What should passengers rights be during a forecast storm?

[Starmill]

I'd give a week minimum before and after, the current situation where you're usually allowed to travel the day before or after just isn't good enough.

I have advance tickets booked for Friday 20th Dec for me and my partner to have a day around London, if there is a storm on the 20th, the realistically, the next time we would be able to travel would be after Christmas, owing to work and childcare...

Some operators are particularly bad at not giving permission for a refund until the train is actually cancelled or delayed on Darwin. This frequently means where disruption is a risk but not certain there's a strong interest for the customer in showing up at the station and trying to travel.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Totally disagree ticket sale should be suspended if trains are running. It's misused enough as it is.

Fair point, especially when there are certain TOCs regularly issuing DNTs due to issues that are essentially entirely within their control and where there's no excuses for not even attempting to source replacement transport.

Perhaps however they should come with a piece of paper indicating that if you get stuck you're on your own and a "restrictions advised" stamp, though.

Perhaps not an unreasonable compromise. Again, I should emphasise, this should only be in totally unavoidable situations such as severe weather warnings where it's highly likely that both road and rail disruption is highly likely - not entirely foreseeable and manageable situations (such as staffing issues) where there is no physical barrier to replacement road transport.

To put it another way you seem to be arguing for something which is the status quo.

Not quite. I'm arguing that there should be an allowance made, within the regulations, for very specific circumstances which highlights the fact that in such circumstances it may not be possible to provide onward transport or overnight accommodation due to factors outside the reasonable control of the railway. I'm in no way suggesting that this should just be applied willy billy, or seemingly every weekend, as currently seems to be the case in places.

Bonkers. No, the law is not there to reflect what actually happens but actually to enforce the rights of people to ensure they are being treated in a fair way. "Just make the law the same as the bad treatment people are getting", honestly beyond parody.

Just to be clear here, using this past weekend as an example; you do surely accept that if everybody who would normally have travelled on Saturday and Sunday had completely ignored all the warnings and attempted to travel, it would've been literally impossible for TOCs to even come close to fulfil their obligations in these regards?

We see stories where airlines suffer widespread disruption, people are advised not to travel the airport, and thousands of people are left waiting at airport terminals because the infrastructure simply cannot cope with the circumstances. Except in the case of weather related disruption on the railways, the alternative transport infrastructure is also affected. This isn't about completely stripping away passenger rights and giving TOCs the right to abandon passengers and leave them stranded willy nilly, but accepting that there are very specific circumstances where TOCs may not be able to fulfil their obligations and that passengers - in those circumstances - should be prepared to use their personal judgement and take personal responsibility for that judgement.

As a slight aside in this sort of situation, what would be deemed suitable "overnight accommodation"? Must it be a hotel? Or in extreme circumstances would, say, allowing passengers to remain overnight at the station concourse/waiting room be acceptable? (Well aware that staffing would be an issue that would need to be overcome, but in principle...)

What, realistically, would(should?) the outcome be for a passenger who arrives at a small station where rail service is suspended, replacement road transport is unable to operate and there are no nearby hotels? In the event that road transport cannot be sourced, how do you even get the passenger from the station to a hotel?

 

[43066]

I'm saying that they should be given less weight because you are necessarily partisan and frankly you are the staff member who serves the customer and the customer is the customer who uses the service. This is abundantly simple to grasp.

I’ve patiently explained to you, several times over now, why I’m not “partisan”. The above paragraph tells me everything about how you view my job, but nothing about how I view it, nor how said job is viewed by those who manage it.

You say you’ve worked in this industry, yet you clearly haven’t spoken to a single train driver … I don’t go to work to “serve the customer”, I go there to drive trains. Whether they have passengers on them or not is utterly irrelevant.

Why do you continue to bring up my employment status? This thread is to discuss passenger rights.

Do you think the opinions of the public should be given the same weight as your own, or your union, when deciding your pay, or how you are rostered, or what pension rights you have? of course you wouldn't.

This feels like more adhominem. I don’t expect the public to care less about any of the above, including whether or why I belong to a union. We aren’t discussing that though.

Why are you again bringing my pay, unions and pension rights for rail staff up, when we are here to discuss passenger rights?

You're arguing there's no money, but we know there is money if there is motivation for it to be found.

Where have I argued “there’s no money” on this thread? I’ll be impressed if you can cite it?

You do however once again appear to be completely misrepresenting my position. I’ve simply argued that the railway is being brought to book regarding its costs, but that’s an entirely different thing.

It absolutely does affect everyone in the industry; train driver salaries had an impact on me in the Control room sorting out passenger info/social media/enquiries, so did the clearance of lineside vegetation, so did policies around when catering staff could work.

And this is where it suddenly all clicks into place, and I understand your strange vitriol, it’s all about train driver salaries. As so often on here.

At least we now understand each other.

There are, absolutely, enough staff to deal with this. Get stranded while flying in the USA and you get vouchers for food, drinks, hotels all sent to your email. It really isn't hard for TOCs to do this if they really wanted to. I expect a great many vouchers go unused, too.

This deals with 80% or more of passengers and leaves the staff on the ground on hand to deal with the people who have fallen through the cracks, rather than herding 300 people.

No, it doesn’t. What on earth would getting stranded while flying in the USA have to do with staffing on the UK railway, which is what we’re discussing here? Why would you even bring it up?

Pretty much everyone I know who travels widely observes that this is a very UK-centric phenomenon. It does matter, because it is retrograde, and symptomatic of the defeatist streak that runs through our culture. The industry in Britain is almost unique in its level of navel-gazing and self-satisfaction, something which was true when I worked in it and something which seems even more obvious now I'm on the outside.

Ok, so this is your own view based on the select sample of people you know, followed by lots of trite generalisations about how awful the UK railway industry is.

If you feel it’s that awful, don’t use it. Others do. The stuff about defeatism is perhaps more than can be addressed on this forum?

Apparently people are getting screwed anyway, according to both of us, so I am not sure what expectations you are tempering. Most passengers are unsure of their rights but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

I’ve never referred to anyone “getting screwed”, so perhaps you aren’t reading my posts properly?

The point I have repeatedly made, that I will try and reiterate once again, is that most passengers don’t expect to enforce their (often completely unenforceable) rights being discussed.

Bonkers. No, the law is not there to reflect what actually happens but actually to enforce the rights of people to ensure they are being treated in a fair way. "Just make the law the same as the bad treatment people are getting", honestly beyond parody.

Is it “bonkers”? Not really, you just don’t happen to agree with the law in this area. The law is nothing to do with being “fair” in many cases. I could write thousands of words on the subject, having spent years studying and then practising in the subject. However, unlike you, I don’t confuse strongly held opinions with understanding.

The law itself is a moveable feast, it’s there to confer and enforce the rights those setting the laws consider appropriate. Is it your position that the current state of those rights should exist forever in aspic? Can they only go in one direction, in your view?

You certainly seem keen enough to suggest a change in the law when it comes to fare evaders not being subject to prosecution etc.

 

[Falcon1200]

There are, absolutely, enough staff to deal with this.

My experience in Control is absolutely the opposite; During extreme weather there are not, and never will be, enough staff, and those staff who are on duty are utterly overwhelmed. Bear in mind that they too will often be the victims of the weather affecting their travel, and their families, homes etc, just as much as passengers. What the railway should do, and what the railway can do, are not the same in such circumstances.

There does have to be a degree of responsibility on the part of passengers, for example not travelling for an evening out on the town when nationally-advertised Red weather warnings have been issued for their area....

 

[AlterEgo]

My experience in Control is absolutely the opposite; During extreme weather there are not, and never will be, enough staff, and those staff who are on duty are utterly overwhelmed. Bear in mind that they too will often be the victims of the weather affecting their travel, and their families, homes etc, just as much as passengers. What the railway should do, and what the railway can do, are not the same in such circumstances.

There does have to be a degree of responsibility on the part of passengers, for example not travelling for an evening out on the town when nationally-advertised Red weather warnings have been issued for their area....

Of course there has to be a degree of responsibility. But giving passengers what they’re due has to move into the 21st century. There’s no good reason why every taxi has to be booked individually for example, when you could just deal with the majority of people by sending them a link for a taxi - automatically. Most wouldn’t even get used.

I’ve patiently explained to you, several times over now, why I’m not “partisan”. The above paragraph tells me everything about how you view my job, but nothing about how I view it, nor how said job is viewed by those who manage it.

You say you’ve worked in this industry, yet you clearly haven’t spoken to a single train driver … I don’t go to work to “serve the customer”, I go there to drive trains. Whether they have passengers on them or not is utterly irrelevant.

Of course I’ve spoken to train drivers; my dad was one for a start!

Yes, train driving is part of serving customers. It is helpful for drivers to compartmentalise that away and focus on the job at hand - but it doesn’t make it untrue. Of course train drivers are there to serve customers; they drive the trains!

And this is where it suddenly all clicks into place, and I understand your strange vitriol, it’s all about train driver salaries. As so often on here.

It really isn’t; I vocally support industrial action and use my platform to support rail staff getting paid properly. You can take that from the son of an ASLEF rep

There is no strange vitriol; don’t be so defensive. But the point is, when I was handling customers and doing the company’s PR, staff salaries are one of a whole load of factors which affect customers’ perception of the railway. They do matter, they cannot be ignored. Same as about 100 other factors. I brought it up merely as an example of how everything does interact with everything else even in perhaps an unseen way.

At least we now understand each other.



No, it doesn’t. What on earth would getting stranded while flying in the USA have to do with staffing on the UK railway, which is what we’re discussing here? Why would you even bring it up?

Because the way passengers are dealt with has to change. There are several ways the UK railway might think about how to properly protect passengers and fulfil the passenger contract which don’t involve inefficiently having hapless staff shepherd people around into taxi queues.

Ok, so this is your own view based on the select sample of people you know, followed by lots of trite generalisations about how awful the UK railway industry is.

Of course it’s my own view. And the industry has, in my view, quite serious problems around image and how it decides to handle things going wrong.

If you feel it’s that awful, don’t use it. Others do. The stuff about defeatism is perhaps more than can be addressed on this forum?

“If it’s bad just don’t use it” yes I think the defeatism is a very strong undercurrent to the industry - and our culture at large - and can’t be addressed here.

I’ve never referred to anyone “getting screwed”, so perhaps you aren’t reading my posts properly?

So you don’t think that passengers who are unable to enforce their legal rights when

The point I have repeatedly made, that I will try and reiterate once again, is that most passengers don’t expect to enforce their (often completely unenforceable) rights being discussed.

Those rights are enforceable - in law. You can simply claim your costs back. I do it often. They’re not enforceable at the time partly because of the old fashioned way the railway still deals with these matters. There are plenty of large railways abroad which handle these things better. None are perfect, and some are worse, but it is possible to be better.

In any case, if you (correctly) mention many passengers don’t use these rights, what is your incentive to change the law in this area?

Is it “bonkers”? Not really, you just don’t happen to agree with the law in this area.

Um, no, I do agree with the law. It is you who doesn’t, and is arguing about how it should change to the detriment of the consumer. I’m disagreeing with your suggestion.

The law is nothing to do with being “fair” in many cases. I could write thousands of words on the subject, having spent years studying and then practicing in the subject. However, unlike you, I don’t confuse strongly held opinions with understanding.

Again, I am the one arguing the law is broadly fine around passenger rights and that TOCs should simply act according to it. So I am not sure which of us is struggling with understanding because of their strong opinions.

The law itself is a moveable feast, it’s there to confer and enforce the rights those setting the laws consider appropriate. Is it your position that the current state of those rights should exist forever in aspic? Can they only go in one direction, in your view?

The law is indeed fluid, and rights which apply to the general public can be given or taken away. But if you decide to advocate for less consumer protection for the public you can’t expect to be taken seriously. Or maybe you can, this is quite a strange country.

You certainly seem keen enough to suggest a change in the law when it comes to fare evaders not being subject to prosecution etc.

If that was you, you’d consider it an ad hominem and you’d refuse to discuss it for being apparently off topic

But I’ll explain instead of hiding - yes, I do think the law around ticket irregularities should change. Passengers who are wilfully fare evading, very deliberately (doughnutting, repeat short faring, etc) should, actually, be prosecuted and the law should be much tougher on them. It does actually bother me that so many people get to just pay what’s owed and that’s that. At the same time, otherwise civil disputes about not paying the correct fare without clear intent should be dealt with in the same way any other industry would - by getting the customer to pay the correct fare, or a penalty fare.

What, realistically, would(should?) the outcome be for a passenger who arrives at a small station where rail service is suspended, replacement road transport is unable to operate and there are no nearby hotels? In the event that road transport cannot be sourced, how do you even get the passenger from the station to a hotel?

What does that passenger do in that situation, in your experience? Of course that is an extreme example, but do you not feel the passenger would probably make their own arrangements? The law entitles that passenger, as long as they’ve been reasonable, to reclaim those costs, but all I see is people arguing that should change.

 

[al78]

Much of this sentiment is born from a British predilection of misanthropy. We have a uniquely supine culture which presupposes the private individual is the one who has to get screwed, and it’ll all be in everyone’s interests somehow.

My thoughts are it is a culture to try and get away with doing the bare minimum possible with as little staff as possible, and look for excuses as to why externalising consequences onto others is justifyable. It is analagous to the way water flows towards the lowest gravitational potential energy level.

 

[Lewisham2221]

What does that passenger do in that situation, in your experience?

I haven't a clue. I don't tend to loiter at unstaffed, small town stations during severe weather warnings.

Of course that is an extreme example,

It is, yes. But was the weekend not an extreme example?

but do you not feel the passenger would probably make their own arrangements?

Common sense would say so.

The law entitles that passenger, as long as they’ve been reasonable, to reclaim those costs, but all I see is people arguing that should change.

Inclusion of the word "reasonable" muddies the waters somewhat - putting aside arguments about whether their attempt to travel in the first place was reasonable; I presume this to mean such as not booking a 5-star hotel when there is a budget hotel, with availability, nearby.

However, AIUI, the current regulations use the word "provide". To me, that very much reads as and suggests a TOC responsibility for arranging the onward travel/accommodation. In my option that is, in circumstances such as Storm Darragh, somewhere very firmly between extremely unreasonable and impossible.

I feel the regulations should make a very clear distinction between "normal" disruption and disruption such as that caused by severe weather, where the ability to provide alternatives becomes limited. Changing very clearly, in those circumstances, from a point of "the railway will get you home" to something like "the railway may very likely not be able to get you home. You should be prepared to make your own onward travel or overnight accommodation arrangements and the railway will reimburse any reasonable costs associated with this".

 

[al78]

Is a restaurant minimum-wage worker on their final warning for punctuality an "essential journey"?

No. Carelessly turning up late for work to the point where you are warned for it repeatedly is not the same as not travelling to work due to dangerous weather conditions, so I would expect redundancy due to the latter to come under unfair dismissal.

As you say, it’s not really possible to operate a policy which can discriminate between Hero Shift Worker and Thick Family I Hate, but it is a British hobby to fantasise about it a bit. Gosh how can we get our revenge on the family some other way?

This is reminding me of the debate over whether people who need hospital treatment because of their own carelessness or poor health due to lifestyle choices should contribute towards the cost of their healthcare, like a contributory negligence payment.

When extreme weather is forecast (sufficiently in advance of course) and is expected to affect rail services, tickets should become valid for travel before the storm hits, as well as afterwards. Therefore no-one, including those who booked in advance and have already made their outward journey, should be stranded. Sometimes, regardless of what the railway's duties are, providing alternatives, whether transport or accommodation, becomes impossible.

I've experienced this situation. Back in December 2023 I had an advance ticket to travel to Manchester (from Sussex) and a few days before there were forecasts of a severe storm (Dirk) crossing the country with high winds and heavy rain, coinciding with the day I was travelling. When the forecasts were consistent day-to-day I asked for advice on here and was told Virgin were allowing people to travel the day before, which is what I did and I successfully pre-empted the storm.

Another more recent example was when I had split tickets to Manchester which involved going via Sheffield, and a day or two before a storm came through and the line between Sheffield and Manchester was blocked. There may have been a way to get around it by train and RRB but I decided to drive instead, and so effectively was down around £80 as the fare was non-refunudable.

The issues here are if there is severe weather forecast on a day you have booked travel, how many people are going to think of contacting the relevant rail company or NRE to find out if they can travel on another day, and if they decide to use alternative transport or not travel at all, how do they go about getting a refund if the rules permit. If it comes to choosing not to travel when the conditions of the ticket are no refund, shouldn't that non-refund restriction be relaxed if the reason is severe weather, advice is do not travel as opposed to changing your mind for some more benign reason?

 

[43066]

Of course there has to be a degree of responsibility. But giving passengers what they’re due has to move into the 21st century. There’s no good reason why every taxi has to be booked individually for example, when you could just deal with the majority of people by sending them a link for a taxi - automatically. Most wouldn’t even get used.

No objection to that in principle, and indeed TOCs do sometimes advise people to make their own arrangements, which is a pragmatic and sensible decision. However when they do that posters on here will cry foul on the basis that a small minority of people won’t be able to pay for a taxi on a credit card etc.

Of course I’ve spoken to train drivers; my dad was one for a start!

Yes, train driving is part of serving customers. It is helpful for drivers to compartmentalise that away and focus on the job at hand - but it doesn’t make it untrue. Of course train drivers are there to serve customers; they drive the trains!

It really isn’t; I vocally support industrial action and use my platform to support rail staff getting paid properly. You can take that from the son of an ASLEF rep

There is no strange vitriol; don’t be so defensive. But the point is, when I was handling customers and doing the company’s PR, staff salaries are one of a whole load of factors which affect customers’ perception of the railway. They do matter, they cannot be ignored. Same as about 100 other factors. I brought it up merely as an example of how everything does interact with everything else even in perhaps an unseen way.

Okay fair enough, I perhaps misconstrued your comment there, apologies (it’s so often an “issue” that defensiveness becomes ingrained ). But based on your dad’s experience you can hopefully also see why there’s no way a train driver would see less protection for passengers as somehow making their own job easier - it simply makes no difference! Hence I disagree with your original assertion that staff opinions should somehow be given less weight.

The law is indeed fluid, and rights which apply to the general public can be given or taken away. But if you decide to advocate for less consumer protection for the public you can’t expect to be taken seriously. Or maybe you can, this is quite a strange country.

As things stand someone could go to a station during a red storm warning and “do not travel” notice from the TOC, buy a train ticket and then immediately require to the TOC to send a taxi to take them to their destination. That is a preposterous situation, and I would support the PRO being limited as described above.

The PRO in force in the UK is also not the latest version in force in the EU, so these things can and do change. It’s also a safe bet that it wasn’t intended primarily with the UK network in mind, so no great surprise it may not be suitable for it. If it was removed entirely we would simply go back to the situation that existed prior to 2019, when UK domestic rail travel was exempted. I don’t really see that could be interpreted as screwing over passengers - were things really so bad in 2018?

In any case, if you (correctly) mention many passengers don’t use these rights, what is your incentive to change the law in this area?

To prevent the law creating preposterous situations like the above, and also to better enable TOCs to make clear sensible communications to dissuade people from travelling when they really shouldn’t, without then being accused of shirking their obligations. The messaging during extreme weather events needs to be beefed up to: “if you attempt to travel you will likely end up stranded, and we will be unable to help you”. If that messaging was used it’s likely we’d end up with fewer standings.

In the end we have both set out our views at length, and this is a point we will probably just need to agree to disagree on.

I feel the regulations should make a very clear distinction between "normal" disruption and disruption such as that caused by severe weather, where the ability to provide alternatives becomes limited. Changing very clearly, in those circumstances, from a point of "the railway will get you home" to something like "the railway may very likely not be able to get you home. You should be prepared to make your own onward travel or overnight accommodation arrangements and the railway will reimburse any reasonable costs associated with this".

I agree with this.

 

[Indigo Soup]

No. Carelessly turning up late for work to the point where you are warned for it repeatedly is not the same as not travelling to work due to dangerous weather conditions, so I would expect redundancy due to the latter to come under unfair dismissal.

If such a worker is on a zero-hours contract, and/or has less than two years service - both conditions being likely to apply to low-income workers - then their attendance record may not have much to do with it. Such a person is likely to be under a lot of pressure to go to work, regardless of the inclement conditions.

Nothing short of the government prohibiting people from travelling (as was done during the COVID lockdowns) will prevent people trying to make journeys during severe disruption. And even then, some will do so anyway.

 

[flitwickbeds]

No. Carelessly turning up late for work to the point where you are warned for it repeatedly is not the same as not travelling to work due to dangerous weather conditions, so I would expect redundancy due to the latter to come under unfair dismissal.

Wow, you're making some huge assumptions here and living outside the real world. A minimum wage restaurant worker is not going to take McDonalds to an unfair dismissal tribunal.

How about the same scenario but:

1) The worker hasn't been "careless" about turning up late for work, but instead has been repeatedly let down by the train service (on other days not involving any severe weather) causing them to be late on multiple occasions

2) This "Do Not Travel" which causes them to get the sack is not due to any kind of severe weather, but due to not enough drivers volunteering to work on a Sunday and the TOC not being able to secure replacement buses of any kind.

Now, answer again - for this person, is the journey "essential"?