• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Could the railways handle storm disruption better?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
Agreed, this is far harder with a RRB than a car. But (back to Lancaster) the M6 wasn't closed nor was there any real likelihood of it being, barring things like crashes that can happen on any day, and the roads from Lancaster to the M6 (going south via the A6 first) are quite high-lying and unlikely to flood. So a Preston-Lancaster bus would have done fine (as indeed the 40 did), and trains were operating from Preston south for most of the day.
If the railway arranges RRBs, passengers will set off from Southern England and Scotland expecting them. A TOC has to be reasonably sure that it is going to be able to run the RRBs, and do so safely. I can well understand why they would be reluctant to arrange them in what was predicted to be one of the worst-hit parts of the country.

Yes, the M6 may be unlikely to flood, but the warnings about Ciara were as much to do with high winds as flooding, and parts of the M6 are very open. I seem to recall a number of incidents of roads blocked due to lorries being blown over. And even if the M6 remained open, the buses would still have to get to and from the stations at either end. Depositing the passengers on the outskirts of Preston or Lancaster would not be an option.

Yes, the 40 service bus kept running, but you only know that with the benefit of hindsight. A number of service buses got suspended at very short notice. I note that you chose not to risk travelling on the 40, but stay put.

I am afraid that I share the view of other posters: those who choose to travel on a day when there is clear warning from the TOCs and other authorities not to travel, should not expect the railway to bail them out if they get stranded.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I note that you chose not to risk travelling on the 40, but stay put.

It was less about risk, but more about the fact that I originally did have a plan to stay in Lancaster (because I'm half-considering moving there at some point), which I had abandoned because I didn't want to go walking around housing estates in a blowing gale and pouring rain, but reinstated (and did do said walking around with waterproofs on) when it looked like the journey would be quite painful. It was reports of full and standing trains on the down-to-hourly Manchester to Euston that made my final decision. I was quite happy with pootling down the WCML at 50mph with my laptop on my knee and a coffee in my hand, but not with a potential 8 hour journey with someone's head in my armpit the whole way.

I think if I had no intention to stay in Lancaster at all (and therefore didn't have my work laptop with me, say) I would have got back using whatever was available, the first part of which being the 40.

At no point during my travel to/from the Lakes last weekend or Wales this weekend did I feel my personal safety was at considerable risk. And only during two points (the point we decided to turn around on the hike on Saturday, which was why we did turn around, and when I went out for a run after that and found the wind on the A5 in the Ogwen Valley was rather stronger than I thought and was difficult to even walk against) was I a bit concerned at other times. But I have quite a high risk threshold, you might say, compared with many others. It comes with being a climber I reckon - and as far as climbers go I'm downright risk averse!
 
Last edited:

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
Up the tourist path? Have you been up there yourself? Not really, it's a long series of zig zags and generally good underfoot, you could easily walk it in brogues[1]. It's not having enough layers if the weather came in that would kill people up there, or losing the path on the summit and not having map/compass or the skill to find it again in a whiteout, then ending up on the Carn Mor Dearg Arete (or worse one of the rock climbs) which are an entirely different game and quite dangerous for the ill-equipped and ill-trained.

Generally good underfoot until you approach the summit plateau, then it starts to get rocky underfoot, ideal conditions for a twisted ankle if you are wearing footwear without ankle support. It is not just the about the cold, it is the fact that if the cloud is down, you need to be accurate with your navigation, because the tourist route passes very close to some steep gullies. Go off route by 100 meters or so in the wrong place, and you will be taking the super fast way down the mountain and into the next world. The people who were rescued not only had poor clothing, but no means of navigating if the cloud comes in (which it does nine days out of ten on average).

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/skills/navigating_on_and_off_ben_nevis-3063

Apologies for going OT.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Agreed, this is far harder with a RRB than a car. But (back to Lancaster) the M6 wasn't closed nor was there any real likelihood of it being, barring things like crashes that can happen on any day, and the roads from Lancaster to the M6 (going south via the A6 first) are quite high-lying and unlikely to flood. So a Preston-Lancaster bus would have done fine (as indeed the 40 did), and trains were operating from Preston south for most of the day.

This is a long thread and I may have missed some bits but I assume you've taken all this up with the TOC. What was their explanation ?
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
Too often on these forums (and beyond to be fair) do people expect that every circumstance will automatically be covered one way or another, and that things won't just completely met down leaving you to sort out your own situation.

When someone buys a ticket to travel by train they enter binding contract, part of which means they agree to abide by the "key responsibilities of passengers" laid down in the NRCoT. When the TOCs sell the ticket (or do so via their agent(s)) they are also parties to the binding contract and agree to abide by the "key responsibilities of Train Companies".

One documented key responsibility of the Train Companies is:
If things go wrong, we will, in the circumstances set out in this document below, refund your Ticket, pay you compensation, make sure you get home by another means of transport or provide you with overnight accommodation.

TOCs come down hard on passengers who fail to meet their responsibilities, but seem quite happy to ignore their own responsibilities - a situation which far too many, on here and beyond, see to think is perfectly OK.

There is much talk on here about a shortage of of hotel rooms when compared with the number of passengers stranded before they reach their destination. Even if true, that should not prevent TOCs booking the rooms which are available and, when they have all gone, arrange if at all possible for remaining passengers to be accommodated overnight in station rooms or on the trains which have deposited them at the station. Some passengers may wish to make their own arrangements, and that is their right, but should not by forced to do so as a first option by TOC failure to meet their responsibilities.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
This is a long thread and I may have missed some bits but I assume you've taken all this up with the TOC. What was their explanation ?

You've presumably seen the arrogant approach Avanti are taking to customer "services". That being the case, no, I haven't, for a twenty quid night in the Travelodge it isn't worth the stress.

If it had been VTWC I might well have pushed the point.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,746
And in the Lancaster case I did in fact pay for the hotel myself.

But away from that, the thing that annoyed me was that there had been, quite openly stated by the station staff and pretty much confirmed elsewhere, a deliberate decision to provide nothing at all.

Sensible

And I went (a short way) into the Welsh mountains at the weekend, and as I was properly prepared, as were the others with me, nothing "exciting" happened. We were not the only ones there, and those who were were being sensible in terms of what they did (I doubt for instance anyone was on Crib Goch as the risk of being blown off it would be unacceptable to all but the terminally stupid).

Those who don't do this kind of thing (in better weather or otherwise) tend to have rather different risk perception, I suspect. If we were to have a vote on "should I have stayed at home last weekend" with a secondary question of "are you an outdoorsy person" I think there would be a fair correlation in the results between no/yes and yes/no.

And as for overhyping, this was a classic example. The railway was not providing transport between Lancaster and Preston when cars and buses were doing so without issues. And people may have seen "Lancaster flooding" on the news and seen pictures of it without actually knowing that it was relatively self-contained and affected only a few houses down by the river. Bad for them of course, but not catastrophic and in fact most people in town probably never even noticed it.

Nothing wrong with that, however if you expect others to come out if you need assistance then the whole thing changes.

At no point during my travel to/from the Lakes last weekend or Wales this weekend did I feel my personal safety was at considerable risk. And only during two points (the point we decided to turn around on the hike on Saturday, which was why we did turn around, and when I went out for a run after that and found the wind on the A5 in the Ogwen Valley was rather stronger than I thought and was difficult to even walk against) was I a bit concerned at other times. But I have quite a high risk threshold, you might say, compared with many others. It comes with being a climber I reckon - and as far as climbers go I'm downright risk averse!

And had the wind on penrith platforms become so strong that some people could not stand, then what. The RRB on the station forecourt would not have been much use.

The sensible thing is not to risk it.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
When someone buys a ticket to travel by train they enter binding contract, part of which means they agree to abide by the "key responsibilities of passengers" laid down in the NRCoT. When the TOCs sell the ticket (or do so via their agent(s)) they are also parties to the binding contract and agree to abide by the "key responsibilities of Train Companies".

One documented key responsibility of the Train Companies is:
If things go wrong, we will, in the circumstances set out in this document below, refund your Ticket, pay you compensation, make sure you get home by another means of transport or provide you with overnight accommodation.

TOCs come down hard on passengers who fail to meet their responsibilities, but seem quite happy to ignore their own responsibilities - a situation which far too many, on here and beyond, see to think is perfectly OK.

There is much talk on here about a shortage of of hotel rooms when compared with the number of passengers stranded before they reach their destination. Even if true, that should not prevent TOCs booking the rooms which are available and, when they have all gone, arrange if at all possible for remaining passengers to be accommodated overnight in station rooms or on the trains which have deposited them at the station. Some passengers may wish to make their own arrangements, and that is their right, but should not by forced to do so as a first option by TOC failure to meet their responsibilities.

I fully understand the principles of the contract, but the world doesn't always fit around these neat little ideals. On occasions where serve disruption is expected, things might not work they way they should. This is why people due to travel need to consider all possibilities, and make the decision whether they should travel or not. I am not saying that the TOCs got it right on this occasion, certainly as @Bletchleyite reports this does not appear to be the case, but nonetheless when deciding to travel in extreme conditions you should be prepared for things to go wrong & that you might have to sort yourself out first & deal with the contractual matters later.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
You've presumably seen the arrogant approach Avanti are taking to customer "services". That being the case, no, I haven't, for a twenty quid night in the Travelodge it isn't worth the stress.

If it had been VTWC I might well have pushed the point.

Yes, I understand but it still would have been good to see a specific response to this instance from the operator rather than a set of assumptions from passengers. I assume even a TOC is innocent until proved guilty.....

:E
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"

Sensible that I paid myself? Fair enough.

Sensible that the TOC was in breach of the NRCoT by not sorting out hotel accommodation when it was available having decided[1] not to provide replacement (had it not been I wouldn't have been able to sort it out myself)? No.

[1] In my view wrongly, but let's assume that was a right decision
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
Sensible that I paid myself? Fair enough.

Sensible that the TOC was in breach of the NRCoT by not sorting out hotel accommodation when it was available having decided[1] not to provide replacement (had it not been I wouldn't have been able to sort it out myself)? No.

[1] In my view wrongly, but let's assume that was a right decision

Interested to test the "perfect world scenario" I have had a little dig around and chatted to a few people involved in corporate bookings at hotels.
It would be interesting to know whether Avanti, who seem to be the brunt of the complaint here, have a corporate agreement with Travelodge in these situations. From what I have been able to ascertain they don't, therefore the block booking of a hotel in (say) Lancaster might not be as simple as some people think. It certainly doesn't seem to be as just ringing the hotel up and telling them you want 50 rooms. For a start what rate has been agreed and who (and when) will it be paid? I doubt that is a matter that can be dealt with a local level, as is being applied here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top