• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

XC - Leave our train early and use another company

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
8 Jun 2009
Messages
596
The TM of the 13:05 Edinburgh - Plymouth, heavily loaded on approaching Leeds, suggested that passengers continuing to Wakefield or Sheffield alight and use other services.

Does anyone know if this is company policy and whether XC still claims the Orcats for journeys ending at Wakefield or Sheffield in these circumstances?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,496
Location
Yorkshire
The TM of the 13:05 Edinburgh - Plymouth, heavily loaded on approaching Leeds, suggested that passengers continuing to Wakefield or Sheffield alight and use other services.

Does anyone know if this is company policy and whether XC still claims the Orcats for journeys ending at Wakefield or Sheffield in these circumstances?
I’m guessing it was because it was a 4 car vice 9 today. I use it between York and Leeds and it is a busy train with 8 or 9 cars.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,443
The TM of the 13:05 Edinburgh - Plymouth, heavily loaded on approaching Leeds, suggested that passengers continuing to Wakefield or Sheffield alight and use other services.

Does anyone know if this is company policy and whether XC still claims the Orcats for journeys ending at Wakefield or Sheffield in these circumstances?
I very much doubt the ORCATS allocations are changed on a capacity basis, train by train. I dare say if a particular service didn’t run for weeks or months on end something might be done to fix it.
 

Undiscovered

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
414
I can see the reasoning.
There's a lot of trains to Wakefield and Sheffield from Leeds, however not many direct going to the XC ultimate destination.
Passengers can leave at Leeds to get to their destination on a local service in 5-10mins, while those travelling longer from Leeds may have to wait another hour for a train to come through. Passengers for the ultimate destination are prevented from boarding at Leeds as the service is full and standing, only for it to become virtually empty two stops down the line.
 
Joined
8 Jun 2009
Messages
596
I very much doubt the ORCATS allocations are changed on a capacity basis, train by train. I dare say if a particular service didn’t run for weeks or months on end something might be done to fix it.
The service was running but passengers were being encouraged to get off it. Just looks like XC wanting all their usual revenue without having to carry all their usual passengers.
Would also be interesting to find out if XC would refuse delay repay to any passengers who followed the advice and ended up arriving 30+ minutes later.
 

Sly Old Fox

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2022
Messages
285
Location
England
Sounds like the TM was trying to make the journey more comfortable for all passengers.

Not everything is a conspiracy.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,430
Location
London
The service was running but passengers were being encouraged to get off it. Just looks like XC wanting all their usual revenue without having to carry all their usual passengers.
Would also be interesting to find out if XC would refuse delay repay to any passengers who followed the advice and ended up arriving 30+ minutes later.

Interesting that you jump straight to criticism/assuming the worst. Has it occurred to you that, maybe just maybe, the guard was trying to make things easier for the passengers by making them aware of a way of travelling that avoided severe overcrowding?

What exactly is your objection to this?
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,950
Location
West Riding
Sounds like the TM was trying to make the journey more comfortable for all passengers.

Not everything is a conspiracy.
Advising them on to other trains with poor capacity (Northern services to Sheffield) isn’t improving anything overall. It’s transferring the problem, not solving it.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,430
Location
London
Forcing them on to other trains with poor capacity (Northern services to Sheffield) isn’t improving anything overall. It’s transferring the problem, not solving it.

Who exactly was being forced?
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,430
Location
London
Edited before you replied :) It doesn’t detract from the point though does it?

So typical to see this kind of reaction on here, to someone trying to do the right thing by their passengers.

I really hope that TM reads this thread and doesn’t bother trying to be helpful next time…
 

Dren Ahmeti

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2017
Messages
550
Location
Bristol
So typical to see this kind of reaction on here, to someone trying to do the right thing by their passengers.

I really hope that TM reads this thread and doesn’t bother trying to be helpful next time…
Okay, but as well all know, some men’s are very revenue-happy, and what would happen if some poor sod got MG11’d for using an XC-only ticket on Northern, supposedly acting on a TM’s advice which can’t be proven - it’s not official ticket acceptance.

As we know, TOC restrictions can’t be excessed away.
 

wilbers

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2022
Messages
318
Location
Penrith
Well, for Wakefield at least it would have been a short wait for the next LNER to Wakefield, departed 8 minutes after the XC arrived.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,950
Location
West Riding
So typical to see this kind of reaction on here, to someone trying to do the right thing by their passengers.

I really hope that TM reads this thread and doesn’t bother trying to be helpful next time…
It’s not helping at all, it’s moving the problem to be someone else’s and abdicating XC’s responsibility to its passengers.

It’s poor practice at best, and I’m sure contractually ‘iffy’ too.
 

Lockwood

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
943
Better to squeeze everyone on like sardines than suggest a more comfortable alternative
 

Dr Day

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2018
Messages
545
Location
Bristol
I'd be very surprised if another TOC would bother to dispute the default ORCATS allocation and claim revenue off XC for something like this unless it was a routine occurrence, particularly with all the revenue going to the DfT anyway.
 

Bungle

Member
Joined
18 May 2009
Messages
92
Good grief, this forum at times. Talk about mountains out of molehills.

The TM of a heavy-loaded short-formed long-distance train was obviously just trying to exercise a bit of common sense, in inviting passengers making shorter, more local journeys to use trains that were likely to be less busy. He/she is likely thoroughly uninterested in the revenue situation and far more bothered about the train not becoming dangerously crush-loaded.

Only on here could that be seen as somehow controversial or some sort of disingenuous tactic to collect more revenue without carrying the passengers.
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,614
Weary how people see the negative interpretation of everything. Life isn't about conspiracy theories.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,983
Location
East Anglia
Sounds sensible to me. Happens quite a lot with overcrowded trains I work where passengers are offered alternative more comfortable services departing either before or a little later.
 

jamesst

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,116
Location
Merseyside
Good grief, this forum at times. Talk about mountains out of molehills.

The TM of a heavy-loaded short-formed long-distance train was obviously just trying to exercise a bit of common sense, in inviting passengers making shorter, more local journeys to use trains that were likely to be less busy. He/she is likely thoroughly uninterested in the revenue situation and far more bothered about the train not becoming dangerously crush-loaded.

Only on here could that be seen as somehow controversial or some sort of disingenuous tactic to collect more revenue without carrying the passengers.
Welcome to Rail forums, everything's a drama!!
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,273
Location
West of Andover
Better to squeeze everyone on like sardines than suggest a more comfortable alternative
Which won't be the 2 coach 195 on the Northern services, as if anything those are even worse for crush loading than the XC services.

Wakefield to use LNER makes sense, assuming XC has agreed ticket acceptance in case a LNER guard decides to take the details of someone trying to use a XC advance to Wakefield on their train, Northern for Sheffield passengers not so much.
 

michael74

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
518
A lot of swings and roundabouts here...... On the face of it, the TM has done the right thing, but as mentioned up-thread if someone's on a XC Advance all you need is an eager RPI ... XC do not do themselves a lot of favours mind, often curtailing services and literally abandoning PAX and not even liaising with other TOCs control. I had this recently at Bristol, they binned their last service to Plymouth and the TM advised them to get the next GWR service, which was mine and only went to Exeter which arrived after the last train to Plymouth :rolleyes:
 

driverd

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2021
Messages
550
Location
UK
It’s not helping at all, it’s moving the problem to be someone else’s and abdicating XC’s responsibility to its passengers.

It’s poor practice at best, and I’m sure contractually ‘iffy’ too.

But, realistically, what's the solution?

The TM can't pull another 4 coach voyager out of their cash float to tag on the back, so extra capacity is out of the question.

Refunds wouldn't be offered by XC and no one at XC management will give a hoot about it (remember, 2010-2020 XC was 'get on the train if you're lucky' levels of capacity).

So those options out of the window, I don't think there's any harm done by offering anyone who'd care for some more space the option to disembark and take another service. Admittedly, yes, the TM should have specified that you must not be on a train specific ticket, but otherwise, I don't see the problem with a colleague thinking on their feet and doing what they can to help people have a more enjoyable journey (which, in this case, was to offer an alternative option).
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,661
Certainly sounds like giving passengers an opportunity was sensible here.

If you’re approaching Leeds from York (or further North) and you’re going to Wakefield and you have the choice of staying on the full and standing train or getting off, waiting 10 minutes and getting a less heavily loaded one and in doing so you also make it more bearable for the people going through to Plymouth then any reasonable person would consider it. Of course, not everyone will be in a position to do that.

The way I see it, the guard has suggested an alternative that could help both passengers that are on the train, and passengers that are wanting to get on the train. If everyone did their bit etc ….
 

InkyScrolls

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2022
Messages
915
Location
North of England
Sounds like the TM was trying to make the journey more comfortable for all passengers.

Not everything is a conspiracy.
Indeed. It's highly likely that the TM had no direct input from 'above' and was relying on his own discretion in making that suggestion. I have certainly done so myself when my train has been overloaded and I know that a) many more are about to board, and b) there's another direct train a few minutes behind to some of the destinations.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,296
Location
County Durham
Generally I think this was a good idea. But it’s entirely dependent on this being communicated to the guard on said alternative train so that passengers with advance tickets don’t encounter issues - it should happen but sadly doesn’t always happen in practice.
If this is a regular occurrence however an alternative solution would be needed, for example strengthening the XC service or making the southbound Wakefield calls on XC pick up only.

With the DFT now getting the revenue ORCATs only really makes a difference where open access operators are involved.

A lot of swings and roundabouts here...... On the face of it, the TM has done the right thing, but as mentioned up-thread if someone's on a XC Advance all you need is an eager RPI ... XC do not do themselves a lot of favours mind, often curtailing services and literally abandoning PAX and not even liaising with other TOCs control. I had this recently at Bristol, they binned their last service to Plymouth and the TM advised them to get the next GWR service, which was mine and only went to Exeter which arrived after the last train to Plymouth :rolleyes:
I’ve had the exact opposite experience in the North East, XC don’t usually leave passengers stranded and XC control routinely liases with LNER control. They’re miles ahead of TPE in that regard.
 

AG1994

Member
Joined
8 Feb 2018
Messages
102
It’s a bit sad that people (presumed enthusiasts) will go out of their way to potentially get railway workers in trouble.

You could have very easily asked this question without essentially allowing identification of the exact crew member in question. Posts like these are the exact reason many drivers and guards now refuse to deviate from the norm as whenever you try to help you’re put on social media and then taken in for tea and biscuits without tea and biscuits.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,983
Location
East Anglia
Good grief, this forum at times. Talk about mountains out of molehills.

The TM of a heavy-loaded short-formed long-distance train was obviously just trying to exercise a bit of common sense, in inviting passengers making shorter, more local journeys to use trains that were likely to be less busy. He/she is likely thoroughly uninterested in the revenue situation and far more bothered about the train not becoming dangerously crush-loaded.

Only on here could that be seen as somehow controversial or some sort of disingenuous tactic to collect more revenue without carrying the passengers.

It’s unbelievable mate. Talk about overreacting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top