What should passengers rights be during a forecast storm?

[philthetube]

Personally I think that red or amber warnings should absolve train operators of all liabilities concerning passengers, concerning delays or not operation of service, they should not be required to provide RRB accommodation etc.

With a yellow attempts should be made to provide RRB etc, however if this is not possible then liability should not fall back on the operators.

People deciding to travel should be aware that they may be stuck on journeys and that it will be there problem.

On the other side as soon as there is a yellow warning, or above on any part of the passengers journey. refunds should be available to all booked passengers. no questions.

 

[Russel]

On the other side as soon as there is a yellow warning, or above on any part of the passengers journey. refunds should be available to all booked passengers. no questions.

Full refund regardless of ticket type or the option to use the ticket on another date, not just the day after as that isn't always suitable.

 

[PeterC]

Personally I think that red or amber warnings should absolve train operators of all liabilities concerning passengers, concerning delays or not operation of service, they should not be required to provide RRB accommodation etc.

With a yellow attempts should be made to provide RRB etc, however if this is not possible then liability should not fall back on the operators.

People deciding to travel should be aware that they may be stuck on journeys and that it will be there problem.

On the other side as soon as there is a yellow warning, or above on any part of the passengers journey. refunds should be available to all booked passengers. no questions.

Certainly for tickets sold after the alert is issued. For anything sold before full refund or reschedule. No refunds for delays.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Personally I think that red or amber warnings should absolve train operators of all liabilities concerning passengers, concerning delays or not operation of service, they should not be required to provide RRB accommodation etc.

They won’t provide RRBs in a storm anyway.

Other than that, I don’t agree. There should be a duty of care regardless of blame, just as there is in aviation. If the trains aren’t running because of poor weather the operators absolutely should be on the hook for looking after stranded passengers.

 

[WAB]

There should be clearer messages regarding ticket acceptance, both before and a week after across all operators rather than operator-by-operator, or a full refund.

It should be best efforts to secure taxis (including refunds for reasonable claims post-facto).

Personally however, as soon as a red warning goes out I would be making all efforts to ensure I don't need to travel for the duration of the warning or some time after.

 

[AlterEgo]

The UK is almost unique in being a place where members of the public will argue for other members of the public to be given fewer rights in order to protect a large business or some sort of state activity.

 

[43066]

Personally I think that red or amber warnings should absolve train operators of all liabilities concerning passengers, concerning delays or not operation of service, they should not be required to provide RRB accommodation etc.

With a yellow attempts should be made to provide RRB etc, however if this is not possible then liability should not fall back on the operators.

People deciding to travel should be aware that they may be stuck on journeys and that it will be there problem.

On the other side as soon as there is a yellow warning, or above on any part of the passengers journey. refunds should be available to all booked passengers. no questions.

I’d generally agree with this.

They won’t provide RRBs in a storm anyway.

Other than that, I don’t agree. There should be a duty of care regardless of blame, just as there is in aviation. If the trains aren’t running because of poor weather the operators absolutely should be on the hook for looking after stranded passengers.

It simply isn’t the same situation as airlines, because railway passengers could be at any point on the network, and the railway doesn’t operate between a much more limited number of airports with accommodation available. If one or more airports are shut, airlines can divert flights, and of course far fewer numbers are available. It’s also by no means unusual for airlines to advise passengers not to turn up to the airport during times of severe disruption.

As a taxpayer I don’t want to cover the costs of taxis, hotels etc. for people choosing to travel in dangerous conditions when they’ve been advised not to.

 

[Lewisham2221]

They won’t provide RRBs in a storm anyway.

Other than that, I don’t agree. There should be a duty of care regardless of blame, just as there is in aviation. If the trains aren’t running because of poor weather the operators absolutely should be on the hook for looking after stranded passengers.

I think there does need to be a line drawn between people who are genuinely stranded and those who have got themselves stranded.

Let's say, for example, that you've been away for the week. You booked your train tickets and accommodation months ago and made your outbound journey at the start of the week, before any warnings were in place. Today comes and you need to leave your accommodation. You can't stay at home, because you're already not at home. You have nowhere else to go. You need to travel.

On the other hand, despite all the weather warnings, press coverage, TOC advice and your own observation of the weather conditions, you and your friends decide to head to the station, armed with a few beers, purchase a few day returns and head out for some Christmas shopping and/or a day out drinking. All the signs were there that travelling was a bad idea, but you ignored them. You managed to make your outbound journey, but services are suspended afterwards. You are now "stranded' at your day out destination. But it's almost entirely your own fault. Why should the railway pay to put you in a hotel for the night because you chose to ignore all the warnings?

Should TOCs suspend all ticket sales when issuing a DO NOT TRAVEL warning?

 

[43066]

Should TOCs suspend all ticket sales when issuing a DO NOT TRAVEL warning?

In principle yes. The trouble is that this wouldn’t cover tickets already bought, and it isn’t physically possible to stop sales on all channels.

I’d personally be in favour of quicker decisions to suspend services when necessary. We still regularly read of trains being stranded for long periods, and the better approach would be to cease running before this happens - even if this is at the expense of more situations where the decision is shown to have been too cautious with hindsight. Today for example there have been various incidents of trains striking objects, fallen trees etc. So perhaps ceasing running in badly affected areas altogether would have been sensible.

EDIT: I see TfW did decide to do this for much of yesterday, which seems very sensible given some of the reports from how bad the storm has been there.

 

[AlterEgo]

On the other hand, despite all the weather warnings, press coverage, TOC advice and your own observation of the weather conditions, you and your friends decide to head to the station, armed with a few beers, purchase a few day returns and head out for some Christmas shopping and/or a day out drinking. All the signs were there that travelling was a bad idea, but you ignored them. You managed to make your outbound journey, but services are suspended afterwards. You are now "stranded' at your day out destination. But it's almost entirely your own fault. Why should the railway pay to put you in a hotel for the night because you chose to ignore all the warnings?

Well they’re happy to sell the ticket and form the contract, so that’s exactly why the railway should treat the passenger in accordance with the law.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Well they’re happy to sell the ticket and form the contract, so that’s exactly why the railway should treat the passenger in accordance with the law.

You agree that all ticket sales for the affected date should be automatically suspended once a DO NOT TRAVEL warning is issued then?

What about those tickets that were sold in advance, in good faith, before any warnings were issued? Automatically cancel and refund any tickets dated to start on the affected dates, due to being unable to fulfil?

 

[AlterEgo]

You agree that all ticket sales for the affected date should be automatically suspended once a DO NOT TRAVEL warning is issued then?

That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

What about those tickets that were sold in advance, in good faith, before any warnings were issued? Automatically cancel and refund any tickets dated to start on the affected dates, due to being unable to fulfil?

No. The passenger also made that contract in good faith and it’s up to the railway to fulfil it.

I find it quite baffling how posters here wish to significantly reduce passenger rights. For what reason?

 

[Lewisham2221]

That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

At least we agree on something.

No. The passenger also made that contract in good faith and it’s up to the railway to fulfil it.

I find it quite baffling how posters here wish to significantly reduce passenger rights. For what reason?

Realism. If I bought tickets to a show and due to an unforseen and unavoidable event (let's say the performer is taken ill) I'd be offered a refund or perhaps entry to a rescheduled performance. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to ignore all of the information that the show was cancelled, still turn up at the the venue and demand that they put on a show for me - or pay for me to attend a show at a different venue that same night.

If I do my online food shop on Monday, book a Saturday delivery slot and for reasons beyond their reasonable control the supermarket are unable to deliver my order until a day or two later, can I demand they pay for me to have takeaway food delivered until they are able to deliver my order?

 

[AlterEgo]

At least we agree on something.


Realism. If I bought tickets to a show and due to an unforseen and unavoidable event (let's say the performer is taken ill) I'd be offered a refund or perhaps entry to a rescheduled performance. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to ignore all of the information that the show was cancelled, still turn up at the the venue and demand that they put on a show for me - or pay for me to attend a show at a different venue that same night.

But that’s nothing like transport. Of course if you buy a ticket to see Adele and she goes sick, you aren’t going to see Adele.

But if train companies can source additional transport they absolutely should. They frequently fail to do so, sometimes by incompetence and sometimes hamstrung by circumstance, and in lieu of that they have to refund people’s costs.

I fail to see what problem this “give the passenger far fewer rights” fixes for the railway, nor do I see how it helps the railway deliver its social objectives as a public service.

If I do my online food shop on Monday, book a Saturday delivery slot and for reasons beyond their reasonable control the supermarket are unable to deliver my order until a day or two later, can I demand they pay for me to have takeaway food delivered until they are able to deliver my order?

I don’t know. Can you? Have you read their terms and conditions? Is there specific legislation which applies exclusively to delivery services which has been seen fit to pass to protect your interests?

Much of this sentiment is born from a British predilection of misanthropy. We have a uniquely supine culture which presupposes the private individual is the one who has to get screwed, and it’ll all be in everyone’s interests somehow.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I fail to see what problem this “give the passenger far fewer rights” fixes for the railway, nor do I see how it helps the railway deliver its social objectives as a public service.

It fixes the problem and delivers the social objective of not having people stranded miles from because they decided they absolutely needed to make a 100+ mile round trip to go for a few beers or a spot of Christmas shopping and then "realised" (despite all the previous warnings) that the trains physically couldn't run to get them home and due to road and weather conditions buses and taxis were unable/refusing to operate too. Completely avoidable by heeding the warnings given and not travelling at all, whether they had bought their tickets on the day or a week before any such warnings were given.

Alternatively, you could try your hardest to deliver the social objective of completely bankrupting the entire railway by absolving all passengers of the need to show any personal responsibility whatsoever and this having to accommodate for endless otherwise totally avoidable situations which, despite their best efforts, end up costing the railway and absolute fortune.

 

[bramling]

The UK is almost unique in being a place where members of the public will argue for other members of the public to be given fewer rights in order to protect a large business or some sort of state activity.

We shouldn’t be shelling out for taxis or hotel stays like confetti.

I’ve no problem when it’s something like a shift-worker making a journey back from work. What is more of a problem is when it’s some dopey family who have decided to ignore a weather warning and chosen to head out for their Christmas shopping.

Of course, operating a policy that differentiates between the above two situations isn’t straightforward in practice, but I can see no compelling argument why we should be attempting to provide for the second of those scenarios. I’ve seen close at hand too many times how some people have appalling situational judgement, and I don’t see why they should be bailed out off the back of a poor definition where the consequences were reasonably foreseeable.

 

[WAB]

With a yellow attempts should be made to provide RRB etc, however if this is not possible then liability should not fall back on the operators.

Yellow warnings happen too often for this to be reasonable in my view.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Would some kind of optional insurance purchase per ticket sold - priced at say 2% of the ticket value - help?

 

[Towers]

Surely the answer is simply that “DO NOT TRAVEL” = no service? Simple, safe, and doesn’t risk stranding passengers and crew.

I’ve always found it slightly baffling that TOCs will tell people that they absolutely shouldn’t use their services in these situations, but then run trains anyway. The results are rather predictable. There remains a duty of care, which presumably is attached to the fact that you’re running a train rather than being voided by the fact that you’ve told people not to use it!

 

[bramling]

Surely the answer is simply that “DO NOT TRAVEL” = no service? Simple, safe, and doesn’t risk stranding passengers and crew.

I’ve always found it slightly baffling that TOCs will tell people that they absolutely shouldn’t use their services in these situations, but then run trains anyway. The results are rather predictable. There remains a duty of care, which presumably is attached to the fact that you’re running a train rather than being voided by the fact that you’ve told people not to use it!

The problem with a blanked do not travel and then suspending the service is that some people *do* have important journeys to make, for example to/from work, some work roles delivering important or even critical services. No train service means such people either can’t make the journeys, or have to go by road which is more dangerous.

Where a difficulty arises is that some people seem incapable of making a sensible decision about what constitutes an important journey. A few years ago there was a significant storm which happened to be on a weekend, GTR brought in an emergency timetable but attempted to provide a service, the reduced number of trains became completely swamped by people choosing to make day-trips to London from Cambridge such that people elsewhere couldn’t board, and then all the Cambridge lot ended up getting stranded when the wires came down later in the day.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Surely the answer is simply that “DO NOT TRAVEL” = no service? Simple, safe, and doesn’t risk stranding passengers and crew

If I book my tickets from London to Inverness 12 weeks in advance, use the outbound portion before a storm is even named, then 24 hours before I'm due to return a DNT is issued, how would I not be stranded under your proposal?

 

[Towers]

If I book my tickets from London to Inverness 12 weeks in advance, use the outbound portion before a storm is even named, then 24 hours before I'm due to return a DNT is issued, how would I not be stranded under your proposal?

There is a difference between ‘stranded’ because your journey cannot be made, leaving you inconvenienced but at least with the relative safety and certainty of remaining at your origin point, and ‘stranded’ because you were allowed to board a train and then had to abandon ship at some unspecified point in the journey.

There have been various tales in recent severe weather events of trainloads of people being quite literally stuck in the middle of nowhere, including one incident in which an electric unit became stuck in a deeply rural location, miles from the nearest station, with no power overnight in freezing snow. That is quite frankly dangerous, and those people simply should not have been there. With the greatest of respect, that is ‘stranded’; as opposed to “damn, my train is cancelled”. These are situations that TOCs need to be avoiding, for a multitude of reasons.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Where a difficulty arises is that some people seem incapable of making a sensible decision about what constitutes an important journey.

Because no-one can ever seem to define what an essential journey might be (as in, "do not travel unless your journey is essential")

Is a restaurant minimum-wage worker on their final warning for punctuality an "essential journey"?

 

[Towers]

The problem with a blanked do not travel and then suspending the service is that some people *do* have important journeys to make, for example to/from work, some work roles delivering important or even critical services. No train service means such people either can’t make the journeys, or have to go by road which is more dangerous.

But, that is an issue for the travellers to consider for themselves. If a train service operates but then is suspended again later in the day, you have the same problem. Only it’s worse, because people have made it one way and will now want to get back again, come what may. Worse, if a train sets sail and then gets stuck mid-journey, you now have the headache and obvious liability of a trainload of stuck people. If you’re lucky they might be at a station, or close enough to detrain and walk to one, but equally they may be the trainload of people I mentioned above, stranded in freezing conditions overnight. The emergency services have better things to do during these events than have to rescue large groups of people who’ve ended up somewhere that they really shouldn’t have been put in in the first place, and the TOC who put them there is clearly on the hook if things were to go south and something awful happens. It just makes very little sense to be sending trainloads of people out into the wilderness in these situations on a wing and a prayer; just cancel the service.

 

[AlterEgo]

We shouldn’t be shelling out for taxis or hotel stays like confetti.

I’ve no problem when it’s something like a shift-worker making a journey back from work. What is more of a problem is when it’s some dopey family who have decided to ignore a weather warning and chosen to head out for their Christmas shopping.

Of course, operating a policy that differentiates between the above two situations isn’t straightforward in practice, but I can see no compelling argument why we should be attempting to provide for the second of those scenarios. I’ve seen close at hand too many times how some people have appalling situational judgement, and I don’t see why they should be bailed out off the back of a poor definition where the consequences were reasonably foreseeable.

As you say, it’s not really possible to operate a policy which can discriminate between Hero Shift Worker and Thick Family I Hate, but it is a British hobby to fantasise about it a bit. Gosh how can we get our revenge on the family some other way?

 

[flitwickbeds]

There is a difference between ‘stranded’ because your journey cannot be made, leaving you inconvenienced but at least with the relative safety and certainty of remaining at your origin point, and ‘stranded’ because you were allowed to board a train and then had to abandon ship at some unspecified point in the journey.

There have been various tales in recent severe weather events of trainloads of people being quite literally stuck in the middle of nowhere, including one incident in which an electric unit became stuck in a deeply rural location, miles from the nearest station, with no power overnight in freezing snow. That is quite frankly dangerous, and those people simply should not have been there. With the greatest of respect, that is ‘stranded’; as opposed to “damn, my train is cancelled”. These are situations that TOCs need to be avoiding, for a multitude of reasons.

Fully agree that there is a huge difference between your examples and that the second puts more people at more risk.

However, that doesn't resolve the problem of non-fulfillment of the contract I entered into 12 weeks ago. I contracted a company to take me from Inverness to London on a certain date, and they can't perform their side of it, albeit for reasons beyond their control. Is it good enough that I'm told "we're cancelling your contract, you have no right of appeal, you can have your £33.20 back in a week's time. You want a hotel room? No, we can't help arrange or pay for that, sorry. You're suggesting a taxi? We won't pay for that either, sorry. We issued a Do Not Travel which has absolved us of all responsibility to you now under the new terms and conditions. Goodbye!"

As far as I know, no domestic travel insurance can be purchased and is valid for situations like this.

Do the TOCs/DfT/RoSCos have any kind of insurance to cover their trains/crews getting stranded, I wonder?

 

[AlterEgo]

It fixes the problem and delivers the social objective of not having people stranded miles from because they decided they absolutely needed to make a 100+ mile round trip to go for a few beers or a spot of Christmas shopping and then "realised" (despite all the previous warnings) that the trains physically couldn't run to get them home and due to road and weather conditions buses and taxis were unable/refusing to operate too. Completely avoidable by heeding the warnings given and not travelling at all, whether they had bought their tickets on the day or a week before any such warnings were given.

Alternatively, you could try your hardest to deliver the social objective of completely bankrupting the entire railway by absolving all passengers of the need to show any personal responsibility whatsoever and this having to accommodate for endless otherwise totally avoidable situations which, despite their best efforts, end up costing the railway and absolute fortune.

I am going to bet you are front line staff and simply find this issue difficult and frustrating. This doesn’t bankrupt the railway, in large part because the railway does not do a good job of sticking to its legal obligations. That’s the reason this discussion is happening, in fact.

Anyway good luck lobbying to get rid of the PRO, which is something which thankfully protects customers and doesn’t try to make a moral distinction between the deserving and undeserving. That’s the preserve of forums where people can post anonymously.

However, that doesn't resolve the problem of non-fulfillment of the contract I entered into 12 weeks ago. I contracted a company to take me from Inverness to London on a certain date, and they can't perform their side of it, albeit for reasons beyond their control. Is it good enough that I'm told "we're cancelling your contract, you have no right of appeal, you can have your £33.20 back in a week's time. You want a hotel room? No, we can't help arrange or pay for that, sorry. You're suggesting a taxi? We won't pay for that either, sorry. We issued a Do Not Travel which has absolved us of all responsibility to you now under the new terms and conditions. Goodbye!"

That’s the long and short of it really. Say three simple words and poof, the passenger contract vanishes. Truly a fantasy!

 

[bramling]

As you say, it’s not really possible to operate a policy which can discriminate between Hero Shift Worker and Thick Family I Hate, but it is a British hobby to fantasise about it a bit. Gosh how can we get our revenge on the family some other way?

I can’t help having become rather jaded to it over the years. What irritates is that your family as described above are likely to be the ones who will present themselves on a Sunday when there’s a snowstorm and throw a right tantrum about the rail service being disrupted, whilst your shift-worker will just turn up and deal with the situation in a calm and mature fashion. Having experienced this a few too many times, it’s hard not to become cynical.

But yes agree with the principle that differentiating is hard to implement in practice. I also agree with a post elsewhere which makes the point that important / essential journeys aren’t defined, though I’d suggest that anything involving a journey to/from work is a good starting point, likewise travel to places such as medical settings.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Anyway good luck lobbying to get rid of the PRO, which is something which thankfully protects customers and doesn’t try to make a moral distinction between the deserving and undeserving. That’s the preserve of forums where people can post anonymously.


That’s the long and short of it really. Say three simple words and poof, the passenger contract vanishes. Truly a fantasy!

And then where does that end?

Struggling to find enough staff volunteers to work a summer Sunday afternoon that happens to be the Euros final game that England have got through to? DO NOT TRAVEL!

Problem with the TOC's IT infrastructure preventing them from issuing new tickets but not affecting running of the trains? DO NOT TRAVEL!

Problem with the track London to Luton, but no issue at all running a shuttle between Luton and Bedford, but not really cost effective to do so even though it would mean 10% of your customers would be able to complete their journeys? DO NOT TRAVEL!

 

[Towers]

Fully agree that there is a huge difference between your examples and that the second puts more people at more risk.

However, that doesn't resolve the problem of non-fulfillment of the contract I entered into 12 weeks ago. I contracted a company to take me from Inverness to London on a certain date, and they can't perform their side of it, albeit for reasons beyond their control. Is it good enough that I'm told "we're cancelling your contract, you have no right of appeal, you can have your £33.20 back in a week's time. You want a hotel room? No, we can't help arrange or pay for that, sorry. You're suggesting a taxi? We won't pay for that either, sorry. We issued a Do Not Travel which has absolved us of all responsibility to you now under the new terms and conditions. Goodbye!"

But what else can you ask of them, in that situation? They cannot safely run a train, or convey you by bus. Taxis, maybe; that might be a worthy point of discussion. But then again what other industry would provide a substitute to the original contracted service which would cost many times more than you paid, leaving themselves deeply out of pocket for something which is outside of their control? There is a ‘fairness’ element in both directions here, as there usually is. If they offered to provide 50% of the cost of a taxi, would that be ‘fair’, perhaps? You can see the difficulties!