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

[Bletchleyite]

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

Agreed. This should only be able to be declared in very specifically defined circumstances, e.g. red weather warning, not just if they feel like as it WILL be abused.

 

[Hadders]

But how would you police it?

It’s no use to a passenger left stranded after a Do Not Travel message has gone out, even if a few days later it’s reviewed by an ombudsman or regulator who says it shouldn’t have been issued.

 

[trenopendo]

So TOCs get all the benefits from our archaic justice system (strict liability, criminal prosecutions) and little to no enforcement against them when it comes to respecting passenger's rights (Rail Ombudsman? Haha).

Sweeping reforms cannot come quickly enough.

 

[Watershed]

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.

I'm sure the DfT and Treasury will try their best. But as things stand, that's the law.

It's worth noting that where it's genuinely impossible to provide alternatives, there's not going to be any recourse. The railway cannot magic hotels or taxis out of thin air. But this is about when the railway could help but just decides not to.

This was for example the case during the recent red weather warning, where all the trains on my line were summarily withdrawn (before any problems had even occurred), with a threat that no replacement transport would be provided or expenses reimbursed. I had no trouble getting a taxi - so on what basis could the railway possibly justify its refusal to assist? It's a good thing the taxi bills were covered by my employer...

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.

But at what point do you set that bar? If it's down to the TOC, you just know it will be abused at the slightest hint of disruption.

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.

How is it unreasonable to expect the railway to provide an alternative when they've failed to provide what you paid for?

If you booked a flight six months ahead and the airline then cancelled it the night before, would you consider it acceptable to just be given a refund - even though a replacement flight could cost ten times as much?

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.

The British legal system doesn't really allow for class action claims for these sorts of breaches, unfortunately. Any expenses that the "franchised" TOCs pay out are reimbursed by the DfT etc. anyway - and if it's an Open Access Operator, in extremis they'd just cease operating, as Wrexham & Shropshire did (though for different reasons).

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.

That's as may be - but as stated above, that doesn't excuse an obstinate refusal to even try and help. No, you're not going to be able to magic a taxi out of thin air at Corrour but you certainly can at the vast majority of stations, certainly when you weight by passenger volumes.

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.

Except they can and do. See for instance Avanti, LNER and Lumo. It's not a very palatable solution - but it's absolutely possible.

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?

What if they are away from home when the 'do not travel' advice comes up? Again, it hardly seems 'bailing out'.

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.

Whilst the industry position is that there's a 28 day limit, the PRO doesn't provide any such limit, and also prohibits conditions of carriage from reducing or limiting rights. So, if push comes to shove, you can still get a refund after more than 28 days. I wouldn't accept a lesser remedy just because of the time limit.

So TOCs get all the benefits from our archaic justice system (strict liability, criminal prosecutions) and little to no enforcement against them when it comes to respecting passenger's rights (Rail Ombudsman? Haha).

Sweeping reforms cannot come quickly enough.

Precisely.

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

That does open a whole new can of worms. What if the bad weather/severe disruption wasn't known at the time the customer left? Would it be okay to strand customers in that situation?

Say I leave Belfast at 10:30 (so the 11:30 ferry) in the morning, travelling to london via Cairnryan, and at 15:00 the entire class 390 fleet gets grounded. Would that mean that I then have to arrange my own travel down to london or back to Belfast?

A passenger right that ensures people won't be left somewhere randomly around the country is essential so people can trust the railway. Stranding people is not acceptable, whatever the cause of the disruption

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!

There's a real problem with this suggestion; how long in advance can the railway just announce to suspend services? In what circumstances would that be acceptable?

Regarding the do not travel advice: I had advance tickets booked on a strike day; Because of the do not travel advice I asked to refund the tickets, and this was refused on the grounds that the exact train I was intending to take was not cancelled in the reduced strike timetable. What is the value of a "Do not travel" warning if they won't let you refund the tickets and not travel on the grounds of a do not travel warning? The person on the phone explicitly told me to go and travel anyway, so clearly the railway didn't think the "do not travel" warning was in fact serious

To get back to the threat title, the OP was specifically talking about not arranging ticket acceptance on other TOCs during strike days, which is something that evidently should have been done
Frankly, if I was forced to travel on a strike day and my regular route was not operating, I would probably have just assumed my ticket would be accepted on the most logical alternative route, and travelled via that route. If there was no ticket acceptance in place, that would be a bad breach of passenger rights

 

[43066]

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!

Whereas I spent 15 years driving, concluded it was generally slower and inferior, and haven’t bothered with a car for nearly three years now.

It always amazes me how many contributors to this forum claim to absolutely detest the railway and wax lyrical about how they prefer to drive everywhere. Each to their own!

I think good service should mean good service. I'm sorry if my definition is unreasonable for the railways.

We’ve been over this.

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.

But it hardly ever happens without any notice. I’ve literally never been stranded overnight by the railway, and I spend a lot of my working day on trains covering thousands of miles per week.

The only time I was genuinely stuck (or would have been had I been a passenger) it was on a day when the entire network had to be shut down, people had been urged not to travel and made aware that no alternative arrangements were available… I spent several hours waiting for a taxi but at least I was being paid for it. I suppose you imagine there are unlimited taxis and replacement buses for the railway to pluck out of thin air?

As I say… Unrealistic expectations are the issue here.

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.

So you have an entirely self driving car? Interesting you have something no manufacture has got close to perfecting yet. Either that or you’re using it in a way you shouldn’t be…

That worrying statement is another reason I’ll stick to the railway for my journeys where possible!

I'm sure the DfT and Treasury will try their best. But as things stand, that's the law.

It's worth noting that where it's genuinely impossible to provide alternatives, there's not going to be any recourse. The railway cannot magic hotels or taxis out of thin air. But this is about when the railway could help but just decides not to.

This seems a little contradictory. It appears that there’s no force majeure exemption from the relevant provisions. I doubt there’s a separate exemption for “genuinely impossible” situations - largely the same thing for these purposes!

This was for example the case during the recent red weather warning, where all the trains on my line were summarily withdrawn (before any problems had even occurred), with a threat that no replacement transport would be provided or expenses reimbursed. I had no trouble getting a taxi - so on what basis could the railway possibly justify its refusal to assist? It's a good thing the taxi bills were covered by my employer...

If they’ve been withdrawn in advance of severe disruption, surely that’s just being proactive and sensible? The key thing is that the message is out there and people are told “don’t travel and if you do travel, it’s at your own risk”!

I spent five hours stuck in the midlands last autumn because the network had shut down and no taxis were available. What hope for thousands of passengers in that situation?!

But at what point do you set that bar? If it's down to the TOC, you just know it will be abused at the slightest hint of disruption.

I agree there needs to be some objectivity to the decision. But that should be easily achievable by adopting industry wide standards for when services can be pared back.

How is it unreasonable to expect the railway to provide an alternative when they've failed to provide what you paid for?

If you booked a flight six months ahead and the airline then cancelled it the night before, would you consider it acceptable to just be given a refund - even though a replacement flight could cost ten times as much?

What would you consider it reasonable for the airline to do if there are no other flights available (all fully booked), or if the airport has closed due to a sinkhole in the runway etc (as actually happened at Gatwick a few years ago). Probably to accommodate at a hotel - okay then. How many stations have hotels close at hand?

It’s not the same situation and there are limits to what can be expected to be achieved - especially for those who’ve spent £20 on an advance rail ticket.

The British legal system doesn't really allow for class action claims for these sorts of breaches, unfortunately. Any expenses that the "franchised" TOCs pay out are reimbursed by the DfT etc. anyway - and if it's an Open Access Operator, in extremis they'd just cease operating, as Wrexham & Shropshire did (though for different reasons).

The vast majority of passengers are carried by franchised TOCs. My point is that the reimbursement from the DfT doesn’t come from thin air, it’s public money that is ultimately going to be underwriting the overwhelming majority of these claims.

That's as may be - but as stated above, that doesn't excuse an obstinate refusal to even try and help. No, you're not going to be able to magic a taxi out of thin air at Corrour but you certainly can at the vast majority of stations, certainly when you weight by passenger volumes.

You’re suggesting the vast majority of stations are going to have plentiful taxis available during weather extremis? I must say I rather doubt that based on bitter experience! In my five hour wait example above, barely anyone was travelling and I was at a city in the East Midlands.

With all due respect talking about “trying to help” is easy when you won’t actually be the person who potentially ends up stranded in the middle of nowhere for hours with hundreds of passengers on a train with no power, no lighting, no toilets etc.

Except they can and do. See for instance Avanti, LNER and Lumo. It's not a very palatable solution - but it's absolutely possible.

Do LNER and LUMO limit numbers by reservations? Last I checked there’s nothing generally limiting the numbers of people buying tickets for walk up travel at most operators, including my own.

What if they are away from home when the 'do not travel' advice comes up? Again, it hardly seems 'bailing out'.

It’s vanishingly rare for this to happen with absolutely no notice. If it happens it’s hard luck - but that’s largely the position already because the “entitlements” under the current legislative reforms are generally neither enforced nor enforceable.

A passenger right that ensures people won't be left somewhere randomly around the country is essential so people can trust the railway. Stranding people is not acceptable, whatever the cause of the disruption.

If something is unavoidable, as a matter of practicality, whether or not it’s also unacceptable is largely irrelevant!

 

[Deafdoggie]

So you have an entirely self driving car? Interesting you have something no manufacture has got close to perfecting yet. Either that or you’re using it in a way you shouldn’t be…

That worrying statement is another reason I’ll stick to the railway for my journeys where possible!

You need to move with the times! It's very much a feature of many modern cars. The law has been changed to allow it. The highway code has been updated with it. Of course, you need to reread what I wrote rather than changing it to suit your argument. But, yes, my car will stay in lane and will control the gap with the car in front and knows the speed limit and won't break it all with no intervention from me and all perfectly legal and legally no feet on pedals or hands on wheel.

 

[Trainbike46]

If something is unavoidable, as a matter of practicality, whether or not it’s also unacceptable is largely irrelevant!

I don't expect the railway to perform magic; and in my experience the railway has, in the thankfully few cases that severe disruption occured, ensured neither me nor any other passengers on my train were left stranded; I would however be opposed to any reduction in rights that ensure people aren't left stranded. In part, because if you tell people "if this goes belly up, you're on your own" will turn people off the railway even on the vast majority of days when there isn't an issue, and because leaving people in random places isn't acceptable. you seem to believe these rights need to be weakened, but why? if there are no hotels/taxis/alternative routes by rail/coaches/buses, clearly the railway isn't providing them. As has been established by the lack of legal precedent on the matter, the railway doesn't routinely get sued over this matter, so what problem does eroding passenger rights (which certain railway companies would absolutely use to not provide help to people when it would be possible to do so).

Another question, if you work on the railway, as it appears in your reactions, why would you want rights that give people peace of mind to travel on the railway to be weakened? The only thing it will achieve is that some people will be turned off travelling by train, which is very much against the interest of all railway staff.

 

[Deafdoggie]

But it hardly ever happens without any notice. I’ve literally never been stranded overnight by the railway, and I spend a lot of my working day on trains covering thousands of miles per week.

The only time I was genuinely stuck (or would have been had I been a passenger) it was on a day when the entire network had to be shut down, people had been urged not to travel and made aware that no alternative arrangements were available… I spent several hours waiting for a taxi but at least I was being paid for it. I suppose you imagine there are unlimited taxis and replacement buses for the railway to pluck out of thin air?

As I say… Unrealistic expectations are the issue here.

When did the railway give 28 days advance notice of not to travel? You are, of course, totally right about unrealistic expectations and I'm sure you'll realise eventually you need to have them. But if they sell tickets where I can return 28 days later on it they need to let me know before I set off I can't come back. I really can't believe you think it's acceptable to strand people, indeed, positivity advocate it!

 

[43066]

You need to move with the times! It's very much a feature of many modern cars. The law has been changed to allow it. The highway code has been updated with it. Of course, you need to reread what I wrote rather than changing it to suit your argument. But, yes, my car will stay in lane and will control the gap with the car in front and knows the speed limit and won't break it all with no intervention from me and all perfectly legal and legally no feet on pedals or hands on wheel.

That’s interesting, so you’re doubling down on:

spend long journeys without needing to use either hands or feet and can interact with the car display screen all perfectly legally.

How does that work? You get into the car without touching the controls and it takes you on long journeys from A to B with you staring at a screen?!

As I say - it’s odd that the latest models from TESLA etc. don’t actually work like this yet (and yes I’m fairly up with the technology) and yet somehow you have it!

 

[tomuk]

You need to move with the times! It's very much a feature of many modern cars. The law has been changed to allow it. The highway code has been updated with it. Of course, you need to reread what I wrote rather than changing it to suit your argument. But, yes, my car will stay in lane and will control the gap with the car in front and knows the speed limit and won't break it all with no intervention from me and all perfectly legal and legally no feet on pedals or hands on wheel.

And who in their right mind wants to drive a car like that? How dull and boring.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It always amazes me how many contributors to this forum claim to absolutely detest the railway and wax lyrical about driving.

So everyone else is wrong and only you are right?

That’s interesting, so you’re doubling down on:



How does that work? You get into the car without touching the controls and it takes you on long journeys from A to B with you staring at a screen?!

As I say - it’s odd that the latest models from TESLA etc. don’t actually work like this yet (and yes I’m fairly up with the technology) and yet somehow you have it!

Obviously I have to start it and set it. I didn't realise you needed every step explaining.

And who in their right mind wants to drive a car like that? How dull and boring.

It's way less stressful. But, obviously you don't have to. But insurance is cheaper if you do

 

[tomuk]

So everyone else is wrong and only you are right?


Obviously I have to start it and set it. I didn't realise you needed every step explaining.


It's way less stressful. But, obviously you don't have to. But insurance is cheaper if you do

How is the insurance cheaper as you plough into various obstacles while glued to the ridiculous iPad itself glued to the dashboard?

 

[Deafdoggie]

How is the insurance cheaper as you plough into various obstacles while glued to the ridiculous iPad itself glued to the dashboard?

Because the computer won't let it crash into anything. Statistically it's way less likely to crash and that is almost certainly someone else's fault so will be on their insurance. A human is far more likely to have an accident and crash into something. So from an insurers point of view self-driving is to be encouraged.
It's much the same for trains. We have AWS & TPWS etc because computer systems are safer than humans. Self-drive is just the next technology step

 

[43066]

if there are no hotels/taxis/alternative routes by rail/coaches/buses, clearly the railway isn't providing them. As has been established by the lack of legal precedent on the matter, the railway doesn't routinely get sued over this matter,

Indeed. It’s exactly that scenario I’m aiming my comments at. The railway will *always* do its level best to get you home.

My point is that best endeavours not to strand people should be made by the railway, of course, but there should be no theoretical legal liability where that isn’t physically possible, for whatever reason.

Another question, if you work on the railway, as it appears in your reactions, why would you want rights that give people peace of mind to travel on the railway to be weakened? The only thing it will achieve is that some people will be turned off travelling by train, which is very much against the interest of all railway staff.

I just want a sensible legal regime that reflects the current reality.

Obviously I have to start it and set it. I didn't realise you needed every step explaining.

I’m afraid I thrive on detail.

So you’re now saying you just get into it, start it and set it. Then it drives you to where you need to go: without needing to use either hands or feet and can interact with the car display screen all perfectly legally (your words)…

What model of car do you have? I’m sure Elon Musk will be keen to know, because he’s yet to perfect such an invention himself!

 

[Deafdoggie]

I’m afraid I thrive on detail.

So you’re now saying you just get into it, start it, and set it. Then it drives you to where you need to go: without needing to use either hands or feet and can interact with the car display screen all perfectly legally?

What model of car do you have? I’m sure Elon Musk will be keen to know…

I know nothing about Teslas so I have no idea what they are like at all.
In my original post I said (and you have chosen to ignore) "in certain circumstances".
It won't drive me round town at the moment, and I must say I thought common sense would have made that clear, although, of course, technology marches relentlessly on and it's only a matter of time. Indeed, just a month ago I was part of a trial for a well known supermarket trialling driverless home delivery, although this had to be done on a test track, the technology is pretty much ready for round town driving. It's possible Tesla don't know about it I guess, they didn't use Tesla products. But I'm guessing they're trialling their own but I really don't know.
At the moment though the restricting factor is the law. But that's slowly changing. The technology is virtually there.

 

[Trainbike46]

Indeed. It’s exactly that scenario I’m aiming my comments at. The railway will *always* do its level best to get you home.

My point is that best endeavours not to strand people should be made by the railway, of course, but there should be no theoretical legal liability where that isn’t physically possible, for whatever reason.

I just want a sensible legal regime that reflects the current reality.

you seem to be trying to fix an issue that doesn't currently exist with a solution that has the potential to have quite bad negative side effects; I'm not convinced that's a good idea

 

[43066]

I know nothing about Teslas so I have no idea what they are like at all.

Clearly.

In my original post I said (and you have chosen to ignore) "in certain circumstances".

No, you literally said:

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.

Which is completely inaccurate/dishonest (as we all know).

The law has been changed to allow it

It’s not yet legal to do what you’ve described above… Legislation is being debated but not yet passed…

 

[Deafdoggie]

Which is completely inaccurate/dishonest (as we all know).

It’s not yet legal to do what you’ve described above… Legislation is being debated but not yet passed…

Again, I'm afraid, you're behind the times. The law permits it in multi-lane traffic. The debate is about single lane driving and the next steps towards it.
If you're going to try and argue the case please at least use facts.
I'm a CPC trainer and driving instructor I know what I'm talking about. You wish to strand people on stations and appear largely clueless.

 

[Benjwri]

It always amazes me how many contributors to this forum claim to absolutely detest the railway and wax lyrical about how they prefer to drive everywhere.

Not everyone has easy access to the railway. The UK has a more comprehensive network than most countries, but not everyone lives within walking distance of a station. To get a train I have to drive or be dropped off, my village isn't even served by buses.

Unless you are travelling on a higher speed direct line such as the GWML, it simply is quicker to take the car. Not to mention the are many many journeys which you simply cannot do efficiently by railway. Taking the GWML for example, it is great if you want to travel East or West, but living on it if you're wanting to go North or South you have to travel to stations such as Paddington, Didcot, Bristol and change trains, then head up North and then back East/West to your destination, by which point car is much faster.

 

[43066]

The law permits it in multi-lane traffic.

Permits what? Specifically which legislation are you referring to?

Perhaps you can also tell me which law permits you to do the following, please?

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.

Show me the legislation that permits what you’ve stated above, and tell us what model of car you have that enables you to stare at a screen perfectly legally
and not touch the controls.

'm a CPC trainer and driving instructor I know what I'm talking about. You wish to strand people on stations and appear largely clueless.

I don’t think you have any idea what you’re taking about. But then I only have licenses to drive trains, aeroplanes and cars, so what would I know.

I’ve never driven a CPC, what’s it like?

 

[Deafdoggie]

I’ve never driven a CPC, what’s it like?

And there's the sentence that proves you don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.
And with that, we're going wildly off-topic. If you want the answers to the other questions you raise, I suggest Google, although I sense you won't believe the results anyway. You're adamant I'm wrong in everything whilst openly admitting you're clueless about it.

 

[tomuk]

And there's the sentence that proves you don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.
And with that, we're going wildly off-topic. If you want the answers to the other questions you raise, I suggest Google, although I sense you won't believe the results anyway. You're adamant I'm wrong in everything whilst openly admitting you're clueless about it.

Certificate of Professional Competence - what bus and lorry drivers need in addition to their license (there is also Transport Manager CPC).

What model of car do you have by the way?

 

[43066]

And there's the sentence that proves you don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.
And with that, we're going wildly off-topic. If you want the answers to the other questions you raise, I suggest Google, although I sense you won't believe the results anyway. You're adamant I'm wrong in everything whilst openly admitting you're clueless about it.

I was being droll.

I’m still keen to know what model of fully autonomous car you’re driving on U.K. roads in 2022, and which legislation permits it (for you only, it’s still illegal for everyone else).

The floor is yours and I’ve asked you these questions more than once.

If you can’t provide the above information, it’s clear which of us is truly clueless…

Not everyone has easy access to the railway. The UK has a more comprehensive network than most countries, but not everyone lives within walking distance of a station. To get a train I have to drive or be dropped off, my village isn't even served by buses.

Unless you are travelling on a higher speed direct line such as the GWML, it simply is quicker to take the car. Not to mention the are many many journeys which you simply cannot do efficiently by railway. Taking the GWML for example, it is great if you want to travel East or West, but living on it if you're wanting to go North or South you have to travel to stations such as Paddington, Didcot, Bristol and change trains, then head up North and then back East/West to your destination, by which point car is much faster.

Agreed. Things are very different outside London and the southeast. Equally the railway is relied on less in those areas, so potentially less risk of strandings.

 

[skyhigh]

What model of car do you have by the way?

I would also like to know that. As far as I'm aware, Tesla is pretty much market-leading in self driving technology and they state:

Before enabling Autopilot, the driver first needs to agree to “keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and to always “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.” Subsequently, every time the driver engages Autopilot, they are shown a visual reminder to “keep your hands on the wheel."

Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability | Tesla Support

Autopilot is an advanced driver assistance system that enhances safety and convenience behind the wheel. When used properly, Autopilot reduces your overall workload as a driver. Learn more about Autopilot.

www.tesla.com

So I'm genuinely interested which model of car allows you to drive down the motorway without your hands on the steering wheel.

 

[ComUtoR]

So I'm genuinely interested which model of car allows you to drive down the motorway without your hands on the steering wheel.

Most likely a Mercedes with all the active driving assist packages.

 

[43066]

Most likely a Mercedes with all the active driving assist packages.

It won’t be. There isn’t a car capable of it yet…

It also isn’t yet legal to drive a fully autonomous car on U.K. roads… It’s a rapidly developing area of law.

I’m sure we’re all waiting for @Deafdoggie to answer the questions above?

 

[Horizon22]

I'm sure the DfT and Treasury will try their best. But as things stand, that's the law.

It's worth noting that where it's genuinely impossible to provide alternatives, there's not going to be any recourse. The railway cannot magic hotels or taxis out of thin air. But this is about when the railway could help but just decides not to.

This was for example the case during the recent red weather warning, where all the trains on my line were summarily withdrawn (before any problems had even occurred), with a threat that no replacement transport would be provided or expenses reimbursed. I had no trouble getting a taxi - so on what basis could the railway possibly justify its refusal to assist? It's a good thing the taxi bills were covered by my employer...

What if they are away from home when the 'do not travel' advice comes up? Again, it hardly seems 'bailing out'.


Whilst the industry position is that there's a 28 day limit, the PRO doesn't provide any such limit, and also prohibits conditions of carriage from reducing or limiting rights. So, if push comes to shove, you can still get a refund after more than 28 days. I wouldn't accept a lesser remedy just because of the time limit.

There's a very fine line I think between these two points in reality. Withdrawing trains in advance and giving prior warning about the state of affairs with potential severe weather is much better than a TOC and NR having to mobilise resource to Nowheresville late at night because the train has become stranded and the network has had to shutdown with people midway through their journeys. At that point it becomes incredibly expensive (not to mention difficult due to all the rail replacement resource being wanted at the same time and buses and taxis aren't immune either) to ensure that passenger who are mid-journey aren't stranded by putting them up in hotels and so on.

During even the most severe disruption it is normally just about possible to eventually get to your destination (unless it kicks off towards the end of service), even if it might be a convoluted journey several hours late and then a bus/taxi to do the final distance.

The railway cannot produce en-masse transport for a Red alert or "DO NOT TRAVEL" but at the same time is a dereliction of duty to try and plow on with even a reduced level of service when it is known it will cause problems and might potential endanger passengers. There's really no winners.

 

[MikeWh]

It won’t be. There isn’t a car capable of it yet…

I'm by no means a car expert, but my Mum's car has beeps alerting her to objects when manoevering (eg parking). My car has cruise control which means I can take my feet off the pedals. Neither car is brand new, or expensive, so I can well believe that newer higher priced vehicles might well contain other driving assistance. In fact I'm sure I've seen adverts for cars that can park themselves if you position them at the right place to start the manoevre.

It also isn’t yet legal to drive a fully autonomous car on U.K. roads… It’s a rapidly developing area of law.

You seem to have got into your head that what is being talked about is a fully autonomous car. I don't believe it is.

I’m sure we’re all waiting for @Deafdoggie to answer the questions above?

I'm sure we're not. You might be, but I think you've been too confrontational, so I don't think you'll get the answers.

 

[Skymonster]

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.

That was O’Leary’s argument when airlines were forced to make alternative arrangements and pay compensation. Since they’ve had to suck it up, they’ve altered their pricing models to ensure there is provision for disruption payments - its one of the reasons you don’t see £0.01 or £1.00 air fares anymore. No one is forcing the railway to offer ridiculously cheap advances - £1 on each advance tier should be enough to provision for taxis / hotels for disrupted customers on the few mass-disruption days that occur.

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

In principle, advising passengers not to travel when there is likely to be mass disruption seems to be prudent. However, its the people that have already incurred other costs that is more of an issue. Take people who have already booked travel and other activities for September, and now find their plans are going to be disrupted by rail strikes. Why should they be out of pocket because some militants decide not to go to work? It simply isn’t feasible to book refundable hotels / air fares etc all of the time, so there will be people planning to use the train who will lose out - and should be compensated by the railway for that loss. There is also the issue of people who are already away when disruption is announced, who might have no choice but to return home despite the issues. Again, why should they be out of pocket?

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.

Yes, or compensated for consequential loss.

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.

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?

There’s a big difference between people who are foolish enough to make travel arrangements after mass disruption is announced, and people who already have made commitments and will be out of pocket just because the trains they previously booked do not operate. As previously, if the industry increased advance tickets slightly to provide a contingency for compensation / taxis / hotels etc it needed cost the taxpayer anything - that’s effectively what airlines did, as they didn’t have the safety net of the state to bale them out. I know I’d gladly pay £4.40 rather than £3.40 for a train from Sheffield to Derby if I knew that meant if the railway let me down it would see me right.

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.

Again, what would you say to the person who is abroad in September, is coming back on the day of a strike, and suddenly finds their train home from the airport is cancelled because of strikes? Holiday is probably not fully refundable, flight unlikely to be so. Should they ditch the whole holiday? Why should they be out of pocket? If we took this argument to a logical conclusion, no one planning to use the railway should ever book non-refundable hotels, non-refundable flights, non-refundable concert / sports tickets etc, simply because in this era of poor industrial relations no one can rely on any train running more than two weeks hence. So in such circumstances, the rail industry should have an obligation - a duty of care - to get such customers home or accommodated.

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 !

Sadly it may end up that someone does try to sleep on a bench outside a station because they can’t get home and can’t afford a hotel - and they get mugged, seriously assaulted or worse. Maybe then in a blizzard to adverse publicity things will change - it would be a tragedy if that had to happen before things do change and the railway industry takes a more responsible attitude to its consumer obligations.