Arriva Wales compensation

[najaB]

Who built the bridge?

The bridge didn't drive into a stationary truck.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Ultimately, that’s the system that is in place until the new franchisee takes over.

If you want to challenge that, then the Consumer Rights Act offers an Avenue in which to pursue ATW for more. If it’s only the money you’re interested in the threaten them with it and see if they blink and settle. If you want - as we all do - to get actual answers on what constitutes reasonable care in providing a train service; roll the dice and pursue the matter in court. Then share with us the outcome. One way or another I’m not convinced the outcome will be positive, either in the short or longer term.

There's not always a claim for a lack of reasonable care and skill under the CRA where delays occur. After all, the CRA does not demand "absolute" or "perfect" care and skill - and taking reasonable, cost-effective measures to restore service after disruption may still mean lengthy delays for the worst affected passengers.

It is the NRCoT which introduces the notion of perfectionism, if you like, through the use of the phrase "entirely outside the control of the rail industry". This represents a bar that is a much more difficult to prove if the TOC wants to avoid paying compensation.

However, for those TOCs which still use a non-Delay Relay compensation system, continuing as is done now, where causes of delays are broadly lumped into categories of "exempt" and "non-exempt" from compensation under the NRCoT, is simply wrong. It is wrong whether compensation is assessed under the NRCoT or under the CRA. Either avenue is highly fact and situation specific and lumping will not do.

I suspect that in all but the most exceptional cases, it would cost more to fully investigate the cause of a delay than to simply pay what is claimed.

 

[sheff1]

All the talk about "RCA", "casual chain", overcrowding of trains etc etc is exactly the sort of smoke screen that TOCs and their apologists like to put forward in an attempt to deflect from the matter at hand.

In this case the matter at hand is the failure to run an 1115 train from Manchester on 14th August, thus causing the OP to be delayed.

If the "the rail industry" had put in place certain contingency measures then an 1115 departure could have been sourced and crewed. The failure do so so means that the fact that the service did not operate cannot be attributed to matters "entirely outside the rail industry’s control."

The reasons put forward as to why contingency measures are not in place may well be valid and reasonable in today's climate, but there is no "reasonable" get-out clause in the NRCoT. Any amount of smoke screen creation will not alter the fact that if the rail industry hasn't done something they could have done (no matter whether that something might be considered 'unreasonable' by some) they need to pay compensation as laid out in the NRCoT.

 

[najaB]

All the talk about "RCA", "casual chain", overcrowding of trains etc etc is exactly the sort of smoke screen that TOCs and their apologists like to put forward in an attempt to deflect from the matter at hand.

Sorry that the reality of how business works doesn't match your expectations.

 

[Gareth Marston]

All the talk about "RCA", "casual chain", overcrowding of trains etc etc is exactly the sort of smoke screen that TOCs and their apologists like to put forward in an attempt to deflect from the matter at hand.

In this case the matter at hand is the failure to run an 1115 train from Manchester on 14th August, thus causing the OP to be delayed.

If the "the rail industry" had put in place certain contingency measures then an 1115 departure could have been sourced and crewed. The failure do so so means that the fact that the service did not operate cannot be attributed to matters "entirely outside the rail industry’s control."

The reasons put forward as to why contingency measures are not in place may well be valid and reasonable in today's climate, but there is no "reasonable" get-out clause in the NRCoT. Any amount of smoke screen creation will not alter the fact that if the rail industry hasn't done something they could have done (no matter whether that something might be considered 'unreasonable' by some) they need to pay compensation as laid out in the NRCoT.

This reminds me of the time we had a train terminate due to flooding further up the line. Control were attempting to source bus replacements though it was in the middle of the school run and the line had only been closed 10 minutes before. We had an individual jumping up and down shouting that there should be a bus already waiting........apparently a stanby replacement coach with driver is something every rural station should have!

 

[sheff1]

Sorry that the reality of how business works doesn't match your expectations.

That is exactly how I expect capitalist businesses to operate. The smoke screens and obfuscation will deter many from pursuing their entitlement.

 

[sheff1]

This reminds me of the time we had a train terminate due to flooding further up the line. Control were attempting to source bus replacements though it was in the middle of the school run and the line had only been closed 10 minutes before.

That example is actually almost the complete opposite to this case, viz. there were clearly appropriate contingency measures in place and control were seeking to implement them swiftly.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It might have reminded you of that incident but it was actually almost the complete opposite, viz. there were clearly appropriate contingency measures in place and control were seeking to implement them swiftly.

Your missing the point the mans (totally unreasonable) expectations were not being met and he had to shout scream interrupt staff having conversations with other passengers and make lots allegations about the railway being a disgrace etc etc of course he had been told that we were putting something in place but this wasn't good enough for him. It ended up with other passengers rounding on him due to his behaviour.

It was well in excess of an hour and a half before any coach turned up. That's the reality in rural areas, the OP's delay was less.

 

[sheff1]

Your missing the point

I thought the point was about the rail industry taking, or not taking, action(s) they could have done. Seeking to source a bus ASAP, in line with predefined contingency arrangements, is taking action. If the train in question was due to form a return service later in the day then the same considerations as raised in this case regarding contingency arrangements would come into play.

Unacceptable behaviour by passengers is a completely different issue which has been covered in many other threads.

 

[JN114]

Actions to mitigate a delay can’t be construed as the cause of the delay without resorting to reducto ad absurdum. If the bridge hadn’t been struck the Manchester train would have run. It really is as simple as that. The bridge was struck, the crew ran out of hours, the train terminated short of destination. There being no spare crew is failure to mitigate an existing cause of delay (the bridge strike) not a new cause of delay.

Root cause analysis appears to be fine when it benefits the claimant but thrown out the window as soon as it plays into the hands of the evil capitalist train operators.

 

[sheff1]

There being no spare crew is failure to mitigate an existing cause of delay (the bridge strike) not a new cause of delay.

There are two completely different train services involved.

The delay to the northbound train was obviously caused by the bridge strike.

The cancellation of the southbound was due to decisions made by the rail industry, e.g. not to have spare crews/stock in place to cover very late or non-arrival of a northbound train. As was pointed out, spare turns/stock was a standard feature at major locations in the past and is still used on railway networks abroad who have taken a different decision regarding contingency. On those systems, if an incident such as this were to occur the likelihood is that an on time departure southbound would be achieved.

Anyway, I have had enough of the smoke screens so will leave the thread to others, if they wish to continue.

 

[najaB]

There are two completely different train services involved.

Agreed. But they are operated by the same physical train. Even the most recent stock hasn't, yet, been imbued with the ability to be in two places at the same time.

 

[furlong]

My take on this would be that the word 'entirely' means these TOCs must no longer consider solely the 'root cause' but also any 'contributing factors' that are under the control of the industry and that leaves many grey areas. It doesn't say 'directly' or give a timescale. (If the industry took a recent decision without which there'd have been no delay does that count as a contributing factor? What if it was a long time ago? What if nothing ever changed, but there is action the industry could have taken but never did because of the cost?) There are no answers here, just questions to be considered when considering each case on its merits.

 

[Haywain]

Interesting argument. In the case of a bridge strike it could then be argued that the strike didn't cause the delay but Network Rail's insistence on carrying out an inspection to ensure that the line continues to be safe to carry trains. That could, in theory, be avoided by just continuing to run the train and hope for the best. The question Is, at what point can the actions stop being directly attributed to the initial incident? As has been previously mentioned (I think) building the railway and running the train are in control of the railway and without those there would be no delay.

 

[furlong]

Well I'd think there must be some additional implied terms read into the contract here providing some limits (legal and safety, at least, probably more, maybe some form of 'directly' and 'reasonably') - but how long is a piece of string? You can see why Delay Repay takes the simplistic approach it does.

 

[LisaH]

As the OP, for the record, I am not going to pursue my request for compensation.

 

[6Gman]

Actions to mitigate a delay can’t be construed as the cause of the delay without resorting to reducto ad absurdum. If the bridge hadn’t been struck the Manchester train would have run. It really is as simple as that. The bridge was struck, the crew ran out of hours, the train terminated short of destination. There being no spare crew is failure to mitigate an existing cause of delay (the bridge strike) not a new cause of delay.

Root cause analysis appears to be fine when it benefits the claimant but thrown out the window as soon as it plays into the hands of the evil capitalist train operators.

Do we know that the crew did actually run out of hours? Earlier on the thread I think it was mentioned as a potential issue but was it actually confirmed?

 

[6Gman]

As the OP, for the record, I am not going to pursue my request for compensation.

I can understand that but I do feel you ought to be entitled to something (and I'm usually someone who defends the operators).

Let me explain.

Upthread someone who was travelling on the northbound train said that it was running 50 mins late at one point. If we assume (and it can only be an assumption) that the train maintained that degree of lateness throughout the remainder of its journey it would have been 50 late into Manchester. A quick turnround there (and I've seen the ATW 175s turn round pretty quickly) could have reduced that to c.35 minutes on the return journey.

In both cases the lateness (both of which fall in the 30-59 min bracket) was clearly down to the bridge strike so no delay repay would be due.

However the delay to the OP was not 35-50, it was over an hour (so in the higher bracket). The delay of 35-50 was due to the bridge strike, but the extended delay to over an hour was due to the decision to turn the train at Crewe and thus - effectively - to cancel the service from Manchester, Stockport and Wilmslow. A decision made by the railway. Thus I would consider the railway should pay the difference between the two levels of compensation.

 

[6Gman]

If it was going to put a driver or guard out of time then they had no choice. And if it had run through and been an hour late on the return working as a result, then the delay would still have been caused by the bridge strike. Which is out of the control of the rail industry.

I'm quoting this since it's the first reference on the thread I can find to "out of time". Note that it is advanced as a potential issue - "IF it was going to put a driver or guard out of time". The discussion of spare traincrew, potential diversionary routes etc has been interesting but not necessarily relevant.

 

[JN114]

If the bridge strike didn’t happen there was evidently no reason for the train to terminate short, and it would have gone through. Whatever the exact reason for terminating the train short is irrelevant - it’s been done so as a result of the bridge strike. If you start down the road of “it was the train operators’ decision thus it was within their control” you get into a reducto ad absurdum situation where you could construe anything as “entirely within the control of the railway industry”.

The train operator has made this plain to the OP. The OP has queried that with the membership here and has been convinced similarly. The only people hung up on it are those trying to force a loophole where I’m not convinced one exists. If you feel that aggrieved at the process why don’t you take up the OPs case with ATW yourselves and report back how you get on? And don’t accept settlements get a judgment on your case so we can cite some proper definitions in future.

 

[35B]

All the talk about "RCA", "casual chain", overcrowding of trains etc etc is exactly the sort of smoke screen that TOCs and their apologists like to put forward in an attempt to deflect from the matter at hand.

In this case the matter at hand is the failure to run an 1115 train from Manchester on 14th August, thus causing the OP to be delayed.

If the "the rail industry" had put in place certain contingency measures then an 1115 departure could have been sourced and crewed. The failure do so so means that the fact that the service did not operate cannot be attributed to matters "entirely outside the rail industry’s control."

The reasons put forward as to why contingency measures are not in place may well be valid and reasonable in today's climate, but there is no "reasonable" get-out clause in the NRCoT. Any amount of smoke screen creation will not alter the fact that if the rail industry hasn't done something they could have done (no matter whether that something might be considered 'unreasonable' by some) they need to pay compensation as laid out in the NRCoT.

A certain amount will depend on whether a reasonableness test is to be applied to what the industry must do, specifically whether it is commercially reasonable to provide the level of mitigation that would have been required to prevent the delay. If the cause is outside the control of the industry, you are actually arguing about whether the lack of mitigation is a cause.

This whole conversation reminds me why a wise former boss was very keen on automatic, non fault, commercial remedies for service failures. The nit picking that this fault based regime causes just reinforces the feeling of frustration caused by the delay, and probably costs more to manage than a simple Delay Repay scheme - especially when the effect on reputation and future sales is considered.

 

[krus_aragon]

Until you get to something that the Railway can't evade.

E.g.
Q: Why was the train delayed?
A: Because there was a speed restriction.
Q: Why was there are speed restriction?
A: Because the rail conditions were poor.
Q: Why were the rail conditions poor?
A: Because it's autumn and the leaf fall season.
Q: Why were there leaves on the line?
A: Because the trees were growing over the line
Q: Why weren't the trees trimmed back?
A: Erm....

And for want of a nail, the Delay Repay payment was lost!

 

[WelshBluebird]

So I suspect my delay tonight will probably fall under the same thing. Due to a landslide however the specific area has a landslide pretty much every year and I would at say that suggests the railway hasnt done a good enough job protecting the line. But I doubt I'll get anywhere with that argument so I won't bother.

 

[najaB]

Due to a landslide however the specific area has a landslide pretty much every year and I would at say that suggests the railway hasnt done a good enough job protecting the line.

That should be classed as with the railway's control (since it happens repeatedly in the same place).