They were in a different carriage to me, but listening to the announcements by the guard her grievances were initially with them sitting in aisle seats and not wearing a face mask consistently, and subsequently opening alcohol onboard.
-
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!
Can a TOC legally stop a passenger from travelling given that passenger's reason for travelling?
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
- Status
They were in a different carriage to me, but listening to the announcements by the guard her grievances were initially with them sitting in aisle seats and not wearing a face mask consistently, and subsequently opening alcohol onboard.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Shock horror!
Difficult to see how that was doing much harm - I assume the train was half empty?
I seen that to , what about tomorrow when the non essential shops open?
I will be taking the train to these non essential shops soon , maybe this week.
7 or 8 people per carriage in Standard, 1 or 2 in First.
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,081
I think Yorkie's post #56 sums up my argument very succinctly and more eloquently than I have done. Just sticking to the original question (refusal to travel based on the reason for the journey) it seems absolutely clear to me that TOCs definitely cannot refuse travel on that basis to anybody already holding a ticket (unless they want to stick them in a taxi). It also seems they either cannot or will not put in place systems to prevent ticket sales (either by themselves or authorised third parties) on that basis. That may well be because of Yorkie's last paragraph - that the DfT (who ultimately calls the tune, despite the TOCs being "private companies") decrees that they should not do so.
I would also maintain that those reasons are equally valid for denying travel for any other discretionary reason (such as the colour of my shirt). That's not really an argument for this thread, though it was used as a "catch all" justification.
I would also maintain that those reasons are equally valid for denying travel for any other discretionary reason (such as the colour of my shirt). That's not really an argument for this thread, though it was used as a "catch all" justification.
scotrail158713
Established Member
In my part of the world a lot of people will go into Edinburgh for the night and would usually get the train home
I realise that, however from the way that @Huntergreed worded his question, and the subsequent answer Scotrail gave, it did sound as if they’re going to persevere with a “key workers only” message - even when the pubs etc open.
Last edited:
Just a gentle reminder that this thread is to discuss the question "Can a TOC legally stop a passenger from travelling given that passenger's reason for travelling?"
I have moved some posts discussing the LNER alcohol ban to this thread.
Thanks
I have moved some posts discussing the LNER alcohol ban to this thread.
Thanks
Well I took a train for the first time since the start of Lockdown last night, to meet four friends to go on a socially distanced evening walk the other side of Nottingham, which is allowed. I was surprised to see, posted on very entrance to Nottingham Station, notices from British Transport Police, saying "You can be refused travel if your journey is not essential". The visual display at the side of the concourse also displayed a message from East Midlands Railway, saying they are offering a reduced service for essential workers only, and everybody else should not be travelling. Given all these intimidating notices, I was surprised I was not stopped at the ticket barrier, despite the fact that I was wearing trackies and walking boots, and carrying a rucksack. I don't know how anybody can logistically be stopped, so why all these notices. I was the only person on the whole train. I assume there was a guard, as there was an announcement about the train approaching Nottingham. I don't know if the guard would have known how full the train was, or whether the announcement would have been made to thin air had I not got on the train and it had been completely empty. At any rate we need a consistent approach across the country, and not this farce. The whole country is paying for all these empty trains.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,349
Hypothetical question. Now that Leicester is in lockdown, if I had a train ticket to Leicester, would I be questioned on why I was travelling to Leicester?
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Leicester isn't in "lockdown" any more than Scotland or Wales are in lockdown (compared to England or Northern Ireland). It simply has greater restrictions, effectively putting it back to the position the rest of England was in immediately prior to 15 June.
Now, of course, it's entirely possible that the railways and the police will take the law into their own hands by questioning people entering Leicester, but personally speaking I believe that is likely to be an isolated occurrence if it happens at all. Certainly you would have no obligation to answer any questions, let alone have a "good" reason for visiting.
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,081
No it isn't. As I understand it (the definitive legislation has apparently not yet been published) Leicester is returning to the situation that all of England was in between 1st June (when you were allowed to leave home without a "reasonable excuse") and 15th June when non-essential shops re-opened. That is, all non-essential shops closed but people allowed to move freely without needing a "reasonable excuse" to leave home. They are simply being "encouraged" to avoid all but essential travel to, from and within the effected area and to stay at home as far as possible. In short, "all" that's happened is that non-essential shops which have been open for two weeks have been closed again and the pubs, restaurants and barbers which were going to open on Saturday will stay shut.
It does lead to an interesting situation as far as movement and public transport goes because in reality people in Leicester (and those elsewhere who wish to go there) are subject to no more restrictions than anybody else. I have already seen articles suggesting that police may "enforce the lockdown" by means of road blocks. Quite under what powers they plan to do so is unclear (and whether they have the manpower to do it anyway is doubtful). But other than that there will be nothing to stop people in the area concerned from jumping on a bus or train and travelling a few miles to get their hair cut or have a pint. As such, the "lockdown" may achieve exactly the opposite to its aim. Instead of potential plague carriers staying within city limits they will travel far and wide in search of a pint, spreading their nasty germs all over the place.
Whilst they can't legally stop people travelling and may not even try, equally there is nothing illegal about them putting up posters saying:
As a poster at Guildford railway station proclaims. It's only on the station concourse so if you arrive into the station via the back entrance you could be none the wiser.
Then there is another poster which says:
Note they can only encourage one to walk around over the nearby road bridge as it's a public right of way. From 04:00 to 01:30. Between 01:30 and 04:00 a diversion over the road bridge is the public right of way. That poster appears at both ends of the station.
I think its understandable wanting people to go round, given keeping a 2m distance on the footbridge isn't possible when passing someone else. I guess with 1m+ in now, maybe they could remove the poster.
As a poster at Guildford railway station proclaims. It's only on the station concourse so if you arrive into the station via the back entrance you could be none the wiser.
Then there is another poster which says:
Note they can only encourage one to walk around over the nearby road bridge as it's a public right of way. From 04:00 to 01:30. Between 01:30 and 04:00 a diversion over the road bridge is the public right of way. That poster appears at both ends of the station.
I think its understandable wanting people to go round, given keeping a 2m distance on the footbridge isn't possible when passing someone else. I guess with 1m+ in now, maybe they could remove the poster.
I know it isn't but then I imagine one can legally enforce the removal of the posters either!
I keep an eye out when I'm next passing that way to see if they remain. I'd be interested to know if other SWR stations have do not travel by train for leisure posters.
I wouldn't actually mind one as a souvenir of the times we are in!
What so many don't quite seem to get on this thread is that all the advice and guidance is coming from HM Government and specifically the DfT. I wish they'd get the barrage of abuse railway workers are - because their messaging is utterly woeful and is making every single one of our lives difficult at the moment.
You've got your complaints from those about others not wearing masks, those who complain about having to wear a mask, those ignoring the seating arrangements for social distancing - I could go on.
The railway is open for those who need to use it - it is as simple as that. Sadly, the messaging from the government has been woeful throughout and that filters down. No, we can't stop you from travelling but please don't travel unless you need to - and if you do be considerate of the railway staff and fellow passengers.
You've got your complaints from those about others not wearing masks, those who complain about having to wear a mask, those ignoring the seating arrangements for social distancing - I could go on.
The railway is open for those who need to use it - it is as simple as that. Sadly, the messaging from the government has been woeful throughout and that filters down. No, we can't stop you from travelling but please don't travel unless you need to - and if you do be considerate of the railway staff and fellow passengers.
CaptainHaddock
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 2,213
No, the railway is open for anyone who wants to use it, whether for work, leisure or whatever. The concept of "need" is irrelevant.
Just to confirm, the allegation is that the DfT is specifically instructing train companies to make statements that claim there are more onerous restrictions on the use of public transport, than the actual guidance and legislation states?
If I worked at a train company in a relevant role relating to communication, I'd tell the DfT I was refusing to make inaccurate/misleading statements, and one of the reasons I'd cite for that is exactly as you say: the staff are going to get a lot of complaints from customers.
I'm not sure what this means; perhaps you can clarify? As I see it, anyone can decide they need to use it for any reason; are you in agreement?
Yes it has, but I'm not sure I can excuse train companies for making misleading statements. Not all train companies are doing this, so if you have evidence that DfT are instructing some train companies to mislead people, but not others, I'd be really interested to hear it.
That has to be the individual's choice, do you agree? There should be no attempt to make people feel guilty. Some of us have chosen not to drive private cars and we should feel proud of that.
My concern is that some of the communication appears to be designed to make such people feel they have fewer freedoms, which I hope you will agree is not right?
Last edited:
The latest advice from Northern:
We do advise avoiding travelling on rail services if possible, however if you have no other transport option, non-essential travel is now permitted on our trains. You would need to make sure you're wearing a face covering and sticking to social distancing guidelines.
We do advise avoiding travelling on rail services if possible, however if you have no other transport option, non-essential travel is now permitted on our trains. You would need to make sure you're wearing a face covering and sticking to social distancing guidelines.
Non-essential travel was hitherto already permitted; what they mean is that they are no longer misleading people into thinking that it is not permitted.
(@Class195 can you edit your post to include a link and quote tags please? The quote button can be found under the three dots menu icon when creating/editing a post, thanks!)
(@Class195 can you edit your post to include a link and quote tags please? The quote button can be found under the three dots menu icon when creating/editing a post, thanks!)
Sadly you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Go take it up with your local MP. The DfT are at fault.
I disagree; it's causing no end of problems, including bullying and intimidation of legitimate rail passengers by a gang of teenage spotters on Twitter.
In recent days a huge proportion of tweets sent to Northern were questioning their "essential travel only" message; this suggests it is not a trivial matter.
I still find it hard to believe the DfT have actually instructed train companies to contradict the guidance on use of public transport issued by the Government, but if anyone has any evidence of this I would be most grateful to receive it.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think this is now becoming moot, but isn't this really down to two possible interpretations of said guidance, of which some TOCs have used one and some the other?
The point has been made, many times, that all fourteen franchises are absolutely required to do whatever the DfT ask. That's pretty much indisputable. It is also something which applied to Northern (and LNER) even before the Emergency Measures Agreements.
The example of TfL has been given, where the Secretary of State demanded that they remove signs telling most people not to travel. This isn't comparable: that was simply political games and the SoS trying to one-up the Mayor. It wasn't based on the objective evidence, nor consistent policy.
Beyond this, little is clear. If I had to make my guess I would say that DfT know that Northern are by far the least prepared, because of years of under-resourcing, and most operationally fragile, not least because of industrial unrest, and their management are cautious. It has been said also that Northern have fared worse than any of the others with regard to staff absences but obviously this is an unverified claim.
Some people, although not many, have tended to criticise Northern but expressed support of the government. I would argue strongly that this position isn't really possible.
To put it another way: there is absolutely no way that the Department haven't signed off on Northern's signs, tweets and announcements telling almost everyone not to travel (up until the end of yesterday).
The example of TfL has been given, where the Secretary of State demanded that they remove signs telling most people not to travel. This isn't comparable: that was simply political games and the SoS trying to one-up the Mayor. It wasn't based on the objective evidence, nor consistent policy.
Beyond this, little is clear. If I had to make my guess I would say that DfT know that Northern are by far the least prepared, because of years of under-resourcing, and most operationally fragile, not least because of industrial unrest, and their management are cautious. It has been said also that Northern have fared worse than any of the others with regard to staff absences but obviously this is an unverified claim.
Some people, although not many, have tended to criticise Northern but expressed support of the government. I would argue strongly that this position isn't really possible.
To put it another way: there is absolutely no way that the Department haven't signed off on Northern's signs, tweets and announcements telling almost everyone not to travel (up until the end of yesterday).
The Government advice is poorly worded, but it's nowhere near as bad as what Northern are saying.
I don't think anyone is supporting the Government's actions, but it's quite right to call train companies out for contradicting Government advice in a manner that suggests that more onerous restrictions are in place. There is a difference.
I am sceptical that it could be the case that the DfT has mandated that Northern give out a different message to, say, LNER or Avanti, but as always I appreciate anything is possible, and if there is any evidence of this, I'm keen to see it!
I don't think anyone is supporting the Government's actions, but it's quite right to call train companies out for contradicting Government advice in a manner that suggests that more onerous restrictions are in place. There is a difference.
I am sceptical that it could be the case that the DfT has mandated that Northern give out a different message to, say, LNER or Avanti, but as always I appreciate anything is possible, and if there is any evidence of this, I'm keen to see it!
I'm not sure there's been any specific claim the Department "mandated" it; equally I think we can be clear that any claim that the Department didn't approve of it is wrong.
To add, I don't see any reason why the Department might not approve of both what we saw from Northern simultaneously with what we saw from Avanti.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
My suspicion would be that each TOC was required to conduct a risk assessment and impose control measures that would, including other things, ensure that under no circumstances did the number of passengers on a train exceed 10% of seated capacity so that 2m distancing could be applied.
Avanti and LNER chose to do that by way of compulsory reservations (in slightly different ways - absolute on LNER like an airline e.g. needing to go and change your reservation if there was a cancellation, I believe a little bit more flexibly on Avanti). I suspect WMT did this for LNR by way of running 12-car trains on services that near enough gave everyone who wanted to travel a coach to themselves. Northern, who already had a severe overcrowding problem, presumably chose to discourage travel as a key part of it as they aren't able to up their capacity.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 3,862
On Newport station (south Wales) today, all the departure boards, as well as other signs, were saying "essential travel only".
I thought even Wales was allowing discretionary travel from today? If so, whoever operates the station hasn't caught up with that.
I thought even Wales was allowing discretionary travel from today? If so, whoever operates the station hasn't caught up with that.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Northern's website has now been updated to remove the "essential" message, the headline item is now:
So stick your mask on (unless exempt) and fill your proverbial boots!
So stick your mask on (unless exempt) and fill your proverbial boots!
As in England, the government is allowing discreptionary travel, i.e. not suggesting that public transport should be for essential use only.
The operators take a different view.
Now to some extent that should be fine - just because the government says it's OK doesn't mean they actually have the capacity for everyone who might want to travel. But mixed messages don't help, particuarly when they are being paid directly by the government to run the services. And they shouldn't then (as they are) claim it's the government making them do this.
And in any case something a bit more nuanced must be possible. My local service into town pre-lockdown was almost empty during the day off-peak, so even with half the normal number of trains I can't see any problems. But I'm still not supposed to use them unless I can't live without it.
And I just looked at the National Rail web site and sadly they are still saying essentially:
1) Is your journey necessary? If not, stay at home
2) If it is, don't use the train unless you really can't avoid it, and travel off-peak if you can etc.
I don't know how (or if) we get back from this to the idea that it would be good for people to use public transport in a generation.
Bishopstone
Established Member
I think you’ve identified the problem.
40% think we’re opening-up far too early, and the Government/TOC messaging is woeful because ridership is going up, and there’s inadequate deterrent - too few fines for non-mask wearing, too many day trippers etc.
25% think we’re far too slow in opening-up, far too cautious, and the Government/TOC messaging is woeful because ridership is pitifully low and we’re driving people onto the roads etc.
As always, 35% just crack on, going with the flow. I envy such people.
Now: design a communications strategy that leaves the first two groups fully satisfied.
Maybe the messaging is woeful because the messengers are trying to straddle the two horses, but lets be honest: people are in a strop because what they’re hearing/seeing, isn’t what they personally want.
I suggest that balancing a pandemic, a (generally) scared populace, liberty and the urgent need to get the economy going again, is quite difficult.
- Status