Strikes, TOCs' refusal of alternative routes/tickets travel on strike days and Consumer Rights Act / Contractual Law

[hkstudent]

There are so many incidents reported on the Dispute Board that, TOCs refuse passengers to travel on alternative routes, or refuse to compensate additional tickets to make the alternative travel possible.

Despite it is arguable whether the strike actions are beyond operators' control (In explanation of EU261/UK261- the flight delay law, strikes are still within the control of operators due to operators not providing adequate pay to employees), would the incidents of most refusals be violating the law, and may in future, a potential class action by customers to all railway companies?

 

[Wallsendmag]

The TOCs don't have final say on pay negotiations therefore it is outwith their control.

 

[Watershed]

There are so many incidents reported on the Dispute Board that, TOCs refuse passengers to travel on alternative routes, or refuse to compensate additional tickets to make the alternative travel possible.

Despite it is arguable whether the strike actions are beyond operators' control (In explanation of EU261/UK261- the flight delay law, strikes are still within the control of operators due to operators not providing adequate pay to employees), would the incidents of most refusals be violating the law, and may in future, a potential class action by customers to all railway companies?

The only area where it makes a difference whether or not the strikes are within the TOCs' control is the Consumer Rights Act. But this rarely provides any rights you don't already have under the Passenger's Charters, NRCoT or PRO. So for all practical intents and purposes - it doesn't really matter.

And yes, passengers' rights are being breached on a daily basis. Whether the staff in question know about the rights is another matter, but it's hardly a defence to admit "we didn't bother training our staff about your rights".

Unfortunately the British legal system makes it very difficult to bring a class action claim. It has to fall into one a very small number of circumstances for it to be eligible. Therefore, unless there is some DfT/ORR etc. intervention, things are unlikely to change, as individual claims can be settled (perhaps even with an NDA) and written off as "just a difficult customer".

The TOCs don't have final say on pay negotiations therefore it is outwith their control.

As stated above, it makes little difference either way - but I would disagree. Yes, under the NRCs, the DfT has control over payrises.

But the passenger is not a party to the NRCs and so any such "self inflicted" financial limitations are of no concern to them.

Similarly, it's still the TOCs' responsibility if Network Rail are on strike. They are simply a subcontractor the TOC has appointed to help deliver their service, as far as the passenger is concerned.

 

[RT4038]

There are so many incidents reported on the Dispute Board that, TOCs refuse passengers to travel on alternative routes, or refuse to compensate additional tickets to make the alternative travel possible.

Despite it is arguable whether the strike actions are beyond operators' control (In explanation of EU261/UK261- the flight delay law, strikes are still within the control of operators due to operators not providing adequate pay to employees), would the incidents of most refusals be violating the law, and may in future, a potential class action by customers to all railway companies?

Good luck with that reasoning. I would suggest that it is unlikely that you will get anywhere with this one. At best, if there is a strike and services are unable to operate, you will get your money back. No other sector is saddled with an enormous consumer cost risk if a withdrawal of labour happens on the basis of the company could have given in and paid the workers demands therefore it is entirely within the company's control. That is just a charter for labour to demand what they like.

 

[Watershed]

Good luck with that reasoning. I would suggest that it is unlikely that you will get anywhere with this one. At best, if there is a strike and services are unable to operate, you will get your money back. No other sector is saddled with an enormous consumer cost risk if a withdrawal of labour happens on the basis of the company could have given in and paid the workers demands therefore it is entirely within the company's control. That is just a charter for labour to demand what they like.

With respect, I don't think this thread is really about whether you agree or disagree with the rights that passengers have. The fact is, they do have rights and there are other industries where similar rights exists during strikes - for example the aviation industry.

It is entirely within the company's control to ensure they have enough staff, by whatever means necessary. In fact that's one of their core functions and it's essentially what you pay them for.

The EU Court of Justice has ruled in relation to aviation cases that air passengers' rights remain unchanged in cases of industrial action. Similarly, it has also confirmed that there is no "force majeure" exception to rail passengers' rights under the PRO, despite the vain attempts of various conditions of carriage to carve out such an exception.

 

[RT4038]

With respect, I don't think this thread is really about whether you agree or disagree with the rights that passengers have. The fact is, they do have rights and there are other industries where similar rights exists during strikes - for example the aviation industry.

It is entirely within the company's control to ensure they have enough staff, by whatever means necessary. In fact that's one of their core functions and it's essentially what you pay them for.

The EU Court of Justice has ruled in relation to aviation cases that air passengers' rights remain unchanged in cases of industrial action. Similarly, it has also confirmed that there is no "force majeure" exception to rail passengers' rights under the PRO, despite the vain attempts of various conditions of carriage to carve out such an exception.

As I said - good luck with that!

Other industries, as opposed to transport.

 

[Watershed]

As I said - good luck with that!

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. The legal position in this respect is clearly established. It's certainly a frequent occurrence in both the aviation and rail industry for passenger rights to be wrongly denied - but you have legal recourse if this happens.

Other industries, as opposed to transport.

Generally most regulated monopolies have similar obligations. For instance, water and electricity/gas distribution network operators, as well as most large internet suppliers, are still liable for compensation when they fail to provide their service - even if the cause is industrial action.

Effectively this is the cost of doing business as a monopoly. Consumers generally don't have much in the way of a realistic alternative and so it seems entirely reasonable that suppliers are liable for their failings.

 

[43066]

The EU Court of Justice has ruled in relation to aviation cases that air passengers' rights remain unchanged in cases of industrial action. Similarly, it has also confirmed that there is no "force majeure" exception to rail passengers' rights under the PRO, despite the vain attempts of various conditions of carriage to carve out such an exception.

Thank goodness for Brexit .

Effectively this is the cost of doing business as a monopoly. Consumers generally don't have much in the way of a realistic alternative and so it seems entirely reasonable that suppliers are liable for their failings.

It does seem unreasonable to me that TOCs should be liable for incredibly expensive taxis etc. in genuine force majeure situations. The potential liability in many cases is out of all proportion to the value of the tickets held.

Ultimately it needs to be remembered that it is the taxpayer and the fare payer who will end up covering the cost. A fact that is always very quickly pointed out when other areas of cost are being discussed!

 

[AngusH]

It does seem unreasonable to me that TOCs should be liable for incredibly expensive taxis etc. in genuine force majeure situations. The potential liability in many cases is out of all proportion to the value of the tickets held.

It may well be that the laws and regulations are wrong and are ultimately unworkable.
In which case they need to be changed.

However a situation where companies choose which rules to follow and which to ignore seems very bad.

"False in one, false in all" was the quote that comes to mind, although it's somewhat unfair.
i.e. If consumer regulations are ignored, what else is ignored?
In practice I would suggest nothing, but confidence is rather undermined.

 

[Watershed]

Thank goodness for Brexit .

Brexit hasn't changed anything in this respect. All ECJ decisions made prior to Brexit still stand (unless and until overturned by the Supreme Court).

It does seem unreasonable to me that TOCs should be liable for incredibly expensive taxis etc. in genuine force majeure situations. The potential liability in many cases is out of all proportion to the value of the tickets held.

In a sense it's not all that different to insurance or a lottery - the vast majority of the time, you're earning 'money for old rope' as there is basically nil incremental cost to carry an additional passenger. But occasionally you have to pay out. That seems fairly reasonable to me.

It's also worth noting that there are many situations like this where neither party is really "at fault" but someone ultimately has to carry the can. And it doesn't seem unreasonable that it would be the party which has greater means and resources at its disposal. Clearly that's the conclusion that governments in many countries across the world have reached.

Ultimately it needs to be remembered that it is the taxpayer and the fare payer who will end up covering the cost. A fact that is always very quickly pointed out when other areas of cost are being discussed!

That's absolutely true, but I don't see how it really makes any difference? Are you saying that it'd be OK to strand recipients of taxpayer subsidised services? But not profitable ones?

That would lead to the absurd situation where you'd have LNER passengers benefitting from alternative arrangements but Northern or EMR passengers being left to their own devices.

 

[43066]

It may well be that the laws and regulations are wrong and are ultimately unworkable.
In which case they need to be changed.

However a situation where companies choose which rules to follow and which to ignore seems very bad.

"False in one, false in all" was the quote that comes to mind, although it's somewhat unfair.
i.e. If consumer regulations are ignored, what else is ignored?
In practice I would suggest nothing, but confidence is rather undermined.

I’d agree with that.

I’m sure it won’t be popular on here but there should be some kind of sensible exception to the duty to provide taxis in situations where there’s severe disruption, people have been advised not to to travel etc.

Examples might be severe weather events, or scenarios like LNER having to ground its entire fleet due to cracking etc. Customers will be entitled to refunds but expecting alternative travel for potentially hundreds of thousands of passengers to be sourced and paid for seems OTT. It is often physically impossible due to the impossibility of raising enough taxis, rail replacement buses etc.

 

[trenopendo]

At the end of the day, this is all a fun -but useless- thought exercise.

EU261/UK261 was functionally defined on the basis of court cases. If you look at the pure text, it doesn't contain many of the provisions we take for granted these days.

For some reason, it seems that customers (and lawyers) are not willing to take these claims to the bitter end. Without this exercise, no precedent is actually generated. Also, keep in mind that MCOL claims do not build jurisprudence. Ultimately, I think the cost-to-benefit ratio is too low compared to an airline case.

 

[Watershed]

I’d agree with that.

I’m sure it won’t be popular on here but there should be some kind of sensible exception to the duty to provide taxis in situations where there’s severe disruption, people have been advised not to to travel etc.

Examples might be severe weather events, or scenarios like LNER having to ground its entire fleet due to cracking etc. Customers will be entitled to refunds but expecting alternative travel for potentially hundreds of thousands of passengers to be sourced and paid for seems OTT. It is often physically impossible due to the impossibility of raising enough taxis, rail replacement buses etc.

But such an exception doesn't even exist in the airline industry. So why should the rail industry have a special dispensation?

There will always be times where the volume of affected customers is such that the TOC can't help everyone. But that doesn't excuse an outright refusal to help anyone at all. For instance, during the recent heatwave, many TOCs not only said there would be no replacement transport (understandable in some cases, though perhaps a questionable blanket policy given not everywhere was as badly affected) - but that they would also not reimburse any additional costs incurred.

It's the latter attitude which is absolutely unacceptable - if people are able to make their own arrangements, they should be reimbursed for their reasonable costs.

At the end of the day, this is all a fun -but useless- thought exercise.

EU261/UK261 was functionally defined on the basis of court cases. If you look at the pure text, it doesn't contain many of the provisions we take for granted these days.

For some reason, it seems that customers (and lawyers) are not willing to take these claims to the bitter end. Without this exercise, no precedent is actually generated. Also, keep in mind that MCOL claims do not build jurisprudence. Ultimately, I think the cost-to-benefit ratio is too low compared to an airline case.

Much of EU261 was indeed fleshed out through precedent, but that's because some of the most elementary bits of now-recognised rights (e.g. that a long delay is equivalent to a cancellation) simply weren't spelled out. The PRO aren't perfect by any means, but the core elements at stake here are clearly established. There's no question that a long delay qualifies for the same rights as a cancellation, for instance.

So whilst there is certainly a paucity of precedent regarding the PRO, and some areas could do with clarification, it's nowhere near as bad as EU261.

However, you are right in that the lower value of compensation/expenses at stake with most PRO claims means that it's less lucrative for "no win, no fee" claims companies. And that is essentially why there is less precedent. The fact that the legislation doesn't require operators to inform passengers of their rights also doesn't help; by contrast, EU261 mandates that airlines provide passengers with a standard text about their rights when there's a cancellation.

These rights will only become as well-known as e.g. the right to use split tickets, when or if the ORR or DfT step in and force the TOCs to live up to their obligations. At the moment neither seems to have any interest in doing so, and the ORR has merely paid lip service to it by adding an obligation to comply with the PRO into operators' Statement of National Regulatory Provisions (i.e. operating licence conditions) but not enforcing it at all. Let alone proactively auditing TOCs to ensure they're doing things correctly.

I think it's also worth adding that the public don't need to necessarily know every detail of every right for them to be practically useful. For instance, I doubt many people know the intracacies of the various PACE Codes of Practice, but the police generally comply with them because they know they can and will be pulled up on it if they don't. It's ultimately about accountability.

 

[43066]

Brexit hasn't changed anything in this respect. All ECJ decisions made prior to Brexit still stand (unless and until overturned by the Supreme Court).

Yes but we are no longer bound by new decisions made by the ECJ and the U.K. legal system can move away from the previous ones. We absolutely should amend the law in this area - it’s ludicrous that there’s no “force majeure” limit to these the requirements when the “alternative arrangements” are often physically impossible to provide and potential liabilities essentially almost unlimited.

In a sense it's not all that different to insurance or a lottery - the vast majority of the time, you're earning 'money for old rope' as there is basically nil incremental cost to carry an additional passenger. But occasionally you have to pay out. That seems fairly reasonable to me.

It's also worth noting that there are many situations like this where neither party is really "at fault" but someone ultimately has to carry the can. And it doesn't seem unreasonable that it would be the party which has greater means and resources at its disposal. Clearly that's the conclusion that governments in many countries across the world have reached.

I’d generally agree but there should be a common sense exception in place given the numbers involved in the kinds of scenario I’m envisaging. Note I’m not suggesting TOCs shouldn’t be on the hook for individual cancellations, last train cancellations etc.

That's absolutely true, but I don't see how it really makes any difference? Are you saying that it'd be OK to strand recipients of taxpayer subsidised services? But not profitable ones?

That would lead to the absurd situation where you'd have LNER passengers benefitting from alternative arrangements but Northern or EMR passengers being left to their own devices.

If people are foolish enough to disregard advice to not travel/travel when the network is closed they shouldn’t be bailed out by the taxpayer under any circumstances.

It’s all wooden dollars in the end as we all know if we end up with “class actions” against TOCs that make them no longer financially viable they will only end up being bailed out by the taxpayer anyway.

But such an exception doesn't even exist in the airline industry. So why should the rail industry have a special dispensation?

Various reasons. Airlines deal with far fewer passengers than the national rail network, operate to and from locations where alternative arrangements can easily be made (ie airports with large hotels nearby). The railway serves many locations where there are neither hotels nor taxis. Unlike airlines the railway cannot prevent people buying tickets due to services being “full” as airlines can so has absolutely no ability to control numbers.

There will always be times where the volume of affected customers is such that the TOC can't help everyone. But that doesn't excuse an outright refusal to help anyone at all. For instance, during the recent heatwave, many TOCs not only said there would be no replacement transport (understandable in some cases, though perhaps a questionable blanket policy given not everywhere was as badly affected) - but that they would also not reimburse any additional costs incurred.

It's the latter attitude which is absolutely unacceptable - if people are able to make their own arrangements, they should be reimbursed for their reasonable costs.

Again if a force majeure event occurs and people have been warned of disruption in advance the responsible thing to do is not travel. If people choose to travel anyway, why should they expect someone else to bail them out?

I’m probably also in favour of greater willingness to announce network wide closures in genuinely extreme situations (the risk of this should always be published in advance), that way everyone knows where they stand.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I’d agree with that.

I’m sure it won’t be popular on here but there should be some kind of sensible exception to the duty to provide taxis in situations where there’s severe disruption, people have been advised not to to travel etc.

Examples might be severe weather events, or scenarios like LNER having to ground its entire fleet due to cracking etc. Customers will be entitled to refunds but expecting alternative travel for potentially hundreds of thousands of passengers to be sourced and paid for seems OTT. It is often physically impossible due to the impossibility of raising enough taxis, rail replacement buses etc.

If I've booked my tickets and am staying away from home and a TOC announces "don't travel" whikst I'm away what am I meant to do?
I don't have anywhere to stay where I am and I booked in good faith when i booked as there was no travel ban in place.

 

[43066]

If I've booked my tickets and am staying away from home and a TOC announces "don't travel" whikst I'm away what am I meant to do?
I don't have anywhere to stay where I am and I booked in good faith when i booked as there was no travel ban in place.

You’d just have to get a refund for the tickets and make alternative arrangements. It’s rare for these things to happen without at least some notice and if you’ve gone away knowing about forthcoming severe weather/industrial action/whatever then you’ve made the choice to take the risk.

Would you expect the government to bail you out if you were away and your car broke down? Or if the roads were closed due to extreme weather?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Would you expect the government to bail you out if you were away and your car broke down? Or if the roads were closed due to extreme weather?

I pay someone to come and rescue me if my car breaks down. They'll come regardless of cause or weather.
If the weather is so bad the motorways are closed (which happens very, very rarely. Far less often than railways giving up on travel) I can sleep in the car, but I can't sleep on the train.

 

[43066]

I pay someone to come and rescue me if my car breaks down. They'll come regardless of cause or weather.

Breakdown companies will make best endeavours to reach you but I guarantee they won’t come regardless of cause or weather. They aren’t the emergency services. If the trains stop running you can pay someone to let you stay in their hotel room, or to drive you to a hotel (or home!) in their taxi.

If the weather is so bad the motorways are closed (which happens very, very rarely. Far less often than railways giving up on travel) I can sleep in the car, but I can't sleep on the train.

If things really do get that bad I suppose you could sleep on a bench outside the station, or go and sit in a 24 hour McDonalds. That’ll give you plenty of time to ponder the wisdom of travelling during severe weather !

 

[Deafdoggie]

If things really do get that bad I suppose you could sleep on a bench outside the station, or go and sit in a 24 hour McDonalds. That’ll give you plenty of time to ponder the wisdom of travelling during severe weather !

Ponder the wisdom of travelling BY TRAIN certainly.

 

[Leisurefirst]

If I've booked my tickets and am staying away from home and a TOC announces "don't travel" whikst I'm away what am I meant to do?
I don't have anywhere to stay where I am and I booked in good faith when i booked as there was no travel ban in place.

Bingo.
Thank you.
Was in same situation a few weeks back.
Non-refundable concerts, activities and hotel all paid for and held an Advance ticket for weeks before strike announced.
Some planned years in advance (thanks to Covid).
I don't think it's too much to ask (Avanti in this case) to cover the less than £40 extra I kept it down to by being pro-active in this case I spent getting back from Glasgow to London by alternative rail travel.
Or should I have rocked up expecting a taxi or hotel instead?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Bingo.
Thank you.
Was in same situation a few weeks back.
Non-refundable concerts, activities and hotel all paid for and held an Advance ticket for weeks before strike announced.
Some planned years in advance (thanks to Covid).
I don't think it's too much to ask (Avanti in this case) to cover the less than £40 extra I kept it down to by being pro-active in this case I spent getting back from Glasgow to London by alternative rail travel.
Or should I have rocked up expecting a taxi or hotel instead?

Some on here will tell you you shouldn't have gone by rail so it's your own fault. Some will tell you you're only a passenger so it's tough luck. Some will say you should get the £40 back and Some will say they should have put you up in a hotel then flown you back. But I don't think it's unreasonable they should take some responsibility for you and certainly shouldn't leave you stranded.

 

[43066]

Ponder the wisdom of travelling BY TRAIN certainly.

Other forms of transport are available.

I don't think it's too much to ask (Avanti in this case) to cover the less than £40 extra I kept it down to by being pro-active in this case I spent getting back from Glasgow to London by alternative rail travel.
Or should I have rocked up expecting a taxi or hotel instead?

£40 isn’t unreasonable (indeed I’m surprised there wasn’t ticket acceptance), but would you expect a taxi from Glasgow to London, or a hotel for the night based on the cost of an advance ticket?

What about if you’d been warned about serious weather/disruption and elected to travel anyway?

What about if you weren’t in Glasgow but in a remote location with no taxis and no hotels?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Other forms of transport are available.

Indeed. It's because of the railways attitude to its customers that I got a car. I previously spent over £100 a week on rail fares. Now I barely spend that a year.

£40 isn’t unreasonable (indeed I’m surprised there wasn’t ticket acceptance), but would you expect a taxi from Glasgow to London, or a hotel for the night based on the cost of an advance ticket?

What about if you’d been warned about serious weather/disruption and elected to travel anyway?

What about if you weren’t in Glasgow but in a remote location with no taxis and no hotels?

I'd expect the railway to not leave me stranded. You clearly have no confidence they won't. Indeed you seem to think they positively should.

 

[pemma]

The TOCs don't have final say on pay negotiations therefore it is outwith their control.

Is it though? Normally companies can't give pay rises if they don't have funds to provide it.

 

[43066]

Indeed. It's because of the railways attitude to its customers that I got a car. I previously spent over £100 a week on rail fares. Now I barely spend that a year.

Based on our exchanges today, and noting you even have an issue with the railway using the phrase “good service” on departure boards, I’d suggest it’s your own unrealistic expectations that are the problem here.

I'd expect the railway to not leave me stranded. You clearly have no confidence they won't. Indeed you seem to think they positively should.

Irrespective of the method of transport, if you’re foolish enough to travel against advice and end up stranded as a result, I don’t think anyone else should have to bail you out. Correct.

Experiences also differ. Based on my experience of U.K. motorways, unpredictable traffic etc. I’d have more confidence undertaking a long distance journey by railway than I ever would by road!

 

[Leisurefirst]

Some on here will tell you you shouldn't have gone by rail so it's your own fault. Some will tell you you're only a passenger so it's tough luck. Some will say you should get the £40 back and Some will say they should have put you up in a hotel then flown you back. But I don't think it's unreasonable they should take some responsibility for you and certainly shouldn't leave you stranded.

Indeed! (to all your points!)

Other forms of transport are available.



£40 isn’t unreasonable (indeed I’m surprised there wasn’t ticket acceptance), but would you expect a taxi from Glasgow to London, or a hotel for the night based on the cost of an advance ticket?

What about if you’d been warned about serious weather/disruption and elected to travel anyway?

What about if you weren’t in Glasgow but in a remote location with no taxis and no hotels?

In this case, no I wouldn't expect (nor want!) a taxi but IIRC as Avanti did not confirm they were running no services at all on the strike day concerned until a few days before (possibly after I had already gone away) and there sole "assistance" on their website was "don't travel" and a link to a bus website I admit I didn't ask them to arrange acceptance elsewhere and preemptively bought a Lumo Advance from Edinburgh while I still could.
Lumo were very clear on that night that they were not accepting any other operator's tickets too.
I don't want my original fare cost back, just the difference between that and the Scotrail & Lumo fares.
I had already emailed Avanti and they either accidentally or on purpose (I think I know which) blanked the request just telling me to get a refund from LNER as that's where I bought the Avanti advance from.
Have replied to them, no answer yet and concerned won't get one before the 28 days runs out so might have to claim refund from LNER for original ticket and pursue excess afterwards but I am not going to give up on this.

 

[43066]

In this case, no I wouldn't expect (nor want!) a taxi but IIRC as Avanti did not confirm they were running no services at all on the strike day concerned until a few days before (possibly after I had already gone away) and there sole "assistance" on their website was "don't travel" and a link to a bus website I admit I didn't ask them to arrange acceptance elsewhere and preemptively bought a Lumo Advance from Edinburgh while I still could.
Thet were very clear on that night that they were not accepting any other operator's tickets too.
I don't want my original fare cost back, just the difference between that and the Scotrail & Lumo fares.
I had already emailed Avanti and they either accidentally or on purpose (I think I know which) blanked the request just telling me to fet a refund from LNER as that's where I bought the Avanti advance from.
Have replied to them, no answer yet and concerned won't get one before the 28 days runs out so might have to claim refund from LNER for original ticket and pursue excess afterwards but I am not going to give up on this.

Fair enough. I’d agree you’d hope for some recompense in that scenario where you’ve clearly acted reasonably in the circumstances and mitigated the loss. Unfortunately Avanti are a truly dreadful TOC.

Best of luck with it!

 

[Leisurefirst]

Fair enough. I’d agree you’d hope for some recompense in that scenario where you’ve clearly acted reasonably in the circumstances and mitigated the loss. Unfortunately Avanti are a truly dreadful TOC.

Best of luck with it!

Thank you, appreciated.

 

[Hadders]

If I've booked my tickets and am staying away from home and a TOC announces "don't travel" whikst I'm away what am I meant to do?
I don't have anywhere to stay where I am and I booked in good faith when i booked as there was no travel ban in place.

I agree with this. Watch the number of ‘Do not travel’ messages increase if there’s no requirement for them to do anything.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Based on our exchanges today, and noting you even have an issue with the railway using the phrase “good service” on departure boards, I’d suggest it’s your own unrealistic expectations that are the problem here.



Irrespective of the method of transport, if you’re foolish enough to travel against advice and end up stranded as a result, I don’t think anyone else should have to bail you out. Correct.

Experiences also differ. Based on my experience of U.K. motorways, unpredictable traffic etc. I’d have more confidence undertaking a long distance journey by railway than I ever would by road!

I think good service should mean good service. I'm sorry if my definition is unreasonable for the railways.
You have totally and deliberately missed my point, which is travelling outward before any warnings were in place and needing to travel back when warnings were in place. We're not all clairvoyant but you believe the railways should leave people stranded in this situation.
I shared your worries about road travel before I got a car, but realise it was totally unfounded. Car travel is, I regret to say, far superior. I never thought I'd say that!
You're kept informed of delays with realistic updates, you're given viable alternatives. My car allows me to spend long journeys without needing to use either hands or feet and can interact with the car display screen all perfectly legally.
Meanwhile, the railways say that I should be left on a platform for 24 hours with no facilities for something noone knew about when I set off.