• 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!

Chiltern: Deliberately misinforming passengers about the route.

Status
Not open for further replies.

MagisterLudi

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2017
Messages
74
Good Afternoon

I would appreciate some thoughts as to whether the following is a legitimate decision/action from Chiltern Railways:

The 17:50 London Marylebone to Oxford (18th December) is scheduled to stop at High Wycombe. Chiltern's Twitter team have just admitted that they deliberately removed the High Wycombe stop from the boards displaying the train's advertised route to prevent passengers using this service and thus creating overcrowding. The train still called at High Wycombe. There have been ongoing problems with short formation of trains on Chiltern for months.

https://twitter.com/chilternrailway/status/1207364803351777289

Is it justifiable to misinform passengers in this way?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ethano92

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2017
Messages
415
Location
London
This doesn't appear any different to SWR not putting Clapham junction on the boards at Waterloo for some of their services despite them stopping there. I'm not too familiar with Chiltern but I suppose High Wycombe being further in has a more frequent service so it's not as necessary for High Wycombe passengers to use that train.

It does however seem Chiltern have gone about it the wrong way or haven't made things clear enough. I get the reasoning if there was another high Wycombe calling service soon after.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Appears to be a reasonable response to manage crowding on a short formation, but not catching out regulars who don't check the board every day and get over-carried (if the stop were removed entirely).

I've certainly seen other TOCs do it (e.g. XC services arriving at Coventry some years back advertised as 'next stop Wolverhampton' (even through stopping at Intl and New Street)
 

daveshah

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2018
Messages
115
This doesn't appear any different to SWR not putting Clapham junction on the boards at Waterloo for some of their services despite them stopping there. I'm not too familiar with Chiltern but I suppose High Wycombe being further in has a more frequent service so it's not as necessary for High Wycombe passengers to use that train.

At least on the long distance services Clapham Junction is "pick up only" in the timetable so this is very much official (I'm not sure if it is the same of Chiltern or not).
 

Surreytraveller

On Moderation
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
2,810
I've noticed other operators advertising stops as pick up only on short formations too, to alleviate overcrowding and leaving space for people joining the train to be able to get to further out stations. It a perfectly normal and usual way to manage overcrowding. The alternative would be to cancel the train and run it empty in order to prevent it sitting down at stations causing delay to other services
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Good Afternoon

I would appreciate some thoughts as to whether the following is a legitimate decision/action from Chiltern Railways:

The 17:50 London Marylebone to Oxford (18th December) is scheduled to stop at High Wycombe. Chiltern's Twitter team have just admitted that they deliberately removed the High Wycombe stop from the boards displaying the train's advertised route to prevent passengers using this service and thus creating overcrowding. The train still called at High Wycombe. There have been ongoing problems with short formation of trains on Chiltern for months.

https://twitter.com/chilternrailway/status/1207364803351777289

Is it justifiable to misinform passengers in this way?

Seems fair enough to me, as presumably the service would have been unboardable otherwise so it’s probably in everyone’s interest. Nonetheless, I’m sure the Wycombe passengers would appreciate being thrown under the bus as a result of Chiltern’s chasing the Oxford market...
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Even if it's done with good intentions I find this an unacceptable practice. Those who had planned to travel on this service but don't have an online journey planner or a paper timetable to hand might think this is a different service to the one they planned to travel on. Those with split tickets (and High Wycombe is not infrequently a splitting point for some journeys on Chiltern) might think their split is no longer valid. As a seasoned traveller, I was heading to High Wycombe even I might be put off.

If it's really that desparate, put a note on the PIS to say that passengers for High Wycombe are encouraged to take the next service at XX:XX, or simply erect a separate queue where High Wycombe passengers are denied entry and paid the appropriate delay compensation. Alternatively announce that the High Wycombe stop is actually cancelled, and indeed don't stop there.

This is just nonsense to massage PPM whilst avoiding all possible contractual liabilities. Unfortunately it's unlikely to be taken seriously as a breach of the franchise obligation to give accurate information and they might even lie and claim it was a mistake.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
If it's really that desparate, put a note on the PIS to say that passengers for High Wycombe are encouraged to take the next service at XX:XX, or simply erect a separate queue where High Wycombe passengers are denied entry and paid the appropriate delay compensation. Alternatively announce that the High Wycombe stop is actually cancelled, and indeed don't stop there.
Your first alternative would just result in most High Wycombe passengers ignoring the request, either because they don't look at the PIS, and why would they if they catch the same service every evening, or because they still wanted to get home earlier. Your second alternative would just cause unnecessary staff/passenger conflict and have exactly the same end result. Your third alternative would just be pointless.

If it was a one off then ensuring passengers who have fewer alternatives manage to get on the train is entirely reasonable. If it is/was a regular occurrence then that isn't acceptable but as a one off it is.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Even if it's done with good intentions I find this an unacceptable practice. Those who had planned to travel on this service but don't have an online journey planner or a paper timetable to hand might think this is a different service to the one they planned to travel on. Those with split tickets (and High Wycombe is not infrequently a splitting point for some journeys on Chiltern) might think their split is no longer valid. As a seasoned traveller, I was heading to High Wycombe even I might be put off.

If it's really that desparate, put a note on the PIS to say that passengers for High Wycombe are encouraged to take the next service at XX:XX, or simply erect a separate queue where High Wycombe passengers are denied entry and paid the appropriate delay compensation. Alternatively announce that the High Wycombe stop is actually cancelled, and indeed don't stop there.

This is just nonsense to massage PPM whilst avoiding all possible contractual liabilities. Unfortunately it's unlikely to be taken seriously as a breach of the franchise obligation to give accurate information and they might even lie and claim it was a mistake.

Chiltern will be penalised contractually for a short formation.
 

4COR

Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
441
If it's really that desparate, put a note on the PIS to say that passengers for High Wycombe are encouraged to take the next service at XX:XX, or simply erect a separate queue where High Wycombe passengers are denied entry and paid the appropriate delay compensation.

They wouldn't even get that - 30 min minimum for compensation on Chiltern, and there are two services afterwards that arrive within 30min of the scheduled time for the 1750. (Unless subsequent services are delayed of course...)
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
At least on the long distance services Clapham Junction is "pick up only" in the timetable so this is very much official (I'm not sure if it is the same of Chiltern or not).
Yes, and it has also been a feature of the SWT and SWR timetable for very many years. I don’t think it has much bearing on a Chiltern decision apparently made on the fly...
 

Jamiescott1

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2019
Messages
952
Chiltern often do this, especially if an event at Wembley stadium or ticket acceptance due to issues on wcml or gwml.
I know which scheduled services call at wyconbe, so if they remove wycombe from the boards at marylebone, I usually use their app to see departures from wycombe going north to confirm that my train from marylebone will stop at wycombe, even if not on the boards

P.s
I complained about this practice a few years ago and got a generic reply.

There used to be (dont think there still is) an early Sunday morning service from oxford to marylebone that was set down only at wycombe (not advertised on the boards at wycombe at all). I'd often advise people going to platform 1 for the stopper to marylebone to come and join me on platform 3 for the non stop service which isnt advertised. Rarely people did and they arrived 30 minutes later in london.

Regarding your point about chilterns short formations. I recently wrote to them to complain that short formations are not advertised until the last minute. The website is often not updated to show short formations until about 15 minutes before the train departs. I got the generic reply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
P.s
I complained about this practice a few years ago and got a generic reply.

There used to be (dont think there still is) an early Sunday morning service from oxford to marylebone that was set down only at wycombe (not advertised on the boards at wycombe at all). I'd often advise people going to platform 1 for the stopper to marylebone to come and join me on platform 3 for the non stop service which isnt advertised. Rarely people did and they arrived 30 minutes later in london.
Joining a train at a set-down only stop can, in principle at least, get you a Penalty Fare.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Joining a train at a set-down only stop can, in principle at least, get you a Penalty Fare.

That's one of those things that is unlikely to stand up in Court, though.

"So, your honour, I was travelling on a train that went from High Wycombe to London Marylebone with a ticket from High Wycombe to London Marylebone and they are saying I didn't have a valid ticket?"
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
I will concede that much, rather like the quote attributed to Bertrand Russell when he was said to have joined a train at Oxford and was told by a staff member “I’m sorry sir, you’ll have to get off as this train doesn’t step here”. The reply was said to be “That’s all right, in that case I’m not on it”.

PS Magistrates are addressed “your worship” or “Sir”/“Madam”, not “your honour”.
 

londonbridge

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2010
Messages
1,448
I remember once coming home from Victoria on a late night service which made an unannounced stop at Selhurst to either drop off or pick up some depot workers. Can't remember which, but a passenger went to board/get off and a staff member shouted at them that they weren't allowed to do so. The passenger replied along the lines of "if you stop me I'll report you, I've got on/off where you shouldn't have stopped".
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
Joining a train at a set-down only stop can, in principle at least, get you a Penalty Fare.

That's one of those things that is unlikely to stand up in Court, though.

"So, your honour, I was travelling on a train that went from High Wycombe to London Marylebone with a ticket from High Wycombe to London Marylebone and they are saying I didn't have a valid ticket?"

I don't think it would be beyond the wit of a competent advocate to rebut this.

The railway's offer to customers (which is the basis on which the railway and the customer agree a contract) is laid out in the timetable.

The timetable specifically shows that no train is offered at the given time for customers to travel from Wycombe to Marylebone.

Since no service was offered, no contract can have been formed. In the absence of the contract, any ticket held was not a valid ticket to travel from Wycombe to Marylebone at the given time.

And in the absence of a valid ticket, the full majesty of the law may be brought to bear against the defendant.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
The railway's offer to customers (which is the basis on which the railway and the customer agree a contract) is laid out in the timetable.

The timetable specifically shows that no train is offered at the given time for customers to travel from Wycombe to Marylebone.

Since no service was offered, no contract can have been formed. In the absence of the contract, any ticket held was not a valid ticket to travel from Wycombe to Marylebone at the given time.

And in the absence of a valid ticket, the full majesty of the law may be brought to bear against the defendant

Thinking further, an even easier version of this argument is

The published timetable shows that the train in question isn't available for the journey made. A reasonable customer would have familiarised themselves with the railway's offer so the defendant can be assumed to have been aware of this fact. Further, it would be nonsensical for the railway to offer a ticket for sale for a journey that couldn't be made. So the customer can be taken to know that they had no valid ticket for the train in question.

I think that this argument would also work for short term changes (such as the one the OP quoted) as long as it was made clear (signs, tannoy, staff at the ticket barrier, whatever) that the change had been made while the customer still had a chance to back out of their journey i.e before they got on the train.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
The railway's offer to customers (which is the basis on which the railway and the customer agree a contract) is laid out in the timetable.
The timetable is undoubtedly part of the contract, correct. But it's not the sole basis of the contract. What it is, is the times at which the consumer has the right to demand carriage (be it by train or by alternative transport). The right of carriage is the consideration by the railway, not the timetable, and the geographic right of carriage (by way of the permitted routes) is precisely defined by the provisions of the NRCoT and the Routeing Guide.

The timetable specifically shows that no train is offered at the given time for customers to travel from Wycombe to Marylebone.
It shows that the consumer doesn't have the right to demand carriage at that time. But if a train does turn up, opens its doors and the consumer gets on, then they are doing nothing wrong as long as they travel within the permitted routes of their ticket.

Since no service was offered, no contract can have been formed.
Err, no. A contract has been formed, which gives the consumer the right to insist on carriage at the times shown in the timetable. But they also have the right to travel in any other train that follows a permitted route, which we can be certain a direct train from the origin to the destination stations printed on the ticket will be (as there are no relevant route restrictions).

The published timetable shows that the train in question isn't available for the journey made.
It shows that the consumer doesn't have the right to insist on carriage at that time. But the consumer has every right to board the train as it is following a permitted route.

Further, it would be nonsensical for the railway to offer a ticket for sale for a journey that couldn't be made.
It might be nonsensical but that doesn't stop ticket machines and some other sources from selling tickets for journeys that can't possibly be completed within the bounds of the validity of the ticket. That it's nonsensical doesn't mean that the consumer is somehow in the wrong or at fault as a result.

So the customer can be taken to know that they had no valid ticket for the train in question.
For as long as ticket-inspecting staff aren't even told of the existence of the Routeing Guide and hence have no way of accurately determining permitted routes, customers can't be taken to know anything either. The man on the Clapham Omnibus wouldn't think his ticket is invalid to board a train just because it isn't in the timetable he studiously inspected.

It is clear that, as the NRCoT make no reference whatsoever to "set down" or "pick up" restrictions, consumers cannot be penalised in any way if they travel in accordance with their ticket's permitted routes, even if it is in violation of a restriction the train companies would like to have apply. There is no contractual or other basis on which to lawfully charge anything extra or to prosecute the passenger. If the train companies want to stop consumers from doing it then they need to physically prevent the consumer from boarding or alighting.

I suspect that outside of the rail enthusiasts' bubble, "normal" people would consider it madness to even think about penalising passengers in these circumstances, and would consider Chiltern's actions in this case simply yet another example of the rotten practices the industry likes to indulge in.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
which is rather more than the suggested defence of
I was rebutting what you said, as there were a number of things that weren't accurate. The other poster's summary is perfectly accurate and in the Kangaroo, sorry Magistrates', Court it is the conclusion that would almost certainly be reached.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
I looked into this a few years ago and similarly couldn't work out any enforceable mechanism for charging extra if a company's pick up/set down only requests were disregarded.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I looked into this a few years ago and similarly couldn't work out any enforceable mechanism for charging extra if a company's pick up/set down only requests were disregarded.
Which makes sense.

But... (opens can)... if that train was to be delayed by more than 30 minutes, would the passenger be entitled to Delay Repay? (...watches worms wriggling everywhere!)
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
Which makes sense.

But... (opens can)... if that train was to be delayed by more than 30 minutes, would the passenger be entitled to Delay Repay? (...watches worms wriggling everywhere!)
No. Due to there not being a timetabled arrival time.
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
I looked into this a few years ago and similarly couldn't work out any enforceable mechanism for charging extra if a company's pick up/set down only requests were disregarded.
Unless for what ever reason the train doesnt actually call. The TOC would be within their rights to charge for the extra return journey.
 

Chew Chew

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
511
Scotrail used to do to this all the time in Aberdeen.

There was a train that left for Glasgow/Edinburgh around 1630 that was advertised as first stop Montrose to stop people for Stonehaven getting on as there was a train that terminated at Stonehaven which left Aberdeen 10 minutes later.

I only found out after getting on the earlier train once by accident as I wasn't paying enough attention.

In the grand scheme of things it meant people were more comfortable so it made sense.
 
Last edited:

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I was rebutting what you said, as there were a number of things that weren't accurate. The other poster's summary is perfectly accurate and in the Kangaroo, sorry Magistrates', Court it is the conclusion that would almost certainly be reached.
What have the magistrates done to upset you?
 

causton

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
5,504
Location
Somewhere between WY372 and MV7
I remember once coming home from Victoria on a late night service which made an unannounced stop at Selhurst to either drop off or pick up some depot workers. Can't remember which, but a passenger went to board/get off and a staff member shouted at them that they weren't allowed to do so. The passenger replied along the lines of "if you stop me I'll report you, I've got on/off where you shouldn't have stopped".

Which of course is not true, the train would be booked a staff call there!

e.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W41229/2020-03-05/detailed (random train, random time chosen, first one I found!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top