Should the railway become customer focussed, rather than revenue focused?

[Sad Sprinter]

You mean you don't get a warm glow in your heart when you see Southern's "We're with you" tagline on all their posters?

I think the railway is a symptom of how Britain is run in general - it'll be a much easier country to govern if it wasn't for all the people who just have to live here.

 

[g492p]

The question suggests its either revenue or customers which gets priority, the two often go hand in hand, the businesses and organisations which maximise their revenue typically have a laser-like focus on serving their customers and understanding what their customers value.

The exception to that is possibly monopolies, which can neglect their customers, provide poor customer service and still grow revenue because the customer's have no where else to go. That's probably the issue with the railways, to a degree, for a long time the passengers had no choice and therefore there were no consequences from poor service. That leads to complacency, which leads to arrogance and a culture when the passenger isn't the focus. It probably isn't helped by being a public service where it continues year in year out, insulated from the market forces and without the same pressures to reform.

I always think a great example are those old Victorian photos of the railways pre-nationalisation, back in their heyday, the attention to the little details like the porter and the trolleys there to help passengers with luggage, that most stations had roofs covering the platforms and even straddling multiple tracks to keep passengers dry from the rain and out of the wind. Then you see modern projects, pouring millions into the infrastructure like the track, signalling, electrification and station refurbishment where the passenger that pays for the lot is expected to stand on a wind-swept platform without even a roof over it to keep them out of the rain. It's crazy!

I do often wonder how true that is, given that airline are not a monopoly, and Ryanair is the most successful European airline of the last 20 years. It’s also worth pointing out that the Victorian railway had vastly more staff per passenger then you would see now.

 

[BenS123]

I think another example of this is gateline staff not letting family members etc through to say goodbye to loved ones or "welcome them back" when arriving. In my opinion it is important that people are allowed to do this, and while there could be a revenue risk involved as it could be used as an excuse to fare evade, the railway needs this "human factor".

If the station is dangerously overcrowded that is a different matter, but not when it is quite quiet. I'm even questioning the likelihood of people using it as an excuse to get through the gates to fare evade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think another example of this is gateline staff not letting family members etc through to say goodbye to loved ones or "welcome them back" when arriving. In my opinion it is important that people are allowed to do this, and while there could be a revenue risk involved as it could be used as an excuse to fare evade, the railway needs this "human factor".

If the station is dangerously overcrowded that is a different matter, but not when it is quite quiet. I'm even questioning the likelihood of people using it as an excuse to get through the gates to fare evade.

Does the railway need to do that? Can people not wave hello or goodbye at the gateline? They manage it at airports.

If it's that important, a return to the next stop for a few quid will allow one to do this without problems.

 

[yorksrob]

There's always a platform ticket !

 

[Snow1964]

I can see staff trying to limit the numbers joining an alternative train not least so passengers at the next stations it calls at can still join particularly if they know the following train is only a short time later and has greater free capacity.

But rarely bother to announce it as another train in few minutes with lots of free seats, (customer friendly approach)

Instead concentrating on the negative, eg threatening penalties for getting first alternative train. Quite simply need to learn to put the inconvenienced customers first and offer them alternatives rather than treat them an afterthought (if they are thought of at all).

Don't want to be nasty, but some staff (and their management) seem to forget if they discourage passengers, might be no need for their job to exist in year or twos time

 

[XAM2175]

But rarely bother to announce it as another train in few minutes with lots of free seats, (customer friendly approach)

Instead concentrating on the negative, eg threatening penalties for getting first alternative train. Quite simply need to learn to put the inconvenienced customers first and offer them alternatives rather than treat them an afterthought (if they are thought of at all).

Yes, this is a good point. Explaining the actual positive reason is almost always the better bet.

 

[Tester]

Does the railway need to do that?

No it doesn't need to do that. There are a lot of things the railway doesn't need to do.

But the point of the thread is about focus. To put things a bit more brutally, the current focus seems to be to attempt to extract the maximum possible revenue from passengers, virtually regardless of what that does to overall numbers, rather than to maximise the number of satisfied passengers.

Quite a few times I find myself in conversations like this.....

Potential Punter: I want to go from A to B but the rail fare is £ludicrous so I'll drive
Me: Hang on - let's see what I can come up with..... How about £notsobad
PP: Hey that's good - I'll do that, thanks. How did you do that?
Me: (gives a few hints and tips)
PP: Great - I'll try that next time

Result - railway gets £notsobad and more in the future, and PP tells friends who give it a go, so the railway gets even more £notsobads [general feeling that the railway is a good thing and worth improving]

But that is a tiny proportion of the market - much more likely is.....

PP (talking to self): I want to go from A to B but the rail fare is £ludicrous so I'll drive
No conversation - PP simply never even bothers to look next time

Result - railway gets £0 and PP tells friends not to even bother to look [general feeling that the railway is a drain on the taxpayer and should be closed down forthwith]

I exaggerate a little, but you get the general idea.

Whilst it's a bit idealistic to imagine that this might change, it isn't a reason for not trying!

Making the railway more inviting and less forbidding to Potential Punters is a small but important part of that.

 

[WideRanger]

I think another example of this is gateline staff not letting family members etc through to say goodbye to loved ones or "welcome them back" when arriving. In my opinion it is important that people are allowed to do this, and while there could be a revenue risk involved as it could be used as an excuse to fare evade, the railway needs this "human factor".

If the station is dangerously overcrowded that is a different matter, but not when it is quite quiet. I'm even questioning the likelihood of people using it as an excuse to get through the gates to fare evade.

A few month ago, I was helping a mother (who was a friend) and her toddler toddler get on to an LNER train from Kings Cross to Scotland, with significant (but not excessive) luggage, including tricky things like a pushchair. I asked LNER customer services in advance whether I would be able to help her get on the train at Kings Cross, and her husband to go on to the platforms at Inverness to help her get off. LNER replied pretty quickly saying that we should just explain at the gatelines at both stations, and they should let us through. I (at Kings Cross) and her husband (at Inverness) did that, and in both cases, we had no difficulties in being allowed through and on to the train to help them get settled, and off the train.

We had a valid, and obvious, reason for needing to access the platform and the train, and were straightforward and polite about what we were going to do. We really had no issues - which suggests that LNER had established a culture of having the relevant staff being able to exercise good judgement. At both ends, we made a special effort to thank the gateline staff as they let us out.

Thinking about it in retrospect, it was pretty impressive customer service - both at the company policy level and with the individual staff involved.

 

[ComUtoR]

"Customer focussed" is pretty meaningless with something as large as "The Railway". "The Railway" is VERY customer focussed but that is often shifted to the bigger picture rather than an individuals needs.

One situation that is often raised is the holding of trains. Who is the the customer in this case. The single passenger who missed their train because it wasn't held or the passengers who are affected by a delay. Is it fair to delay one passenger at the expense of another ?

I've worked with the general public, most of my life. What I have learned is that the customer ISN'T always right and that you really need to be careful what you wish for. Specifically for the railway, a lot of TOC policy comes from the customer. There is a strong desire to run trains 'On Time' that has led to a huge focus on keeping the trains running to the exact minute and now we have moved to 'Right time railway' its even worse. Same with seats on trains. The customer focus has shifted from pure capacity to one where the more seats the better. What we now have is customers complaining that there isn't enough luggage space or that toilets have been removed.

Ticketing will be the same. The customer currently wants 'simplification' but that will come with all those loopholes getting closed and ticket prices going up as the small ticket oddities get swallowed up into the 'bigger picture' Same with Ticket offices. For all the calls for them to close as we move to e-ticketing, there will still be outcry because 'paper' tickets have been removed and there is no-one to sell a ticket, and that the TVM doesn't sell the most obscure and bespoke split 13 different times, with 4x different railcards, on an advance, that was bought on the second Sunday with a full moon.... which I wanted to buy with cash.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

There's always a platform ticket !

Can you actually still obtain these, other than on heritage railways? (Fairly sure that this question gets asked, from time to time, with uncertain answers).

 

[dk1]

I think another example of this is gateline staff not letting family members etc through to say goodbye to loved ones or "welcome them back" when arriving. In my opinion it is important that people are allowed to do this, and while there could be a revenue risk involved as it could be used as an excuse to fare evade, the railway needs this "human factor".

If the station is dangerously overcrowded that is a different matter, but not when it is quite quiet. I'm even questioning the likelihood of people using it as an excuse to get through the gates to fare evade.

That’s always made me wonder. You cannot do that at an airport you just say your goodbyes at the departures gate. It’s often these people on railway stations who stand too close to the train, bang on the windows & run alongside causing safety concerns during the dispatch process which is taken very seriously these days.

 

[yorksrob]

No it doesn't need to do that. There are a lot of things the railway doesn't need to do.

But the point of the thread is about focus. To put things a bit more brutally, the current focus seems to be to attempt to extract the maximum possible revenue from passengers, virtually regardless of what that does to overall numbers, rather than to maximise the number of satisfied passengers.

Quite a few times I find myself in conversations like this.....

Potential Punter: I want to go from A to B but the rail fare is £ludicrous so I'll drive
Me: Hang on - let's see what I can come up with..... How about £notsobad
PP: Hey that's good - I'll do that, thanks. How did you do that?
Me: (gives a few hints and tips)
PP: Great - I'll try that next time

Result - railway gets £notsobad and more in the future, and PP tells friends who give it a go, so the railway gets even more £notsobads [general feeling that the railway is a good thing and worth improving]

But that is a tiny proportion of the market - much more likely is.....

PP (talking to self): I want to go from A to B but the rail fare is £ludicrous so I'll drive
No conversation - PP simply never even bothers to look next time

Result - railway gets £0 and PP tells friends not to even bother to look [general feeling that the railway is a drain on the taxpayer and should be closed down forthwith]

I exaggerate a little, but you get the general idea.

Whilst it's a bit idealistic to imagine that this might change, it isn't a reason for not trying!

Making the railway more inviting and less forbidding to Potential Punters is a small but important part of that.

You are exactly the sort of person the railway needs. I can remember a few times in the past I've been given some good advice from the ticket window about fares.

 

[Tester]

You are exactly the sort of person the railway needs. I can remember a few times in the past I've been given some good advice from the ticket window about fares.

To clarify, I don't work in a booking office. The conversations are just with people in the ordinary course of events, perhaps because of my railway connections/interest.

It's something any of us with useful ticketing knowledge can do, but of course it's a drop in the ocean.

If the railway ethos is to ensure that the fare the Potential Punter is quoted is actually the lowest available fare for the intended journey, this particular problem would disappear - plenty of others remain of course - but baby steps!

The attitude that by default rail travel is a distress purchase is a dead end - the sooner it changes the better.

 

[yorksrob]

To clarify, I don't work in a booking office. The conversations are just with people in the ordinary course of events, perhaps because of my railway connections/interest.

It's something any of us with useful ticketing knowledge can do, but of course it's a drop in the ocean.

If the railway ethos is to ensure that the fare the Potential Punter is quoted is actually the lowest available fare for the intended journey, this particular problem would disappear - plenty of others remain of course - but baby steps!

The attitude that by default rail travel is a distress purchase is a dead end - the sooner it changes the better.

Apologies for mis-reading.

I expect we've all had those conversations with people less knowledgeable on railway matters.

 

[Tester]

Apologies for mis-reading.

I expect we've all had those conversations with people less knowledgeable on railway matters.

Not at all - on re-reading I can see how! The Potential Punters are people who have enquired online and been horrified at the 'distress purchase' fare quoted, who happen to mention the fact - a very small sub-set.

Against the advantages of good online information, the downside is that the decision to buy or not takes place remote from the railway - even the most pro-active booking clerk doesn't get a look in.

In simple terms, if we consistently scare passengers with the distress purchase price - we have lost. Whilst I'm not privy to the numbers, intuition is that the revenue lost by scaring them off would outweigh the revenue gained by price honesty.

Capacity is of course another issue, but if we are serious about improving our environment that needs fixing anyway - we should be way beyond any thoughts that pricing off demand is a sound policy.

Yes - to stick with the topic, the railway definitely should become customer focussed rather than revenue focussed.

 

[yorksrob]

Not at all - on re-reading I can see how! The Potential Punters are people who have enquired online and been horrified at the 'distress purchase' fare quoted, who happen to mention the fact - a very small sub-set.

Against the advantages of good online information, the downside is that the decision to buy or not takes place remote from the railway - even the most pro-active booking clerk doesn't get a look in.

In simple terms, if we consistently scare passengers with the distress purchase price - we have lost. Whilst I'm not privy to the numbers, intuition is that the revenue lost by scaring them off would outweigh the revenue gained by price honesty.

Capacity is of course another issue, but if we are serious about improving our environment that needs fixing anyway - we should be way beyond any thoughts that pricing off demand is a sound policy.

Yes - to stick with the topic, the railway definitely should become customer focussed rather than revenue focussed.

The industry does itself no favours with those ridiculous 3 figure anytime fares putting passengers off.

 

[XAM2175]

That’s always made me wonder. You cannot do that at an airport you just say your goodbyes at the departures gate. It’s often these people on railway stations who stand too close to the train, bang on the windows & run alongside causing safety concerns during the dispatch process which is taken very seriously these days.

Theoretically, in the US at least, you can do it at airports if you ask the airline to issue you a "gate pass" because you're providing assistance to a passenger. The official reason it's not permitted as a free-for-all is because it would be a drag on security screening for no benefit, but I expect it's also considered a security benefit for the vast majority of people airside to either be confirmed passengers or vetted employees.

Notably though, unless things have changed in the last five-odd years, you can pass through security without any documentation or claim of necessity at domestic airports in Australia.

 

[Meerkat]

Differential fares are fine but when customers make mistakes or the rail service is disrupted, a pragmatic approach should be taken.

As long as it doesn't become like football managers - one minute they want referees to be pragmatic, the next minute they demand consistency!

Also needs remembering that the taxpayer is a customer as they are heavily funding the railway, and railway revenue matters to them.

 

[yorkie]

As long as it doesn't become like football managers - one minute they want referees to be pragmatic, the next minute they demand consistency!

Consistently sensible / pragmatic would be fine by me.

Also needs remembering that the taxpayer is a customer as they are heavily funding the railway, and railway revenue matters to them.

The best value for taxpayers paying into a public service is for that service to be well used, and for those who use it to be satisfied. Of course, the bean-counters at the DfT will take a different view.

 

[Meerkat]

Consistently sensible / pragmatic would be fine by me.

I’m not sure you can be pragmatic and consistent - that’s generally why we have rules in the first place.
And unfortunately in our connected world pragmatism will be taken advantage of.
(You can of course build some pragmatism into the rules, particularly around disruption, and organise delegation down to the lowest possible level)

The best value for taxpayers paying into a public service is for that service to be well used, and for those who use it to be satisfied. Of course, the bean-counters at the DfT will take a different view.

You can’t judge that value without bean counters

 

[yorkie]

I’m not sure you can be pragmatic and consistent - that’s generally why we have rules in the first place.

If you define consistency as a rigid application of the rules, regardless of common sense (commonly known as being a jobsworth*) this is not desirable nor practicable. Such behaviour can increase a company's liabilities as well as potentially putting the company into legal bother, as adherence to rules on a minor level risks breaching consumer and/or contract laws (or, in the case of young/vulnerable customers, a duty of care).

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

informal a person in a position of minor authority who invokes the letter of the law in order to avoid any action requiring initiative, cooperation, etc

It's also a contradiction of many job titles where good service is provided. For example in most jobs I've done, there are overarching principles that preclude acting in such a manner. This cropped up in a recent thread where an Avanti Train Manager acted in a manner that they may have argued to be within the rules, but which was in my opinion clearly contrary to their job description.

When someone behaves in such a manner, and uses petty rules as an excuse, one of the first things I would do is look at their job description / person spec, and identify if their behaviour is consistent with that.

And unfortunately in our connected world pragmatism will be taken advantage of.

So be it; you can't completely prevent that.

(You can of course build some pragmatism into the rules, particularly around disruption, and organise delegation down to the lowest possible level)

That should happen but the rail industry often seems to be against this.

You can’t judge that value without bean counters

If only they did a good job of it!

 

[Meerkat]

If you define consistency as a rigid application of the rules, regardless of common sense (commonly known as being a jobsworth*) this is not desirable nor practicable. Such behaviour can increase a company's liabilities as well as potentially putting the company into legal bother, as adherence to rules on a minor level risks breaching consumer and/or contract laws (or, in the case of young/vulnerable customers, a duty of care).

Sounds like the rules need changing rather than blaming the staff

If only they did a good job of it!

That’s very subjective!

 

[yorkie]

Sounds like the rules need changing rather than blaming the staff

Yes the rules need changing but staff should behave in accordance with their job description / person spec for the role.

That’s very subjective!

It is indeed; if you can find many people who think the DfT do a good job, then fair play to you though!

 

[Starmill]

I guess at the corporate level, if there's an easy way to bully people into paying for a new ticket, or to send out threatening letters about prosecution but offering not to file the case in Court in exchange for some punitive some of money, then a certain kind of manager will be all too happy to go down that route. Putting up signs or doing advertising campaigns threatening "fines", as Northern do, is just one of many ways to scare people into paying more than they should have to. Most people will just pay up if that's how they're treated, and these companies know it. It's doubtful whether they'll continue to travel by rail as often though.

I guess you'd get it in plenty of industries where they don't feel the pressure of competition and know they'll be bailed out by public money if they go wrong.