Search results

And that it's double track rather than single?

Platform 12 is barely used for one. And you could add two platforms to Piccadilly's north side relatively cheaply on the car park.

I doubt a coachload of wheelchair passengers arrived at once. A major London terminal should have enough trained staff to cope with several at once even if it involves taking them from other duties, such as having some gateline staff dual skilled - you can always open the gateline and have them...

And I'd say 80x are better in this regard than the Civities - at least like Pacers it's a defined, wide step up. The Civities just have a footboard at door level and a massive step up from most platforms, pretty much every time I use one I see people struggling with it.

It very much depends how that is put. If it's put with reassurance that the passenger will still be able to get on the train they wish (the departure of that train being delayed until it can be done), and apologetically, then that's probably the best that can be done. But if it's "you'll have...

Helping each other is the basis of a community, surely? That is the only viable way to maintain remote communities. If you want urban public services, move to a city.

It is rather notable that getting the first phase of East West Rail going has been a lot easier and quicker by virtue of that approach having been followed - even though the formation has been near enough totally renewed, it still being a railway, albeit one in poor condition, has made things a...

They are its representative and are expected to deal with the consequences of such failures. That is how customer facing roles work. It sounds to me like that sort of role is perhaps not for you. I've said many times that abuse isn't acceptable. However, there is no requirement to be...

I would certainly expect it to be part of the training of any member of staff responsible for customer services that a core element of their job is to take unhappy customers and make them delighted*. That's the approach any good business takes. Though the railway so often is not a good...

I think, much as two wrongs don't make a right, the railway relying on technical legal definitions of conduct would be a bit rich when they themselves are also very clearly acting unlawfully.

Exactly. And if she was refused in circumstances an able bodied person would not be (i.e. they wouldn't pursue and remove an able bodied person who went on to board the train having spoken in the same way to the same member of staff, or at least attempt it by way of holding the train and...

Generally single carriageway roads with no marked centreline are too narrow for two vehicles to pass safely. The elevated risk of head on collision to me justifies a lower limit, just as single carriageways justify a lower limit than duals for the exact same reason. To increase such a limit on...

I can see no reason why not. Valid tickets are held to complete the intended journey.

It is absolutely not offensive to suggest customer service staff need to read the situation and act accordingly. If they can't do that on a basic level they are unfit for the role.

Because it is their job. Taking the job is not compulsory; if the money is insufficient, pick another job. Their job is to deal with unhappy customers and make them happy. Unhappy customers will act unhappy. I did specifically say that swearing at somebody is unacceptable. But being blunt...

Sorry, yes, that's correct, I missed that HS1 would be involved.

It is entirely in the railway/DfT's power to make it such that it is not possible, aside from in very severe disruption, to set up such situations. Perhaps they need to look at themselves first. It is totally clear that the law sees it that disabled people should be able to travel on the exact...

Abusive yes, e.g. swearing at them*, threatening them or getting personal e.g. calling them names. Rude/blunt no. There is no requirement for people to be meek and deferential when they have been wronged; from the description here her anger appears to be totally justified. A blunt, assertive...

The capacity reduction due to the significantly increased braking distances required for this would damage the economy, not improve it. Plus motorway deaths would skyrocket. This is just about the worst suggestion for a transport policy I've seen since the Serpell report.

The double arrow has been. No other GBR logo has been released; the one pictured upthread is a mock-up by someone else.