Should the railway become customer focussed, rather than revenue focused?

[yorkie]

My booked train was delayed meaning a crucial connection would be missed.

Can I exchange the ticket at the ticket office? No. I have to buy a new ticket and manually submit for a refund.

Loads of threatening announcements at the station. Get on the train, no check of course, so only the honest lose out.

Get off at my interchange station, and hear loads of threatening announcements barking at people not to board. A couple managed it. But then the announcement got very threatening, stating fines would be issued at the next station, so the couple hopped off. They had a further wait of nearly 20 minutes for the next train, on what should be a turn up and go service, on top of the time they had already been waiting (no fast train for 40 minutes prior!)

Having travelled in more civilised places recently, where the focus is on customers rather than protecting the revenue of companies who are in any case propped up by taxpayers/farepayers, I don't think we have the balance right.

I also wonder if the industry actually attracts people who enjoy barking at customers and acting in a manner that deters people from being an inconvenience to the running of the railway.

Anyway, rant over. I am sure not everyone will agree with me; that's fine but I am curious to hear well reasoned reasons from anyone who disagrees.

 

[SynthD]

Only if the people in control of the purse strings at Treasury say so. By the time they do, so much else will have changed.

 

[Halwynd]

I couldn't agree more.

All too often there is now an anti-passenger, couldn't give a damn attitude. Firstly, there are many very good people on the railway. Just from reading posts on this forum, 'northernman' at, err, Northern!, has been very helpful to passengers including myself - going over and beyond the call etc... and I recently read a post from a Northern guard who allowed passengers with Grand Central tickets to board his own service in order to help get them to their destination, despite no clarity as to whether it was authorised - both a credit to the railway, and there will be many others.

I once dropped off a former senior BR manager at Wigan North Western after he had given a talk the previous evening. Anyone who knows the station will be aware that the width of the dark, unattractive walkways leading to the stairs and platforms make it an unsuitable station for ticket barriers. Instead, the railway puts on semi-regular ticket blocks comprising of between 6 and 10 staff who - and I'm afraid I have to be honest - all too often look like a group of thugs. They form a human barrier which, to many passengers who are law abiding and have tickets, appears to be intimidating. On the day I accompanied the former manager to the platform he simply shook his head and said it looked 'as attractive as a trip to the dentist' and against everything they had tried to do at InterCity in the late 80s. Get the customer focus right and it will help the revenue follow, just basic business really, but increasingly ignored by the railway of today.

It all starts with the quality of senior management and policy decided at the very top, which eventually trickles down.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I also wonder if the industry actually attracts people who enjoy barking at customers and acting in a manner that deters people from being an inconvenience to the running of the railway.

You should try the Italian railway police! More seriously there used to be a cliche involving railway staff talking among themselves and suggesting that "this job would be easy if it weren't for [expletive] passengers". I did in fact overhear just such a conversation, just the one time at York some 40 years ago.

During my time on the railway TOCs have definitely tried to attract recruits with natural people skills into customer facing roles especially onboard staff. Some may remember the fly-on-the-wall series about the former Virgin Trains which featured some wonderful TMs who were absolutely brilliant with passengers. Hopefully their rather obvious lack of confidence in dealing with actual operational problems got better with experience.

On the other side of the coin I remember one trainee guard who happily told me, and anyone else who would listen, that while they were certainly going to keep their nose clean during their probationary period in the long run they had no intention of doing any more than the absolute minimum. Sad to say it eventually became clear that a touch of nepotism had got them through the selection process. Old habits die hard.

As to the unfriendly announcements I have noticed that TPE seem to have become rather fond of such messaging. ISTM that the people who write their announcing scripts could seriously benefit from some time at "charm school". Equally you have to wonder whether their senior managers actually care about such niceties.

I hope that this thread doesn't degenerate into all out staff bashing. It's no excuse of course but in large organisations it's difficult to completely eliminate poor attitudes amongst what is very much a minority of negative employees.

 

[david1212]

With a significant swing from essential travel to discretionary travel right across the board rail travel has to be a positive experience as much as fair value for money.
The majority will accept occasional disruption whatever the mode of travel. For rail IMO most important is for each part to work as one to deliver first consistent and accurate information and second use all the available resources to get the customer / passenger to their destination. So long as a valid ticket for the journey as planned is held their should never be issues with validity be that a later train on the same route by the same operator, the same route with a different operator or a different route regardless of operator.
I can see staff trying to limit the numbers joining an alternative train not least so passengers at the next stations it calls at can still join particularly if they know the following train is only a short time later and has greater free capacity.

 

[yorkie]

I can see staff trying to limit the numbers joining an alternative train not least so passengers at the next stations it calls at can still join particularly if they know the following train is only a short time later and has greater free capacity.

Yes, if the thought behind restricting boarding was to benefit other passengers, it makes sense to do that.

In the case I experienced today, it was all about ensuring passengers - who had potentially already been waiting ages - had a further 20 minutes to wait. The next stop after that one was the final call; the train was also running early and had spare capacity (given that people were able to get off, and indeed several people did!). It wouldn't have done anyone any harm to let some extra people on; it was purely about treating customers as potential criminals.

 

[nw1]

Definitely, yes, but I've always believed that. It should be a public service, and should provide a decent public service even if that costs money.

Also from a "customer-focused" perspective, they should ditch the Byelaws offences completely. If there's enough evidence for a RoRA prosecution, fair enough, but the railway needs to stop this nonsense where people receive court summons for honest mistakes (such as forgetting your railcard has expired, misplacing your ticket and not realising it, or misunderstanding the rules on joining other services if yours is delayed). For a prosecution to take place, clear intent to evade payment needs to be present; if that means a few fare-dodgers get away with it, then (I'm sorry to say) so be it. Better that than subjecting honest people to frightening legal proceedings, which to my mind is unacceptably authoritarian.

 

[yorkie]

Definitely, yes, but I've always believed that. It should be a public service, and should provide a decent public service even if that costs money.

Also from a "customer-focused" perspective, they should ditch the Byelaws offences completely. If there's enough evidence for a RoRA prosecution, fair enough, but the railway needs to stop this nonsense where people receive court summons for honest mistakes (such as forgetting your railcard has expired, misplacing your ticket and not realising it, or misunderstanding the rules on joining other services if yours is delayed). For a prosecution to take place, clear intent to evade payment needs to be present; if that means a few fare-dodgers get away with it, then (I'm sorry to say) so be it. Better that than subjecting honest people to frightening legal proceedings, which to my mind is unacceptably authoritarian.

Indeed, byelaw ticketing offices based on strict liability are absurd and archaic.

In my experience the most aggressive fare dodgers often seem to either go unchallenged or simply walk away without repercussions, while the bylaws can be used heavy handedly against people who make an honest mistake.

Of course nothing is going to change, but I'm not going to shut up about it!

 

[Iskra]

I am at the point, where I feel that the railway simply isn't working anymore. It's easy to blame the government, specific TOC's, football fans, RPI's, Covid, the Unions, those who see railway employment as a gravy train, the odd disgruntled staff member, but I think the whole system needs analysing, redrawing and revolutionising. It's broken. Franchise agreements and Direct Awards are currently just entrenching the existing malaise, poor decision making and masking accountability for poor performance.

But, what the perfect railway organisation looks like, who knows...

 

[Dr Day]

Where things could change for the better given all revenue is essentially going back to government is for a bit more relaxation during disruption of the TOC specific restrictions. In many cases in my experience staff do continue to prioritise getting people home regardless of the ticket held but clearly in this incident that wasn't the case.

I'm disappointed there still seems to be a strong focus on individual TOCs with their own revenue targets etc rather than a wider strategic view on optimising revenue/cost across the industry as a whole. Hence behaviour where TOCs compete with each other rather than competing together against the car. It probably doesn't help that most management in the industry now has only ever worked in a franchise structure focused on the bottom line of their particular company. It will take a while for that ingrained thinking to change if indeed the industry restructuring even goes in that direction.

For some flows yes it does make sense to have differential fares to segregate the market but for others it feels like unecessary complication for everyone and brings the wider industry into disrepute.

 

[SussexSeagull]

I would argue long term a focus on customers IS a focus on revenue as they are more likely to use the service again.

 

[JonathanH]

For some flows yes it does make sense to have differential fares to segregate the market but for others it feels like unecessary complication for everyone and brings the wider industry into disrepute.

Of course, those differential fares do make some journeys cheaper for the passenger than if only one fare was charged, at the cost of complexity.

 

[bramling]

I am at the point, where I feel that the railway simply isn't working anymore. It's easy to blame the government, specific TOC's, football fans, RPI's, Covid, the Unions, those who see railway employment as a gravy train, the odd disgruntled staff member, but I think the whole system needs analysing, redrawing and revolutionising. It's broken. Franchise agreements and Direct Awards are currently just entrenching the existing malaise, poor decision making and masking accountability for poor performance.

But, what the perfect railway organisation looks like, who knows...

I’d go a bit further than this and say most of this country is broken at the moment, the current state of the rail network being just one example of a much bigger picture.

I think the wider issue is this country needs to decide exactly what it wants to be and how it wishes to move forwards.

Pretending to work at home doing non-jobs isn’t going to put fruit and veg back on the supermarket shelves, to put things at the most crude level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretending to work at home doing non-jobs isn’t going to put fruit and veg back on the supermarket shelves, to put things at the most crude level.

OK, so I'd best stop doing my "work from home non job" and thus stop paying the whacking amount of tax I pay?

Don't be silly.

 

[SussexSeagull]

Pretending to work at home doing non-jobs isn’t going to put fruit and veg back on the supermarket shelves, to put things at the most crude level.

Enlightened attitude you have to employment there.

 

[Speed43125]

I’d go a bit further than this and say most of this country is broken at the moment, the current state of the rail network being just one example of a much bigger picture.

I think the wider issue is this country needs to decide exactly what it wants to be and how it wishes to move forwards.

Pretending to work at home doing non-jobs isn’t going to put fruit and veg back on the supermarket shelves, to put things at the most crude level.

I would tend to agree with your first two sentences. I am not in the least surprised that the railway industry is stuck in a bit of paralysis state. A lot of things about this country are pretty ****** up, and have been for a while. As it stands, I have family intending to emigrate after this tax year.

And as to the final sentence, I think you've maybe just seen why we're struggling to decide how to move forwards...

 

[tomuk]

My booked train was delayed meaning a crucial connection would be missed.

Can I exchange the ticket at the ticket office? No. I have to buy a new ticket and manually submit for a refund.

Loads of threatening announcements at the station. Get on the train, no check of course, so only the honest lose out.

Get off at my interchange station, and hear loads of threatening announcements barking at people not to board. A couple managed it. But then the announcement got very threatening, stating fines would be issued at the next station, so the couple hopped off. They had a further wait of nearly 20 minutes for the next train, on what should be a turn up and go service, on top of the time they had already been waiting (no fast train for 40 minutes prior!)

Having travelled in more civilised places recently, where the focus is on customers rather than protecting the revenue of companies who are in any case propped up by taxpayers/farepayers, I don't think we have the balance right.

I also wonder if the industry actually attracts people who enjoy barking at customers and acting in a manner that deters people from being an inconvenience to the running of the railway.

Anyway, rant over. I am sure not everyone will agree with me; that's fine but I am curious to hear well reasoned reasons from anyone who disagrees.

Where were you travelling? What tickets did you hold? Were these threatening announcements automated or manual?

As regards the general premise I would like a railway focussed on growing passenger numbers and revenue but as tax payer and fare payer I would also want my subsidy protected too.

On your more specific point about revenue all operators are now on fixed fees and performance bonuses they don't share any of the revenue it all goes to DfT so their not protecting revenue to feather their own nest as it were.

 

[yorksrob]

The point upthread about restrictions during times of disription is a pertinent one.

It's notable that during the pandemic there was a general relaxation of restrictions to enable people to get where they needed to be. Such a policy should have been in place on strike days to enable people to get where they needed to be via the next available route, yet no such relaxation has been in place

 

[stuu]

IPretending to work at home doing non-jobs isn’t going to put fruit and veg back on the supermarket shelves, to put things at the most crude lelevel.

I work for a big 4 accountant. Our revenue was up 12% over FY 21/22, and the amount paid in tax was up by a similar amount, when the vast majority of staff were WFH. Clearly we were all pretending to work

 

[furnessvale]

My booked train was delayed meaning a crucial connection would be missed.

Can I exchange the ticket at the ticket office? No. I have to buy a new ticket and manually submit for a refund.

Loads of threatening announcements at the station. Get on the train, no check of course, so only the honest lose out.

Get off at my interchange station, and hear loads of threatening announcements barking at people not to board. A couple managed it. But then the announcement got very threatening, stating fines would be issued at the next station, so the couple hopped off. They had a further wait of nearly 20 minutes for the next train, on what should be a turn up and go service, on top of the time they had already been waiting (no fast train for 40 minutes prior!)

Having travelled in more civilised places recently, where the focus is on customers rather than protecting the revenue of companies who are in any case propped up by taxpayers/farepayers, I don't think we have the balance right.

I also wonder if the industry actually attracts people who enjoy barking at customers and acting in a manner that deters people from being an inconvenience to the running of the railway.

Anyway, rant over. I am sure not everyone will agree with me; that's fine but I am curious to hear well reasoned reasons from anyone who disagrees.

Looking at the heading of this thread, do the first and the second should flow naturally.

 

[yorkie]

...I think the whole system needs analysing, redrawing and revolutionising. ...

For a quick win, all it needs is appropriate and sensible policies and actions to be made, which already happens at some locations (someone mentioned a positive experience at Cambridge in another thread)

Of course, those differential fares do make some journeys cheaper for the passenger than if only one fare was charged, at the cost of complexity.

Differential fares are fine but when customers make mistakes or the rail service is disrupted, a pragmatic approach should be taken. Again this often happens but it at the whim/discretion of individual staff. The policies are set up against passengers and so we rely on goodwill of staff.

 

[Iskra]

For a quick win, all it needs is appropriate and sensible policies and actions to be made, which already happens at some locations (someone mentioned a positive experience at Cambridge in another thread)

Well, that’s the biggest issue for me: decision-making and implementation seems to be at a level that isn’t local enough to ensure anything meaningful gets sorted out, beyond the odd large scale prestige project. There's little scope for initiative and improvisation; and those that should be able to do that, don't/can't. I was watching the station manager (I assume) at Sheffield on Saturday powerless to do anything decisively useful (beyond firefighting the situation), while train after train arrived full and standing with even more waiting to get on- one imagines that 50 years ago they'd have summoned spare stock and crew to organise a relief...

 

[YourMum666]

Railways should be pro customer, as it is an essential service - people need to get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible

 

[Philip]

In reference to the first post, most station staff don't tend to bark at passengers unless they're provoked - typically as a result of passenger aggression, not listening to relevant information given by staff, not adhering to safety instructions (ie. standing behind the yellow line), deliberate fare-dodging etc.

Most of us want to help and help get people on their way with the right ticket at the best value price.

 

[RailWonderer]

My booked train was delayed meaning a crucial connection would be missed.

Can I exchange the ticket at the ticket office? No. I have to buy a new ticket and manually submit for a refund.

Loads of threatening announcements at the station. Get on the train, no check of course, so only the honest lose out.

Get off at my interchange station, and hear loads of threatening announcements barking at people not to board. A couple managed it. But then the announcement got very threatening, stating fines would be issued at the next station, so the couple hopped off. They had a further wait of nearly 20 minutes for the next train, on what should be a turn up and go service, on top of the time they had already been waiting (no fast train for 40 minutes prior!)

Having travelled in more civilised places recently, where the focus is on customers rather than protecting the revenue of companies who are in any case propped up by taxpayers/farepayers, I don't think we have the balance right.

I also wonder if the industry actually attracts people who enjoy barking at customers and acting in a manner that deters people from being an inconvenience to the running of the railway.

Anyway, rant over. I am sure not everyone will agree with me; that's fine but I am curious to hear well reasoned reasons from anyone who disagrees.

Which station if you don't mind saying? Railway culture in my experience and that of others on here varies widely depending on the TOC and region. I think with a more integrated ticketing system these issues will disappear in time, although you always have those jobsworths who think people should suck it up and prepare to be late as that is the unfortunate consequence of using the railways. Most railway staff are not customer oriented and are not natural people's persons in general. They get on with their job and even avoid eye contact (like with drivers and guards I have even offered to say 'thank you' or ask a question to). I have long accepted that is how railway culture is.

As for the revenue issue, operators still like revenue raiding and getting passengers to purchase a new ticket for one of their services (i.e. York - Leeds, TPE vs XC vs Northern) and staff may be doing a bit of defending their own TOC (though that is speculation on my part) which again with GBR fare integration will help.

 

[WAO]

Profit and customer service should go together, as the American experience shows, at least in part. We suffer from regulation which substitutes process (i.e rules) for pleasing the customer, which goes back to DfT and then the Treasury.

We should compel the Civil Service Mandarins to sit all day on the "ironing board" IET seats they have essentially specified, in their own offices (and even when working at home).

Agree about Leeds-York tickets - guess how to buy an off peak day return!

WAO

 

[O L Leigh]

Most railway staff are not customer oriented and are not natural people's persons in general. They get on with their job and even avoid eye contact (like with drivers and guards I have even offered to say 'thank you' or ask a question to). I have long accepted that is how railway culture is.

That's a mighty broad brush you've employed.

I like to help if I can, but frequently the only help I can offer is to point them towards another member of staff who I consider would be better placed to answer their queries. I don't always have sufficient time to deal with queries, which are most often of a ticketing nature or relating to onward connections to places I have no knowledge of.

To address the original point, my own perception is that the railway does take action to help passengers get to where they're going in times of disruption, but that the process for making this happen is frequently too slow. It takes time to realise that cross-operator ticket acceptance is going to be needed and having the arrangements agreed and disseminated to frontline staff. By the time all this has happened there are often hundreds of passengers already affected and trying to make plans to get to where they're going. As a member of staff, this is an area where I would like to see improvements made.

While ticket simplification would help, the existence of TOC-specific fares does mean that the passenger frequently gets better value than might otherwise be the case and, as such, I'm unsure whether removal of this would actually help matters much.

 

[NoRoute]

The question suggests its either revenue or customers which gets priority, the two often go hand in hand, the businesses and organisations which maximise their revenue typically have a laser-like focus on serving their customers and understanding what their customers value.

The exception to that is possibly monopolies, which can neglect their customers, provide poor customer service and still grow revenue because the customer's have no where else to go. That's probably the issue with the railways, to a degree, for a long time the passengers had no choice and therefore there were no consequences from poor service. That leads to complacency, which leads to arrogance and a culture when the passenger isn't the focus. It probably isn't helped by being a public service where it continues year in year out, insulated from the market forces and without the same pressures to reform.

I always think a great example are those old Victorian photos of the railways pre-nationalisation, back in their heyday, the attention to the little details like the porter and the trolleys there to help passengers with luggage, that most stations had roofs covering the platforms and even straddling multiple tracks to keep passengers dry from the rain and out of the wind. Then you see modern projects, pouring millions into the infrastructure like the track, signalling, electrification and station refurbishment where the passenger that pays for the lot is expected to stand on a wind-swept platform without even a roof over it to keep them out of the rain. It's crazy!

 

[Kite159]

The problem is the rail companies get paid the same regardless if they carry 10 or 50 passengers, as all revenue goes to the government, so some staff members just can't be bothered any more trying to make the railways a nicer place for passengers to use.

Or they are "I work for TOC X, nothing to do with me that the train run by TOC Y ran late missing a connection, now go away" or are quick to disappear when things go wrong

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The problem is the rail companies get paid the same regardless if they carry 10 or 50 passengers, as all revenue goes to the government, so some staff members just can't be bothered any more trying to make the railways a nicer place for passengers to use.

Or they are "I work for TOC X, nothing to do with me that the train run by TOC Y ran late missing a connection, now go away" or are quick to disappear when things go wrong

This is all about culture. The stock response is to suggest that culture needs to come down from the top of an organisation but I believe individuals can also make an impact. So on the railway that would mean local managers and Trainers/Instructors. And sometimes just having a positive mental attitude can rub off onto colleagues. It also helps if the right people are recruited in the first place, an issue for many employers, not just rail companies.

Of course it's human nature to remember negative experiences longer and more vividly than the positive ones. Nevertheless I would suggest an awful lot of rail staff apply the "we're all one family" idea to doing their job and don't slavishly follow the "not my TOC, not my problem" nonsense propagated by some managers.