Tickets accepted on all other reasonable routes due to issues - Guard says nope

[coursemyhorse]

Over many years of travelling in and out of Waterloo on South Western Railway, you all know we get those days where it all goes wrong. Emergency incidents, broken down trains etc etc. The ones like last week on Thursday 14th July where there has been a casualty of such between Clapham and Wimbledon. Upon arriving at Waterloo around 4:45pm loads of trains were cancelled and none seemed to be coming in or out for a while.

Advice was that disruption would continue until late and on the tannoy announcement at Waterloo loud and clear it said "tickets are being accepted on buses and all all other reasonable routes including Great Western Railway" or words to that effect. I've heard it many a time at Waterloo. I then to get home to Aldershot/Ash area go to Paddington and catch a train out to Reading, then come back to that area getting off at North Camp or Farnborough and get picked up to get home. This is a massive detour but it's reliable as it uses GWR trains on completely different lines/routes.

Every single time I go to board a GWR train at Paddington to get to Reading, show them my ticket and try to explain the situation, the guards don't care. They get annoyed with me and think I'm a chancer. They claim not to be aware of incidents at Waterloo and take quite a lot of convincing to let me board. Last Thursday it got plain refused despite me offering to show them the twitter messages about it. The best I got eventually was to board a slow, stopping South Western Railway service out of platform 14 I think it was, just because my ticket only covers SWR trains. The train had just left and there wasn't one for a while. As it so happened, I was able to enter the gates for that area at Paddington which also allow you to gain access to platform 12 I think, which was running the new Elizabeth line to Reading so I used that. The SWR trains are slow, stopping services where as the GWR ones often get to Reading in as little as 25 minutes.

Anyway the point is why does this happen and what can I say/show guards to allow in the future this to become an easier exchange? At the end of the day, I am acting on advice with a valid ticket and just trying to get home via a detour which is completely within "reasonable".


EDIT: When I said Guards, I meant to say gateline staff.

 

[bcarmicle]

When you say guards -- do you mean ticket barrier staff? Or the actual train guard?

 

[Royston Vasey]

Every single time I go to board a GWR train at Paddington to get to Reading, show them my ticket and try to explain the situation, the guards don't care. They get annoyed with me and think I'm a chancer. They claim not to be aware of incidents at Waterloo and take quite a lot of convincing to let me board. Last Thursday it got plain refused despite me offering to show them the twitter messages about it. The best I got eventually was to board a slow, stopping South Western Railway service out of platform 14 I think it was, just because my ticket only covers SWR trains. The train had just left and there wasn't one for a while. As it so happened, I was able to enter the gates for that area at Paddington which also allow you to gain access to platform 12 I think, which was running the new Elizabeth line to Reading so I used that. The SWR trains are slow, stopping services where as the GWR ones often get to Reading in as little as 25 minutes.

Just a sec - no SWR services run from Paddington - are you sure you weren't diverted onto a slower stopping local GWR service and only denied access to the faster intercity trains? Many off peak tickets are barred from specific fast services between 16.00 and 19.15 but there are still local services which are not barred.

If you had an off peak return or off peak day return to or from London Terminals, this is perhaps what has happened - someone with a Reading to London off peak return couldn't board those fast trains either but can board the stopping train.

It would seem sensible on GWR's part, if they are accepting tickets for SWR routes, to limit these to less busy and higher capacity local trains.

The attitude, accuracy and professionalism of Paddington gateline staff is a separate issue and is well documented in this parish. In this case they may have done little wrong, if as it seems they allowed you to board a local train to Reading (of which there was a choice of GWR or TfL)

 

[miklcct]

In this case, if the original ticket is valid on the slow GWR trains but not the fast GWR trains, will the ticket acceptance statement enable the use of fast GWR trains?

 

[The exile]

In this case, if the original ticket is valid on the slow GWR trains but not the fast GWR trains, will the ticket acceptance statement enable the use of fast GWR trains?

The key probably lies in the word “reasonable”. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to board an overcrowded IC - possibly at the expense of someone travelling to (say) Penzance when passengers travelling to comparable GWR destinations comparable tickets can’t,

 

[coursemyhorse]

When you say guards -- do you mean ticket barrier staff? Or the actual train guard?

Sorry I meant barrier staff not the guards.

Just a sec - no SWR services run from Paddington - are you sure you weren't diverted onto a slower stopping local GWR service and only denied access to the faster intercity trains? Many off peak tickets are barred from specific fast services between 16.00 and 19.15 but there are still local services which are not barred.

If you had an off peak return or off peak day return to or from London Terminals, this is perhaps what has happened - someone with a Reading to London off peak return couldn't board those fast trains either but can board the stopping train.

It would seem sensible on GWR's part, if they are accepting tickets for SWR routes, to limit these to less busy and higher capacity local trains.

The attitude, accuracy and professionalism of Paddington gateline staff is a separate issue and is well documented in this parish. In this case they may have done little wrong, if as it seems they allowed you to board a local train to Reading (of which there was a choice of GWR or TfL)

Oh is that so? Perhaps I am mistaken then apologies. If this is the case then that makes sense, but I disagree with it. I would like to see barrier staff use common sense and allow SWR customers to use any GWR out of Paddington which is still within a reasonable route.

I was unaware of the Paddington gateline staff apparently being problematic with their attitude and accuracy. A shame.

 

[Snow1964]

The key probably lies in the word “reasonable”. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to board an overcrowded IC - possibly at the expense of someone travelling to (say) Penzance when passengers travelling to comparable GWR destinations comparable tickets can’t,

The wording of announcements and web messages is reasonable routes, not selected trains on those routes

An unreasonable route would be something like a train first stop Didcot, then back tracking. If there is a connecting train direct to your final destination at Reading then taking a train to Reading and changing there should fall within reasonable.

What seems to have happened is either the message is wrong and GWR are not accepting tickets unconditionally (instead it is selected trains); or your routing was deemed unreasonable (but as they were allowing use of some trains via Reading, this second scenario is clearly not case here).

But as others have said Gateline staff at Paddington are notorious for making up rules, and implementing ticket restrictions that don’t actually exist.

 

[philthetube]

The key probably lies in the word “reasonable”. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to board an overcrowded IC - possibly at the expense of someone travelling to (say) Penzance when passengers travelling to comparable GWR destinations comparable tickets can’t,

I would like to see barrier staff use common sense and allow SWR customers to use any GWR out of Paddington which is still within a reasonable route.

I know my rights and my ten minutes is far more important then passengers going to Penzance.

Do you think they you should be entitled to a better service than GWR's own passengers.

 

[miklcct]

I know my rights and my ten minutes is far more important then passengers going to Penzance.

Do you think they you should be entitled to a better service than GWR's own passengers.

It's irrelevant where other passengers go.

Taking an IC service from Paddington to Reading is, by all interpretations, a reasonable route. If there is disruption at Waterloo, GWR should be expected to add additional services between Paddington and Reading.

 

[coursemyhorse]

I know my rights and my ten minutes is far more important then passengers going to Penzance.

Do you think they you should be entitled to a better service than GWR's own passengers.

I do. Yes. That's exactly what I said. Indeed.

 

[Bikeman78]

I know my rights and my ten minutes is far more important then passengers going to Penzance.

Do you think they you should be entitled to a better service than GWR's own passengers.

There's only one train an hour to Penzance. There are plenty of other fast trains from Paddington which are rarely over full. Well loaded yes, but not full and standing. Are the stoppers really less crowded? I've not used one for a while but lots of people usually get on down trains at Ealing Broadway.

 

[The exile]

Going back to the original post - since the blockage was between Clapham and Wimbledon, surely the “reasonable route” for someone already at Waterloo is to use one of the trains from that station to Ascot /Wokingham and change there as appropriate? Different if you’re not already at Waterloo, of course.

 

[coursemyhorse]

Going back to the original post - since the blockage was between Clapham and Wimbledon, surely the “reasonable route” for someone already at Waterloo is to use one of the trains from that station to Ascot /Wokingham and change there as appropriate? Different if you’re not already at Waterloo, of course.

At the time, hardly any trains were even coming in/out of Waterloo. The route you mention is feasible though yes. In some respects it can take longer actually than the route I took when continued disruption is expected and affecting all SWR trains, not to mention that it's a slow route anyway.

I appreciate that the action I took was more extreme than other routes, but that is the point, to avoid SWR entirely. In the end waiting around for an hour or so at Waterloo would have seen me get on an eventually delayed train and get home with no further issues other than over crowded trains. However, from experience with these things, I often find it less stressful and quicker to just do the route I did as then I know I am moving and will get home, as opposed to waiting around possibly indefinitely into the late hours at Waterloo, which has happened to me before which I have regret. I only do this when SWR announce that tickets will be accepted on all reasonable routes, or all other routes, or on GWR.

 

[mangyiscute]

I'm interested to hear this because the other day, I was delayed while trying to travel back from Carlisle to Reading on split tickets through Birmingham and it meant that I would miss the last train through Birmingham to reading. The Avanti train manager let me take the train through to London, and then at paddington I thought I'd ask if I can get the reading train with my tickets and the train manager didn't even check the tickets, just let me on for free

 

[pepperpot80]

Just to chip in my two cents - it's long been practice for the Paddington - Reading - Ash - Aldershot route to be a reasonable alternative **if** both the Wimbledon and Richmond routes are not available. I've experienced this on a number of occasions, including a memorable lightning strike to a junction box at Vauxhall which prevented any service from Waterloo for a whole evening; certainly in the 2000s black days were not uncommon.

Other reasonable routes include LU District Line to Wimbledon / Richmond, but you're taking a punt by heading to Richmond if there's nothing shuttling back and forth on the other side of the block.

I think the GWR reasoning might well be the off-peak ticket. Ash - London Terminals is an example where the 'Not Via Reading' Off Peak Day Return carries a US restriction, i.e. not valid for departure from Paddington during the evening peak, even though the routing would normally exclude the use of the Paddington - Reading GWR service. So even if GWR were accepting on reasonable routes, the ticket still has a clear exception.

I wonder if anyone might venture an opinion on whether GWR should be accepting such a ticket on the grounds that it was valid for travel from Waterloo at the time that the passenger elected to depart Waterloo for Paddington.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think the GWR reasoning might well be the off-peak ticket. Ash - London Terminals is an example where the 'Not Via Reading' Off Peak Day Return carries a US restriction, i.e. not valid for departure from Paddington during the evening peak, even though the routing would normally exclude the use of the Paddington - Reading GWR service. So even if GWR were accepting on reasonable routes, the ticket still has a clear exception.

I wonder if anyone might venture an opinion on whether GWR should be accepting such a ticket on the grounds that it was valid for travel from Waterloo at the time that the passenger elected to depart Waterloo for Paddington.

If someone turns up at Waterloo before the evening peak and finds the line blocked, it could easily be peak time by the time they get to Paddington.

Anyway, all this talk of GWR not wanting long distance trains wedged out with SWR passengers is rather strange. When Paddington is blocked, they have no qualms about diverting people to Waterloo and causing sometimes severe overcrowding on the Waterloo to Reading trains. What goes around comes around.

 

[philthetube]

If someone turns up at Waterloo before the evening peak and finds the line blocked, it could easily be peak time by the time they get to Paddington.

Anyway, all this talk of GWR not wanting long distance trains wedged out with SWR passengers is rather strange. When Paddington is blocked, they have no qualms about diverting people to Waterloo and causing sometimes severe overcrowding on the Waterloo to Reading trains. What goes around comes around.

Sorry, but this is a real passengers don't matter , rules are what matters post. If there was no alternative to the long distance services then fair enough, there is so upsetting other passengers is not necessary.

 

[Mike99]

It's irrelevant where other passengers go.

Taking an IC service from Paddington to Reading is, by all interpretations, a reasonable route. If there is disruption at Waterloo, GWR should be expected to add additional services between Paddington and Reading.

And as always where would GWR get the stock and crews to, with little warning, produce additional services from Paddington to Reading from?

 

[miklcct]

And as always where would GWR get the stock and crews to, with little warning, produce additional services from Paddington to Reading from?

By redeploying stocks and crews from longer distance routes, reducing the frequencies of those routes, or by taking spares out of the depot.

 

[skyhigh]

By redeploying stocks and crews from longer distance routes, reducing the frequencies of those routes, or by taking spares out of the depot.

Ah yes, so cutting less frequent long distance services to cover shorter distance commuter flows. I must have missed the piles of spare train crew and units in depots too.

 

[Wolfie]

By redeploying stocks and crews from longer distance routes, reducing the frequencies of those routes, or by taking spares out of the depot.

What a ridiculous example of the tail wagging the dog you propose.

 

[Coolzac]

I fidn the way some staff treat customers in situations like this disgraceful.

The customer has already suffered disruption and probably stress, and then the railway staff act as if the customer is trying it on or causing a nuisance! I myself have been in similar situations many times. As passengers, we would all rather our desired train was on time rather than go a different route on a later train, which in all likelihood will get to the destination much later than originally planned.

The railway industry really needs to become far more customer friendly, else it will always struggle to attract more passengers.

 

[Royston Vasey]

It's irrelevant where other passengers go.

Taking an IC service from Paddington to Reading is, by all interpretations, a reasonable route. If there is disruption at Waterloo, GWR should be expected to add additional services between Paddington and Reading.

By redeploying stocks and crews from longer distance routes, reducing the frequencies of those routes, or by taking spares out of the depot.

Hang on, local Waterloo passengers should be allowed to get IC services instead of local services from Paddington, and full peak IC services should be cancelled and their passengers displaced to facilitate the provision of... err... additional local services...?

When there are perfectly good Electrostars already sitting ready to take them about three platforms over but 15 minutes slower?


This is a wind-up, isn't it...?

 

[Haywain]

The railway industry really needs to become far more customer friendly, else it will always struggle to attract more passengers.

Except that on much of the railway the problem is that there is insufficient capacity to meet demand.

 

[miklcct]

Ah yes, so cutting less frequent long distance services to cover shorter distance commuter flows. I must have missed the piles of spare train crew and units in depots too.

A healthy operator normally has a small amount of spare crews (e.g. 3% of the total) sitting in the depot which can be deployed to e.g. cover sudden illness, breakdowns, or to run crowdbuster services as needed.

In this case, I think that the most appropriate way to deal with the flux of commuters should be by Elizabeth line - pull some of its 345s from the core to the Western section and run them limited-stop between Paddington and Reading (stopping at intermediate stations only to let high-speed trains to pass), and the "ticket acceptance" limited to Elizabeth line.

 

[miklcct]

Hang on, local Waterloo passengers should be allowed to get IC services instead of local services from Paddington, and full peak IC services should be cancelled and their passengers displaced to facilitate the provision of... err... additional local services...?

When there are perfectly good Electrostars already sitting ready to take them about three platforms over but 15 minutes slower?


This is a wind-up, isn't it...?

Those electrostars are normally flooded with commuters heading for Slough, Maidenhead, Twyford, etc., similar to how IC services are flooded with commuters heading for Reading.

 

[Coolzac]

Except that on much of the railway the problem is that there is insufficient capacity to meet demand.

I would say that in some circumstances yes, but on a lot of trains, no. Especially post pandemic!

 

[Bikeman78]

Sorry, but this is a real passengers don't matter , rules are what matters post. If there was no alternative to the long distance services then fair enough, there is so upsetting other passengers is not necessary.

I'm trying to work out if you're being being serious or not? The local trains are often busy too so what's to be gained by putting displaced Waterloo passengers on them instead? It just annoys different passengers if the train is too full. I've occasionally had to stand to Reading on a fast train. Hardly the end of the world and very rare since the IETs took over unless it's a five car.

 

[BluePenguin]

If someone turns up at Waterloo before the evening peak and finds the line blocked, it could easily be peak time by the time they get to Paddington.

Anyway, all this talk of GWR not wanting long distance trains wedged out with SWR passengers is rather strange. When Paddington is blocked, they have no qualms about diverting people to Waterloo and causing sometimes severe overcrowding on the Waterloo to Reading trains. What goes around comes around.

Why not send them to Basingstoke for a GWR or CrossCountry to Reading? That is quicker

 

[philthetube]

I'm trying to work out if you're being being serious or not? The local trains are often busy too so what's to be gained by putting displaced Waterloo passengers on them instead? It just annoys different passengers if the train is too full. I've occasionally had to stand to Reading on a fast train. Hardly the end of the world and very rare since the IETs took over unless it's a five car.

a huge amount as there are only three more trains to Penzance before the sleeper, taxi to Penzance so someone can get to Reading.