TV Alert: Monday 1 June 20:00 Dispatches 'Trains: Are You Paying Too Much?'

[Harlan Cage]

Yet again the TV producers have compiled a completely irrelevant programme that supposedly misses the point. For a programme entitled "are you paying too much" - why did they spend half the programme talking about delays and overcrowding?

They had the potential with the thing on different TVMs charging different rates; but chose an example that most people probably can't relate to, and when the Toc was asked to give a statement, they just read it out without actually challenging it.

It sounds like Great Western in this case had done pretty much everything by the book. It's a shame that they couldn't have gone after the Tocs that have staff who routinely give out incorrect information; or point out the cases where customers have been mislead about their ticket validities.

The title if this Show was somewhat misleading and there are some issues that were not covered which maybe should have been!

 

[GatwickDepress]

Just watched the programme, and I have to say what a load of claptrap. I watched it with somebody who isn't a regular rail travel or a rail enthusiast and they commented it seemed to be "preaching to the choir".

A very clickbaity title too considering how little they actually tackled that question. I suppose we should be glad they didn't name it "Dispatches: This Commuter Found Out One Trick To Save Money That Train Companies Hate"...

 

[bb21]

Which exactly are half-truths?

I am going to be lazy and just quote Wikipedia but the reference in Wikipedia points to a credible source.

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.

I think calling those points you presented half-truths is quite accurate.

It's unrealistic to expect a 30 minute program to go in to the level of detail you seem to want. Remember Dispatches would have assumed most viewers would have Joe Average's level of rail knowledge.

Then perhaps they should not mention that point at all.

Misleading viewers is worse than not covering that point.

 

[pemma]

I am going to be lazy and just quote Wikipedia but the reference in Wikipedia points to a credible source.

I think calling those points you presented half-truths is quite accurate.

Then perhaps they should not mention that point at all.

Misleading viewers is worse than not covering that point.

I accept there's different reasons for the WTT and public timetables being different.

Like this service: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y34906/2015/06/08/advanced has differences due to a 2 car train not being able to run to the standard pattern times with the loadings as high as they are.

However, the point being argued wasn't that the public should have two timetables available, it was why services like this one:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P40346/2015/06/08/advanced
should have a misleading arrival time at the final station in the public timetable.

I still fail to see why when I said what FGW admitted to doing and said that all operators did to improve punctuality figures by giving a different arrival time in the public timetable, that anyone should call it a half truth or a conspiracy against FGW. If the Dispatches program had said that operators fiddled arrival times at the final station and not mentioned the WTT people would probably have posted that the journalists didn't bother to do their research properly. However, as they mentioned the WTT people are unhappy that they didn't fully explain the reasons for having WTTs.

 

[father_jack]

I accept there's different reasons for the WTT and public timetables being different.

Like this service: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y34906/2015/06/08/advanced has differences due to a 2 car train not being able to run to the standard pattern times with the loadings as high as they are.

However, the point being argued wasn't that the public should have two timetables available, it was why services like this one:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P40346/2015/06/08/advanced
should have a misleading arrival time at the final station in the public timetable.

I still fail to see why when I said what FGW admitted to doing and said that all operators did to improve punctuality figures by giving a different arrival time in the public timetable, that anyone should call it a half truth or a conspiracy against FGW. If the Dispatches program had said that operators fiddled arrival times at the final station and not mentioned the WTT people would probably have posted that the journalists didn't bother to do their research properly. However, as they mentioned the WTT people are unhappy that they didn't fully explain the reasons for having WTTs.

"Might I have a split ticket to Arrochar and Tarbert with at least 5 splits and 25 minutes to change at Hexham. Might I be informed if my train will be late before I go and if it is late might it be late by WTT or GBTT times. Might I have the paper receipt........"

 

[Flamingo]

Ok. Where has jcollins said that FGW are conspiring to deceive? You mention supposition also. Seems to be entirely on your part. Have that drink and relax.

Or try some of my medication. I have pills for my mental health conditions including for disordered thought which can be characterised as paranoid tendencies.

Or don't paint those disagreeing with you as suffering from some sort of mental health condition.

Or, if they are, don't use it negate their point of view.

I wasn't using it to negate their point of view. I was using it to explain it...

 

[pemma]

"Might I have a split ticket to Arrochar and Tarbert with at least 5 splits and 25 minutes to change at Hexham. Might I be informed if my train will be late before I go and if it is late might it be late by WTT or GBTT times. Might I have the paper receipt........"

Not sure how that's a reply to what I posted. Maybe you clicked quote by mistake?

I don't even remember receipts being mentioned in the program but that's a problem that's created by the implementation of automated ticket barriers and TOCs telling passengers if you need proof of purchase for an expenses claim to ask for a receipt as they have the right to keep the ticket once you've completed the journey.

 

[Kite159]

I accept there's different reasons for the WTT and public timetables being different.

Like this service: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y34906/2015/06/08/advanced has differences due to a 2 car train not being able to run to the standard pattern times with the loadings as high as they are.

However, the point being argued wasn't that the public should have two timetables available, it was why services like this one:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P40346/2015/06/08/advanced
should have a misleading arrival time at the final station in the public timetable.

I still fail to see why when I said what FGW admitted to doing and said that all operators did to improve punctuality figures by giving a different arrival time in the public timetable, that anyone should call it a half truth or a conspiracy against FGW. If the Dispatches program had said that operators fiddled arrival times at the final station and not mentioned the WTT people would probably have posted that the journalists didn't bother to do their research properly. However, as they mentioned the WTT people are unhappy that they didn't fully explain the reasons for having WTTs.

Another good ATW example is with the Wrexham Central trains, the public timetable has the service terminating at X:32 (working timetable for X:29), the next working departs at X:31. So if you went via the public timetable the service departs before it's meant to arrive

 

[bnm]

I wasn't using it to negate their point of view. I was using it to explain it...

So, you are characterising those who disagree with you as having a mental health condition?

Nice. :roll:

 

[Flamingo]

So, you are characterising those who disagree with you as having a mental health condition?

Nice. :roll:

No, but it is a possible explanation for somebody who is insisting on seeing a conspiracy where there is not one, refusing to accept any explanations that disprove their preconcieved ideas.

Whether that is the case here, I don't know (or particularly care at this stage). Your holier-than-thou posts are getting tedious. If you don't like mine, there is an ignore function on the forum, I suggest you use it. I intend to.