NXEA almost leaving me stranded...

[hairyhandedfool]

Recognised or not, it doesn't change the fact that, if I had one ticket ending at Kings Cross and another starting at St Pancras, I wouldn't have a ticket covering Kings Cross to St Pancras. The logic given in this thread is that because they are not the same station you need an underground ticket to have a 'through ticket'. So would I need a ticket or not?

What if the connection was Kings Cross to Euston? It would be as quick for me to walk as it would to get the tube, but would I have to pay for that just to count as having a through ticket?

 

[AlterEgo]

Returning to the question, I still say that the diversionary route wasn't unreasonable. Thered be the opportunity to sleep on the HST etc. Given that he (possibly) doesn't have the required continuity of through journey, this is possibly over and above what was entitled.

He did have the required continuity of journey, and asking someone to sleep upright, on a Standard class HST seat as opposed to in their bed for the night is not something I'd like to endure.

I think Barry Doe wrote about the issue of continuous tickets needed to 'protect' your through journey - by having a tube/maltese ticket for the cross-London bit, and how getting a taxi etc breaks the chain.

Barry Doe does not write The Manual, or the NRCoC, which is all that matters.

 

[yorkie]

The recognised interchange between KX and STP is walking across the road. The recognised interchange between LST and EUS is tube, for which a ticket is needed.

That's your opinion! It's not what the NRT says! The NRT says that for "all" interchanges it's "based" on the use of LU.

There is no exception for KGX <> STP. Yes, you can make up the exception yourself based on common sense, but there is no actual exception. Why is that? The answer is simple: there doesn't need to be!

I think Barry Doe wrote about the issue of continuous tickets needed to 'protect' your through journey - by having a tube/maltese ticket for the cross-London bit, and how getting a taxi etc breaks the chain.

I totally respect Barry Doe's opinions, and he is right the vast majority of the time, but he isn't any more authoritative than anyone here.

Returning to the question, I still say that the diversionary route wasn't unreasonable. Thered be the opportunity to sleep on the HST etc. Given that he (possibly) doesn't have the required continuity of through journey, this is possibly over and above what was entitled.

It's fair that it was offered but whether it is a "reasonable" or viable itinerary is subjective and people should have the right to refuse it if they wish.

For example, depending on my plans for the next day and what stuff I had with me, I may or may not refuse it.

 

[ainsworth74]

The recognised interchange between KX and STP is walking across the road.

Can you provide a source for this please as there is nothing in the NRT that states this is the case?

 

[AlterEgo]

The recognised interchange between KX and STP is walking across the road.

No, a journey planner will tell you to take the Tube, usually!

 

[jon0844]

How do you take the tube to the same station though? Go through the gate, then come back out again?!

I can see some systems being stupid enough to show this in a route guide mind.

 

[AlterEgo]

How do you take the tube to the same station though? Go through the gate, then come back out again?!

I can see some systems being stupid enough to show this in a route guide mind.

I know of at least one system that will suggest this...intelligent people will ignore this advice but hey...

 

[jon0844]

I wonder if gateline staff actually get queries from people that then go on to show an itinerary from an online booking engine, travel agent or whatever - only to be told that they should just turn around and follow the signs for St Pancras (or King's Cross).

 

[LondonJohn]

As much as I sympathise with the OP and their predicament leaving such a short amount of time time between arriving and departing trains is asking for trouble.

Whilst I understand that the minimum connecting time is 43 minutes and he allowed more than that (though I would suggest that the advice of adding more in the evening would be 10-15 mins or longer for trains less frequent).

Would you allow the same minimum time if it was to get the last train home for Christmas or for a holiday of a lifetime. ?

Whilst insurance would cover the latter scenario, you would still be out of pocket having an excess to pay and having a holiday cut short.

It amazes me what risks people are going to take to get the cheapest options. A higher fare will get you a bit more flexibility.

That said I think the customer services shown (mainly lack of) by NXEA are severly lacking but they don't really care.

 

[jon0844]

For a holiday of a lifetime, you might go earlier - but to simply get home?

Sent from my Sinclair Spectrum via Tapatalk

 

[MarkyMarkD]

I recently undertook a journey with 4 VERY tight connections ending up on the last train of the evening to my destination.

I couldn't catch an earlier train at the outset without having a half-day off work.

That is why I undertook this challenging itinerary.

It is not unreasonable for passengers to expect the rail service to deliver what is contractually promised - which is delivery to the destination, via the services expected, or via alternative transport if delays lead to missed connections. That is what the OP expected and that is what I would expect, not being told I am foolish for undertaking a journey with difficult connections.

Incidentally, I DID miss one of my very tight connections, but fortunately because it was on the Waterloo - Clapham Junction leg, there was another train within 10 minutes which got me back on track. It was a close-run thing, though.

I agree with others' comments regarding the undertaking of "risky" journies like this where arriving at the destination, on time, is essential - e.g. to catch a plane. But if your only requirement is to arrive at the destination, that night - as was mine - then reliance on the contractual commitment of the TOCs to get you there should be sufficient.

 

[Greenback]

As much as I sympathise with the OP and their predicament leaving such a short amount of time time between arriving and departing trains is asking for trouble.

Whilst I understand that the minimum connecting time is 43 minutes and he allowed more than that (though I would suggest that the advice of adding more in the evening would be 10-15 mins or longer for trains less frequent).

Would you allow the same minimum time if it was to get the last train home for Christmas or for a holiday of a lifetime. ?

Whilst insurance would cover the latter scenario, you would still be out of pocket having an excess to pay and having a holiday cut short.

It amazes me what risks people are going to take to get the cheapest options. A higher fare will get you a bit more flexibility.

That said I think the customer services shown (mainly lack of) by NXEA are severly lacking but they don't really care.

Some people have no choice but to risk short connection times if they want to get home. Regardless of advice, sometimes it's the only possible way to get home.

 

[snail]

Some people have no choice but to risk short connection times if they want to get home. Regardless of advice, sometimes it's the only possible way to get home.

Yes, that's why it is only suggested that passengers leave more time at night and on weekends. I managed to get home in one day from Nice a while back via Paris, Waterloo and Euston using some very tight timings. I knew the risk of missing any one of the connections but it was the only practical way of travelling 1100 miles in one day by train. The risk was paying for a night in an hotel, the alternative was, errm, paying for a night in an hotel.

I would hope it's easier from Norwich but sometimes you don't get the choice. The OP isn't telling us why he left his originating station as late as he did, and I don't particularly want to know as it's none of my business.

One question I have reading all this - what would have happened in BR days when it was, in theory at least, a joined-up railway?

 

[yorkie]

As much as I sympathise with the OP and their predicament leaving such a short amount of time time between arriving and departing trains is asking for trouble.

The OP has done nothing wrong, I hope you are not suggesting he has?

However if you are suggesting that the Rail industry is wrong for making the minimum connection time 43 minutes, you could take that up with ATOC. However I do have to question whether it really needs to be longer than that?! If you make the connection times too long, people will be more likely to ditch the train and use other mods as end-to-end journey times become too long.

Whilst I understand that the minimum connecting time is 43 minutes and he allowed more than that (though I would suggest that the advice of adding more in the evening would be 10-15 mins or longer for trains less frequent).

So you accept the OP did nothing wrong; so what's the purpose of this post?

Would you allow the same minimum time if it was to get the last train home for Christmas or for a holiday of a lifetime. ?

Whilst insurance would cover the latter scenario, you would still be out of pocket having an excess to pay and having a holiday cut short.

This is getting daft. The journey was a rail journey. If the journey was rail and plane, then more time would need to be allowed to interchange between modes, as we do not have a system that recognises a rail + air journey as one journey, so the OP would not be covered in the event. This is going way off topic and is of no relevance to the OPs scenario.

It amazes me what risks people are going to take to get the cheapest options. A higher fare will get you a bit more flexibility.

The OP took no "risks" other than the risk you always take when travelling by train (or any other mode of transport) which is that there is a chance of delay.

The OP did not need flexibility, so why suggest it? What benefit would "a higher fare" (what fare?) have brought to the OP in this case?

That said I think the customer services shown (mainly lack of) by NXEA are severly lacking but they don't really care.

Agreed.

 

[Mojo]

Whilst I understand that the minimum connecting time is 43 minutes and he allowed more than that (though I would suggest that the advice of adding more in the evening would be 10-15 mins or longer for trains less frequent).

What trains are less frequent?

The Metropolitan and Hammersmith & Circle lines run to the same advertised frequency during the day (off-peak) as they do at 9pm.

 

[jon0844]

The time given to get through London by tube is already extremely generous, and surely the industry sets a fair connection time and then accepts the 'risk' for any delays thereafter?

The cost for the odd hotel or taxi is far less than imposing a 1 or 2 hour connection time, thus losing all of your passengers in the process.

I am sure airlines factor in these costs/risks when they have passengers that will take connecting flights (even if only on the same carrier/code share group). Some airlines implicitly don't - like Ryanair - at least not unless you take their insurance (I presume they do then cover this?).

If a plane is very late, a connecting flight won't wait. The passenger won't be left stranded, nor expected to simply sit at the airport for hours if the next flight is ages away. If there's not a hotel, there's even a chance they'll pay for a passenger to use another airline (and I am sure they have reciprocal agreements to do this, rather than paying full fare).

I'd expect most TOCs to have some sort of contract with a taxi firm or hotel chain. So why not use them when things like the OP's situation happens?

 

[EM2]

I wonder if gateline staff actually get queries from people that then go on to show an itinerary from an online booking engine, travel agent or whatever - only to be told that they should just turn around and follow the signs for St Pancras (or King's Cross).

All the time!
Especially when NRE tells them it takes ten minutes, to get from platform 13 at STP to platform 8 at KGX...

 

[34D]

That's your opinion! It's not what the NRT says! The NRT says that for "all" interchanges it's "based" on the use of LU.

There is no exception for KGX <> STP. Yes, you can make up the exception yourself based on common sense, but there is no actual exception. Why is that? The answer is simple: there doesn't need to be!

Yorkie, I'm sure that your knowledge of the London tube/rail network is good enough to know that st panc is literally across the road from kings cross, they share a tube station, and there is no tube service that goes between them.

To hammer home the point however, can I suggest you search for a journey such as Stevenage to Ebbsfleet, or Cuffley to Luton, and you'll see that you are instructed to walk - this is a walking interchange like Harringay West-Harringay Green Lanes or like between the three west hampstead stations (overground, jubilee and thameslink).

It is indeed, like going from liverpool street national rail to liverpool street LU (instructed to walk).

And yes, the interchange between st pancras and euston is northern/victoria line (though I agree walking is no slower, and more sensible).

Can I ask why people are labouring this point please. Is it just simply to pedantically point out that the pdf timetable doesn't instruct you to walk from one to the other?

Are we in agreement that holding tickets cuffley-kings cross and st panc to luton DOES cover the complete journey, but holding norwich-liverpool street and euston-stoke does not cover the complete journey?

You'll note in the above paragraph I specify the name of the london station rather than saying london terminals - this is because (when discssing a delayed journey) it is the actual route/service taken that matters rather than the valid routes.

 

[bb21]

The fact that the tickets say London Terminals on them is relevant.

Are you saying that if I buy a ticket to London Terminals and another from London Terminals then it is not always a continuous journey? Are passengers supposed to know that if they go into King's Cross and out of St Pancras then it is a continuous journey whereas if they travel into Moorgate (perfectly allowed on some tickets valid into King's Cross) then it will not be a continuous journey? What about two tickets valid into Waterloo (but travelling into Victoria) and out of Waterloo East?

 

[ainsworth74]

Can I ask you 34D to provide the sources for your statements because they seem to contravene everything else written down in the public domain?

 

[sheff1]

Are we in agreement that holding tickets cuffley-kings cross and st panc to luton DOES cover the complete journey, but holding norwich-liverpool street and euston-stoke does not cover the complete journey?

No.

Not least because the tickets will state Cuffley - London Terminals; Norwich - London Terminals. No mention of Kings Cross or Liverpool St on the tickets.

Which source are you getting your information from ?

 

[Greenback]

The whole point of London Terminals is to signify that a ticket may be valid to mor ethan one London station.

If I have an off peak ticket from Llanelli to London Terminals, and another from London Terminals to Woking, does that mean that if my train to London is delayed I should be treated differently depending on whether I choose to travel into Paddington or Waterloo?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....To hammer home the point however, can I suggest you search for a journey such as Stevenage to Ebbsfleet, or Cuffley to Luton, and you'll see that you are instructed to walk - this is a walking interchange like Harringay West-Harringay Green Lanes or like between the three west hampstead stations (overground, jubilee and thameslink)....

....Can I ask why people are labouring this point please. Is it just simply to pedantically point out that the pdf timetable doesn't instruct you to walk from one to the other?

Are we in agreement that holding tickets cuffley-kings cross and st panc to luton DOES cover the complete journey, but holding norwich-liverpool street and euston-stoke does not cover the complete journey?....

You make the point that a ticket into Liverpool Street and out of Euston does not cover the whole journey, yet when it comes to a ticket into Kings Cross and out of St Pancras it is.

So, the point which I am making is that if a ticket is only valid to or from a terminal station then a ticket into Kings Cross and another out of St Pancras can never be used as a through ticket unless you buy an underground ticket between the two, despite the fact that it is quite impossible to do that.

If, however, you think that you do not need a ticket and the whole journey is covered then why do you need to have a ticket from Liverpool Street to Euston?

NRCoC states that you can use more than one ticket for a longer journey provided they cover the entire journey and either (a) they are both zonal tickets, (b) one is a season and the other is not, or, (c) the train stops where the tickets change over.

Given that every part of the National Rail Journey is covered in both examples, where does the Kings Cross-St Pancras option pass condition 19 and the Liverpool Street-Euston example fail?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yorkie, I'm sure that your knowledge of the London tube/rail network is good enough to know that st panc is literally across the road from kings cross, they share a tube station, and there is no tube service that goes between them.

To hammer home the point however, can I suggest you search for a journey such as Stevenage to Ebbsfleet, or Cuffley to Luton, and you'll see that you are instructed to walk - this is a walking interchange like Harringay West-Harringay Green Lanes or like between the three west hampstead stations (overground, jubilee and thameslink).

It is indeed, like going from liverpool street national rail to liverpool street LU (instructed to walk).

And yes, the interchange between st pancras and euston is northern/victoria line (though I agree walking is no slower, and more sensible).

Can I ask why people are labouring this point please. Is it just simply to pedantically point out that the pdf timetable doesn't instruct you to walk from one to the other?

Are we in agreement that holding tickets cuffley-kings cross and st panc to luton DOES cover the complete journey, but holding norwich-liverpool street and euston-stoke does not cover the complete journey?

You'll note in the above paragraph I specify the name of the london station rather than saying london terminals - this is because (when discssing a delayed journey) it is the actual route/service taken that matters rather than the valid routes.

I'll repeat my earlier post, number 58...

To the people who dispute that the tickets join at London Terminals, consider this:

I have a Stourbridge Jn - Birmingham Stns ticket, and an Advance between Birmingham Stns and Watford Jn. If my Stourbridge train is late into Moor St, causing me to miss my booked train, does that mean when I cross the road and present myself at New Street, that I'm not covered for the delay?

Bear in mind I can only walk between the two.

 

[LondonJohn]

The OP has done nothing wrong, I hope you are not suggesting he has?

However if you are suggesting that the Rail industry is wrong for making the minimum connection time 43 minutes, you could take that up with ATOC. However I do have to question whether it really needs to be longer than that?! If you make the connection times too long, people will be more likely to ditch the train and use other mods as end-to-end journey times become too long.

So you accept the OP did nothing wrong; so what's the purpose of this post?

This is getting daft. The journey was a rail journey. If the journey was rail and plane, then more time would need to be allowed to interchange between modes, as we do not have a system that recognises a rail + air journey as one journey, so the OP would not be covered in the event. This is going way off topic and is of no relevance to the OPs scenario.

The OP took no "risks" other than the risk you always take when travelling by train (or any other mode of transport) which is that there is a chance of delay.

The OP did not need flexibility, so why suggest it? What benefit would "a higher fare" (what fare?) have brought to the OP in this case?

Agreed.

I am not suggesting that the OP did anything wrong, merely in my opinion he was foolish to allow such a short connection time at that time of night to take his last train home IF he didn't want to be rerouted throughout the night on numerous trains or wait until the first train this morning.

One of the reasons that I say this is take your typical cause of delays, signalling problems, trespass, passenger taken ill. Whilst these can vary you would expect to be held up from a few mins to 20-30 mins. Add these times to the 43 minutes allowed to undertake this journey with a 45 minute wait you are going to come unstuck.

Another reason for taking risks as it has been clearly demonstrated here that you have no guarantee that a TOC would look after you when they should. In this scenario what can you do if they don't? Nothing but take what offered or bite the bullet and pay for your own additional care costs in the hope that you get it back or take legal action to recover it. I'd much rather not have the hassle of that.

By having a more flexible ticket, could, personal circumstances permitting of course, allowed the OP to travel on an earlier train to London allowing for a longer connection time.

My analogy of a flight was maybe too generic for some people. I guess different people should determine what factors would make it more important and more critical to get that train, have to be at work, and if you didnt were docked money, wanted to spend a night in your own bed etc etc. If it is THAT important to you you when you know you CANT rely on a TOC to come good when things go wrong you should allow more time to connect.

The TFL website is definitely showing different frequencies of trains and at different times of the day. I don't know however if this is as a result of new timetables on this route wef 11 Dec 2011. At weekends of course you also get engineering on some tube lines, not sure if the journey planner would factor in the specifics of the tube engineering work but in most cases this would mean adding longer to your travel from one station to another.

My comments were made based on the assumption that people want to pay as least as possible for their travel to the degree of flexibility that their personal circumstances dictate. Some people are willing to pay more/allow more time for greater comfort. Thats no more daft that someones retort oh I allowed more time than your 43 minutes because I allowed 45... that is a fact.. Anybody using an ounce of common sense would surely not be so naive to say add a minute or two to their journey where it is suggested to allow more time would be fine with that.

I am interpreting that the spirit of the suggestion is things can sometimes take longer in the evenings/at weekends and allow a bit more time.

 

[Mojo]

One of the reasons that I say this is take your typical cause of delays, signalling problems, trespass, passenger taken ill. Whilst these can vary you would expect to be held up from a few mins to 20-30 mins. Add these times to the 43 minutes allowed to undertake this journey with a 45 minute wait you are going to come unstuck.

But 43 Min is the time taken to allow for any possible delays. It does not take 43 Min to travel from Liv St to Euston, therefore the extra time allows for the unlikely event of delay.

Another reason for taking risks as it has been clearly demonstrated here that you have no guarantee that a TOC would look after you when they should. In this scenario what can you do if they don't?

Perhaps because the OP had no idea a Toc would try and act in such a manner? The rights are clearly stated in the NRCoC and nobody had any reason to doubt that a Toc would try and wriggle out of them.

By having a more flexible ticket, could, personal circumstances permitting of course, allowed the OP to travel on an earlier train to London allowing for a longer connection time.

What if he didn't want to leave his origin any earlier? Information available in the public domain shows that the connection time was perfectly adequate.

The TFL website is definitely showing different frequencies of trains and at different times of the day.

Not sure where you're looking, but the timetables available on the TfL website show the exact same frequency at some point during the day as they do at 9pm.

Thats no more daft that someones retort oh I allowed more time than your 43 minutes because I allowed 45... that is a fact.. Anybody using an ounce of common sense would surely not be so naive to say add a minute or two to their journey where it is suggested to allow more time would be fine with that.

I have no idea what this is trying to say here...

 

[bb21]

@LondonJohn

Yes it probably does make sense to leave more time for interchanges late at night, especially involving the last train of the day, if it suits the OP's travel needs.

There are two issues being discussed here: what the OP could have done (given his circumstances, which leads to the question of what the clever thing to do was in that situation), and what the OP is permitted to do.

We have no idea about the first one and should really not be speculating without the full facts which only the OP knows. The only one we can discuss is the second issue and deviating into discussions about the first issue is not really helping here.

 

[blacknight]

I find it unreasonable that a person should be advised to take a train via the East Coast when the ticket would only be valid via the West Coast. It would be my belief that the Op would have been asked to pay again for his journey, that is unreasonable.
I'd like to believe that, but based on the account given, I doubt the help desk staff would have done that, leading to the problem I mention above.

Going on info supplied in OP below
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bit of an essay this, so bare with me.

Again, he reiterated that all they can do was stamp my ticket for the morning and what I did until 6am in the morning was my problem. I asked him to contact his control, in the hope they might sort something out.

They did. Kind of. After a minute or so, the suggestion came back that I should get the 2330 from Kings Cross to Leeds, followed by the 0335 from Leeds to Man Pic and then the 0511 from Picadilly getting back to stoke at 0607. I have no idea where they got that from as it doesn't come up on the journey planners.

Was Supplied by NXEA control so IMO all T&C of using 2 AP tickets were complied with ie authorised to travel on next service or given alternative route. Going from actions in event delay it states you are permitted to take the next service no exception is given if delay as happened on last service no mention of taxi or hotel. Whilst I accept split tickets cover the journey being made what is not clear is have you entered in to a single contract or 2 separate contracts with differing TOC's, so providing offer of travel on next service is given as TOC in this instance NXEA forefilled its part of the contract with you to Liverpool Street station

 

[yorkie]

I am not suggesting that the OP did anything wrong, merely in my opinion he was foolish to allow such a short connection time at that time of night to take his last train home IF he didn't want to be rerouted throughout the night on numerous trains or wait until the first train this morning.

No-one "wants" that! But yes the OP accepted an overnight wait as a possibility but NXEA apparently refused to put him up for the night, and refused him the right to stay overnight in Birmingham (which is even more bizarre!) - but then it's not for NXEA to refuse the Birmingham stay really given that's within Virgin's control, and the OP appears grateful to Virgin for allowing him to do this.

Sorry but it does sound as if you are suggesting the OP acted wrongly.

One of the reasons that I say this is take your typical cause of delays, signalling problems, trespass, passenger taken ill. Whilst these can vary you would expect to be held up from a few mins to 20-30 mins. Add these times to the 43 minutes allowed to undertake this journey with a 45 minute wait you are going to come unstuck.

I disagree. The 43 mins is already far more generous and allows for far bigger delays than interchange times that do not involve walks (e.g. 8 mins at York). By this logic ALL interchange times must be longer, and rail is then destroyed as a fast mode of transport for anyone who has to change! Do you really want that?

Another reason for taking risks as it has been clearly demonstrated here that you have no guarantee that a TOC would look after you when they should. In this scenario what can you do if they don't? Nothing but take what offered or bite the bullet and pay for your own additional care costs in the hope that you get it back or take legal action to recover it. I'd much rather not have the hassle of that.

Such hassles are rare, but there is always a small risk of a TOC not acting correctly. The solutions are to fight them, or to drive instead. I'm all for fighting them though I accept some will abandon rail as a mode of transport instead - which is most regrettable.

By having a more flexible ticket, could, personal circumstances permitting of course, allowed the OP to travel on an earlier train to London allowing for a longer connection time.

How do you know the OP had the option of an earlier train? why should people not be able to adhere to the advertised connection times?

My analogy of a flight was maybe too generic for some people. I guess different people should determine what factors would make it more important and more critical to get that train, have to be at work, and if you didnt were docked money, wanted to spend a night in your own bed etc etc. If it is THAT important to you you when you know you CANT rely on a TOC to come good when things go wrong you should allow more time to connect.

The OP was happy to spend a night in a bed other than his own, as I understand it. That's not the issue here.

The TFL website is definitely showing different frequencies of trains and at different times of the day. I don't know however if this is as a result of new timetables on this route wef 11 Dec 2011. At weekends of course you also get engineering on some tube lines, not sure if the journey planner would factor in the specifics of the tube engineering work but in most cases this would mean adding longer to your travel from one station to another.

The journey should be quicker overall around 2200 compared to say 1700.

My comments were made based on the assumption that people want to pay as least as possible for their travel to the degree of flexibility that their personal circumstances dictate. Some people are willing to pay more/allow more time for greater comfort. Thats no more daft that someones retort oh I allowed more time than your 43 minutes because I allowed 45... that is a fact.. Anybody using an ounce of common sense would surely not be so naive to say add a minute or two to their journey where it is suggested to allow more time would be fine with that.

What are you actually saying here?

I am interpreting that the spirit of the suggestion is things can sometimes take longer in the evenings/at weekends and allow a bit more time.

The OP allowed perfectly enough time for this to be a valid connection. The OP accepts that delays happen and all he wanted was for NXEA to agree to him either staying the night in London (at NXEAs expense) or Birmingham (with family) and it is claimed that NXEA refused either option, which is totally and utterly wrong of them, if true (and I have no reason to believe the OP isn't telling the truth).

 

[dvboy]

the connection time accross london is completely irrelevant. the delay was on the nxea train therefore nxea's responsibility to assist the passenger