What should passengers rights be during a forecast storm?

[mrcheek]

not sure what people expect rail companies to do.

Yesterday many rail services were shut down.
In those areas, buses, and in many cases, taxis were not running wither, since there was a "do no travel" recommendation in force.
Plus of course, even if transport could operate, many drivers and other staff were stuck at home.

Of course, people love to bash the railway companies for not lining up a fleet of limousines to transport people about in an emergency.
But if you think its bad now, just wait until GBR and the government are running everything!

 

[43066]

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

Perhaps simply because some consider that the rights in question have gone too far in one direction. Onerous requirements to assist people who have nonetheless chosen to travel when the met office is indicating “danger to life” cost money. At a time when we’re frequently told that the railway’s financial situation is perilous, I’m not at all clear why it’s desirable for the taxpayer or farepayer to be on the hook for those who choose to disregard official advice.

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!

Surely this particular example demonstrates why messaging in so important; if capacity is reduced to 10% (and likely lower), you need to ensure only a tiny minority turn up. If 90% of your passengers turn up you’re going to have far more people inconvenienced, and a potentially dangerous/volatile situation.

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.

Indeed, and this failure to make sensible decisions shows that people simply cannot be trusted, is why I tend to think the decision to suspend services should be made at a slightly lower threshold of risk than it is now. There’s also a mixed message inherent in running trains while saying “don’t use them!”, of course.

not sure what people expect rail companies to do.

Yesterday many rail services were shut down.
In those areas, buses, and in many cases, taxis were not running wither, since there was a "do no travel" recommendation in force.
Plus of course, even if transport could operate, many drivers and other staff were stuck at home.

This is the long and the short of it. It’s only likely to get worse as we see more storms, and are reliant on seemingly ever more fragile infrastructure.

Of course, people love to bash the railway companies for not lining up a fleet of limousines to transport people about in an emergency.
But if you think its bad now, just wait until GBR and the government are running everything!

I wonder if once GBR is in place there might be a change in attitude. It does feel like people like to blame the “big bad TOC” without considering that it’s ultimately the taxpayer/farepayer on the hook.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps simply because some consider that the rights in question have gone too far in one direction. Onerous requirements to assist people who have nonetheless chosen to travel when the met office is indicating “danger to life” cost money. At a time when we’re frequently told that the railway’s financial situation is perilous, I’m not at all clear why it’s desirable for the taxpayer or farepayer to be on the hook for those who choose to disregard official advice.

You’re coming across the issue that you wish to make a moral distinction in rights between Hero Keyworker and Thick Family I Hate. Don’t book on for work if there’s a red warning. But of course you will - millions do - and they deserve protection. “Some people might take the piss, so remove it for everyone” is so retrograde.

This level of thinking among staff - treating the railway’s money as if it came out of their own pocket - is the start point for so much of what is wrong with the railway. “Yes, wouldn’t it be great if passengers had fewer rights” mused the staff. It’s such bad optics and so pervasive.

 

[philthetube]

Sooner or later there will be a serious weather related incident in w3hich someone dies, how many of the people involved in one of these incidents will then say that their journey was essential.

Please be aware before replying that some of the damage to stations could have killed.

 

[Towers]

Sooner or later there will be a serious weather related incident in w3hich someone dies, how many of the people involved in one of these incidents will then say that their journey was essential.

Please be aware before replying that some of the damage to stations could have killed.

Which, again, is why the network should simply be suspended in these conditions.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

When extreme weather is forecast (sufficiently in advance of course) and is expected to affect rail services, tickets should become valid for travel before the storm hits, as well as afterwards. Therefore no-one, including those who booked in advance and have already made their outward journey, should be stranded. Sometimes, regardless of what the railway's duties are, providing alternatives, whether transport or accommodation, becomes impossible.

 

[bramling]

You’re coming across the issue that you wish to make a moral distinction in rights between Hero Keyworker and Thick Family I Hate. Don’t book on for work if there’s a red warning. But of course you will - millions do - and they deserve protection. “Some people might take the piss, so remove it for everyone” is so retrograde.

This level of thinking among staff - treating the railway’s money as if it came out of their own pocket - is the start point for so much of what is wrong with the railway. “Yes, wouldn’t it be great if passengers had fewer rights” mused the staff. It’s such bad optics and so pervasive.

I’m not sure why staff should care one way or other, it isn’t their money that’s paying for it.

But to be honest from the point of view of a farepayer and a taxpayer I’m not-at-all keen on the idea of the industry having to leak significant sums of money sorting out people who have made an injudicious decision, and who often have unrealistic expectations about what alternatives can actually be provided during situations like adverse weather.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not sure why staff should care one way or other, it isn’t their money that’s paying for it.

But to be honest from the point of view of a farepayer and a taxpayer I’m not-at-all keen on the idea of the industry having to leak significant sums of money sorting out people who have made an injudicious decision, and who often have unrealistic expectations about what alternatives can actually be provided during situations like adverse weather.

There's nothing you can do about it though. You either protect all travellers or you screw everyone. You don't get to make a moral call on who deserves the assistance they're due under the law and who doesn't.

The industry does not "leak" money in this regard. Firstly, it more often that not simply shafts everyone anyway, and secondly, you can't "leak" money providing the service contracted as a public utility.

The reality is, someone stranded somewhere doesn't sleep on the street during a storm; they find accommodation or alternative transport. It's actually not impossible for the railway to pay for taxis, or go and book a hotel, or rustle up 7 seaters to shuttle people. It's only very difficult because the railway doesn't want to empower its staff to do that for its customers.

 

[43066]

I’m not sure why staff should care one way or other, it isn’t their money that’s paying for it.

But to be honest from the point of view of a farepayer and a taxpayer I’m not-at-all keen on the idea of the industry having to leak significant sums of money sorting out people who have made an injudicious decision, and who often have unrealistic expectations about what alternatives can actually be provided during situations like adverse weather.

Agreed. As always on the railway, it falls to front line staff to deal with the fall out from decisions made by others. Staff are themselves various flavours of taxpayers, farepayers, enthusiasts (delete as appropriate), whose opinions are surely as valid as anyone else’s.

There's nothing you can do about it though. You either protect all travellers or you screw everyone. You don't get to make a moral call on who deserves the assistance they're due under the law and who doesn't.

I’m not sure what point you’re making in your first sentence. I doubt anybody commenting on this thread is in a position to change things, but how is that relevant to a speculative discussion about how onerous/generous (depending on perspective) those rights should be?

It also isn’t a case of making a binary choice between protecting everyone or protection for no-one. Rights exist on a continuum, and where they are now isn’t necessarily where they should be in perpetuity. Indeed there was was no PRO at all until relatively recently!

In my opinion, the version of the PRO UK operators are bound by is unduly onerous, doesn’t reflect the realities of the UK rail network, and doesn’t actually protect people meaningfully because the rights it confers so often aren’t enforceable at the time they’re needed, as these threads always show. Hence it’s bad law and should be changed to reflect a “reasonable endeavours” type obligation, which is much closer to what happens, by necessity.

Firstly, it more often that not simply shafts everyone anyway, and secondly, you can't "leak" money providing the service contracted as a public utility.

You can if the law serves to make any contract more onerous than it reasonably should be. Some of us think it should be changed to be more realistic, and more reflective of what is actually possible. I’m also not remotely convinced that most passengers expect to enforce these onerous “rights” they’re theoretically entitled to - many will quite sensibly simply follow the advice to not travel, so only a tiny minority would be affected by any change in the law.

The reality is, someone stranded somewhere doesn't sleep on the street during a storm; they find accommodation or alternative transport. It's actually not impossible for the railway to pay for taxis, or go and book a hotel, or rustle up 7 seaters to shuttle people. It's only very difficult because the railway doesn't want to empower its staff to do that for its customers.

Very often it will be due to people being picked up by family members, bedding down on a mate’s sofa etc. That doesn’t really tell us anything about what might have been reasonable/possible for the railway to arrange.

It also isn’t just a question of empowerment of staff, but one of the simple practicality of what a limited number of staff can be expected to achieve, at short notice, on and dark and windy night. There are going to be many situations and locations on the network where it isn’t going to be possible to source alternative transport or accommodation at all, hence the importance of messaging preventing passengers from travelling in the first place. “Employ more staff” is often the response, but that isn’t going to be seen as financially viable by those controlling the purse strings, and we are back to square one.

 

[Russel]

When extreme weather is forecast (sufficiently in advance of course) and is expected to affect rail services, tickets should become valid for travel before the storm hits, as well as afterwards. Therefore no-one, including those who booked in advance and have already made their outward journey, should be stranded. Sometimes, regardless of what the railway's duties are, providing alternatives, whether transport or accommodation, becomes impossible.

I'd give a week minimum before and after, the current situation where you're usually allowed to travel the day before or after just isn't good enough.

I have advance tickets booked for Friday 20th Dec for me and my partner to have a day around London, if there is a storm on the 20th, the realistically, the next time we would be able to travel would be after Christmas, owing to work and childcare...

 

[AlterEgo]

Staff are themselves various flavours of taxpayers, farepayers, enthusiasts (delete as appropriate), whose opinions are surely as valid as anyone else’s.

Staff's opinion isn't "invalid", but their opinions are not to be weighted the same as those of the paying customer.

I can tell you a dozen things which would have made my life easier when working at a TOC, but I do not expect that my ease of doing my job would be considered as important as the rights or desires of the customers who pay to travel.

 

[Falcon1200]

I'd give a week minimum before and after, the current situation where you're usually allowed to travel the day before or after just isn't good enough.

A week before would only be possible if an accurate weather forecast was provided in the same timescale!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd give a week minimum before and after, the current situation where you're usually allowed to travel the day before or after just isn't good enough.

I'd say rebook to any date or time in the current booking horizon if any train in your itinerary is cancelled regardless of why. That's what airlines do. The railway is bizarrely customer unfriendly here.

 

[bramling]

There's nothing you can do about it though. You either protect all travellers or you screw everyone. You don't get to make a moral call on who deserves the assistance they're due under the law and who doesn't.

In that case, perhaps it might just be better to screw everyone, which is at least a realistic position, and where everyone will know where they stand. The industry is broke, the country is broke, and there isn’t really the money to be shelling out on taxi journeys or hotels stays for large volumes of people. If I cycle somewhere and a problem develops with the bike then I’m on my own, and have to take personal responsibility for resolving the situation.

The reality is, someone stranded somewhere doesn't sleep on the street during a storm; they find accommodation or alternative transport. It's actually not impossible for the railway to pay for taxis, or go and book a hotel, or rustle up 7 seaters to shuttle people. It's only very difficult because the railway doesn't want to empower its staff to do that for its customers.

In a lot of cases it’s because the staff aren’t there to be empowered, if you end up at somewhere like Sugar Loaf and the train doesn’t turn up then you’re essentially on your own. It isn’t always that much better round here, when there’s disruption the staff seem to disappear.

 

[Russel]

I'd say rebook to any date or time in the current booking horizon if any train in your itinerary is cancelled regardless of why. That's what airlines do. The railway is bizarrely customer unfriendly here.

Yes, exactly this, at no extra cost too.

Difference between rail and air is one industry places much more value on their customers and doesn't just treat them as an inconvenience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that case, perhaps it might just be better to screw everyone, which is at least a realistic position, and where everyone will know where they stand. The industry is broke, the country is broke, and there isn’t really the money to be shelling out on taxi journeys or hotels stays for large volumes of people. If I cycle somewhere and a problem develops with the bike then I’m on my own, and have to take personal responsibility for resolving the situation.

That's because a bicycle is private transport. You can of course take recovery insurance out just as you can a car - indeed my own cycling insurance policy has a clause which pays for, er, a train fare home with the bike, in case of being stranded with an issue I can't repair on the go.

It is quite possible that the answer to some of this is an insurance product with stated entitlements rather than relying on discretion, though I suspect it would probably have a clause that it would not pay out in case of disruption caused by a red or amber warning unless I guess you were away from home already and simply needed accommodation until services restarted. Most travel insurance has very basic or no cover for domestic trips, though, certainly day trips.

 

[43066]

Staff's opinion isn't "invalid", but their opinions are not to be weighted the same as those of the paying customer.

As I’ve already pointed out, in many cases staff members are also paying customers, so the above statement is contradictory (and the single largest “paying customer” of the TOCs these days is the DfT). I’d also ask what gives you the right to declare that any one group of posters’ opinions should weighted differently to those of others? That’s surely for the reader to decide.

I can tell you a dozen things which would have made my life easier when working at a TOC, but I do not expect that my ease of doing my job would be considered as important as the rights or desires of the customers who pay to travel.

Nobody other than you has mentioned making staffs’ lives easier, and I don’t see how it’s relevant to what’s being discussed.

Speaking as a driver, the rights passengers do or don’t get makes not one jot of difference to my day job. However, as a taxpayer and farepayer, who used the railway as a “regular” passenger for longer than I’ve worked for it, my views (and my vote) on these matters are as valid as anyone else’s.

I'd give a week minimum before and after, the current situation where you're usually allowed to travel the day before or after just isn't good enough.

I have advance tickets booked for Friday 20th Dec for me and my partner to have a day around London, if there is a storm on the 20th, the realistically, the next time we would be able to travel would be after Christmas, owing to work and childcare...

Perhaps watering down the rights on the day could be balanced by increasing the flexibility of tickets to be used either side. Albeit AIUI, even with the latest forecasting technology, it generally isn’t possible to predict these events with confidence as much as a week beforehand.

though I suspect it would probably have a clause that it would not pay out in case of disruption caused by a red or amber warning unless I guess you were away from home already and simply needed accommodation until services restarted.

True. Of course that raises the question of whether the public should be on the hook for liabilities which commercial insurance companies would exclude.

 

[miklcct]

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.

My opinion is that, bad weather policy should be publicly advertised beforehand, and be clear-cut both ways.

For example, the policy in Hong Kong is that:
Typhoon signal no. 3 (sustained wind 41 - 62 km/h): everything runs normally
Typhoon signal no. 8: limited service for rail (sustained wind 63 - 117 km/h), no service for most buses after two hours the signal is hoisted
Typhoon signal no. 9 (a pre-warning for hurricane-level wind): rail service suspended immediately for overground sections

and a Typhoon signal no. 8 means business, schools, etc., are suspended. In the past, stock market was also suspended as well but no longer so because of technological advancements.

If we apply this to the UK, we can have, for example,
a red warning means that train service should stop immediately at a safe place with no replacement transport provided.
an orange warning will mean limited service with no guaranteed, unconditional refund and no Delay Repay liability.
normal service with full liability and normal refund rights should run with a yellow warning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps watering down the rights on the day could be balanced by increasing the flexibility of tickets to be used either side. Albeit AIUI, even with the latest forecasting technology, it generally isn’t possible to predict these events with confidence as much as a week beforehand.

Certainly offering free rebooking to any other date within the booking horizon or a free refund (passenger's choice) would have many people change their plans. This should be offered as standard if an amber or red weather warning covers any part of the TOCs' areas they are using (probably too complex to do it based on individual routes).

Many did change their plans anyway, the railway was fairly quiet this weekend. What was particularly noticeable was that coaches U and G of the Pendolino I used on the 1615 off Manchester Picc (usually a VERY busy train on a Sunday afternoon, though the 1715 is probably the busiest) were really quiet - while they picked some up along the way there were single figures of people in each on departure from Piccadilly, which would suggest to me that a lot of people with refundable tickets chose to do so rather than travel (or just didn't buy them in the first place if they were going to buy on the day). The rest of the train was considerably busier, suggesting perhaps that those on Advances who couldn't refund and would be charged a rather heftier £10 + fare to change their plans stuck with them.

 

[43066]

Certainly offering free rebooking to any other date within the booking horizon or a free refund (passenger's choice) would have many people change their plans.

Agreed, I’d be supportive of that. Anything that makes people less likely to attempt to travel during these events is to be welcomed.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I cycle somewhere and a problem develops with the bike then I’m on my own, and have to take personal responsibility for resolving the situation.

"Travelling by train should give you no additional safeguards to say, sorting stuff yourself, like walking, cycling or driving" - yes, tremendous.

As I’ve already pointed out, in many cases staff members are also paying customers

That's immaterial. If someone works in McDonald's but also buys food there (at an extremely heavy discount may I add - say 75% off!) - no, their views are not to be weighted the same as ordinary customers who do not rely on the business to pay their wages and who have no vested interest in the wellbeing of that business. Staff also have a vested interest in making their own jobs easier rather than harder, or, if they do become harder, to collectively bargain to be compensated fairly for that extra work.

I’d also ask what gives you the right to declare that any one group of posters’ opinions should weighted differently to those of others? That’s surely for the reader to decide.

It's obviously my opinion. I'm allowed one too.

Nobody other than you has mentioned making staffs’ lives easier, and I don’t see how it’s relevant to what’s being discussed.

It is incredibly relevant because staff find handling disruption very difficult, for myriad reasons - but one thing which would make their lives easier is the evisceration of passenger's rights to demand they help them, instead of telling them to clear off. I've worked in the industry - actually one of the people who would organise replacement transport, sort out acceptance, deal with compensation - and find this attitude to be sometimes unspoken but prevalent. Passengers are a logistical problem. Another way of making staff lives easier is to empower them to get customers moving if they can; I frequently came to the conclusion that if I was spending more than 15 seconds deciding what to do with a customer, simply give them what they want within reason - which was usually to go away, to their destination, if it could be arranged.

I'll repeat that it is only in Britain that rail staff would insist their views are of the same weight as the customer when it comes to what rights the customer should have, and whether we should in fact take some away (and further, that making the railway a less helpful, blunter, less customer oriented place is in fact *good*!).

Pure defeatism, I've no time for it myself I'm sorry to say.

 

[flitwickbeds]

If I cycle somewhere and a problem develops with the bike then I’m on my own, and have to take personal responsibility for resolving the situation.

And who have you entered into a contract with for that journey?

a Typhoon signal no. 8 means business, schools, etc., are suspended.

And therein lies the problem we have in the UK.

 

[renegademaster]

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.

And if the people aren't the archetypal bad person you made up in your head, and instead a nurse returning home from an evening shift, do they deserve to be stranded too?

In my opinion, the version of the PRO UK operators are bound by is unduly onerous

TOCs do not get punished for failing to bring someone home in a severe storm, so what will making the existing rights less actually achieve rather than giving TOCs an excuse to shirk even the most basic of effort?

 

[Lewisham2221]

And if the people aren't the archetypal bad person you made up in your head, and instead a nurse returning home from an evening shift, do they deserve to be stranded too?

Made up in my head or actually witnessed on Saturday morning - complete with comments such as "what do you mean, trains are running at the minute? It's only a bit of rain!" when advised about there connection? (For clarity, it wasn't just one passenger or group either and the line they were travelling on at the time was closed less than an hour later and remained so for most of the weekend...)

But to answer your question, no, obviously not. Which I thought I'd clarified in an earlier post, but clearly I didn't. I did suggest that once a DO NOT TRAVEL warning is issued, ticket sales for the affected date should be suspended. Nowhere did I say that everybody should be left to fend for themselves

 

[Starmill]

staff find handling disruption very difficult, for myriad reasons - but one thing which would make their lives easier is the evisceration of passenger's rights to demand they help them, instead of telling them to clear off.

Hard to see how that's different from what already happens.

Made up in my head or actually witnessed on Saturday morning - complete with comments such as "what do you mean, trains are running at the minute? It's only a bit of rain!" when advised about there connection? (For clarity, it wasn't just one passenger or group either and the line they were travelling on at the time was closed less than an hour later and remained so for most of the weekend...)

But to answer your question, no, obviously not. Which I thought I'd clarified in an earlier post, but clearly I didn't. I did suggest that once a DO NOT TRAVEL warning is issued, ticket sales for the affected date should be suspended. Nowhere did I say that everybody should be left to fend for themselves

I assume you didn't get the customers in question a taxi. I assume they didn't inform you of the obligation to run a replacement bus?

 

[Lewisham2221]

I assume you didn't get the customers in question a taxi.[/Quote]
Correct. They were on a train, which was running, as was their connection. Why would they be put into a taxi?

I assume they didn't inform you of the obligation to run a replacement bus?

Correct. At that point in time, a replacement bus wasn't necessary as trains were still running. And the comment about trains running "at the moment" was in regard to their connection on another TOC. At no point was it suggested that they would be left stranded, just that their connection was still running at the present time.

All that aside, this is a speculative discussion about what people think right should be (i.e potential changes) rather than what people rights currently are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But to answer your question, no, obviously not. Which I thought I'd clarified in an earlier post, but clearly I didn't. I did suggest that once a DO NOT TRAVEL warning is issued, ticket sales for the affected date should be suspended. Nowhere did I say that everybody should be left to fend for themselves

Totally disagree ticket sale should be suspended if trains are running. It's misused enough as it is.

Perhaps however they should come with a piece of paper indicating that if you get stuck you're on your own and a "restrictions advised" stamp, though.

 

[43066]

That's immaterial. If someone works in McDonald's but also buys food there (at an extremely heavy discount may I add - say 75% off!) - no, their views are not to be weighted the same as ordinary customers who do not rely on the business to pay their wages and who have no vested interest in the wellbeing of that business.

Not all rail staff get 75% off and, unlike McDonalds, the railway is a subsidised public service, so this simply doesn't work as a comparison on several levels. I pay full price on the part of “the railway” @bramling works on, for example, and he no doubt has little professional interest vested in the way the rest of the network operates.

Staff also have a vested interest in making their own jobs easier rather than harder, or, if they do become harder, to collectively bargain to be compensated fairly for that extra work.

What you’re (again) overlooking is that railway staff are not one homogenous blob, and only a small % of staff are customer facing. Passenger rights really make no difference to my job and would similarly make no difference to a signaller’s job, for example. My view that rights should be reduced has *nothing* to do with my status as a staff member, and I don’t really understand why you’re suggesting otherwise?

I've worked in the industry - actually one of the people who would organise replacement transport, sort out acceptance, deal with compensation - and find this attitude to be sometimes unspoken but prevalent. Passengers are a logistical problem.

Ok, so the change I suggested would have made your job easier. It doesn’t follow that it makes much difference to other staff members, nor that their views should be any less valid as a result.

Another way of making staff lives easier is to empower them to get customers moving if they can; I frequently came to the conclusion that if I was spending more than 15 seconds deciding what to do with a customer, simply give them what they want within reason - which was usually to go away, to their destination, if it could be arranged.

The two approaches aren’t mutually exclusive, though. I agree staff should be empowered where possible, and that the best solution is generally to keep people moving (and indeed staff have moved heaven and earth to keep the job running during the recent storm as far as possible, and to restart it afterwards where it was not). What this thread is discussing is what happens in extremis where that is no longer possible, and also the reality that there aren’t as many staff as there used to be.

I'll repeat that it is only in Britain that rail staff would insist their views are of the same weight as the customer when it comes to what rights the customer should have, and whether we should in fact take some away (and further, that making the railway a less helpful, blunter, less customer oriented place is in fact *good*!).

I have no idea whether it’s only in Britain or not (you’ll have surveyed staff in the UK and abroad to make such a statement?). In any case, why does it matter either way?

Pure defeatism, I've no time for it myself I'm sorry to say.

You say defeatism, I say realism. However I’d prefer to discuss the issues freely without resorting to ad hominem arguments about what jobs different contributors do.

TOCs do not get punished for failing to bring someone home in a severe storm, so what will making the existing rights less actually achieve rather than giving TOCs an excuse to shirk even the most basic of effort?

TOCs don’t care because they get paid irrespective, you do realise that? The change in the law I proposed above might temper expectations to a more realistic level, and it might just save a few people from getting stranded!

Hard to see how that's different from what already happens.

Indeed - this is essentially my point! The law should better reflect what actually happens, by necessity.

 

[Starmill]

I assume you didn't get the customers in question a taxi.

The point was that there's no evidence of the current situation really being anything similar to the one the thread is premised on.

To put it another way you seem to be arguing for something which is the status quo.

 

[AlterEgo]

What you’re (again) overlooking is that railway staff are not one homogenous blob, and only a small % of staff are customer facing. Passenger rights really make no difference to my job and would similarly make no difference to a signaller’s job, for example. My view that rights should be reduced has *nothing* to do with my status as a staff member, and I don’t really understand why you’re suggesting otherwise?

I'm not saying your opinions are based on your status as someone who works in the industry, I'm saying that they should be given less weight because you are necessarily partisan and frankly you are the staff member who serves the customer and the customer is the customer who uses the service. This is abundantly simple to grasp. Do you think the opinions of the public should be given the same weight as your own, or your union, when deciding your pay, or how you are rostered, or what pension rights you have? of course you wouldn't.

Ok, so the change I suggested would have made your job easier. It doesn’t follow that it makes much difference to other staff members, nor that their views should be any less valid as a result.

It does, actually. You're arguing there's no money, but we know there is money if there is motivation for it to be found. You make much of your argument based on a (unevidenced, spurious) concern that your industry is spending money it otherwise shouldn't - money that could be better spent elsewhere. It absolutely does affect everyone in the industry; train driver salaries had an impact on me in the Control room sorting out passenger info/social media/enquiries, so did the clearance of lineside vegetation, so did policies around when catering staff could work. NR Wales and West's failure to reinforce Dawlish sea wall made for the most stressful few weeks of my career. It's far too convenient to pretend everything is balkanised.

The two approaches aren’t mutually exclusive, though. I agree staff should be empowered where possible, and that the best solution is generally to keep people moving (and indeed staff have moved heaven and earth to keep the job running during the recent storm as far as possible, and to restart it afterwards where it was not). What this thread is discussing is what happens in extremis where that is no longer possible, and also the reality that there aren’t as many staff as there used to be.

There are, absolutely, enough staff to deal with this. Get stranded while flying in the USA and you get vouchers for food, drinks, hotels all sent to your email. It really isn't hard for TOCs to do this if they really wanted to. I expect a great many vouchers go unused, too.

This deals with 80% or more of passengers and leaves the staff on the ground on hand to deal with the people who have fallen through the cracks, rather than herding 300 people.

I have no idea whether it’s only in Britain or not (you’ll have surveyed staff in the UK and abroad to make such a statement?). In any case, why does it matter either way?

Pretty much everyone I know who travels widely observes that this is a very UK-centric phenomenon. It does matter, because it is retrograde, and symptomatic of the defeatist streak that runs through our culture. The industry in Britain is almost unique in its level of navel-gazing and self-satisfaction, something which was true when I worked in it and something which seems even more obvious now I'm on the outside.

TOCs don’t care because they get paid irrespective, you do realise that? The change in the law I proposed above might temper expectations to a more realistic level

Apparently people are getting screwed anyway, according to both of us, so I am not sure what expectations you are tempering. Most passengers are unsure of their rights but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Indeed - this is essentially my point! The law should better reflect what happens, by necessity.

Bonkers. No, the law is not there to reflect what actually happens but actually to enforce the rights of people to ensure they are being treated in a fair way. "Just make the law the same as the bad treatment people are getting", honestly beyond parody.