Arrival time Vs door unlock time

[phoenix1589]

I've been going round the houses a bit with GWR for a delay on a Paddington to Oxford journey.

The train was scheduled to arrive 09:21, it stopped at the platform at 09:35 (and 57 seconds). The doors were unlocked at 09:36 (and 3 seconds).

GWR are rejecting the claim (and appeals) stating it arrived 14 minutes late and provided 'evidence' with this link: http://timetablehistory.com/times.aspx?uid=Y22074&date=20250115

They also said:

Train timings are provided by Network Rail track sensors, which record the trains arrival, and punctuality is not measured on door opening times. The timings from the Network Rail track sensors are the ones that all operators use for the purpose of measuring punctuality and delay repay.

Does anyone know if this is the correct response and the delay repay threshold has not been reached?

 

[mikeg]

I suspect the railway will stick to its guns however when the airlines tried the landing time vs door unlock time argument the courts ruled against them. Their arguments were much the same as the railways however you’d probably really have to fight to get anywhere, with no guarantee of success.

 

[Haywain]

when the airlines tried the landing time vs door unlock time argument the courts ruled against them.

The difference in such cases is far more than the 6 seconds the OP is referring to. For an airline 15 minutes between the two is not unrealistic.

 

[AM9]

The train was scheduled to arrive 09:21, it stopped at the platform at 09:35 (and 57 seconds). The doors were unlocked at 09:36 (and 3 seconds).

Isn't the actual arrival time of trains referenced to it entering the signal section in which the platform is, i.e. it could have been over a mile back down the track at the moment when the system says that it had arrived.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Isn't the actual arrival time of trains referenced to it entering the signal section in which the platform is, i.e. it could have been over a mile back down the track at the moment when the system says that it had arrived.

There will be a ‘normal’ berthing offset added on in those cases.

 

[Haywain]

Isn't the actual arrival time of trains referenced to it entering the signal section in which the platform is, i.e. it could have been over a mile back down the track at the moment when the system says that it had arrived.

In this case the OP is claiming that it was the time between the train stopping and the doors being released that took it over the 15 minutes. Any dispute here is over a matter of well under a minute.

 

[phoenix1589]

In this case the OP is claiming that it was the time between the train stopping and the doors being released that took it over the 15 minutes. Any dispute here is over a matter of well under a minute.

Yes, the door unlocking delay wasn't long, but it pushed the delay over 15 minutes - hence why I'm asking if anyone knows what counts as arrival for delay repay.

If the train has stopped as scheduled, but then suffered a catastrophic failure that meant the doors could be unlocked for 30 minutes - would the train still have been considered on time?

 

[gray1404]

You should appeal using the appeal function. If this fails raise a formal complaint with customer services. If this is to no avail ask for a Manager to review your case. If this fails ask for a deadlock letter and take the matter to the rail ombudsman.

It appears you have had some correspondence with GWR about this already so are already at some stage of the above process.

 

[Merseysider]

Very petty for them to argue over a few seconds.

That said, I'm not convinced you'll be successful - but nothing to lose by trying.

If it's a fair few bob, I'd appeal.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is one of the cases where, because it’s a few seconds, it’s a bit pathetic for the TOC to refuse but also to try and haggle over it as a customer. But some people enjoy that.

 

[Haywain]

Very petty for them to argue over a few seconds.

Is that an argument that only applies in one direction?

 

[Starmill]

There will be a ‘normal’ berthing offset added on in those cases.

They may be. But they're frequently not accurate even where they're provided.

They're also usually not even possible when there's a gap in continuous train detection. Arrivals at Holyhead are sometimes recorded 4 minutes before they actually take place for example. Arrivals when a train staff is in use are also sometimes recorded very imprecisely. I remember at St Albans Abbey the arrival times were once all recorded at the end of the day by a form which had to be faxed into the signaller. This could sometimes give an appearance of time travel along the line.

Is that an argument that only applies in one direction?

Usually yes. I'm not sure there's a problem with that though, as if there's a business and a consumer then the consumer is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Not the business.

In this case the OP is claiming that it was the time between the train stopping and the doors being released that took it over the 15 minutes. Any dispute here is over a matter of well under a minute.

I think that the OP may have to just concede for all practical purposes that they could reasonably have been said to have arrived when the train stopped at its final location.

If the train has stopped as scheduled, but then suffered a catastrophic failure that meant the doors could be unlocked for 30 minutes - would the train still have been considered on time?

I think it would be considered to have arrived on time, and that'd be difficult to argue with in practice.

Luckily in this very unlikely scenario you would have a much stronger claim under general consumer law to a price reduction, and wouldn't need to necessarily rely on delay repay as it'd be the train company's own fault you were stuck in the train for half an hour.

 

[centraltrains]

I've had this with WMR, initially rejected but they'll usually pay out on door release time after appeal, often I will start taking a video on smart phone of my watch and then line up my watch with departure board clock once off train, never had it rejected after showing that. The disappointment that once it was 2 seconds under 15 minutes!

 

[robbeech]

Is that an argument that only applies in one direction?

The railway has let the customer down to the tune of 14 minutes and 57 seconds or 15 minutes and 3 seconds.

Whichever way it’s argued for compensation’s sake the railway has let the customer down so I’d suggest it’s perfectly acceptable to be petty here.

Afterall, the data is inaccurate and vague, the railway has no data of its own to suggest the train arrived at n + 14 minutes 57, only that it arrived (I assume) after n + 14 minutes 45 seconds. For them to stand their ground based on the vague information they have is frankly ridiculous but this is what we expect of the railway.

It would have surprised me no less had they rejected it because the train didn’t exist at all or it was operated by Scot Rail or you didn’t have a valid ticket, these are all things spat out of the random excuse generator.

Remember, if the passenger had bought a ticket at n + 3 seconds for a train that departed at n the railway would have happily been petty enough to drag them through the courts.

 

[Elecman]

Avanti refused my claim despite showing them the video of the train still moving at 15 minutes past its due arrival time. They stick to the arrival berth to occupation time at Euston which is obviously way out. To actual arrival time especially with the long slow run down the platform. Perhaps terminal stations should have a final berth tv say about 20 metres from the buffer stops and use that for a arrival time purposes

 

[Dr Hoo]

Avanti refused my claim despite showing them the video of the train still moving at 15 minutes past its due arrival time. They stick to the arrival berth to occupation time at Euston which is obviously way out. To actual arrival time especially with the long slow run down the platform. Perhaps terminal stations should have a final berth tv say about 20 metres from the buffer stops and use that for a arrival time purposes

If berthing offsets are ‘way out’ there is a process for reviewing them and changing them. They are defined in a Margin Book. It can be the case that a change in traction type, driving policy or signalling arrangements means slower approaches than previously.

Under GBR there is an opportunity to create a standing Margin Book Review Board. This should be chaired by the Passenger Watchdog although obviously include GBR representatives who will have to implement any changes.

‘Problem cases’ will be identified by the Passenger Watchdog (as successor to the Ombudsman, Transport Focus and the ORR’s passenger protection functions) and then submitted to the Review Board for investigation. (I am not envisaging full time staff but appropriate delegates would convene periodically as necessary, e.g. after re-modellings.)

 

[Haywain]

If berthing offsets are ‘way out’ there is a process for reviewing them and changing them.

There is a process but the root of the problem is using a system for a purpose that it was not intended to serve. The signalling system, and TRUST, were not designed or intended to protect the interests of passengers (other than safety, obviously) but they are the best available tools for Delay Repay.

 

[Starmill]

If berthing offsets are ‘way out’ there is a process for reviewing them and changing them. They are defined in a Margin Book. It can be the case that a change in traction type, driving policy or signalling arrangements means slower approaches than previously.

Under GBR there is an opportunity to create a standing Margin Book Review Board. This should be chaired by the Passenger Watchdog although obviously include GBR representatives who will have to implement any changes.

‘Problem cases’ will be identified by the Passenger Watchdog (as successor to the Ombudsman, Transport Focus and the ORR’s passenger protection functions) and then submitted to the Review Board for investigation. (I am not envisaging full time staff but appropriate delegates would convene periodically as necessary, e.g. after re-modellings.)

Realistically this would end up costing a lot of money and wouldn't bring about lower costs. The chances of an organisation whose priority number one is going to be accelerating net subsidy reduction prioritising this are slim.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is a process but the root of the problem is using a system for a purpose that it was not intended to serve. The signalling system, and TRUST, were not designed or intended to protect the interests of passengers (other than safety, obviously) but they are the best available tools for Delay Repay.

Realistically this would end up costing a lot of money and wouldn't bring about lower costs. The chances of an organisation whose priority number one is going to be accelerating net subsidy reduction prioritising this are slim.

Thanks for these comments. I get that TRUST is an old system (developed by BR alongside Delay Attribution as we know it and pre-dating Delay Repay) but it is supposed to be 'Train RUnning System TOPS' I think. If the train running system isn't capable of identifying when trains arrive, with reasonable accuracy, then it needs to be updated more generally, rather than just having local parameters adjusted.

I can't see how a standing committee that meets periodically as necessary is going to cost a lot of money. I used to attend Delay Attribution Board meetings. Contrary to popular belief these weren't daily gatherings of highly paid lawyers arguing about the size of birds but occasional meetings of practitioners to ensure that the Delay Attribution Guide was kept up to date, audits actioned and so forth. They were just in railway offices, not swanky hotels or conference centres.

However, thanks to @Starmill for confirming that despite all the political rhetoric about 'putting passengers first/ at the centre/ etc.' its remit is unlikely to include any improvements to ensure that delayed passengers get fair recompense.

 

[aar0]

Considering the trains publicised arrival time will have been to the nearest minute, it would seem fair for GWR to round up the 3 seconds to 15 mins and some delay repay, rather than sticking to their exact but also wrong guns. Sod’s Law, if you had put in for 30 mins delay repay they’d probably have given you the 15…

 

[phoenix1589]

Quick update. GWR insist the delay repay threshold was not met, however after I asked for a deadlock letter, a "good will gesture" for the same amount as a 15 minute delay was offered.