Is it illegal to sit in a reserved seat, given that someone else has paid for it?

[35B]

Exactly. You can consent to ANY data use you like provided it is not under pressure and is withdrawable.

And there are other grounds for using that data which a firm may use. I suspect, for example, an operator using "legitimate interests" to argue that identifying the booker name on a reservation label as offering a better experience and easing boarding would be on strong grounds.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If GDPR wasn't the reason at the time, it would be now.

Our seat reservations earlier this month on the Cambrian Coast line had our name on the slips; it's more a case of if the person who makes the reservation enters the name into the system or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And there are other grounds for using that data which a firm may use. I suspect, for example, an operator using "legitimate interests" to argue that identifying the booker name on a reservation label as offering a better experience and easing boarding would be on strong grounds.

Agreed - consent is the last basis to look at when considering doing something with data because it's by far the weakest.

My point was more that there is absolutely nothing you can't do with data under GDPR provided willing and withdrawable consent is given without any pressure (i.e. you can't say "to be a customer you must consent to this", but you can say "to have your name on your reservation slip you must consent to it being potentially visible to other passengers").

 

[MikeWh]

OK, I'll crawl back under my stone. Retreating with a white flag.

 

[35B]

OK, I'll crawl back under my stone. Retreating with a white flag.

Your original point may actually have been right, but for another reason. GDPR has changed a lot of behaviours, and many companies and people are very risk averse. So the fear of of GDPR may actually have had the effect you ascribed.

 

[Viperboy34]

I have had my seat reservation ripped up my a member of station staff with no apology.

 

[shredder1]

I'd have thought that the seat was still the woman's, even though she got on later.

My understanding is that if a seat is booked from say A to C and the customer decides to board the train at B, surely they have lost their reservation? Having said that if it was someone elderly or with health issues, pregnant etc I would obviously let them take the seat

 

[shredder1]

I'll be honest, I always used to find you got a better class of person in the Standard class smoking vehicle. And I don't smoke, never have smoked (other than maybe once to try it, I can't remember) and never intend to smoke.

Is that not dependant on what they are smoking?

 

[_toommm_]

I recall at one time it was typical to have your name taken on reserving, this then appeared on the seat slip. Even tho on line bookings could easily have names linked to your purchase log in, this practice now seems to only happen very rarely. Any thoughts on why?

It always occurs to me that many a passengers searching for a seat might find their name more easily than a number (finding a numbered seat does seem rather tricky for quite a large number of people...)

CrossCountry tend to do it for seat reservations over Twitter - it has my first name before the reservation on the service I'm on now.

 

[WesternLancer]

CrossCountry tend to do it for seat reservations over Twitter - it has my first name before the reservation on the service I'm on now.

Interesting to hear.

 

[Quakkerillo]

Grand Central have done it too with my 2 years ago - albeit using my twitter handle - after I asked them if I could get a seat reservation whilst being out of the UK for a journey for which I already had a valid ticket, but without seat.

 

[Capvermell]

Assuming they were, if someone gets like this the correct thing to do is to get the guard to resolve the situation.

I assume you must be referring to the person now known as the Train Supervisor

Guards went out with The Ark much like Airline Stewardesses rather than Flight Attendants..................

 

[6Gman]

I assume you must be referring to the person now known as the Train Supervisor

Guards went out with The Ark much like Airline Stewardesses rather than Flight Attendants..................

The guy on my train yesterday was wearing a badge that read GUARD . Mind you, I think he was actually a Train Manager.

Does anybody call them a "Train Supervisor" ?

 

[najaB]

I assume you must be referring to the person now known as the Train Supervisor

Guards went out with The Ark much like Airline Stewardesses rather than Flight Attendants..................

There are many, many guards still employed as such on the railway today.

 

[6Gman]

There are many, many guards still employed as such on the railway today.

And millions of people who still refer to "the man at the back" as the guard rather than as the Conductor, Train Manager or anything else.

 

[mmh]

And millions of people who still refer to "the man at the back" as the guard rather than as the Conductor, Train Manager or anything else.

I never call them anything other than guard. I'd think I was being incredibly rude to call them "conductor" or "train manager," I say "Excuse me, are you the guard for this train?" when I need to ask for a request stop before boarding.

 

[Blinkbonny]

I never call them anything other than guard. I'd think I was being incredibly rude to call them "conductor" or "train manager," I say "Excuse me, are you the guard for this train?" when I need to ask for a request stop before boarding.

I'd always assumed Train Manager was a more highfalutin' term than Guard, and so I use it to be polite.

It's a social minefield!

 

[Capvermell]

I'd always assumed Train Manager was a more highfalutin' term than Guard, and so I use it to be polite.

It's a social minefield!

Safer to call them nothing I would suggest and just to converse with them about your ticket or other requirement unless they actually display a badge giving both their name and their job description.

Making the comparison with flight attendants no doubt some of the more militantly feminists ones would get very upset if you called them an air stewardess. Probably less so with guard as it merely shows the user of the term is an antique dinosaur rather than the term guard implying anything politically incorrect about the post holder.

Of course the media doesn't help by often referring to them as guards when any strike action is planned or actually takes place...…..

 

[mmh]

Safer to call them nothing I would suggest and just to converse with them about your ticket or other requirement unless they actually display a badge giving both their name and their job description.

How can I ask them if they're the right person to ask to stop the train without calling them something, though? I've no idea if TFW officially call them guards, but nobody's ever seemed offended by the word.

Making the comparison with flight attendants no doubt some of the more militantly feminists ones would get very upset if you called them an air stewardess. Probably less so with guard as it merely shows the user of the term is an antique dinosaur rather than the term guard implying anything politically incorrect about the post holder.

Happy to be a dinosaur! Politeness is the important thing anyway. The people who work on aeroplanes are trolley dollies. I'd never call them that to their face of course (I can't think why I'd ever need to call them anything)

Of course the media doesn't help by often referring to them as guards when any strike action is planned or actually takes place...…..

When was the last strike on national rail where the people on strike weren't guards?

 

[najaB]

Probably less so with guard as it merely shows the user of the term is an antique dinosaur rather than the term guard implying anything politically incorrect about the post holder.

Both the TOCs (as employers) and the RSSB (as standards setter) use the word "guard", so I can't see how it's antiquated.

 

[sheff1]

I assume you must be referring to the person now known as the Train Supervisor

Guards went out with The Ark ..................

What rubbish. I travelled on three trains today. On two of them there was an announcement "Welcome aboard. I am {name} your guard for the journey today .....".

I don't recall hearing anyone announce themseleves as a Train Supervisor. I have certainly heard - Train Manager, Team Leader, Conductor.

 

[najaB]

Team Leader

This tends to be used on the hospitality/retail side.

 

[Capvermell]

This tends to be used on the hospitality/retail side.

Apparently the train supervisor role is seen as an attempt by Southern to water down the status of "full fat" guards according to this discussion at www.railforums.co.uk/threads/on-board-supervisor-southern.152767/

The term conductor also seems be used too for the guard role but who knows how that varies in practice from a "full fat guard". I always thought that in the UK conductors only worked on buses (and not many left now with so many single manned buses) and that a train "conductor" was a North American (i.e. Canada and USA) term.

Wikipedia's page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductor_(rail) seems to confirm my thinking on the difference in the meaning of conductor in different places.

 

[ComUtoR]

Guards went out with The Ark

https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERT8000-SS1 Iss 5.pdf

You will need this module if you carryout the duties of:
• a driver
•a guard
• a person in charge (PIC) of dispatch
• staff responsible for train dispatch or the safety of the public and staff on stations

https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERT8000-Gloss Iss 2.pdf
Rulebook Glossary. Guard mentioned specifically 9 times.

 

[Capvermell]

Interesting article on the difference between train supervisors and guards at:-

http://trains-today.blogspot.com/2016/07/comment-southern-strikes-continue.html

Essentially it all seems to come down to guards also operating the doors as well as patrolling the train and selling tickets and train supervisors not operating the doors or monitoring the moving off from the platform as that role now transfers to the Driver Only Operator (DOO). The argument is clearly about the fact that with a DOO nobody is monitoring the safety of passengers on the platform as the train moves off.

On my local Mole Valley line there is still always a guard between Dorking and Horsham station to cover Holmwood, Ockley and Warnham stations (which are all totally unmanned) but now only a DOO operator between Dorking and London Victoria most of the time.

Previously the guard used to also always continue as far as Epsom, principally to cover Boxhill & Westhumble (also totally unmanned) but now they mainly get on and off at Dorking station and don't travel further north. I don't know why a DOO is now considered safe at Boxhill & Westhumble but I think it may be because the platform has been extended so that it is now long enough for a maximum length 10 carriage train to open all doors, whereas the carriage is less than 8 carriages long at Holmwood, Ockley and Warnham. So I presume that the role of the guard at these three stations is to make sure that doors are locked out in the carriages where there is no platform and/or to take appropriate action if the doors in those carriages ever did inadvertently open at those three stations?

So is the argument about guards all about whether or not they are needed at stations that don't have platforms that cover all the carriages on the train? Clearly with reliable enough and properly tested software and adequate camera coverage ] there would seem no real reason why a guard is needed at those stations either as the DOO could also take the appropriate action and call the emergency service if the doors ever opened in a carriage where they shouldn't do at a station with a short platform. Of course the other argument of the unions is that it is less safe if there isn't a guard watching the train as it moves off from the platform but as all doors are now automatic and can't be opened manually from the outside (by ordinary passengers) surely as long as the DOO checks no one is stuck in the doors before moving off it is safe. The main theoretical safety danger would appear to be with someone standing on the platform who still has some piece of clothing or a thin strap stuck between the closed passenger doors (which the door closure sensors I suppose may not pick up)? Other tragedies such as children or youths (especially) as well as some adults running across the track at unmanned foot crossings or only part barriered level crossings and being killed or injured can't be stopped even by a guard.

Of course the other argument by the unions is really about protecting jobs (as some routes already don't need train supervisors in place of guards) and about protecting the pay level for the guard job (as a train supervisor is paid less than a guard it would appear)?

 

[najaB]

The main theoretical safety danger would appear to be with someone standing on the platform who still has some piece of clothing or a thin strap stuck between the closed passenger doors (which the door closure sensors I suppose may not pick up)?

It's not theoretical. There have been at least two such incidents that I'm aware of which, if memory serves, resulted in one death and life changing injuries in the other case.

 

[Capvermell]

It's not theoretical. There have been at least two such incidents that I'm aware of which, if memory serves, resulted in one death and life changing injuries in the other case.

eg this case at www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2017-08-07/train-driver-not-guilty-after-woman-is-dragged-along-platform/
in which the passenger survived as her hand became free before the end of the platform and the driver was also not convicted by the jury perhaps because they felt the systems provided to the driver (in the absence of a guard) were not good enough to prevent this happening. But I suspect had the lady in question been killed then the verdict might have gone the other way, even though the actions of the driver would have been precisely the same................

Or in this recent case involving a tube train at https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/28/hero...assenger-head-got-stuck-train-doors-10474909/ the driver clearly could not have actually moved off but on the face of it surely ought to have faced severe sanctions for not immediately reopening the doors when he could not close them fully.

At the end of the day at any unmanned station a passenger who falls on the track (eg due to fainting or over balancing) with no train in or approaching the station is also significantly more likely to be killed so all these things come down to a balance between economics and cost and the likely probability of such an event happening. Also don't forget that if all very lightly used stations had to be staffed at all train operating times then many of those stations and/or possibly the lines they were on would be at much greater risk of closure on the basis that they were uneconomic to operate. I would suggest one reason that there has been no general continuation of Beeching style closures is precisely because automation has lowered the costs of operating many thinly used stations.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the OPs question has been answered so this can be safely locked at this point.