What's going on with TOC attitudes?

[matt_world2004]

The rail industry is set up to make it difficult for TOCs to own rolling stock outright, although there are some exceptions. Franchises are generally short compared to the lifetime of the trains and the DfT wants to ensure that stock can be easily transferred from one franchisee to the next with minimal hassle.

To be honest the way the whole industry is configured means things only happen with DfT say so.

Although it isn't illegal for a franchisee to own its own rolling stock. and if/when southern lose the franchise there is not a shortage of other govia routes that the stock could be cascaded to or even leased to any successor franchise at a cost. Southern accepted the conditions of the franchise when they bid for it, They bid for the franchise, paying an certain price to the DfT and demanding a certain susbidy. If they couldn't make the franchise work with the subsidy level they bid for, or because they are paying too much money to the DFT they should not have bid at the levels they did and placed a bid that demanded lower dft fees and a higher subsidy. If southern didn't anticipate passengers littering on their trains, or trains being delayed, requiring standby crews or rolling stock being short for maintenance issues when making their bid. Then I would argue whoever drew up southerns franchise bid has a very naive view of the railway.

 

[ainsworth74]

To an extent yes, but these trains could be used much more between the peaks, they're just not because money.

So BR never had carriage sidings full of stock only used in the peak?

 

[DT611]

This would be good but you know that a lot of the time the drivers would be just sat spare and there would be uproar in the media and on here about paying staff to do nothing so we cant win.

TBH screw the rabel rousing media. being lucky for the fact those problems aren't an issue for irish rail so far, if that situation were to ever occur, i'd rather drivers stopped for a bit and a service rather then little turn around time and no service due to no staff being availible. i'd suspect most would feel the same? or am i the only one?

 

[matt_world2004]

From my experiance, of being on standby duties for the buses, is that you do not spend a significant amount of time doing nothing anyway, It tops out about 40 minutes before your required to go out on a bus, because one bus is coming in late,You go out on that buses running number and the late running driver takes over the standby. Even with standby duties, we still get curtailments, late runnings but it keeps the service more reliable than without.

 

[redbutton]

I think people are missing the point. As long as the franchises remain in the hands of for-profit enterprises, there will never be any investment beyond the minimum required by the franchise contracts. To do so would breach the corporate responsibility to maximise returns for the shareholders.

If you don't like the state of the railways, it's a waste of time complaining to the TOCs when it's Government that determines the franchise requirements.

 

[bramling]

The pillar of *ahem* quality journalism Metro are carrying the story today about Southern fining passengers for standing in first class when there's no more room, and a few days ago had the one about the commuter getting a 'F*** Southern' tattoo.

Complaints about Northern's attitude to their passengers are commonplace on here, and recently I've seen FTPE described as 'probably the worst in the country'.

These aren't isolated cases and at risk of making a sweeping generalisation, it seems that aside from the odd brilliant social media team member, TOCs attitudes towards their customers is increasingly snobbish and ignorant.

I know it's nothing new but why has it descended to this level? I'm too young to remember BR so this isn't one of those posts that's simply bashing privatisation. But whilst money has to be made, in my view this should not be at the expense of common sense and decency and customer service.

As an example, I'd say that in the Southern situation, assuming it is as reported, the sensible course of action would be to declassify first class (which Southern have stated is the guard's discression) rather than start handing out fines left, right and centre.

Thoughts?

I can understand why some of the Twitter replies can be 'robust'. I don't work in customer services, however I do get to see some of the complaints that come in relating to my area. Whilst some complaints are quite valid, there is a hell of a lot of complete rubbish that comes through. Every allegation will be investigated, and where CCTV is reviewed I'd say that in more cases than not the CCTV tells a completely different story to the passenger's allegation. Meanwhile, when someone writes "you lot couldn't run a toy railway" just because an announcement wasn't made about disruption on another provider's service, it's no surprise if the railway starts to become cynical about its passengers.

Britain's railways are by no means perfect, but we do run the safest railway probably in the world, and generally run a reliable and punctual service despite ever increasing demand - something which is beyond the railway's direct control. Whilst not a union man, I actually wish next week's strike had gone ahead, just to remind people how vital the railway is in transporting people safety and reliably around, day in day out.

 

[Hadders]

I think people are missing the point. As long as the franchises remain in the hands of for-profit enterprises, there will never be any investment beyond the minimum required by the franchise contracts. To do so would breach the corporate responsibility to maximise returns for the shareholders.

If you don't like the state of the railways, it's a waste of time complaining to the TOCs when it's Government that determines the franchise requirements.

Of course British Rail was so much better at investing.....

We didn't have rationalisation, patch and mend, 2 carriages of new trains for every 3 old ones replaced, the awful Pacers.....

Yes there were good things too but let's not look at the past through rose tinted specs.

We're just not good at long term investment in this country.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So BR never had carriage sidings full of stock only used in the peak?

BR had sidings full of carriages they used twice a year.

My point was more that off peak everything is really tightly diagrammed. Not because of a lack of stock, but because the TOC is scrimping to enhance profits.

Certainly on London Midland it isn't the peaks time where it goes to pot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that in LM's case is because they pay for the Desiros on a mileage basis. There is no other logic for not just sending everything out on Saturdays and Sundays as pairs of units - yet there are lots of 4s, and when there are 4s there is overcrowding.

 

[Senex]

We're just not good at long term investment in this country.

And that's been the British disease for a very long time past. And when we do invest, we do it on a cheese-paring basis, so that growth very rapidly renders the investment inadequate. (Of course there are examples of the job done properly. Look at the new designs at Reading. But these stand out by the degree to which they are exceptional.)

 

[broadgage]

A lot of the problems stem from simple lack of capacity, with new trains being shorter.
I remember the withdrawal of the third rail slam door stock and replacement by shorter networkers.
On many London commuter routes, 8 car slam door units were intended to be replaced by 6 car networkers. In fact due to the poor reliability of the new trains, a lot of rush hours services were downgraded to 4 car.

I got a seat on the old trains, but had to stand on the new shorter trains. I and others resented paying increased fares for shorter and less reliable trains.

Penalty fares can be a useful tool against those without correct or any tickets, but I have seen a number of cases of excessive or unreasonable enforcement, many passengers regard these "fines" as outright theft.

On one memorable journey, I boarded a train in plenty of time at a London terminal and even got a seat. Before departure the train became grossly overcrowded, arguably to the point of danger. As a result I was unable to alight at my destination and was overcaried a couple of stations.
This took me outside the validity of my ticket and instead of being able to return as usual, they attempted to "fine" me.
I refused to pay the "fine" and was duly reported for prosecution. I won the court case, which was pleasing but it still cost me two days off work and legal fees. It cost me well over £100 to be acquitted, it would have been much cheaper to pay the £20 "fine" at the time.
The TOC implied in their letter that the incident was my fault for "choosing to travel on an overcrowded train rather than wait for the next one"

Penalty fares imposed thus are widely regarded as simple theft, no other business would get away with "fining" customers for failings of the supplier.

 

[Steve14]

With me, I criticised FGW for some of the tweets they wrote on Twitter and putting them on the spot about how rubbish their service is. I got blocked because I asked about the strikes and have asked about a few things in the past... No reply! :$

 

[DarloRich]

With me, I criticised FGW for some of the tweets they wrote on Twitter and putting them on the spot about how rubbish their service is. I got blocked because I asked about the strikes and have asked about a few things in the past... No reply! :$

and I am sure you did so in a mature, reasonable and well thought out manner and in now way called them incompetent scunthorpes!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Customer service is currently the king, with social media and forums like this giving people a platform on which to complain, and a way of finding like minded people to share that sense of victimhood with.

Twenty, fifty, a hundred years ago, people were complaining about their commute and falling foul of the railway bylaws. I've seen copies of railway magazines from 1914 where passengers were writing in for advice about what to do because they had been charged by zealous ticket inspectors, and in the 70's, it was a running gag in Reggie Perrin.

One persons complaint is another persons good customer service. If I hold the late train for the gang running down the platform, is this good customer service? Not if it means the passenger already on the train misses his last bus home from the train station. If I refuse to allow passengers to walk through First Class to be standing at the front door, is this bloody awful customer service? No, it is good customer service to the passenger in the wheelchair in the front of First Class who would have been crowded out by the dozen or so trailing past her while the platform staff were attempting to put a ramp down. Is it poor customer service to insist that somebody with a cello on a seat in a busy Sunday afternoon long-distance train moves it to the luggage space (and because they say it is too valuable and they will have to stay with it they stand up for the journey)? It's good customer service for one (or two!) of the ten or so passengers who is standing in that carriage who can now sit down for the next 90 minutes.

However, in each of these real-life examples, people wrote, e-mailed, tweeted, or just resorted to old-fashioned name-calling or abuse because of what they perceived as poor customer service. The people who had received the good customer service, however, did not even realise they had received it.

In my life experience (which I had thought was considerable until I started on the Railway, when I quickly realised, to coin a phrase "You ain't seen nuttin yet"), there are a huge number of people out there who do think that the world revolves around them, and whinge loud and long about it. The NHS is especially suffering from this at the moment, but the railway runs a close second. These people will also try to twist any situation to make themselves the victim - who remembers the wheelchair chap going to Guide Bridge a few years ago?

A large part of this is that the large organisations are seen as "fair game", and they are constrained in what they can reply, and have an absolute terror of "Bad Publicity". They are swatting at flies trying to take on each complaint, and even when the millions of satisfied customers are taken into account, the noisy wheel is the one that gets the grease, so the comparative few complaining are the ones that get the attention.

There will be a backlash at some stage, where companies will start saying to serial complainers "We're doing our best for everybody, if you don't like it don't use us".

Very well said!

I do use my twitter to report poor service or problems but i always try to tweet in about good service. I also have often written in to back up reports of good service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Were it my company we would roll out a unique brand of aggressive, blunt and honest northern logic based customer service. It would be known as our calling a spade a spade policy!

 

[Steve14]

and I am sure you did so in a mature, reasonable and well thought out manner and in now way called them incompetent scunthorpes!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Very well said!

I do use my twitter to report poor service or problems but i always try to tweet in about good service. I also have often written in to back up reports of good service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Were it my company we would roll out a unique brand of aggressive, blunt and honest northern logic based customer service. It would be known as our calling a spade a spade policy!

Therw is only so much a man can tolerate until the temperature gauge rises!!!

 

[DarloRich]

Therw is only so much a man can tolerate until the temperature gauge rises!!!

so that is a no then. I think that might be the reason for a blocking rather than the sentiment of the message!

 

[Flamingo]

Therw is only so much a man can tolerate until the temperature gauge rises!!!

Oh, that's ok then!

Of course, the Twitter team are there to take abuse from people (like you) who would never dare to try the same approach face to face to some of my larger colleagues.

 

[redbutton]

Of course British Rail was so much better at investing.....

We didn't have rationalisation, patch and mend, 2 carriages of new trains for every 3 old ones replaced, the awful Pacers.....

Yes there were good things too but let's not look at the past through rose tinted specs.

We're just not good at long term investment in this country.

Well to be fair I never said a monolithic BR with no external competition would be preferable. But just imagine what kind of improvement there could be if TOC profits were reinvested in the railway rather than being exported to overseas shareholders.

 

[matt_world2004]

Well to be fair I never said a monolithic BR with no external competition would be preferable. But just imagine what kind of improvement there could be if TOC profits were reinvested in the railway rather than being exported to overseas shareholders.

Or was not being spent on liability attribution

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well to be fair I never said a monolithic BR with no external competition would be preferable. But just imagine what kind of improvement there could be if TOC profits were reinvested in the railway rather than being exported to overseas shareholders.

There have been some unkind people in the past who claimed that any mention of profits in the days of British Rail were an urban myth...but should that stated matter had actually occurred, the Treasury would have made the same type of raid on those profits in the manner performed by Gordon Brown upon the pensions industry.

 

[sheff1]

Britain's railways are by no means perfect ....but generally run a reliable and punctual service ...

I see posters at stations saying the same thing. Ironically they are often flanked by reliability/punctuality posters from TOCs which show that, in fact, the service is neither reliable nor punctual ... even when the 'punctuality' figures are based on trains arriving no more than 10 mins late. A train which is 1 min late is not punctual, never mind one which is 9 mins late. Anyone trumpeting such figures as 'good' in, say, Switzerland would be laughed at ... and as for Japan, I imagine such figures would result in multiple resignations.

 

[Flamingo]

I see posters at stations saying the same thing. Ironically they are often flanked by reliability/punctuality posters from TOCs which show that, in fact, the service is neither reliable nor punctual ... even when the 'punctuality' figures are based on trains arriving no more than 10 mins late. A train which is 1 min late is not punctual, never mind one which is 9 mins late. Anyone trumpeting such figures as 'good' in, say, Switzerland would be laughed at ... and as for Japan, I imagine such figures would result in multiple resignations.

You know, I can't understand why you use the train at all...

 

[455driver]

You know, I can't understand why you use the train at all...

So he has got something to moan about!
Comparing us with a Country which has a totally different railway system to ours is getting a bit boring now as well! :roll:

 

[NSEFAN]

The reason that the Swiss railway is on time is because the timetable has more padding than a mad man's cell! The capacity is therefore lower which would adversely affect pretty much all of our major lines!

 

[6Gman]

One persons complaint is another persons good customer service.

Quite.

Keen RPI enforcement is "heavy handed" to some people. I'd welcome it! I see too many cases where people are clearly trying to avoid paying their share:-

a) arrive at Platform 5 at a certain station in the north of England, but leave via Platform 1 to avoid "barrier"
b) board at the very, very, very front of the train for a short journey. Oh dear the Conductor didn't reach me in time
c) board a crush-loaded train and spend the journey boasting to your mates that "I never buy a ticket 'cos I know the guard can't get through"

etc etc etc

 

[sheff1]

You know, I can't understand why you use the train at all...

Because usually it is the most efficient way to get from where I am to where I want to be. Even if the train is late it is stiil (normally) better than the alternatives.

Just because I choose to travel by train doesn't mean I must accept everything TOCs (or posters on internet forums !) do or say without murmour and refrain from mentioning/discussing perceived shortcomings. Trains which are late are not punctual and no misuse of the English language will make them so. Trying to pretend something is something it isn't is, quite frankly, laughable.

The reason that the Swiss railway is on time is because the timetable has more padding than a mad man's cell! The capacity is therefore lower which would adversely affect pretty much all of our major lines!

The Swiss railway is not always on time. The point I am making is that they do not try and make out things are a lot better than than actually are.

 

[Flamingo]

Because usually it is the most efficient way to get from where I am to where I want to be...


The Swiss railway is not always on time. The point I am making is that they do not try and make out things are better than than actually are.

So why are you trying to make out things are a lot worse than they actually are?

 

[sheff1]

So why are you trying to make out things are a lot worse than they actually are?

Where have I done that ?

The issue is, in fact, one of people claiming things are better than they actually are. A train either arrives punctually (i.e at the advertised time) or it does not. A train which arrives 7/8/9 mins after the advertised time is not punctual, it is late.

Apologies if I am wrong, but if the trains you are working consistently left Paddington 9 mins after the scheduled departure time I assume you would be asked for an explantion for the regular delays rather than praised for the always punctual departures.

 

[NSEFAN]

The issue is, in fact, one of people claiming things are better than they actually are. A train either arrives punctually (i.e at the advertised time) or it does not. A train which arrives 7/8/9 mins after the advertised time is not punctual, it is late.

Tony Miles explains this very issue on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32579674

PPM is used to determine if people are eligible for refunds. Right-time punctuality is used to verify timetables. The former is not only used because it sounds better, but in my view it is more reasonable as a definition of "on time" for practical purposes. "Good enough", if you will.

Regardless of transport mode I would not plan my own journeys to the minute because the world has too many variables. If I am supposed to be somewhere at, say, 0800, I wouldn't plan to arrive at 0759. I would add some padding, the longer the journey the more contingency time I add. As an example my journey from my house to my desk should take 40 minutes, but I leave myself an hour just in case and most of the time this is sufficient.

We could maybe do with more honesty in the numbers. Perhaps both PPM and right-time statistics should be shown together? In any case people will complain so I guess it makes little difference in that regard!

 

[sheff1]

Tony Miles explains this very issue on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32579674

and the text states that only 42 % of XC trains were really on time, as opposed to the 89% figure which was published. This was the point I was trying to make, but without access to the specific figures.

Regardless of transport mode I would not plan my own journeys to the minute because the world has too many variables. If I am supposed to be somewhere at, say, 0800, I wouldn't plan to arrive at 0759. I would add some padding, the longer the journey the more contingency time I add. As an example my journey from my house to my desk should take 40 minutes, but I leave myself an hour just in case and most of the time this is sufficient

Any sensible person would do the same.

We could maybe do with more honesty in the numbers. Perhaps both PPM and right-time statistics should be shown together? In any case people will complain so I guess it makes little difference in that regard!

I agree wholeheartedly with that suggestion and would certainly not complain

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reason that the Swiss railway is on time is because the timetable has more padding than a mad man's cell! The capacity is therefore lower which would adversely affect pretty much all of our major lines!

The Swiss couldn't possibly handle shifting as many commuters into their cities as we do into London, though they do cram them in on their very long double decker formations. And they also have very large through stations compared with most of ours, which allows mid-journey layovers which we often can't achieve. But that aside, many UK regional services could be padded in that way. And some UK services are (for pathing reasons), e.g. the long layovers at Wolves/New St on the Euston-Brum-Scotland VTs.

You also, on local services, seem to get a fair bit of running 4-car units where 8 are needed with lots of standing passengers - or worse, the Riviera speciality of running 8 cars with 4 out of use and standing passengers in the 4 that are in use, which is just stupid.

The grass is definitely not greener.