Not allowed onto platforms without a train ticket

[Ferret]

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?

The train involved stood for 15 minutes in the rush hour. It would've delayed probably around 20 trains directly, and then indirectly delayed umpteen more. Each delay always gets taken back to the root cause of it, so in the end, that incident will have ended up with a tally of maybe 500+ worth of delay minutes. Delay attribution is a right can of worms too - there's a tale on fourfoot about NR picking up a delay because a level crossing fault meant a guard or driver was late for work having been stuck in the jam. NR picked up the delay bill, despite it being arguably the member of staff's responsibility to get to work on time.

As for whether the gateline staff could be disciplined - you'd be surprised. I'd not say it's an absolute given that they would be, but not beyond the realms of possibility either.

 

[Goatboy]

How far does 'seeing someone off' go?

Did you actually just ask this? It obviously goes as far as the initial train and no further.

 

[reb0118]

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.

As far as I'm aware ScotRail were awarded the franchise by Transport Scotland not the DfT whose writ up north only applies to cross - border services. As island states below there is no Penalty Fares Policy in Scotland.

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.

The proper name for ScotRail is Scotrail: Scotland's Railway. ScotRail is at present operated by First Group but if the franchisee changes the name won't, so the operators name does not appear in the branding. (The operator is however allowed to place its name & logo in smaller letters on trains/stations & publications)

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 individuals 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.

Too true, I know of a fellow staff member who was overcarried after helping an elderly gentleman onto the London train at Edinburgh. She was lucky that the first stop was Berwick upon Tweed. She was most embarrassed when she returned but stated that GNER had looked after her wonderfully. Wicked person that I am I arranged for an official looking letter on headed paper to be sent out accusing her of fare dodging and even asking for payment for the cup of tea & executive biscuit she was given enroute. After receiving the letter my colleague was most annoyed until she saw that payment for her unauthorised trip was to sent a Mr. C. Lyon c/o Edinburgh Zoo - if I remember I got an (empty) tea cup launched in my direction. (Probably deserved).

Back to the matter in hand. ScotRail are responsible to Transport Scotland and operate under the SQUIRE regime. Revenue protection is part of this regime. SQUIRE states that at certain times platforms must be barriered and that all persons passing through must be in possession of a valid ticket (or other authority to travel). ScotRail can be fined by Transport Scotland if they are seen to be letting unauthorised persons through Ticket Gates. This is what, in my opinion, is causing the problems at barriers with friends/relatives wishing to escort needy passengers to/from trains.

Forbye the above, I have never seen anybody refused access to the platform areas at Edinburgh & Haymarket to see someone off. I have, however, witnessed two suspicious looking characters being refused access to the platforms when claiming to meet a friend. NB they did not know where their friend was coming from nor even the platform of the train.

I feel in the original scenario it is a policy/training issue and that the barrier staff should be empowered to use their judgement/discretion in these cases with backing from management when things don't go to plan.

Can the forum come up with a foolproof plan for these situations? A plan that allows for great customer service but also can not be taken advantage of by unscrupulous characters ~ over to you..........

 

[Anon Mouse]

you would be surprised the amount of people who travel further than the station they were 'putting Mother' onto by actually boarding the train or even worse having another relative holding doors open or shouting "2 mins mate" while assisting her to her seat, sorting luggage out, hugging, kissing etc etc.....

 

[Ediswan]

I found this on the ScotRail site, under the section for October http://www.scotrail.co.uk/content/mtm-2009.html

Q. Can customers purchase platform tickets for Queen Street Station to allow them to see off family and friends?

A. Unfortunately, platform tickets are no longer available. ScotRail must abide by strict rules that stipulate that all members of the public in areas beyond ticket gates must have valid tickets for travel.

Special arrangements will be made for customers with certain requirements, for example, the elderly or those with restricted mobility.

Which does support the idea that the staff were acting as instructed.
The 'strict rules' may well have been identified as SQUIRE while I was typing. But not as strict as is being claimed.

 

[Wolfie]

I found this on the ScotRail site, under the section for October http://www.scotrail.co.uk/content/mtm-2009.html



Which does support the idea that the staff were acting as instructed.
The 'strict rules' do remain something of a mystery.

Not really - note the "special arrangements will be made for....the elderly"!!!

 

[Ferret]

...or even worse having another relative holding doors open or shouting "2 mins mate" while assisting her to her seat, sorting luggage out, hugging, kissing etc etc.....

That's a regular farce. We often joke that the people who will delay a train like that are the first ones to moan when another train they travel on is 5 minutes late!

 

[455driver]

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.

Could a member of station staff not escort the "elderly and possibly infirm parents" instead of you insisting on doing it yourself?

After all that is what they are there for!

How is refusing to allow a non passenger onto the station "pee-poor customer service" when he isnt a customer?

Use the station staff or lose them, simple as that really.

 

[Ediswan]

Not really - note the "special arrangements will be made for....the elderly"!!!

I did. Those arrangements could be assistance from staff. It does appear that assistance was offered. There is no promise in that Q+A to allow relatives to accompany onto the platform.

 

[yorkie]

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

No, in the examples I gave, they would not travel. Perhaps that is what Scotrail want - after all, they get a huge subsidy regardless, and for long distance passengers most of the money would go to other TOCs, so I guess they just don't care. After all, who can make them care?

 

[khib70]

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.

Happens without fail on every single thread of this type. And its usually the same people dishing it out as well. When there's no suitable threads, there's always the "stupid questions ignorant non-railway people ask" thread to keep the fun going:roll:

 

[Jim_]

you would be surprised the amount of people who travel further than the station they were 'putting Mother' onto by actually boarding the train or even worse having another relative holding doors open or shouting "2 mins mate" while assisting her to her seat, sorting luggage out, hugging, kissing etc etc.....

We used to have a guard's job where if your last train was running early enough you could get an earlier train back to base and book off half an hour early. Most of the time it wasn't really worth the hassle, but one particular guard specialised in this and on one occasion he was in such a hurry that he left a stop while someone was putting an elderly passenger onto the train. In true rail industry style he fronted it out and proceeded to lecture the woman on how she shouldn't have boarded the train if she didn't intend to travel, although he did stop short of selling her a ticket. She was still remonstrating with him as he ran off across the platform to get the early train home.

 

[Ediswan]

SQUIRE states that at certain times platforms must be barriered and that all persons passing through must be in possession of a valid ticket (or other authority to travel). ScotRail can be fined by Transport Scotland if they are seen to be letting unauthorised persons through Ticket Gates. This is what, in my opinion, is causing the problems at barriers with friends/relatives wishing to escort needy passengers to/from trains.

I took a look at the SQUIRE Service Specifications. Number 37 on 'Ticket Collection at Key Stations' matches:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/rail/public-register/38_-_Service_Schedule_37_-_Ticket_Collection_at_key_Stations.pdf

However, it says something rather different, my emphasis. The station would fail IF
"... a ticket has not been checked for its validity ... before a passenger leaves the platform having alighted from a Train."
OR
"... a ticket has not been checked for its validity ... before a passenger goes onto a platform before boarding a Train."

Whoever wrote that document went to the trouble of adding extra words to restrict the tests to passengers who are boarding or alighting from trains. It is possible that ScotRail are using SQUIRE to justify a "must have a valid ticket to be on the platform" policy, but that is not what this document says.

 

[Jim_]

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!

Indeed, and think of how much safer/easier/less stressful the job would be if there were no passengers either :roll:

 

[LCC106]

"And don't get me started on the "one last kiss through the window" crowd!"

Thanks Flamingo, just reminded me of my one last kiss through the window at Birmingham New Street on the evening of the riots!

 

[maniacmartin]

My major gripe with the story isn't about whether one should be allowed onto the platform to see of relatives, but that ScotRail's response was a pack of lies. Why don't they just say it's for revenue protection or to prevent delay minutes etc.

So many companies try to do damage control by trying to hoodwink us, but I don't think they realise just how obvious their slimy tricks are (unless the majority of the public just believe everything they're told...)

 

[221129]

At the end of the day its not your choice its up to the gateline and this is becoming more widespread now its up to the gateline attendant and know one else! also there are now signs up at taunton indicating that it does look like company policy.

 

[Ferret]

My major gripe with the story isn't about whether one should be allowed onto the platform to see of relatives, but that ScotRail's response was a pack of lies. Why don't they just say it's for revenue protection or to prevent delay minutes etc.

So many companies try to do damage control by trying to hoodwink us, but I don't think they realise just how obvious their slimy tricks are (unless the majority of the public just believe everything they're told...)

Absolutely spot on. I imagine plenty of people saw through the 'security' piffle.

 

[Greenback]

I agree, too, this type of damage control is extremely tedious.

 

[Ferret]

I agree, too, this type of damage control is extremely tedious.

It would be good for once if a Customer Relations or press department backed their staff and gave a plausible and concise reason explaining why the staff acted as they did.

Part of this story is the modern trend for questioning the decisions of somebody in authority. Yes, the staff could have shown discretion and allowed the person through, but they are not obliged to. Where the staff were categorically in the wrong was suggesting buying a return ticket, and any criticism of that nonsense would be entirely valid. But, they were empowered to make the decision not to allow access to the platform, may well have had good reasons for that decision, and the company should back them and say why. Rather that, than the current way of doing things whereby somebody in authority saying 'no' is merely seen as the opening of a debate.

 

[Greenback]

It would be good for once if a Customer Relations or press department backed their staff and gave a plausible and concise reason explaining why the staff acted as they did.

I wish there was more honesty about in Customer Relations and PR depts. (I used to work in the former). I see nothing wrong in addressing conerns directly, and either providing a genuine apology for specific errors, or a full explanation where staff have acted correctly.

Part of this story is the modern trend for questioning the decisions of somebody in authority. Yes, the staff could have shown discretion and allowed the person through, but they are not obliged to. Where the staff were categorically in the wrong was suggesting buying a return ticket, and any criticism of that nonsense would be entirely valid.

In tunr this is part of everyone 'knowing thei rights'.

But, they were empowered to make the decision not to allow access to the platform, may well have had good reasons for that decision, and the company should back them and say why.

I agree that it would be preferable to explain the circumstances whereby access could be refused. As you say, it may well be that staff had good reason at that particular time.

I think it is fine to challenge a decision, through the company, and this is where such an explanation would be useful. It is also possible that there was no good reason, though.

I must say that I usually find that debates start because a company ha snot communicated its position in an effective way, which is where we came in with this post!

 

[Flamingo]

Indeed, and think of how much safer/easier/less stressful the job would be if there were no passengers either :roll:

That's the whole point. They aren't passengers.

Train dispatch is a major safety minefield, witness the case in Liverpool. I know first-hand how distracting non- travelling public on a platform can be, especially at an unmanned station. I know how dangerous that "last kiss" through the window can be - here is a scenario for you, let's suppose that the female, potentially drunk, on drugs, in high heels ( sounds familiar - it should) trips whilst walking alongside the train having that last kiss... Should I as a guard have hit an emergency stop as soon as I see her starting to walk and physically remove her, or stand there waiting for her to finish her snog and leave the platform? If I don't do that, I'm facing five years for manslaughter, she's in a pine box (or two). If I do, then the train is delayed, and somebody (maybe you) will miss that six minute connection at Newport and is having to wait for over an hour for your next connection ( moaning about "Bloody trains never on time"). If the goodbye was said at the station barrier, the problem (either delays to the legitimate travellers, or my date with the Coroner/Judge) is avoided.

But hey, if that happens it's my fault for being an unprofessional liability.

In a touchy-feely world, where the customer is always right, some of these rules may grate with people. The fact tht they may be there for the safety and convenience of passengers as a whole may be an unpleasant truth, but some people need to realise that it may not always be about them, and that sometimes the professionals do things for a reason.

 

[Jim_]

That's the whole point. They aren't passengers.

The railway should be organised to suit the passengers, including those that may have family and friends who wish to see them off, and not for the convenience of the staff.

(You edited after I replied, so here's my edit.)

The OP was about entering a platform to see an elderly relative off. We're not talking about intoxication, high heels, people running alongside trains etc. The James Street example is hardly relevant as she was a passenger anyway. Yes we could ban people who have been drinking, high heels, non-passengers, pushchairs, bicycles, the list goes on and on.

There always has to be a balance between safety and customer service. It's all very well saying safety is the last word (or "security" as was the case here) but ultimately if there are no passengers then there's no railway. Of course, if one takes the view that a section of the public has absolutely no choice but to use the railways then all notions of customer service can be put aside and I've heard that sentiment expressed by more than one senior manager.

I've refused to carry people before because they were drunk and at the time I was happy that I was doing my job and ensuring the safety of the train and the travelling public. Looking back I was probably just being a bit of an officious **** but it's all too easy to take an "us and them" attitude to passengers when you work in the industry and deal with all the abuse and crap every day.

 

[Flamingo]

The railway should be organised to suit the passengers, including those that may have family and friends who wish to see them off, and not for the convenience of the staff.

Read the rest of the post. Try and get your head around the fact that there may be a reason that goes beyond "I want to **** somebody off today".

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I know this is a minor point but

Ms MacGregor ... said: “I went to the ticket office to see about a platform ticket but was told that in order to go on the platform I would need to buy a train ticket.

“The cheapest one was to Broughty Ferry and in desperation I agreed to purchase one.

“Then I was told I would have to buy a return ticket because I would need to be able to get both in and out of the barriers.”

The ticket she was prepared to buy would probably have cost £1.30 but apparently the extra 80p for the return was unthinkable?

If I'd been there I would probably have bought her a ticket just to get a bit of peace.

 

[3141]

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........

You make some serious points here - and you'll know from my previous post that my sympathies are with the member of the public in this case, though I did in my own post put in the words "if true".

But then, as this report indicates, there's nothing to prevent someone buying the cheapest single ticket, going onto the platform to help the aged relative, and still being on the train when it departs, thereafter pulling the emergency handle and causing all the delays and problems that you've referred to.

There isn't a 100% right answer, but common sense would suggest allowing someone onto the platform in the circumstances.

 

[Westboy]

I know this is a minor point but



The ticket she was prepared to buy would probably have cost £1.30 but apparently the extra 80p for the return was unthinkable?

If I'd been there I would probably have bought her a ticket just to get a bit of peace.

£2.10 is the cost of a school meal in many areas for example. To some people that is not a trivial sum.

I see it frequently with some of the kids I teach who have to pay in coppers because that is all the parents can scrape together. Sadly that is getting increasingly common.

 

[Flamingo]

Everybody who wants to see somebody off has a good reason. The chap who distracted my colleague last year, resulting in a door open on dispatch and two cancelled trains doesn't even know the chaos he was instrumental in causing.

Where is the line drawn? It has to include somebody.

 

[Tom B]

I wish there was more honesty about in Customer Relations and PR depts. (I used to work in the former). I see nothing wrong in addressing conerns directly, and either providing a genuine apology for specific errors, or a full explanation where staff have acted correctly.

Honesty is also appreciated by those newspaper readers etc with more than a few braincells, who can see through the bull****.

So, depending on what actually occurred, they could have put in the press release either...

"Unfortunately in this instance Miss X became abusive towards our employees, therefore they exercised their discretion and didn't allow her access to the premises."

or...

"Unfortunately on this occasion a mistake was made by one of our staff. We have issued a reminder to all staff about the appropriate use of platform tickets, and apologised to Miss X for the inconvenience".

Hence either showing a robust reason for why it happened, or apologising for a mistake and showing that it will be put right.

 

[sheff1]

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.

A statement which was, at best, misinformed. At worst, a blatant lie.