GWR - cancelled trains and Delay/Repay

[quarella]

Why would anyone want to make it more complex? The whole point about Delay Repay is it is simple to evaluate and understand. Make it more complex and you start confusing people.


No.

Imagine if it is booked 15 minutes behind and actually arrived 75 minutes behind. Now try and tell those customers they are not eligible because the scheme is based on the booked arrival time.

If you are delayed you are delayed, if not then you are not. If you are delayed 59 minutes then you are not delayed 60 minutes (barring a very small number of journeys where the actual recorded times may be a minute out).

I was meaning the arrival time at destination station. If the following service is scheduled to arrive at your destination 60 minutes later and that is the trigger for payment then payment is made. The passenger should not be penalised for early running.

 

[bb21]

No they absolutely do not. Unless you really believe it's possible to get accross stations like Birmingham International or Gatwick Aiport in less than 3 minutes (typical door open to door close time for a "5 minute" connection), including the time it takes to find the right platform, with a typical amount of luggage.

And then there are (London only?) stations like Ealing Broadway where the official minimum connection time is 1 minute... There's no way any time to open/close doors was taken into account when that was imagined.

The "wheel stop" time is utterly and completely irrelevant to passengers and TOCs should not be allowed to base delay calculations on it. In some cases it can take several minutes for the doors to open, if the guard happens to be selling a complex ticket or having a "discussion" with a passenger at the time of arrival. The door release time is, for all practical purposes, the arrival time and the door close time is the departure time.

Complain to Network Rail then, your MP even, etc. I totally agree there but there is no such infrastructure to support any scheme on that basis. The compensation scheme is agreed on the basis of that metric. If you have a problem with that, take it up with whoever you think will be able to change it. Just be prepared that your fare may have to go up substantially to pay for a system to be rolled out nationwide to enable that.

You have to be realistic sometimes, and work with the infrastructure you have, which will have limitations. We would all like things to work in a way that we personally think are wonderful, but that isn't always realistic. Surely you don't need me to tell you that?

1-minute interchange times are for journeys on the same train. There are a few examples but Ealing Broadway isn't one of them.

If you don't think the interchange time at any station is right, contact Network Rail. If you get nowhere, complain to your MP. I'm sure you will take it as far as possible if it really were such a big deal. If there really is a problem I am sure plenty of MPs will be interested.

I would strongly disagree with wheel stop times being used as arrival times - in the same way that flight delays are counted by when the plane doors first open (to prevent airlines from getting out of compensation caused by boarding stairs delays after the aircraft has parked), train delays should be (and I hope they are) counted by door release times.

No passenger gives a damn about when the train comes to a stand, they care about when they can get off the train and so to them, that's the arrival time for all intents and purposes. I Iould have thought that exact arrival times (in terms of door release) for the purpose of statistics, delay compensation etc. are recorded by guards or by newer trains automatically.

Same as above. Complain to Network Rail and DfT if you feel that strongly about it.

I was meaning the arrival time at destination station. If the following service is scheduled to arrive at your destination 60 minutes later and that is the trigger for payment then payment is made. The passenger should not be penalised for early running.

The customer isn't penalised for early running. The customer is compensated suitably according to the delay at his destination.

If you go by the booked arrival time then for one you add an extra layer of complexity to the system in now having booked arrival times as opposed to actual arrival times, and two the same question I asked earlier applies, where do you stand when the later service is further delayed and consequently crossing into another band? Do you still go by the same booked time of that second service or do you want to now go by the actual arrival time?

We are finally here with a simple to understand system (for the overwhelming majority of cases) so why would you want to undo all the good work in passenger compensation by introducing unnecessary complications? To whose benefit? Remember that whichever system is used, some people will lose out very marginally. How do you pick who should be the disadvantaged ones?

as a pilot

Really?

 

[bb21]

I agree with the last point, but not the offhand dismissal of the suggestion that cancellation of an hourly service be deemed to cause an hours delay. There is something especially galling about being delayed by the decision of an operator, that is only compounded when the effect of some regained time is to move you out of a refund bracket. It is also a simple rule to apply.

That doesn’t alter the fact that there is a measure of win some, lose some. I gained on Wednesday night because my train was 31 late, having expected to be 29 based on most of the journey beforehand. Other times, I’ve had the frustration of being 31 late most of a journey, then regaining 2 minutes with recovery time.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as you may think.

Do you want it to apply across the whole railway network? Shall we have different rules for different routes? If not, how do we handle those routes with services at irregular intervals? If yes, you are now starting to complicate things for customers.

Let's say we just consider those routes with a frequent service, many won't have clockface timetables. For example, a four-train-an-hour timetable may have services at 10/20-minute intervals. What frequency would you call that route?

Even if we just take into account routes with clockface timetables, what happens when you have services booked at xx40 one hour, and then xx39 the next hour, as is the case with most clockface timetables at least for some hours during the day? Is that still considered hourly? Does this get treated as 59 minutes later or 60 minutes later? If the latter, what if it were only 58 minutes behind? Should that be treated as 60 minutes too? You can say perhaps use 55 minutes as the benchmark, but you have now changed a system with easy to remember and calculate thresholds to one with a number many people would struggle with. Progress?

Taking even a smaller subset of routes (which now won't see many left) with strict clockface times at all hours, I now go back to the question asked in the previous post which is a repeat of the same question upthread, what would you do when the service is further delayed in reality? Say you have a half-hourly service and the customer gets on the train behind only to be delayed further by another 45 minutes. Do you compensate for 30 minutes as per booked arrival time at destination, or 75 minutes as per actual arrival time? If the former then I can already see half of the forum getting their pitchfolks ready. If the latter, why is it booked times in some cases and why is it actual times in others? How do you explain it to the average punter, for whom any mention of railway fares would be sufficient to make their heads explode?

These are just some of the issues that popped into my mind right now. I'm sure there would be others too, and this is not even yet considering the validation process becoming more convoluted.

Delay Repay is a simple system to understand, and it is based on the principle of actual delay to a customer's journey so it is fair. (It probably sucks for those who narrowly miss out but this is an inherent problem for all systems, unless you truly run the scheme on a true sliding scale. Maybe that's what we should have? Good luck figuring out how much compensation is due to the Average Joe in that case.) All it perhaps needs in terms of structure is for some issues surrounding minority cases (such as split tickets) to be clarified by DfT/RDG ideally. If on top of that there is a more rigorous quality assurance mechanism by relevant authorities then I think it can be the holy grail of delay compensation. For now, it has laid down a good foundation stone. What it needs is being built on, not being dumbed down by further complication and undoing the good work so far.

 

[bnm]

Delay Repay is a simple system to understand

It is. But is of little relevance in the case of the OP. GWR do not operate Delay Repay.

I have received compensation from GWR more than once in the past for delays that were just under 60 minutes. 57 minutes was the lowest. I suggest the OP chases up and escalates. Delay maybe measurable to the second, but inconvenience isn't quantitative.

Of course the OP can exercise their rights under the Consumer Act 2015, which doesn't prescribe rigid limits for transport delays, if GWR continue to play hardball for the sake of 1 minute.

Oh, and isn't this section of the forum meant to offer help and advice? Not long winded waffle about the greatness of Delay Repay.

 

[plymothian]

Surely the whole delay to your journey that you are claiming for is 1 hour 59 minutes ie turfed off at Westbury, waited for 1 hour, caught next train that then took 59 minutes to reach your destination?

Have your correctly submitted your claim from the point the original train was terminated short?

 

[tiptoptaff]

Surely the whole delay to your journey that you are claiming for is 1 hour 59 minutes ie turfed off at Westbury, waited for 1 hour, caught next train that then took 59 minutes to reach your destination?

Have your correctly submitted your claim from the point the original train was terminated short?

But it would have taken the same amount of time from Westbury to Fareham if it hadn't been terminated short, just an hour earlier. Delay was therefore only an hour (or, in this case, 59minutes)

 

[PhilipW]

Surely the whole delay to your journey that you are claiming for is 1 hour 59 minutes ie turfed off at Westbury, waited for 1 hour, caught next train that then took 59 minutes to reach your destination?

Have your correctly submitted your claim from the point the original train was terminated short?

My claim was from Bath Spa to Fareham for which I enclosed my ticket.
I left Bath Spa at 13:36 expecting to arrive at Fareham at 15.27.
I arrived on the train scheduled to arrive at 16.27. GWR said that it actually arrived at 16.26. Being just an ordinary passenger, I can't say I looked at my watch to check the time down to the last minute or second. It just seemed that the train was arriving on schedule so I left the station thinking to myself that I had been delayed by a hour. That seemed a reasonable thought to me.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Really?

Would you like a picture of my pilot's licence? I hope you did not misunderstand me as meaning an airline pilot - I am a mere private pilot.

 

[MotCO]

Unfortunately it is not as simple as you may think.

Do you want it to apply across the whole railway network? Shall we have different rules for different routes?

Let's say we just consider those routes with a frequent service, many won't have clockface timetables.

Even if we just take into account routes with clockface timetables, what happens when you have services booked at xx40 one hour, and then xx39 the next hour, as is the case with most clockface timetables at least for some hours during the day? Is that still considered hourly?


Delay Repay is a simple system to understand, and it is based on the principle of actual delay to a customer's journey so it is fair. For now, it has laid down a good foundation stone. What it needs is being built on, not being dumbed down by further complication and undoing the good work so far.

I have to agree with bb21's sentiments. One of the basic principles is Keep It Simple (Stupid), and some will win and some will lose. C'est la vie.

Maybe there should be a separate system for compensation for train cancellations where the service is mostly hourly, and alternative routes are not possible? I thoroughly understand the frustration of waiting at a station for an hour (probably more if you arrived in plenty of time to catch the cancelled train). I also understand that the later train could be uncomfortaby packed, so some form of compensation should be available. Presumably the cancelled train saved the TOC staff costs (and track access charges?), so there is a pot of money available for this compenation.

 

[100andthirty]

BB21's comments highlight the challenge of implementing or changing a rules based system. but rigid application of a rules based system (especially based on times that are necessarily based on some level of estimate - inherent in Trust) leaves the customer feeling - as in this case - that the operator is seeking to apply the rules pedantically to avoid payment. It doesn't pass the "man on the Clapham omnibus" test. What is needed is briefing and training of the people dealing with these claims to apply discretion in favour of the customer. This would take account of situations like the OP's, but would allow TOCs to deal with situations we've seen on other thread where there might be evidence of customers "trying it on".

 

[sheff1]

Delay Repay is a simple system to understand,

Indeed it is, which makes me wonder why some of the people handling Delay Repay claims seem to have great difficulty in understanding it and it has been necessary for me to escalate matters before getting the correct compensation due.

 

[bb21]

It is. But is of little relevance in the case of the OP. GWR do not operate Delay Repay.

That is correct, however since the discussion seemingly went on about the mechanism assessing the lateness...

I have received compensation from GWR more than once in the past for delays that were just under 60 minutes. 57 minutes was the lowest. I suggest the OP chases up and escalates. Delay maybe measurable to the second, but inconvenience isn't quantitative.

It is always worth trying, absolutely, if one so inclines, just be prepared that under the threshold there is no entitlement so there is a good possibility it would be a "no".

Of course the OP can exercise their rights under the Consumer Act 2015, which doesn't prescribe rigid limits for transport delays, if GWR continue to play hardball for the sake of 1 minute.

Big untested ground, so no one knows what would happen in a court, but if the OP is willing to be a test case I would be very interested in the outcome.

Oh, and isn't this section of the forum meant to offer help and advice? Not long winded waffle about the greatness of Delay Repay.

Yes, perhaps I should have deleted all such discussion instead, or moved it elsewhere, but I considered it a worthwhile issue affecting most forum members and regularly discussed on the forum to bring a bit more perspective to it in a related thread already under discussion, and the OP already received sufficient help to allow him to decide on a suitable way forward in a non-urgent case.

Would you like a picture of my pilot's licence? I hope you did not misunderstand me as meaning an airline pilot - I am a mere private pilot.

You can show me yours on a private occasion.

Indeed it is, which makes me wonder why some of the people handling Delay Repay claims seem to have great difficulty in understanding it and it has been necessary for me to escalate matters before getting the correct compensation due.

I have many theories why there is a lot of below par competencies in the industry, not just in this particular area. I will be happy to discuss in more detail at a meal.

You can rest assured you are not the only one banging your head against a brick wall at times.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You can show me yours on a private occasion.

Remind me before the next forum event we're both attending

 

[bnm]

Big untested ground, so no one knows what would happen in a court, but if the OP is willing to be a test case I would be very interested in the outcome.

Exercising ones rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 doesn't mean going straight to court. These are statutory rights. In the OPs case the service provider has failed to provide the service with reasonable care and skill (it's reasonable for a passenger to believe a train operator has sufficient staff to operate the advertised train service). The passenger's first action is not to start a court claim but to enter dialogue with the operator. Setting out why they are unhappy with the service provided and pointing out that there has been a breach of their statutory rights under the Act. In most cases, maybe with a little to and fro, an amicable settlement can be reached.

Has already worked for me twice. Once with a utility provider and once with a train operator. I never went near a court.