone this really.

It's often done, and it works. "Will the person in the blue coat by the escalator smoking please stop?" for instance.

If an individual is obviously and knowingly breaking the rules, it's right to highlight that they need to stop.

From the Lumo thread:

as are people who think they are above the rules.

Lumo aren't a PF operator for now, but I'd not see an issue with the new PF scheme allowing for the charging of a "base" Penalty Fare (i.e. not plus fare, and no prosecution possible) for anyone who boards a set down only train/a train with a pick-up only restriction with a ticket only to the pick-up only station, who boards a compulsory reservation* train without a reservation, or who sits in a marked reserved seat without holding the reservation and does not move when requested to do so. Grounds for appeal would be e.g. failure of the PIS on that day so you didn't reasonably know it was. That way there'd be no delay but a solid way of discouraging such practice.

* Actually compulsory, not the present fudge. The present fudge needs solving by a separate flag of "do not sell tickets for this train unless there are reservations available", which could probably usefully be the "reservations recommended" flag which is barely used.