Why is standing worse on 'real' trains?

[Bletchleyite]

On commuter trains the solution is more standing space, like it appears the 700s will have, and on intercity trains the solution is to try and manage capacity so that long-distance standing is not a regular occurrence.

And to provide enough capacity, e.g. not doing stupid things like building 4/5 car Voyagers which any rational person could see were not going to work. They should have been 7-8 car, and if that made them too expensive a cheaper DMU like a Turbostar should have been selected instead.

 

[NSEFAN]

Being cynical, I think complaints about not getting seats will suddenly reduce where there is a TfL takeover, simply because it is TfL and not a private operator...

... even though TfL then pay a private operator to run the service. I tried to explain that to a normal passenger once and was met with a blank look.

I guess we can at least say that TfL's marketing department are very good at keeping up an image!

 

[Amy Worrall]

Paying through the nose only gives you the privilege to travel, not a seat unless you reserve one.
Paying 40 times as much per year takes you much further than by bus. You wouldn't complain that the petrol to do a 200 mile journey costs more than a 10 mile one, would you?

It would be interesting if that were challenged in court. From Virgin's website:

They're stating that you get your own table and seat in first class. There's no asterisk. In fact, there is a disclaimer next to the food and drink section ("may be subject to change"), but there is not one next to the bit about seating.

Companies have been smacked down in the past for advertising something that is not always true, and burying the disclaimer in a separate page of terms and conditions.

But all this is somewhat irrelevant to what I was saying. I said I'd be miffed if I didn't get a seat. That's true -- I would be. I didn't claim I'd be entitled to compensation or anything. Luckily we're not living in a state where companies can tell me what I can feel miffed about!

Amy

 

[AM9]

It would be interesting if that were challenged in court. From Virgin's website:

They're stating that you get your own table and seat in first class. There's no asterisk. In fact, there is a disclaimer next to the food and drink section ("may be subject to change"), but there is not one next to the bit about seating.

Companies have been smacked down in the past for advertising something that is not always true, and burying the disclaimer in a separate page of terms and conditions.

But all this is somewhat irrelevant to what I was saying. I said I'd be miffed if I didn't get a seat. That's true -- I would be. I didn't claim I'd be entitled to compensation or anything. Luckily we're not living in a state where companies can tell me what I can feel miffed about!

Amy

The NRCoCs override that. Section G para 40 says:
"Unless you have a seat reservation, the Train Companies do not guarantee to provide a seat for your journey."
I would imagine that provision of such seats would be conditional on a reservation and not just turn-up and go. Virgin may get a rap over the knuckles for advertising something that regularly isn't available, but all services provided are subject to all sorts of abnormal situations not happening. Of course, they will buy off the odd persistent complainant with refunds/vouchers but the only legal contract between the passenger and the carrier is the NRCoCs and there is no exception for 1st class seat availability..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The flipdown seats were deliberately taken out of the MkIV vestibules because people sitting on them were getting in the way of people getting on and off the train. I don't think flipdown seats are the solution, as people were using them even when the train was half-empty, which was the main problem.

On commuter trains the solution is more standing space, like it appears the 700s will have, and on intercity trains the solution is to try and manage capacity so that long-distance standing is not a regular occurrence.

Flipdown seats are a good idea to make alternative use of space, i.e. when not used for bulky luggage/cycles etc., they can provide extra seating. However it's been known for passengers to refuse to give seats up even when wheelchaired passengers board and they are sitting in a space where notices clearly say that they must give them up. (Yes I know that's another oft-debated subject here.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

And to provide enough capacity, e.g. not doing stupid things like building 4/5 car Voyagers which any rational person could see were not going to work.

Off topic, but the original plan would have worked. Virgin were going to keep the HSTs, reconfigure and refurbish them, and use them to allow plenty of double-Voyager workings. The SRA took them off them and moved them to into storage at Long Marston (from where First bought a selection of power cars), for reasons nobody understands even now.

If Virgin hadn't been stopped from doing all of Operation Princess, it would have worked.

 

[Agent_c]

But would it get you to London?

It wouldnt even get you the insurance to be allowed to put it on the road.

 

[SaveECRewards]

Off topic, but the original plan would have worked. Virgin were going to keep the HSTs, reconfigure and refurbish them, and use them to allow plenty of double-Voyager workings. The SRA took them off them and moved them to into storage at Long Marston (from where First bought a selection of power cars), for reasons nobody understands even now.

If Virgin hadn't been stopped from doing all of Operation Princess, it would have worked.

That I never knew! So would there be more HSTs than the current XC franchisee has?

It still seems to make sense to have 7/8/9 car variants. 4 car seems to small in almost all circumstances. Having two coupled together means you also need to duplicate staff to have a decent service (I've been on double Voyagers where only one shop was open).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Just a small point, but weren't the proposed "255 Challenger" HST sets for VXC planned to be 2+5 sets? So not necessarily a huge boost in capacity...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yeah, the "Challenger" trains were going to be 2+5 or 2+6 to allow them to stick to Voyager timings. My point was Operation Princess was designed on the basis of having them to manage capacity (including double Voyagers on the really busy trains), and it failed because there weren't enough Voyagers to maintain the timetable.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely standing is standing regardless of what type of train you are on?

 

[Via Bank]

Surely standing is standing regardless of what type of train you are on?

As has been said, when the train is making frequent stops to let people in and out (particularly the Tube and lines like Thameslink, where you don't have most passengers staying on till the final destination) that gives passengers going further more opportunities to get a seat.

Compare this to, say, Woking in the morning peak. If you get on a fast Waterloo train and there are no seats, you're standing for the next 25-30 minutes, full stop.

 

[Flamingo]

Given that passengers may be standing on a platform for quite a long time (some platforms only have seating for 3 or 4 people), again, why is this what ok, but standing for a 10-15 minute journey is a breach of Human Rights (listening to some travellers on the Bristol-Bath stretch, for example).

 

[JauntyAlan]

Given that passengers may be standing on a platform for quite a long time (some platforms only have seating for 3 or 4 people), again, why is this what ok, but standing for a 10-15 minute journey is a breach of Human Rights (listening to some travellers on the Bristol-Bath stretch, for example).

This is all about control. If you're on a platform with a long time to wait, you have choices -- you can try to get a seat on the platform, go for a coffee, do something else. Likewise on the Tube, you have a high chance of getting a seat within a stop or two, or if things are really intolerable you can get off at the next stop, which will be along in a minute.

But on the longer run trains (eg Woking) if you get on and don't get a seat, you have virtually no choice other than to stand for 30 minutes. That lack of options and lack of hope makes people feel powerless and helpless, and people hate that. So they complain.

 

[sprinterguy]

Off topic, but the original plan would have worked. Virgin were going to keep the HSTs, reconfigure and refurbish them, and use them to allow plenty of double-Voyager workings. The SRA took them off them and moved them to into storage at Long Marston (from where First bought a selection of power cars), for reasons nobody understands even now.

That seems to be an alternate version to how I remember developments panning out and being reported at the time: The refurbished Virgin "Challenger" HSTs - which wouldn't have utilised the entire former Virgin XC fleet; I vaguely recall 14 sets being mentioned - would have been used on Birmingham to Paddington via Swindon services (and something out of Blackpool? I didn't pay attention that closely as it was all on the "wrong" side of the country for me). These service proposals were dropped from the Crosscountry franchise in short order anyway, so there was no impact on Voyager allocations whether the HSTs had been introduced or not.

Most of the former Virgin XC HSTs didn't go into store at Long Marston straight off: The SRA essentially requisitioned the vast majority of them to work "Project Rio" services over the Midland Mainline. As far as I can tell that's a good part of the reason why the Virgin "Challenger" idea didn't go ahead. GNER also used the opportunity to take on a couple of additional power cars fairly immediately, and strengthened their HST sets to 9 carriages using redundant mark 3 vehicles from the Virgin XC fleet.

 

[Bevan Price]

The NRCoCs override that. Section G para 40 says:
"Unless you have a seat reservation, the Train Companies do not guarantee to provide a seat for your journey."
I would imagine that provision of such seats would be conditional on a reservation and not just turn-up and go. Virgin may get a rap over the knuckles for advertising something that regularly isn't available, but all services provided are subject to all sorts of abnormal situations not happening. Of course, they will buy off the odd persistent complainant with refunds/vouchers but the only legal contract between the passenger and the carrier is the NRCoCs and there is no exception for 1st class seat availability..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Flipdown seats are a good idea to make alternative use of space, i.e. when not used for bulky luggage/cycles etc., they can provide extra seating. However it's been known for passengers to refuse to give seats up even when wheelchaired passengers board and they are sitting in a space where notices clearly say that they must give them up. (Yes I know that's another oft-debated subject here.)

If the full advert (which I have not seen) fails to mention NRCoCs, then it may breach legislation about accuracy of advertising claims if someone fails to get what is promised in the advert.

 

[Via Bank]

Given that passengers may be standing on a platform for quite a long time (some platforms only have seating for 3 or 4 people), again, why is this what ok, but standing for a 10-15 minute journey is a breach of Human Rights (listening to some travellers on the Bristol-Bath stretch, for example).

Perhaps because railway station platforms don't tend to constantly wobble and sway about with constant vibration from underneath, they don't tend to be heavily confined with large numbers of passengers kettled into each other, and if it's the sort of station that doesn't have any seating, one is likely to be free to leave the railway station at any time, go to a nearby park or the pub, and come back when the train is due? These are luxuries you don't have once inside a train.

And if you look, there are always plenty of complaints about poor seating provision at stations (Waterloo mainline, for instance, and the quality of the shelters at stations such as Ash Vale with no enclosed waiting room.)

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. The seating provision on the platforms of Leeds is frankly woeful (and substantially worse than in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 rebuild), so let's not use that sorry state of affairs to justify standing on trains.

 

[AM9]

If the full advert (which I have not seen) fails to mention NRCoCs, then it may breach legislation about accuracy of advertising claims if someone fails to get what is promised in the advert.

It's just on one of the pages of the Virgin Trains website. Every page of the website has numerous links at the bottom including 'Terms and Conditions'.
The second heading there is titled 'TERMS & CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE ONLINE PURCHASE OF TICKETS'.
Item 7 under that is the NRCoCs which is an anchor to section 1 to 16 of them. Couldn't be easier. See here:
http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/terms-conditions/
Frankly, I wouldn't expect Virgin to do it any other way.

 

[Via Bank]

It's just on one of the pages of the Virgin Trains website. Every page of the website has numerous links at the bottom including 'Terms and Conditions'.
The second heading there is titled 'TERMS & CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE ONLINE PURCHASE OF TICKETS'.
Item 7 under that is the NRCoCs which is an anchor to section 1 to 16 of them. Couldn't be easier. See here:
http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/terms-conditions/
Frankly, I wouldn't expect Virgin to do it any other way.

"Couldn't be easier?" You have to read through 13 of paragraphs of legalese to find a link to the NRCoC, and then have to follow the link and read through that to eventually find Paragraph 40.

It would be easier, simpler and more upfront if they simply displayed, very clearly, at booking time or on unreserved tickets themselves, "this ticket guarantees you travel at the relevant time, but not a seat on the train."

 

[AM9]

"Couldn't be easier?" You have to read through 13 of paragraphs of legalese to find a link to the NRCoC, and then have to follow the link and read through that to eventually find Paragraph 40.

It would be easier, simpler and more upfront if they simply displayed, very clearly, at booking time or on unreserved tickets themselves, "this ticket guarantees you travel at the relevant time, but not a seat on the train."

It's as easy as reading the conditions of carriage on any other ticket. Do you expect everybody to read the conditions of sale when standing at a till in a shop?
I found the NRCoC on the Virgin website in about 30 seconds, - as long as it takes to walk from the entrance door of a Pendolino to your reserved seat. Every page cas a direct link to the conditions page and its a single link to the NRCoCs.
I'm no apologist for VT (or any TOC) but if you are adult enough to be allowed out alone and can read then the CoCs should present no challenge. *
The offer also is also subject to an array of the CoCs so should they publish them alondside every offer. Maybe they should bring up all the relevant clauses of the CoCs every time an enquiry is made for an online ticket. I'd like to think that every customer of TOCs is as vigilant as you expect them to be, then we wouldn't have an enormous forum of posts about fraudulent travel which are described as 'genuine mistakes'.
* With allowances for those with sight and learning disabilities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be easier, simpler and more upfront if they simply displayed, very clearly, at booking time or on unreserved tickets themselves, "this ticket guarantees you travel at the relevant time, but not a seat on the train."

Except it doesn't if the train is crush-loaded and you can't physically get on. This mainly applies to frequent commuter services, but can apply to the first off-peak train at Euston on a Friday evening.

 

[blotred]

One observation I have with standing on trains (when compared to the London Underground for example), is that it is difficult to stand steadily due to a lack of handgrabs and poles.
I have no problems standing, as a London commuter its part of the deal... on the Underground there is always something to hold onto.

Newer/refurbed London-based trains (Class 377/6, 377/7, 458/5 as well as the 376 and 378, and SWTs 455s) are better at providing something to hold onto, but I feel more handgrabs on the ceilings aligned with the gangway between vestibules (not unlike what you get in Tokyo, or in the vestibules of a Southern 455) would be even better....
It would encourage people to at least not block the vestibule.

 

[Via Bank]

It's as easy as reading the conditions of carriage on any other ticket. Do you expect everybody to read the conditions of sale when standing at a till in a shop?
I found the NRCoC on the Virgin website in about 30 seconds, - as long as it takes to walk from the entrance door of a Pendolino to your reserved seat. Every page cas a direct link to the conditions page and its a single link to the NRCoCs.
I'm no apologist for VT (or any TOC) but if you are adult enough to be allowed out alone and can read then the CoCs should present no challenge. *
The offer also is also subject to an array of the CoCs so should they publish them alondside every offer. Maybe they should bring up all the relevant clauses of the CoCs every time an enquiry is made for an online ticket. I'd like to think that every customer of TOCs is as vigilant as you expect them to be, then we wouldn't have an enormous forum of posts about fraudulent travel which are described as 'genuine mistakes'.
* With allowances for those with sight and learning disabilities.

Yes - why not? If you book with Eurostar or with most airlines there is a clear explanation with the cheapest fares that they are not flexible, and if you miss your flight you will have to pay extra/no refunds etc. I seem to recall some tickets that had "carriage in any particular class is not guaranteed" printed on them.

Why shouldn't it say "we can't guarantee you a seat unless you book a reservation" at the time of booking?

Except it doesn't if the train is crush-loaded and you can't physically get on. This mainly applies to frequent commuter services, but can apply to the first off-peak train at Euston on a Friday evening.

If you physically couldn't get on the train and were delayed over the Passenger Charter threshold as a result, I'm pretty sure most TOCs would happily entertain a compensation claim.