They are inundated with claims at present so responses and payments are understandably taking a while to get through. If there is nothing missing or unusual about a claim then it will be dealt with as soon as they can but there are obviously a lot of them to get through at the moment.
Because when the trains don’t fail they can run the service. When a unit fails, they can’t. If you think they’re telling lies in order to deliberately mislead the travelling public then you’re wrong again.
It is true. It’s just another way of saying that there has been a train failure (or failures), or a shortage of serviceable trains - the meaning is the same.
I routinely have to push to get what I’m entitled to. They reject claims based on the replacement train arriving on time even though it’s 75L from the timetable. They leave people stranded and refuse to help after the last train is cancelled after a ticket is purchased then reject any claim. They refuse to provide alternative transport for people who are going to miss connections and become stranded, then reject a claim*. Their staff sent to stations to deal with their customers when they are to be put onto replacement transport sometimes go home if the bus is late, the staff when they are there refuse to provide a taxi between Doncaster and Selby if you’re on an any permitted ticket with an itinerary for the Hull trains service from King’s Cross to Selby, then when you travel via York, reject the claim because the taxis you were denied access to arrived less than 30 minutes after the train should have. They base claims on what time they expect the bus to arrive not what time it did arrive as they have no way of knowing and as mentioned before, staff have gone home so they can’t check.
It failed with a different and unrelated fault to those which kept it out of service beforehand.
The point is - it's not more trains than usual. Based off the experience of the last few months, it's about the same number of trains as usual (and the fleet size just isn't big enough to cater for this)!
At the time, that was the plan and the expectation.
See my reply above - the train was repaired, returned to service (albeit short formed) and failed with a different and unrelated fault.
And the one that failed Thursday cancelling the 1233 and subsequent 1548?
Fair comment. I suspect the issue (from a company’s perspective) with using words like ‘ongoing’ is that it draws attention to the issues from people who otherwise wouldn’t read any more into it.
It’s a tricky one. I agree only draws attention to those who don’t know, but it likely gains respect from those that do know.
The one which failed on Thursday missed one return trip and was a minor fault. I’m not sure which unit has gone down today, or what’s wrong with it.
And that’s the trade off. Those who do know are likely to be much smaller in number, and of course they already know.
But that one return trip would have had hundreds of passengers on it. It would have had a good amount more that delayed their journey from the 1033 or 1348 as they were also cancelled. It may have had a few other passengers from the 1709 that they started short or the 1912 that was cancelled but this is unlikely to be significant.
No, “planned” cancellations put in overnight don’t count as failures so you can get far higher figures than you should.
Thanks for correcting me. Whilst I assume it's standard industry practice, it does let operators off the hook somewhat.
I love that this is somehow the best thing someoe looking exclusively to defend Hull Trains can actually think of to say.
Good luck going back with that 15 years after you bought the product.
