Not allowed onto platforms without a train ticket

[yorkie]

Interesting how anything that reflects the railway badly in the media is a shoddy/poor/pathetic "excuse for journalism."

Is it timely? Yes. It was filed shortly after the event.
Is it relevant? Yes, Dundee station is the local station for many readers.
Proximity? Yes, the woman in question is from Dundee.
Is there a conflict? Yes, ScotRail refused to allow a woman to assist her elderly parents.

The only shoddy journalism comes from ScotRail's PR - all the bull in this article is attributed to them, not the journalist who wrote the story.

Totally agreed!

Scotrail got what's coming to them. They had their chance to apologise, but no, they stated it's their policy to do this. Shocking!

 

[wintonian]

and even SWT do not have any!

That gave me an idea, does that mean SWT staff cannot enter the LO platforms at clapham without a valid ticket for travel?

 

[Clip]

That can apply to both passengers and staff. I know well; I've witnessed such behaviour myself. In both cases, it is of course, a minority. But it's an avoidable minority in the case of staff, if proper safeguards & 'mystery shopping' were in place by the rail industry to ensure only suitable people obtained, and remained in, such jobs.

Oh I totally agree. It pains me why we bother to have mystery shops because half the time our hands are tied by HR in getting rid of poor performers across the board.

The trouble is is that the minority of rail staff are the ones that make the headlines and no matter what gets said in their defence from othe eye witnesses and such like it seems with some companies the customer is always right. That applies to all CS focused jobs.

Or the staff get called jobsworths. The same jobsworths they would rely on totally in an emergency situation

 

[Mojo]

They missed the LO platforms at Clapham Jn though (or maybe they became CTAs after March 2012? I thought it was prior to that though)

The person at the DfT has provided the wrong description for that list. It should probably be something like "Compulsory Ticket Areas for DfT approved penalty fares schemes." Penalty fares on the Overground (and LUL/DLR) are charged under different regulations, overseen by TfL/GLA/the Mayor.

 

[PhilipW]

If not being allowed onto a platform without a ticket is barred for security reasons, as ScotRail assert, then it must follow that ticket barriers need to be manned at all times.

Oops, I think we have just seen the flaw in their argument.

 

[Bedpan]

Agree 100% with this.

If my mother thought she would not be met and seen off on the return she would not have travelled. Some sons may think this would be a good result !

Sons in law rather than sons, surely! Or maybe the wives of the sons.

 

[3141]

Isn't it interesting that when there's a report of something which, if true, shows an unreasonable and completely unhelpful attitude by the staff involved, certain people on the forum assume it must have been because of the "attitude" of the member of the public, and that they must have been making an unjustifiable fuss because it's been reported to a newspaper. And the Scotrail PR people have reacted in the same sort of way, making inaccurate claims about a national policy.

As for those who ask whether one would expect to escort elderly parents onto a plane, as if that question proves that wanting to help them onto the train is unnecessary, the answer is that for a plane journey you can check your luggage in and don't have to carry it to the plane, and if the passenger is in any way frail or infirm the airport will provide a motorised vehicle, or at the very least a wheelchair, to get them there.

 

[swj99]

So it stands to reason that some people on here, mainly ones who work in a face to face environment would question just that having come across people who are just down right rude from the start and get more so when they dont get their way.

I'm not sure if I understand what you've said there, or how it's relevant to what I said about attitude.

 

[Welshman]

I would strongly disagree with this statement. When my mother (then in her 70s and 80s) used to come down and visit us, I felt it was my absolute duty to make sure that she got on the train in the right carriage and in her booked seat with her luggage sorted. Coming down from Lancashire to Hampshire this was a big journey for her.

Fortunately this was from a station where there were no barriers (and still aren't) so I never had a problem. Even if there had been barriers I still would not have taken too kindly to "handing her over" to a member of staff to look after her.

Looking after your mother in old age, that's what sons are for. Seeing her correctly boarded on long distance trains is part of that responsibility.

Agreed wholeheartedly.
And how refreshing and re-assuring to find someone with such an attitude today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you expect to take her to the plane at the airport?

Not a particularly helpful analogy, I'm afraid, until it becomes necessary to endure security, immigration/emigration and even passport checks before boarding a train.

 

[wintonian]

Not a particularly helpful analogy, I'm afraid, until it becomes necessary to endure security, immigration/emigration and even passport checks before boarding a train.

Perhaps a better question to ask then is; would people take their visiting relatives directly onto the Eurostar?

 

[Wath Yard]

Or perhaps an even better question is people have been seeing their friends/relatives/partners off or meeting them on station platforms for generations so what right does a TOC have to prevent them from continuing to do so?

 

[wintonian]

People have been walking on to station platforms wandering around and possibly getting on a train without obstruction for decades, what gives the TOC the right to put these nasty barriers in our way?

Just because something is established custom does not mean it will rain so for ever.

 

[Wath Yard]

Oh I see, seeing off relatives is actually a criminal offence comparable to fare evasion. I understand now.

 

[s2345]

Dundee is my local station and I suspect that this topic is, for a reason that I'm not sure of, a station mangement favourite. At least a year ago now there was a A4 piece of paper stuck on the staffed wide access gate that stated in bold and underlined text that access to the platform was for valid ticket holders only and that there would be no exceptions to this policy. It was still there (as far as I remember) when I went through the station last week. I've never seen an equivalent 'handmade' notice (it looked like someone had typed in up in Word) anywhere else on the ScotRail network.

In saying that I have personally seen gateline staff adopt a commonsense approach and allowed people waiting at the barrier to help those having difficulty with luggage get to/from the platform. Usually when the they can be seen struggling from the other side of the gate and staff are busy dealing with the flow of other passengers off the arriving train. I suspect it is dependent on the member of staff concerned though. It's hardly like Dundee is a particularly large or confusing station, and there is usually staff readily available to help passengers onto trains if requested to.

 

[SPADTrap]

That would be a sensible assumption. I was surprised to see you ask the question!

That's what happened when I did York to London alone when I was 12, and what happened when my grandmother travelled York to London (until that was deemed not satisfactory enough and she had to be accompanied).

Scotrail are either mistaken or lying when they claim it's a nationwide thing. Scotrail are the only TOC that I know of with that policy. Shame on them!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you totally! What ever happened to discretion?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If not being allowed onto a platform without a ticket is barred for security reasons, as ScotRail assert, then it must follow that ticket barriers need to be manned at all times.

Oops, I think we have just seen the flaw in their argument.

Think this hit the nail on the head really

 

[VauxhallandI]

Sorry to repeat myself but-

Would you expect to take her to the plane at the airport?

I see you're all heart again

 

[island]

Have to agree there. As with so called health and safety rules, security is used as an excuse for organizations to do what they like, and is sometimes used far beyond what the rules were originally intended for. I would have thought a formal complaint to ScotRail would be appropriate here, in addition to a letter to DfT notifying them of a breach of their Penalty Fares Policy.

First ScotRail (why do people always leave out the First from ScotRail but never from Capital Connect or Great Western?) does not have a Penalty Fares scheme and is therefore not in breach of any Penalty Fares policy. They have however been judged in the courts of Public Opinion and Common Sense, and apparently been found guilty.

 

[Welshman]

Perhaps a better question to ask then is; would people take their visiting relatives directly onto the Eurostar?

No, not really.

People would not expect to take their aged visiting relatives on to the Eurostar, because they realise that with all travel overseas there are customs, security and passport regulations.

But, as Wath Yard implies, when the barrier is only for revenue-protection purposes, then they would expect to be allowed to carry their luggage over the bridge to the train, as they have been doing it since Robert Stephenson's age!

At the risk of over-statement, a better question would be:- would people take their visiting relatives to the actual coach stand at the bus station and wait with them until the coach is loaded and then wave them off, or be told to leave them on the street outside?

 

[blacknight]

That can apply to both passengers and staff. I know well; I've witnessed such behaviour myself. In both cases, it is of course, a minority. But it's an avoidable minority in the case of staff, if proper safeguards & 'mystery shopping' were in place by the rail industry to ensure only suitable people obtained, and remained in, such jobs.

Could you expand on your theory how suitable staff remain in post, surely they were deem suitable at job interview & then passed probationary period.
For example if you don't do any ticket checks then in theory no complaints are registered so you are doing job correctly. Takes the biscuit when non travelling public complain about not being let out quick enough after seeing off whilst dealing with fare paying passengers.

 

[87015]

Perhaps a better question to ask then is; would people take their visiting relatives directly onto the Eurostar?

If it wasn't through security and customs, most probably. You see plenty of it with international trains in Europe, be it a Warsaw train at Berlin or Bucharest train at Sofia.

 

[455driver]

I see you're all heart again

You know me so well!

The relevant points-

1/ None of us know what happened at the gateline.
2/ The staff member (probably) could have been a bit more understanding, depending on 1/.
3/ SR press office spouting their usual rubbish making things look worse than they are by trying to bullsh*t everyone (as press offices normally do).

Isnt it funny that people NOT in a customer facing role always blame the (nasty) staff member but people IN a customer facing role usually blame the pax!

 

[Lampshade]

Perhaps a better question to ask then is; would people take their visiting relatives directly onto the Eurostar?

Again, immigration/passport control. In continental Europe services to other countries are as open as the domestic services.

 

[Flamingo]

So lets get this straight. The only facts that we are aware of is that somebody asked to for the rules to be broken in their favour to allow them to go to the train. The member of staff refused (for whatever reason). The person then contacted the press. The company involved, after investigating, decided the member of staff had acted reasonably, and issued a statement to that effect.

Just as a general point, a lot of people seeing off loved ones on the platform are, at best, an annoying distraction and at worst a danger to themselves and others. I have know incidents which have occured with staff getting distracted resulting in door not being closed or signals not being checked as somebody was demanding the staff's attention to ensure Granny gets off at London, or who is going to carry her case. And don't get me started on the "one last kiss through the window" crowd!

 

[MattRobinson]

How far does 'seeing someone off' go? If they have to change trains, do you have to accompany them to that station? Should you take them all the way home to make sure they arrive safely? I'm sure a lot of people would find that kind of attitude patronising...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[marks87]

Would you expect to take her to the plane at the airport?

Some airlines provide "gate passes" which allow you to pass through security (subject to the usual checks, scans etc.). They're mostly used to allow parents to the gate with unaccompanied minors, but can be issued to anyone at an airline's discretion.

It's not a CTA, there are very few CTAs on the National Rail network (Scotrail have none and even SWT do not have any!). Where CTAs exist, part of the legislation covering them obliges operators to make provisions for passengers to access platforms.

Couldn't it be argued that, because CTAs have legislative provision for platform access, non-CTAs have said access by default? Otherwise we're in a situation where stations that legally require a ticket to access certain are less "protected" than those with simple ticket barriers.

 

[Ferret]

How far does 'seeing someone off' go? If they have to change trains, do you have to accompany them to that station? Should you take them all the way home to make sure they arrive safely? I'm sure a lot of people would find that kind of attitude patronising...

Often 'seeing somebody off' results in an unintentional trip. Or as an extreme example, one of my colleagues left a large station in the northeast, and was just about to go through to do a ticket check when the brakes went in hard. Somebody had pulled the egress handle. The driver saw this on his computer screen, thought somebody had bailed out so put track circuit clips down and made an emergency call, thus stopping the job. It turned out that a man had been putting his mother on the train, and the train departed with him still on board. He decided that having his car parked in the short stay constituted an emergency, so he pulled the egress handle, but thankfully did not alight from the train! Total cost of this individual's antics - I dread to think, bearing in mind the job was stopped at the entrance/exit of a major hub station for 15 minutes...:roll:

Btw, this large station is barriered, so somebody had let this individual through to put his mother in the train. OK, this is an extreme example of what can result from what was originally perhaps some good PR/customer service - usually it's just a passcom that gets pulled and only a few minutes are lost. It does provide some context to what some people are saying on this thread though.

 

[Wolfie]

The fact that it ended up in the paper (I mean, would you go to a journo over something like this?) smacks of a severe attitude failure by the (non) passenger in the first place!

Really? I am afraid that if I was seeing off elderly and possibly infirm parents and met the type of "jobsworth" individual or company described in the article I would take it further too. There is no excuse for pee-poor customer service and perhaps companys/individuals which provide it deserve to be regularly kicked until they either change or rightly loose their contract/employment- the Great British stiff upper lip has not worked so lets try the aggressive US-style approach.....

Scotrail (yet another "Worst" company with a severe attiude - thank the lord the wasters did not get the WCML!) have tried to be clever by invoking the great god "security" (total and complete balls incidentally!) - lets see what happens when the politicos who award their contract get involved......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't it interesting that when there's a report of something which, if true, shows an unreasonable and completely unhelpful attitude by the staff involved, certain people on the forum assume it must have been because of the "attitude" of the member of the public, and that they must have been making an unjustifiable fuss because it's been reported to a newspaper. And the Scotrail PR people have reacted in the same sort of way, making inaccurate claims about a national policy.

Absolutely spot on. While I find this forum very interesting the rail industry "wagon circling" which goes on at times in an attempt to defend the indefensible is truely bizarre.

 

[Ediswan]

I just spotted something else. Surely the "have to buy a return to get back through the barriers" is also twaddle. Buy a single, then decide not to travel. I don't see anything in the NRCOC to prevent that. Unlikely to get refund for such a cheap fare, but cheaper than the return.

 

[Ferret]

Absolutely spot on. While I find this forum very interesting the rail industry "wagon circling" which goes on at times in an attempt to defend the indefensible is truely bizarre.

I think because those of us who are railway staff see on an almost daily basis some bloody unreasonable behaviour from passengers and even non-passengers, it's fair to say that we can imagine things aren't always as they seem. We also see some bloody unreasonable behaviour from our colleagues so we can also imagine that the newspaper report may be quite accurate. I think what staff object to is the automatic assumption that because a passenger is aggrieved, then the staff are automatically in the wrong. How many times have we seen prosecution threads on here where somebody is moaning left, right and centre about the staff being evil and nasty, then some of us ask questions to find they are completely guilty of evading the fare and are completely in the wrong!

So far as I can see, the only thing that's utterly indefensible is the gibber from Scotrail's press office about 'security'. The rest is open to conjecture - none of us were there.

As a final thought - let's imagine you are one of the passengers on a delayed train the other week, as a result of the egress handle incident I mentioned earlier. Would you be a tad hacked off with the person concerned who caused you to be late?

Or, imagine you are the member of gateline staff who allowed that chap through the barrier to put his mother on, and your decision was the root cause of 500+ delay minutes. The boss drags you in and goes mental about the delay repay bill and if you were really unlucky, the delay attribution bill, and disciplines you. Would you or any of your colleagues let somebody through to put Mother on the train next time? Things aren't always black and white........

 

[Paule23]

Or, imagine you are the member of gateline staff who allowed that chap through the barrier to put his mother on, and your decision was the root cause of 500+ delay minutes.....

How could this lead to 500+ delay minutes? I know they could do the same 'pull handle' trick, but so could any passenger for any spurious reason and the gate line staff would not be held responsible for letting that customer through (or would they?). But back to my original point, where does 500 minutes come from?