....... Historically, I'm not sure how the assistance system became extended to allow people to book the full service for any or all elderly persons who don't classify themselves as disabled under the booking system. Because at some point in the past (experts, help please) the porters system was withdrawn. They must have had the debate back then and presumably concluded that passengers must begin to handle their own luggage unless they have a disability. And this must have been agreed with British Rail and the government.
I think this is a useful reminder...... once upon a time there was a different way of doing this. No doubt it had problems too as nothing is ever perfect, we must analyse critically not use rose-tinted glasses...... but surely we can learn something from the bits that DID work?
There's sometimes a bit of "wrong end of the telescope" in specifics like this. Rather than focus on helping specific people some of the time, maybe the society needs to have a long hard look at what we expect from a public transport system. Do we want a system that always is able to help people who need it with luggage, getting on and off the train etc..... (like porters did) or do we want a stripped down commuter-focused service which only really works for people who are unencumbered, fit and able?
The way this debate is handled is important. We have the NHS because (almost) everyone recognises that one day they too may be suddenly sick and need medical care. However, for other things like this, often the "unencumbered, fit and able" struggle to envisage a situation where they may need support from a fellow human being just to do "normal" stuff, so they can be very judgemental and/or reluctant to pay the costs as they are OK after all. Even walking up/down stairs can become suddenly difficult e.g. I fell over my cat on the stairs about 18 months ago and went from cycling to work every day to struggling to walk for several months- and (even with my little wheelie bag) I was oh, so glad of footbridges with lifts...... (often, "accessability" improvements are helpful a whole lot more people than those they are officially put in for!).
As a society, do we want to make sure that ALL people can access stuff? Remember, one day you may suddenly be unable to drive due to illness, struggle with mobility from something that is not your fault, could not have been avoided/predicted etc. Should railways be (like the NHS) part of that basic infrastructure to help everyone get access to stuff (transport, housing, education etc) that lets them be an equally valued member of society?
Or is society only for the able-bodied who can always cope on their own (personally, I suggest that "cope on their own" is a myth because in the modern world, we are all interdependent and we all need help at some point in our lives)
What is more costly: employing people usefully to staff stations to help others, or paying them benefits to do nothing (or top up a gig economy slave wage) whilst cutting services to the bone? I suggest that in the latter scenario, both the person without employment and the people who they could have helped will suffer, we're paying the money out anyway so lets make it a win-win.
Funny thing, we have committed billions to a pointless renewal to replace a functioning nuclear defence system (I know others will disagree, not trying to be political just make the point about priorities)- in the end it's all down to priorities, and what sort of society we want to live in.
Sorry if that sounds radical, although I don't think it is- rather it's reflecting on some lessons from the past 60-70 years and trying to get out of the detail and ask "why".
TPO.