Thameslink brighton service

[sk99]

This is mostly a rant.

Thamslink have got to be the worst service I have ever encountered. I travel from Brighton to L bridge everyday and back, I have an annual ticket which is never cheap and always rises in price every year. This is only for the service to get equally worse.

For context - I've got on one train this evening got as far as Norwood junction from L bridge and cancels due to a fault. I manage to get myself to east Croydon in time for the next brighton thameslink service, i get on and find out that also has a fault and is going as far as three bridges. The driver instructs passengers for brighton to get the Gatwick express service from Gatwick. However there is no ticket acceptance on that train for the thameslink commuters. Just an absolute **** show.

They always have the fraud police knocking about now, they squeeze every little penny out of the customers and does not repay it with the service.

I put in complains and gets brushed off everytime - I just want to know does anyone else have the same level of frustration as me?

 

[williamn]

I was supposed to be on a Northbound Thameslink today from Brighton that was started at Three Bridges instead. I got onto Gatwick Express instead without asking - and luckily ticket acceptance HAD been organised!

 

[sk99]

I was supposed to be on a Northbound Thameslink today from Brighton that was started at Three Bridges instead. I got onto Gatwick Express instead without asking - and luckily ticket acceptance HAD been organised!

Thats lucky I've had it before where they've charged me a full single ticket! Then when asking the information desk at Victoria I was shouted at and called everything under the sun by the bloke at the information desk!

 

[Somewhere]

If Gatwick Express stops additionally, does that not imply that ticket acceptance has been arranged? Otherwise most people getting on won't have a valid ticket!

 

[al78]

I have not experienced anything that bad and I use Thameslink twice a week to get to Farringdon, however, faults seem to be common. Mostly problems with the signalling system but the occasional fault with a train happens as well. I've been lucky so far that these have only rarely affected my journey. Not sure what the answer is other than a more thorough maintenance regime. It looks like in your case there has been a lack of communication between Thameslink and Gatwick Express if the latter would not accept tickets when the former services have gone tits up even when you have been told otherwise. Again, I have not experienced this before as whenever I have been caught up in that level of disruption (which so far has been extremely rare), I've not had a problem following the advice to use alternative trains.

 

[dontteleport]

Unfortunately GTR often seem to show disregard for the fact that they have an obligation to get paying customers to their destination in a timely and reasonably stress-free manner IMO. Twice in the past two months I've been stranded after the last Brighton train was cancelled at short notice, once again Three Bridges and once at East Croydon.

Both times staff didn't appear to care at all that they have an obligation to get me to Brighton since I've turned up in time for a scheduled service. Staff have just gone 'good luck', at which point I've taken the effort of phoning NRE to get taxis organised. When they were eventually dispatched, no GTR/ontrak staff came to address the situation despite both stations being staffed 24hrs.

On one occasion at ECR I even had to phone NRE inside the taxi to convince the driver that he was being reimbursed since he asked "how are you going to pay?". That was after waiting nearly 3 hours for a cab since they organised a firm in Lewisham that never ended up assigning a driver.

Recently a staff member told me my ticket wasn't valid at 00:50 since it was "the next day" (it's until 04:30).

All of this has happened to me in the last 2 months, and over cancellations at less than 3 hours notice, so not a P-code, and I'm well within my rights to expect to reach my destination, middle of the night or not. It's like they don't understand that if they schedule trains and people pay to be transported on them, those people expect to always end up at their destination without further expense, and provided a reasonable level of assistance to do so, even if things do go awry operationally. Given the legally binding nature of a booked ticket, I speculate (unqualified) that such neglect of obligations could even be unlawful.

 

[skyhigh]

They always have the fraud police knocking about now, they squeeze every little penny out of the customers and does not repay it with the service.

Still upset you got caught evading your fare?

 

[Farigiraf]

I've usually found the service to be quite reliable (and often affordable). Can get very packed south of St Pancras, but that's normal for commuterland. Have noticed that occasionally they curtail the service at Three Bridges, and with Southern no longer running their Brighton service, passengers seem to have to change onto the Express at Gatwick (and I don't doubt that this acceptance isn't always put in place).

 

[modernrail]

Still upset you got caught evading your fare?

I suspect it was a not particularly difficult to grasp comment about train companies that seem to be able to do fairly well at arranging personnel to clamp down on fare evasion but seem remarkably inept at fixing the trains or working with the asset owner of the infrastructure they operate over to operate the service that entitles then to collect the fare in the first place.

As for ticket acceptance, the idea this is not instant on any delayed train is a nonsense. If a train company doesn’t manage to run something on time, the passengers who planned to catch that train should be able to squeeze on to whatever lump of badly maintained metal happens to be moving next.

‘You are an hour late’ - ‘I had to sit at Gatwick Airport for an hour whilst the train company spoke to itself about me being able to catch one of the 8 trains I could have caught from the other platforms’.

 

[Somewhere]

I suspect it was a not particularly difficult to grasp comment about train companies that seem to be able to do fairly well at arranging personnel to clamp down on fare evasion but seem remarkably inept at fixing the trains or working with the asset owner of the infrastructure they operate over to operate the service that entitles then to collect the fare in the first place.

As for ticket acceptance, the idea this is not instant on any delayed train is a nonsense. If a train company doesn’t manage to run something on time, the passengers who planned to catch that train should be able to squeeze on to whatever lump of badly maintained metal happens to be moving next.

‘You are an hour late’ - ‘I had to sit at Gatwick Airport for an hour whilst the train company spoke to itself about me being able to catch one of the 8 trains I could have caught from the other platforms’.

And the company speaks to itself and still says 'no'

 

[dontteleport]

Still upset you got caught evading your fare?

I don't think comments like that are helpful, OP is clearly referring to revenue staff doing their job officiously while the service doesn't run equally well. I.e. they're happy to check you've upheld your end of the contract while they neglect theirs. It's just a very poor look to the general public and can really leave you with a bad taste in your mouth. I have personal experience (different TOC but same principle) of this when having an advanced ticket with a delayed connecting train, and having to argue my way onto the next service being told I need to buy a whole new ticket, threatened with revenue enforcement etc. Or indeed with Thameslink as I mentioned above. It's not okay to apply one standard to yourself and another to the other party when asking for money. Subjectively, I despise meeting revenue officers checking I've paid after alighting from a heavily delayed service, it feels downright cheeky.

 

[43066]

I don't think comments like that are helpful, OP is clearly referring to revenue staff doing their job officiously while the service doesn't run equally well. I.e. they're happy to check you've upheld your end of the contract while they neglect theirs. It's just a very poor look to the general public and can really leave you with a bad taste in your mouth. I have personal experience (different TOC but same principle) of this when having an advanced ticket with a delayed connecting train, and having to argue my way onto the next service being told I need to buy a whole new ticket, threatened with revenue enforcement etc. Or indeed with Thameslink as I mentioned above. It's not okay to apply one standard to yourself and another to the other party when asking for money. Subjectively, I despise meeting revenue officers checking I've paid after alighting from a heavily delayed service, it feels downright cheeky.

Someone wanting to rant about the service received, while also being happy to themselves criminally deprive the system of revenue, seems a bizarre position to adopt. It also has zero credibility, as clearly they consider that the service is good enough to use, they just want to avoid paying for it!

I.e. they're happy to check you've upheld your end of the contract while they neglect theirs.

This is a false equivalence; disruption is specifically contemplated by the contract you enter into when you buy a train ticket, and indeed there’s a contractual mechanism for being compensated for it. If people consider the railway too unreliable, or that the compensation arrangements are inadequate, they’re entirely free not to use the system! The fact disruption is experienced in no way entitles people to commit criminal acts as some sort of quid pro quo.

You’re perhaps unaware that it’s the taxpayer and farepayers who end up footing the bill for lost revenue, rather than the TOCs. The operating companies don’t care as they don’t take the revenue risk, and simply undertake the minimum revenue protection activities their own contracts require them to.

 

[modernrail]

Someone wanting to rant about the service received, while also being happy to themselves criminally deprive the system of revenue, seems a bizarre position to adopt. It also has zero credibility, as clearly they consider that the service is good enough to use, they just want to avoid paying for it!




This is a false equivalence; disruption is specifically contemplated by the contract you enter into when you buy a train ticket, and indeed there’s a contractual mechanism for being compensated for it. If people consider the railway too unreliable, or that the compensation arrangements are inadequate, they’re entirely free not to use the system! The fact disruption is experienced in no way entitles people to commit criminal acts as some sort of quid pro quo.

You’re perhaps unaware that it’s the taxpayer and farepayers who end up footing the bill for lost revenue, rather than the TOCs. The operating companies don’t care as they don’t take the revenue risk, and simply undertake the minimum revenue protection activities their own contracts require them to.

Err cough cough, you both appear to be accusing the OP of not paying their fare. It doesn’t take the brightest lawyer in the world to re-read your posts and realise you have both potentially libeled them. Unless I am missing some rather critical words in the original post, such as ‘which was annoying as I was caught not paying my fare’.

Perhaps apologies are due.

 

[MCR247]

Err cough cough, you both appear to be accusing the OP of not paying their fare. It doesn’t take the brightest lawyer in the world to re-read your posts and realise you have both potentially libeled them. Unless I am missing some rather critical words in the original post, such as ‘which was annoying as I was caught not paying my fare’.

Perhaps apologies are due.

I think the OP previously had a thread in the Disputes forum

 

[43066]

Err cough cough, you both appear to be accusing the OP of not paying their fare. It doesn’t take the brightest lawyer in the world to re-read your posts and realise you have both potentially libeled them. Unless I am missing some rather critical words in the original post, such as ‘which was annoying as I was caught not paying my fare’.

Perhaps apologies are due.

I don’t think so!? The OP has openly admitted to it on the forum, which is what @skyhigh was referring to. I was then responding to a poster who seems to think that makes no difference to their credibility in complaining about the service they receive. I disagree with that view for the reasons stated.

 

[ComUtoR]

Err cough cough, you both appear to be accusing the OP of not paying their fare. It doesn’t take the brightest lawyer in the world to re-read your posts and realise you have both potentially libeled them. Unless I am missing some rather critical words in the original post, such as ‘which was annoying as I was caught not paying my fare’.

Perhaps apologies are due.

Greater Anglia Partial Fare Evasion

Hi All, Yesterday I was caught out at Sawbridgeworth Station without a valid ticket. I currently live in Brighton and normally travel to London Bridge as per my season ticket (Thameslink train with zones 1-6) but travel to my girlfriends from work one or two weeks of the month - these journeys...

www.railforums.co.uk

The thread is available here. The OP admits fare evasion and was given an undisclosed settlement.

If I was paying for a service, then I would have a right to complain. I feel differently if I was stealing something as I was getting something for 'free' so I am less invested in how I feel about the service and would look upon other paying customers as 'suckers'

People often feel that the price they paid for something equates the quality of product/service received.

 

[dontteleport]

This is a false equivalence; disruption is specifically contemplated by the contract you enter into when you buy a train ticket, and indeed there’s a contractual mechanism for being compensated for it. If people consider the railway too unreliable, or that the compensation arrangements are inadequate, they’re entirely free not to use the system! The fact disruption is experienced in no way entitles people to commit criminal acts as some sort of quid pro quo.

I think you're slightly overgeneralising when talking about 'disruption'. As I said before, disruption is going to happen, but it's down to the TOCs to manage that disruption in a responsible and appropriate way. When services are cancelled at very short notice, TOCs have an obligation to find fare-paying passengers a way to their destination station. This shouldn't be an excessively arduous experience for passengers, and it's not at all unreasonable to expect a level of staff coordination in terms of advising stranded passengers on their options and organising replacement transport (where required to do so). This is what I'm criticising GTR for - I use their services regularly and have found extremely poor customer service, including failing to transport stranded passengers, on multiple occasions.

As for your remark on fare evasion, I have at no point implied anyone is entitled to fare-evade at any point. I've stated that for me, as a fare paying passenger, I take exception to having my revenue contributions inspected so officiously in situations where the service I'm entitled to isn't correspondingly up to par. I think that's a very reasonable point from a customer service perspective, and these are passenger railways after all. Having experienced situations where staff have, and with authority, wrongly told me I need to pay for new tickets or pay again, this influences me to take a negative view of proactive and strict revenue enforcement, necessary or not.

You’re perhaps unaware that it’s the taxpayer and farepayers who end up footing the bill for lost revenue, rather than the TOCs. The operating companies don’t care as they don’t take the revenue risk, and simply undertake the minimum revenue protection activities their own contracts require them to.

That's an oversimplification of how rail revenue works, and I don't see how it's related to the point I've raised.

Err cough cough, you both appear to be accusing the OP of not paying their fare. It doesn’t take the brightest lawyer in the world to re-read your posts and realise you have both potentially libeled them. Unless I am missing some rather critical words in the original post, such as ‘which was annoying as I was caught not paying my fare’.

Perhaps apologies are due.

No, I haven't. From other posts here that may or may not be true, but I have in no way implied that. I have not criticised the actions of OP or characterised them in any way. I have nothing to apologise for.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I only have Thameslink services at my station and they generally run pretty well but at the first sign of disruption things fall apart with little concern for the passengers as the priority appears to be to avoid wider contamination onto other service groups. This i accept is a necessary evil and one of the downsides from the ease of travelling between North and South of the river without having to change but you would have thought after so many years they would have developed better contingency plans including improving communication to the station staff who bare the brunt of passengers frustrations.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Just how hard is it for Thameslink to arrange ticket acceptance with Southern/Gatwick Express during times of genuine disruption? They're all GTR, aren't they?

 

[T-Karmel]

Is a season ticket any different to a single or return? They're issued to/from "London Thameslink" but are not "Thameslink only", so can be used on GatEx between Brighton and Gatwick.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is a season ticket any different to a single or return? They're issued to/from "London Thameslink" but are not "Thameslink only", so can be used on GatEx between Brighton and Gatwick.

The season ticket *could* possibly be Brighton to London Terminals (route "Thameslink Only").

 

[MrJeeves]

Just how hard is it for Thameslink to arrange ticket acceptance with Southern/Gatwick Express during times of genuine disruption? They're all GTR, aren't they?

To be honest, I've never had an issue using my "Thameslink only" ticket on other GTR services when there isn't disruption, let alone when there is!

@yorkie has mentioned before that if someone does get a penalty fare for something like this on GTR, he'd be interested to hear about it and help fight it.

 

[yorkie]

However there is no ticket acceptance on that train for the thameslink commuters. Just an absolute **** show.

Use your ticket regardless; if charged extra, pay it and contact us

Just how hard is it for Thameslink to arrange ticket acceptance with Southern/Gatwick Express during times of genuine disruption?

Tickets are valid anyway as GTR aren't allowed to charge differential prices by brand.

They're all GTR, aren't they?

Yep; it's all one company, talking nonsense.

And now in hot water for it!

 

[AlbertBeale]

Is a season ticket any different to a single or return? They're issued to/from "London Thameslink" but are not "Thameslink only", so can be used on GatEx between Brighton and Gatwick.

Presumably, as with day tickets, they exist in both forms (both being much cheaper than an unrestricted Brighton to/from London Terminals one)? If they're shown as for journeys between Brighton and London Thameslink, they're anyway valid on all services between East Croydon and Brighton and no-one should query that. If they're routed "Thameslink only", then staff will probably tell you that they're not valid on the wrong colour train...; even if that's untrue, it's an unnecessary hassle, which can be avoided by getting "the right sort" of cheaper London-Brighton ticket.

 

[winks]

I’m pretty sure south of Gatwick Airport you can use GaEx. Or that’s what I was told.

I was once charged an additional fee on my off peak day return to Brighton with no restrictions and no “thameslink only” as I boarded a Gatwick Express service at Haywards Heath. To this day I think the guard got this wrong !

 

[yorkie]

I’m pretty sure south of Gatwick Airport you can use GaEx. Or that’s what I was told

Does anyone have this is writing?

I was once charged an additional fee on my off peak day return to Brighton with no restrictions and no “thameslink only” as I boarded a Gatwick Express service at Haywards Heath. To this day I think the guard got this wrong !

OBS, not Guard, but yes they were wrong. Did you request a refund?

 

[winks]

I didn’t sadly. For £2 odd I couldn’t be bothered. However on reflection this was clear daylight robbery from the OBS in question and I should have written to GTR to complain. I will never pay this supplement again though!

 

[yorkie]

I didn’t sadly. For £2 odd I couldn’t be bothered. However on reflection this was clear daylight robbery from the OBS in question and I should have written to GTR to complain. I will never pay this supplement again though!

Please do! This would be evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[al78]

If I was paying for a service, then I would have a right to complain. I feel differently if I was stealing something as I was getting something for 'free' so I am less invested in how I feel about the service and would look upon other paying customers as 'suckers'

Logically speaking, if the service is poor then it is correct to call it out, whether the OP has attempted to evade the fare is irrelevant. Claiming his assertion about the poor service is wrong just because he tried to dodge the fare is about as logical as claiming parents shouldn't discipline their children if they misbehaved as children themselves.

 

[Robertj21a]

Does anyone have this is writing?


OBS, not Guard, but yes they were wrong. Did you request a refund?

Does the Gatwick Express use OBS, I thought they used guards.?