Rail staff facilities: Some TOCs say to be used in an "emergency" only

[yorkie]

Rail Staff Travel have published supplemental restrictions on staff travel that apply during the current crisis.

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/services/rst/RST_Summer_2020_Restrictions_Supplement_v2.pdf

To date only three TOCS (LNER, GWR and Avanti West Coast) have published restrictions though it is expected that more will be added. With regards to specifically leisure travel the restrictions are very draconian only allowing leisure facilities to be used in the following circumstance:

Rail Staff Travel leisure facilities should only be used if you need to make a journey that is for a Personal/family emergency that requires urgent attendance.

In effect this means that staff travel facilities for leisure purposes are withdrawn, on those TOCs, until further notice.

Although the document preamble states that these restrictions will be revised as advice around Covid 19 brings changes to rail journeys, GWR have specifically stated that they will not review their restrictions until August. This seems a very long time for these restrictions to be in place without a review especially if social distancing measures are eased in the interim.

What are people's views on these, especially those who hold such facilities?

It's unclear what may constitute an "emergency" and whether or not these TOCs can require someone to produce evidence of an "emergency"...

 

[185]

Whilst the lockdown is mostly on, I don't really see staff being too fussed - it's not like we can go anywhere.

But... GWR pulling out a crystal ball and blocking travel until August is rather unwise - things are changing week by week, ordinary leisure travel could restart and it would be foolish to alienate the staff who have worked through this time imposing a block on staff whilst passengers could be free to travel.

 

[yorkie]

Whilst the lockdown is mostly on, I don't really see staff being too fussed - it's not like we can go anywhere.

The legislation allows people to travel to meet up in gatherings of no more than 6, and some overnight stays are permitted under certain circumstances; I certainly don't think that the situation from Monday can be called a "lockdown" any more with so many things reopening but that's another topic!

I do know some concerned Safeguarded rail staff who are now paying to make journeys as they are worried about falling foul of these restrictions.

But... GWR pulling out a crystal ball and blocking travel until August is rather unwise - things are changing week by week, ordinary leisure travel could restart and it would be foolish to alienate the staff who have worked through this time imposing a block on staff whilst passengers could be free to travel.

I've been informed that Safeguarded staff cannot have these facilities taken away from them as the right to these facilities is enshrined in law; is that correct?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I've been informed that Safeguarded staff cannot have these facilities taken away from them as the right to these facilities is enshrined in law; is that correct?

travelling against the advice could be conceived to be an abuse of facilities for which they are allowed to withdraw a persons facilities

 

[robbeech]

In the (currently but not for ever by any means) unlikely event that rail staff did decide to travel using their pass for leisure purposes, which members of staff, known to them generally on first name terms, who they likely work with often, who is facing the same dilemma themselves if they need to go on a non essential journey is going to refuse to let them board, or throw them off, or report them? And out of that probably small group of people, how many of them are likely to find their time at work becomes less enjoyable afterwards?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

In the (currently but not for ever by any means) unlikely event that rail staff did decide to travel using their pass for leisure purposes, which members of staff, known to them generally on first name terms, who they likely work with often, who is facing the same dilemma themselves if they need to go on a non essential journey is going to refuse to let them board, or throw them off, or report them? And out of that probably small group of people, how many of them are likely to find their time at work becomes less enjoyable afterwards?

Certainly LNER staff have generally quite robustly enforced Rail Staff Travel conditions, this attitude has been unchanged through the evolution of BR to GNER, NXEC, East Coast and VTEC to LNER.

 

[robbeech]

Certainly LNER staff have generally quite robustly enforced Rail Staff Travel conditions, this attitude has been unchanged through the evolution of BR to GNER, NXEC, East Coast and VTEC to LNER.

Well at least that’s something, if this sort of thing is required anyway, which I’m not wholly convinced it is.

 

[The North Briton]

The requirement on LNER to make a reservation, and to make it between one hour and five minutes if the train’s departure time is particularly onerous. If all reservations are taken, one would have to try one’s luck on the next service, and there is no ‘last train of the day’ get out clause.

If i had formed a ‘social bubble’ with a single person household who lives a good distance away on the line of the LNER route, i would expect to be able to use the train to visit that person, but these draconian restrictions make that impossible.
Capacity should not be an issue, because, after 17 June, coach C has been left unreserved on most services to accommodate staff travelling for duty and residential purposes, who will no longer be required to make a reservation.

 

[yorkie]

travelling against the advice could be conceived to be an abuse of facilities for which they are allowed to withdraw a persons facilities

But are RDG and some TOCs allowed to give this "advice", that is the question?

I'm not suggesting rail staff wish to travel against Government advice (if that's what you are suggesting), but RDG and some TOCs are adding additional restrictions (not "advice") which don't appear to be lawful.

...Capacity should not be an issue....

It's not an issue; the trains are currently deserted. I had a coach to myself on my last journey.

 

[35B]

So companies with massively restricted capacity are applying onerous limits to a staff benefit while unable to carry their normal capacity, when we’re all being told to avoid leisure travel. Even as lockdown eases, government policy is still to avoid and minimise social contact, which that policy also supports.

Those restrictions seem reasonable and proportionate to me, and give clear guidance as to what “essential” means. If there’s an issue there, I suggest it’s with the loss of value of a staff benefit as an employment matter, not a ticketing one.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

But are RDG and some TOCs allowed to give this "advice", that is the question?

I'm not suggesting rail staff wish to travel against Government advice (if that's what you are suggesting), but RDG and some TOCs are adding additional restrictions (not "advice") which don't appear to be lawful.

Operators are allowed to add/remove restrictions as per the normal Rail Staff Travel Restrictions which is all about maintaining capacity for fare paying passengers, many TOCs had recently removed restrictions - these coming back most people realise are just temporary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But... GWR pulling out a crystal ball and blocking travel until August is rather unwise - things are changing week by week, ordinary leisure travel could restart and it would be foolish to alienate the staff who have worked through this time imposing a block on staff whilst passengers could be free to travel.

I wonder if that is effectively a "leak" that there will be no easing of "essential use only" by the Government on public transport before then?

Never mind protests about racism, if that means only car owners can go on holiday this year there will be actual riots in the inner cities where most non-car-owners live.

With regard to the principle of it, as these facilities are for personal/leisure travel only it makes sense that the rule is the same as for a member of the public wishing to use that same train for that same reason.

 

[yorkie]

Operators are allowed to add/remove restrictions as per the normal Rail Staff Travel Restrictions which is all about maintaining capacity for fare paying passengers, many TOCs had recently removed restrictions - these coming back most people realise are just temporary.

Are they allowed to do that with Safeguarded staff? I was told by someone that they are legally protected.

There is currently loads of spare capacity and I know of people who are paying for their journeys on the TOCs named, as they don't want to risk losing their safeguarded facilities. They are often the only person in the coach.

The people with those facilities are doing nothing wrong, but don't want to post directly here, for understandable reasons.

 

[yorkie]

With regard to the principle of it, as these facilities are for personal/leisure travel only it makes sense that the rule is the same as for a member of the public wishing to use that same train for that same reason.

agreed. Can a train company require proof of an "emergency" from a safeguarded retired member of staff who is travelling entirely within the law, and can a train company give it's staff the right to judge what constitutes an "emergency"?

I know of people in this position who don't want to get into a confrontation so they are paying at the full public rate. On practice they are extremely unlikely to have their ticket even checked, but they want to comply with the rules and don't want to risk having their facilities withdrawn so they are understandably not prepared to take any risks even though the people I've spoken to are pretty confident they would be doing nothing wrong by using their passes.

Does anyone know where the relevant legislation can be found regarding safeguarded staff facilities?

 

[221129]

But are RDG and some TOCs allowed to give this "advice", that is the question?

Yes they are. Same as they do twice every year.

 

[221129]

Are they allowed to do that with Safeguarded staff? I was told by someone that they are legally protected

Yes they are. I think you're misunderstanding what the 'legal protection' is. For safeguarded staff it was a contractual entitlement, not legislative as far as I know, they are subject to these restrictions and if found ignoring the restrictions they can have their facilities removed.

 

[306024]

Does anyone know where the relevant legislation can be found regarding safeguarded staff facilities?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/135

Good luck. Click on 01/04/1994 in the timeline to make it a bit clearer.

The legalities of all this are all very interesting but the moral dimension needs consideration too. I love using my travel facilities for leisure, but have no appetite for leisure travel while the advice during the virus situation remains as it is.

 

[ComUtoR]

My staff travel facilities are a privilege and not a right. I get a substantial discount on travel and for that I have to abide by the schemes rules. It is often said that we are held to a higher standard and rightly so. The travelling public are being asked to only travel when necessary so staff should be held to that same requirement.

As to an 'emergency only' there is a quick and easy solution. If you want to travel in any other circumstance, just pay the full rate and enjoy the discount the rest of the year. For the sake of barely 2 months I find it a non issue.

 

[yorkie]

In case anyone is wondering, the pass holders are complying with Government advice; the issue appears to be that some TOCs are imposing additional restrictions to safeguarded staff that appear to deny them the right to use their passes for a legitimate journey. The pass holders who have contacted me do not own a car and have considered other ways to travel in line with the advice.

My staff travel facilities are a privilege and not a right...

Just to be clear, I'm asking on behalf of safeguarded staff / retired staff ; my understanding is that this is a contractual right.

 

[LowLevel]

Safeguarded staff travel facilities are enshrined in the Railways Act 1993 rather than being a solely contractual matter between themselves and their employer. If they're employed by a company that isn't a passenger train operator they have to pay a lump of tax for their facilities each year. Thus I would suggest restrictions without compensation should be handled very carefully.

 

[43066]

In case anyone is wondering, the pass holders are complying with Government advice; the issue appears to be that some TOCs are imposing additional restrictions to safeguarded staff that appear to deny them the right to use their passes for a legitimate journey. The pass holders who have contacted me do not own a car and have considered other ways to travel in line with the advice.

Just to be clear, I'm asking on behalf of safeguarded staff / retired staff ; my understanding is that this is a contractual right.

In practice the “right” (AIUI) is really just a gentleman’s agreement between TOCs to continue to honour travel for safeguarded ex BR staff. It’s difficult to see how a contract that was terminated years ago could continue to give rise to a contractual right to travel forever more.

Staff travel is discretionary and always subject to terms and conditions of use - which can be varied.

Some useful information here:

Conditions of Issue and Use

Updated for 1 March 2016 RAIL STAFF TRAVEL NATIONAL FACILITIES (CARDS AND PASSES): BY APPLYING FOR AND USING ANY TRAVEL FACILITIES, YOU AGREE TO ABIDE BY THESE

www.raildeliverygroup.com

The issue of rail staff travel facilities to an Employee is solely at the discretion of the Employer who will act in accordance with these Conditions of Issue and Use and those outlined in section 1.3.

With that said, it’s very difficult to imagine how this could be enforced. The TOC would have no right to require the passenger to prove that they were travelling due to a “family emergency” etc.

 

[Ianno87]

Is the TOC's current position more of a "think about what using your discount for leisure travel at the present time might look like to others" rather than an outright ban?

 

[LowLevel]

In practice the “right” (AIUI) is really just a gentleman’s agreement between TOCs to continue to honour travel for safeguarded ex BR staff. It’s difficult to see how a contract that was terminated years ago could continue to give rise to a contractual right to travel forever more.

Staff travel is discretionary and always subject to terms and conditions of use - which can be varied.

Some useful information here:

Conditions of Issue and Use

Updated for 1 March 2016 RAIL STAFF TRAVEL NATIONAL FACILITIES (CARDS AND PASSES): BY APPLYING FOR AND USING ANY TRAVEL FACILITIES, YOU AGREE TO ABIDE BY THESE

www.raildeliverygroup.com

With that said, it’s very difficult to imagine how this could be enforced. The TOC would have no right to require the passenger to prove that they were travelling due to a “family emergency” etc.

That is fundamentally incorrect I am afraid. Persons employed by former BR undertakings prior to 31st March 1996 have their right to staff travel facilities enshrined by the Railways Act 1993. There is no gentleman's agreement involved, it is the law that governed the privatisation of the railway. That is why it is called safeguarded, the train operators have no right to terminate it.

Staff employed after that date have travel on a discretionary basis that can indeed in theory be withdrawn at any time in the form of a quarter fare card and any further benefits that may be granted by the train operator in respect of free travel on their own or owning group services.

The franchised train operators have the right to impose reasonable restrictions to avoid detriment to fare paying passengers but that is all, by law the staff travel card scheme for safeguarded staff is protected.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The franchised train operators have the right to impose reasonable restrictions to avoid detriment to fare paying passengers but that is all, by law the staff travel card scheme for safeguarded staff is protected.

And that sums up the current restrictions imposed by the ‘intercity’ TOCs as space is limited to avoid detriment to fare paying passengers we ask you not to use our services for leisure. Seems fair to me?

 

[greatkingrat]

Did BR ever impose any restrictions on services expected to be particularly busy?

 

[43066]

That is fundamentally incorrect I am afraid. Persons employed by former BR undertakings prior to 31st March 1996 have their right to staff travel facilities enshrined by the Railways Act 1993. There is no gentleman's agreement involved, it is the law that governed the privatisation of the railway. That is why it is called safeguarded, the train operators have no right to terminate it.

Staff employed after that date have travel on a discretionary basis that can indeed in theory be withdrawn at any time in the form of a quarter fare card and any further benefits that may be granted by the train operator in respect of free travel on their own or owning group services.

The franchised train operators have the right to impose reasonable restrictions to avoid detriment to fare paying passengers but that is all, by law the staff travel card scheme for safeguarded staff is protected.

Any idea where in the act that is?

EDIT: not disputing that you may well be correct, but it would be interesting to see chapter and verse.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Did BR ever impose any restrictions on services expected to be particularly busy?

Indeed they did; and, generally, many more restrictions than the TOCs now apply - particularly for peak time journeys to and from London. The instructions to be last to board a train (so that you don't reduce the choice of seats for fare-paying passengers) and giving up your seat at a calling station before being asked to do so were also enforced. I still do the former (the latter can cause problems - people can be offended by being offered a seat but I stand if it's clearly about to become overcrowded) and, often joining a particular Birmingham service at Rugby, I've noticed a senior (in both meanings) Virgin manager also does it (embarrassingly, as we both want to be last!) but we seem to be the last to observe it. It was also not permitted to book a reservation, but recently, explaining to platform staff at the same station why I was at the remote end of the platform - so that I could join the un-reserved coach K - and explaining that I was travelling on a pass, they said 'but you can make a reservation'.

I should add that, when I retired from a FOC, they stumped up a large sum to purchase my pass in perpetuity. Although it's free travel for me, the TOCs do presumably receive a proportion of that money.

For management staff, the travel facilities were used as a bargaining chip in the annual pay round. So they weren't 'free' in that respect, either.

There is some reference to 'PRIV'. BR always used the term 'privilege' for free and discounted travel to encourage the idea that it was generosity on their part and could be withdrawn, but the term seems to have fallen out of favour since it became enshrined in law as an entitlement.

Before anyone jumps on me, references to Virgin are correct, only 3 months' experience of Avanti...

 

[steamybrian]

Any idea where in the act that is?

EDIT: not disputing that you may well be correct, but it would be interesting to see chapter and verse.

Railways Act 1993 section 135-

Railways Act 1993

An Act to provide for the appointment and functions of a Rail Regulator and a Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and of users’ consultative committees for the railway industry and for certain ferry services; to make new provision with respect to the provision of railway services and the...

www.legislation.gov.uk

I fully agree with Merle Haggard (above) that some BR services were restricted to privilege card holders including on some heavily used Monday to Friday peak hour services to and from London.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I might add that, in the 70s, there seemed to be a way to avoid obligations. My facilities were available on Caledonian-MacBrayne - presumably because their employees had privilege travel on BR - but the restrictions circular said, under Caledonian Macbrayne, routes affected - a list all of them; dates applicable (for a particular year) 1st January - 31st December.

 

[43066]

That is fundamentally incorrect I am afraid. Persons employed by former BR undertakings prior to 31st March 1996 have their right to staff travel facilities enshrined by the Railways Act 1993. There is no gentleman's agreement involved, it is the law that governed the privatisation of the railway. That is why it is called safeguarded, the train operators have no right to terminate it.

Staff employed after that date have travel on a discretionary basis that can indeed in theory be withdrawn at any time in the form of a quarter fare card and any further benefits that may be granted by the train operator in respect of free travel on their own or owning group services.

The franchised train operators have the right to impose reasonable restrictions to avoid detriment to fare paying passengers but that is all, by law the staff travel card scheme for safeguarded staff is protected.

I might add that, in the 70s, there seemed to be a way to avoid obligations. My facilities were available on Caledonian-MacBrayne - presumably because their employees had privilege travel on BR - but the restrictions circular said, under Caledonian Macbrayne, routes affected - a list all of them; dates applicable (for a particular year) 1st January - 31st December.

Many thanks both - I stand corrected! So, as per the act, the requirement to honour safeguarded travel is inserted as a condition of the franchise.

Completely different to non safeguarded travel which may or may not be honoured by future franchises.