XC - Leave our train early and use another company

[AG1994]

To be fair, nobody has been publicly identified in this thread.

Anybody that works for the TOC concerned will be able to find the TM’s details instantly with the information in the first sentence of the post. So this is identifying the individual to the people who matter, I can assure you this will already be flying around in emails at the TOC, hopefully it’s just going to be a response of “they did what they were told to do”. Again, if this is what the guard was supposed to do, I hope they don’t bother next time.

Anyone that can fool themselves into thinking this is an innocent thread with that title probably falls into the category of enthusiast I’ve already described.

An intelligent suggestion on how to get insider information on the railways by not annoying the only people that can give you that info, try writing it like this:

“Hi, I was in an XC service this week and it was quite busy. At one busy part of the route the guard informed people they could get off to use another train. Is this normal? Is there an agreement with other TOCs in this situation?”

All the information required is there, yet staff at XC won’t have a clue which one of 100s of services it was so cannot go after an individual IF they did something wrong.

 

[DanNCL]

Anybody that works for the TOC concerned will be able to find the TM’s details instantly with the information in the first sentence of the post. So this is identifying the individual to the people who matter, I can assure you this will already be flying around in emails at the TOC, hopefully it’s just going to be a response of “they did what they were told to do”. Again, if this is what the guard was supposed to do, I hope they don’t bother next time.

Anyone that can fool themselves into thinking this is an innocent thread with that title probably falls into the category of enthusiast I’ve already described.

An intelligent suggestion on how to get insider information on the railways by not annoying the only people that can give you that info, try writing it like this:

“Hi, I was in an XC service this week and it was quite busy. At one busy part of the route the guard informed people they could get off to use another train. Is this normal? Is there an agreement with other TOCs in this situation?”

All the information required is there, yet staff at XC won’t have a clue which one of 100s of services it was so cannot go after an individual IF they did something wrong.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that people aren’t allowed to publicly repeat what they hear on a public announcement in a public place?

How many people could have mentioned it on Twitter instead? Potentially hundreds, obviously they haven’t but that’s not the point.

How many people could have mentioned it to other railway staff who’ve then passed if on? We don’t know.

There are many ways in which if someone did something wrong their employer *will* find out. One thread on a rail forum isn’t going to increase the likelihood of that in this scenario.

I do think the guard did the right thing in this situation. I don’t however think there is anything wrong with saying where and when a public announcement was heard.

 

[Starmill]

Anybody that works for the TOC concerned will be able to find the TM’s details instantly with the information in the first sentence of the post. So this is identifying the individual to the people who matter

So it's a private matter in other words? And not as you said something publicly identifiable?

I can assure you this will already be flying around in emails at the TOC, hopefully it’s just going to be a response of “they did what they were told to do”

So on the one hand you claim to know this for sure is what's happening and yet in the same sentence you don't know what the reply will be?

Again, if this is what the guard was supposed to do, I hope they don’t bother next time.

Why? It seems a little dishonorable of you to actively hope that people start ignoring the requirements of their job. Don't you think that you could be doing down those who take pride in their job by repeating this very cynical line?

 

[yorkie]

Anybody that works for the TOC concerned will be able to find the TM’s details instantly with the information in the first sentence of the post. So this is identifying the individual to the people who matter, I can assure you this will already be flying around in emails at the TOC, hopefully it’s just going to be a response of “they did what they were told to do”. Again, if this is what the guard was supposed to do, I hope they don’t bother next time.

I don't understand your point; firstly if the TM has done nothing wrong, then the entire basis of your post is superflous.

You seem to be suggesting that wrongdoing may have occured and you also appear to be suggesting that the company does not have a right to know what its staff are announcing through the public address system?

Anyone that can fool themselves into thinking this is an innocent thread with that title probably falls into the category of enthusiast I’ve already described.

I am not sure what you are saying here; are you suggesting a passenger isn't entitled to inform others of the contents of an announcement made through the PA system on their train?

Can you also clarify what you mean by "category"; are you suggesting anyone is guilty of wrongdoing?

An intelligent suggestion on how to get insider information on the railways by not annoying the only people that can give you that info, try writing it like this:

“Hi, I was in an XC service this week and it was quite busy. At one busy part of the route the guard informed people they could get off to use another train. Is this normal? Is there an agreement with other TOCs in this situation?”

All the information required is there, yet staff at XC won’t have a clue which one of 100s of services it was so cannot go after an individual IF they did something wrong.

Why should XC not know what their staff are announcing?

If the TM did nothing wrong, there is no issue. If they did something wrong, they can be given appropriate advice.

I don't see how the TM did anything wrong if they either made any ticketing restrictions clear and/or clarified the message was only relevant to walk-up ticket holders and/or if ticket acceptance was in place. If none of those applied, then it is possible the company may want to give the TM some words of advice, in which case that's a fair outcome.

 

[Starmill]

Anyone that can fool themselves into thinking this is an innocent thread with that title probably falls into the category of enthusiast I’ve already described.

The title isn't a terribly clear one certainly. It's probably marginal if it even complied with the forum rule, but if you were concerned about that you should have reported the first post and said so rather than saying that the thread "isn't innocent" which is very odd and doesn't make much sense.

 

[Scott1]

I read threads like this, and I just think why do I bother trying? I could sit in the back cab, doing nothing, and get less grief than this.

 

[43066]

Did they just make passengers aware of the presence of other services, or did it go beyond that? It was stated that the TM 'suggested that passengers continuing to Wakefield or Sheffield alight and use other services'; I don't think a suggestion of that nature should be made without mentioning any ticketing restrictions or clarifies that this is only referring to passengers holding inter-available fares.

On the contrary, less is more with an announcement like this. A simple, helpful announcement could make people aware of other services but wouldn’t, of itself, imply ticket acceptance. If anything, it would be more of a risk to go into detail about what will and won’t be accepted because it will be a. Impossible to understand, and b. carries a risk of something being omitted.

It’s not too much to expect that passengers take responsibility for knowing if their ticket is valid on certain service. After all, it is clearly stated as such on the face of the ticket! That would be different if a guard was telling people ticket acceptance was in place when it isn’t, not there’s no suggestion of that.

If the TM was making the suggestion to all passengers heading to Wakefield / Sheffield, then ticket acceptance would need to be in place, or exclusions mentioned.

If they were making a general announcement about availability of services that would work, too. This was a (helpful) suggestion of other options, not an instruction for all passengers to those destinations to change, nor was it an exhaustive list of every possible permutation of ticketing acceptance.

This isn't equivalent, as - rightly or wrongly - they are considered to be separate modes (NR vs LU), but I would be curious to learn exactly what is being said, as this may be a potential cause for concern if it could be taken as implying ticket acceptance is in place. Not all passengers are going to be thinking about ticket validity in the way that you or I might do and may simply take any advice at face value without further thought.

In London it isn’t really a separate mode and it works very well as a comparison because: many people have tickets valid on both NR and LU trains; some NR tickets are valid on LU, but most are not; LU often (but don’t always) allow ticket acceptance when there is disruption, so there are many parallels with this situation.

As such, it is acceptable for drivers/staff to make announcements detailing LU as an option to get around disruption, it’s entirely down to the individual passenger to know whether they can do that without paying extra or not. I would have absolutely no hesitation in making such announcements again.

This is why railway staff are quickly being alienated into removing common sense customer service from their daily routine, and instead sticking to the company line which will potentially bring zero benefit to the passengers as that line will be on cost and efficiency rather than passenger satisfaction in most cases.

The weird thing is the amount of enthusiasts which go out of their way to trip railway staff up, I can almost forgive the innocence of those who don’t have a clue posting in places like Twitter, but this guy knew what he was doing when he posted this.

As others have said, hopefully this guard will now think twice about offering friendly suggestions to passengers, whether it be in the company policy or out of it. If I were a guard and knew 1 in 100 pax are going to go out of their way to publicly identify me and question my work I’d rather let the 100 sit like sardines whilst I chill in the comfort of the back cab - funnily enough this is what many do now as they’re once bitten, twice shy.

Indeed. The direct result of threads like this will be a worse experience for passengers and enthusiasts, less discretion shown. It’s so typical that, rather than praising a guard for showing great customer service, the reaction is yet more criticism and massive over analysis. Sadly this forum is almost universally seen on the railway as being anti staff, and threads like this are a perfect demonstration of why.

Indeed. I see no evidence that anything that should be considered confidential has been divulged; if anyone ever believes confidentiality has been breached, this should not be posted on any forum thread and instead the post should be reported directly to us, using the report button.

The point being made is that there was no need for the OP to identify the specific service when that information adds absolutely nothing to the thread. That information will make that member of staff identifiable internally.

It is clear from the tone of the OP that it was very much a dig at this member of staff/XC, and we only have the OP’s word for what was said.

I read threads like this, and I just think why do I bother trying? I could sit in the back cab, doing nothing, and get less grief than this.

100%.

 

[Horizon22]

Anybody that works for the TOC concerned will be able to find the TM’s details instantly with the information in the first sentence of the post. So this is identifying the individual to the people who matter, I can assure you this will already be flying around in emails at the TOC, hopefully it’s just going to be a response of “they did what they were told to do”. Again, if this is what the guard was supposed to do, I hope they don’t bother next time.

Anyone that can fool themselves into thinking this is an innocent thread with that title probably falls into the category of enthusiast I’ve already described.

An intelligent suggestion on how to get insider information on the railways by not annoying the only people that can give you that info, try writing it like this:

“Hi, I was in an XC service this week and it was quite busy. At one busy part of the route the guard informed people they could get off to use another train. Is this normal? Is there an agreement with other TOCs in this situation?”

All the information required is there, yet staff at XC won’t have a clue which one of 100s of services it was so cannot go after an individual IF they did something wrong.

Most of which you said above might be correct, but that still doesn’t mean they are publicly identifiable only privately identifiable. We don’t all have access to diagrams and crew names on the rosters for the day at XC, do we?

It’s the same as complaints (or compliments) coming in about staff from passengers on particular trains to the TOC’s customer services team.

That being said I’d say it shows a proactive attitude, and perhaps local awareness although they may be need to be careful about restrictive tickets. To be fair, we don’t know what was said verbatim.

 

[MCSHF007]

A significant problem with southbound late afternoon/early evening XC services leaving Leeds is that Wakefield passengers will crowd out 4/5 coach xx.11 voyagers just to get home 4 minutes earlier than the (generally) more spacious LNER xx.15 departures. Ideally these XC services would be advertised "first stop Sheffield" at Leeds.

 

[DanNCL]

Why? It seems a little dishonorable of you to actively hope that people start ignoring the requirements of their job. Don't you think that you could be doing down those who take pride in their job by repeating this very cynical line?

There seems to be an ever increasing number of people advocating such behaviour unfortunately. And then some wonder why people moan about poor customer service on the railway…

Indeed. The direct result of threads like this will be a worse experience for passengers and enthusiasts, less discretion shown. It’s so typical that, rather than praising a guard for showing great customer service, the reaction is yet more criticism and massive over analysis. Sadly this forum is almost universally seen on the railway as being anti staff, and threads like this are a perfect demonstration of why.

If you read some of the threads in disputes and prosecutions, and some of the headlines about the railway in mainstream media, I think you’d understand why some here are “anti staff”. Staff are increasingly portrayed in a very negative manner, sometimes justified (for example when someone actually does something wrong) but often not justified (for example media spin on strikes).

 

[Starmill]

I read threads like this, and I just think why do I bother trying? I could sit in the back cab, doing nothing, and get less grief than this.

You could look at it that way if you were intent on being deeply cynical, yes. I'm sure nobody would stop you if you really wanted to go about your business in that way.

However I think that most reasonable people wouldn't conclude that. Instead, they'd probably think to themselves that it's a good job that train companies ask staff to take a moment to compose themselves before making an announcement, and double check that what they're about to say is correct to the best information available at that moment, and is being put across in the right way. Certainly some companies are very keen on doing this as it reduces mistakes and improves customer experience.

 

[DanNCL]

A significant problem with southbound late afternoon/early evening XC services leaving Leeds is that Wakefield passengers will crowd out 4/5 coach xx.11 voyagers just to get home 4 minutes earlier than the (generally) more spacious LNER xx.15 departures. Ideally these XC services would be advertised "first stop Sheffield" at Leeds.

I stand by my suggestion earlier that XC should be pick up only on southbound services at Wakefield. There can’t be that many people travelling to Wakefield from York-northwards?

Thread to discuss this idea: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...pick-up-only-at-wakefield.247281/post-6179939

 

[Starmill]

A significant problem with southbound late afternoon/early evening XC services leaving Leeds is that Wakefield passengers will crowd out 4/5 coach xx.11 voyagers just to get home 4 minutes earlier than the (generally) more spacious LNER xx.15 departures. Ideally these XC services would be advertised "first stop Sheffield" at Leeds.

Is it really sensible to prevent journeys such as Newcastle to Wakefield Westgate on these trains?

You can't remove the stop from the screens and announcements without changing the schedule to be pick up only at Wakefield Westgate.

 

[yorkie]

I read threads like this, and I just think why do I bother trying? I could sit in the back cab, doing nothing, and get less grief than this.

Are you suggesting that the TM did something wrong?

On the contrary, less is more with an announcement like this. A simple, helpful announcement could make people aware of other services but wouldn’t, of itself, imply ticket acceptance. If anything, it would be more of a risk to go into detail about what will and won’t be accepted because it will be a. Impossible to understand, and b. carries a risk of something being omitted.

If ticket acceptance was not in place, the TM's remarks would then only be applicable to walk-up passengers, agreed?

If you are suggesting it is appropriate to suggest that any passenger on the train who is heading for Wakefield or Sheffield should be changing at Leeds, this would surely not be appropriate unless ticket acceptance was in place. (Edit: according to another poster it was in place; I have no issue with the advice given in such circumstances, but all this worry and aggro could be avoided if clarification was provided regarding acceptance and the extent of delay; perhaps such assurances were given, but if so the OP would surely have stated this?)

Also do you have any comments regarding the delay at Sheffield, which would have been 61 minutes?

It’s not too much to expect that passengers take responsibility for knowing if their ticket is valid on certain service. After all, it is clearly stated as such on the face of the ticket! That would be different if a guard was telling people ticket acceptance was in place when it isn’t, not there’s no suggestion of that.

If passengers are being advised to take a particular service due to a service disruption issue (which may include a short formed service or any other cause of unexpected overcrowding), it is not unreasonable to assume that the relevant acceptance was in place.

If they were making a general announcement about availability of services that would work, too. This was a (helpful) suggestion of other options, not an instruction for all passengers to those destinations to change, nor was it an exhaustive list of every possible permutation of ticketing acceptance.

This is a fairly detailed description of what was said; can you clarify the exact wording please? If you are unfamiliar with the exact wording, I am unsure how such a description can be made.

In London it isn’t really a separate mode and it works very well as a comparison because: many people have tickets valid on both NR and LU trains; some NR tickets are valid on LU, but most are not; LU often (but don’t always) allow ticket acceptance when there is disruption.

It is deemed to be a separate mode, but I am unsure what your point is here or how it is relevant; you are talking about a journey potentially being quicker, rather than advising or asking people to take a train that would have resulted in a 61 minute delay compared to remaining on board. Does that ever happen at London Bridge?

As such, it is acceptable for drivers/staff to make announcements detailing LU as an option to get around disruption, it’s entirely down to the individual passenger to know whether they can do that without paying extra or not. I would have absolutely no hesitation in making such announcements again.

And you would have no objection to such announcements being divilged, correct? So no problem with the original post of this thread, which sought to clarify if this was company policy or not.

If the situation is comparable, as you appear to be suggesting, then it would appear to be company policy, and therefore I don't understand what the fuss is about?

Indeed. The direct result of threads like this will be a worse experience for passengers and enthusiasts, less discretion shown. It’s so typical that, rather than praising a guard for showing great customer service, the reaction is yet more criticism and massive over analysis. Sadly this forum is almost universally seen on the railway as being anti staff, and threads like this are a perfect demonstration of why.

Anyone who makes such claims is clearly deluded; the original post asked if it was company policy or not and the original poster was absolutely entitled to ask the question.

Given passengers are routinely challenged for being on the wrong TOC on journeys such as Leeds to Sheffield, there absolutely is a legitimate concern regarding what advice is being given out in respect of travelling on an alternative operators' service.

The point being made is that there was no need for the OP to identify the specific service when that information adds absolutely nothing to the thread. That information will make that member of staff identifiable internally.

I refer you to posts above by myself and @Starmill.

It is clear from the tone of the OP that it was very much a dig at this member of staff/XC

Both staff and XC?

and we only have the OP’s word for what was said.

That is what the thread is based on. Do you have any evidence that this has been misrepresented? We can only go by what is stated, but if anyone has any more detailed information, it would be useful to hear it.

I stand by my suggestion earlier that XC should be pick up only on southbound services at Wakefield. There can’t be that many people travelling to Wakefield from York-northwards?

Feel free to debate this further in the appropriate forum section
Edit: thread now here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...services-be-pick-up-only-at-wakefield.247281/

 

[Scott1]

You could look at it that way if you were intent on being deeply cynical, yes. I'm sure nobody would stop you if you really wanted to go about your business in that way.

However I think that most reasonable people wouldn't conclude that. Instead, they'd probably think to themselves that it's a good job that train companies ask staff to take a moment to compose themselves before making an announcement, and double check that what they're about to say is correct to the best information available at that moment, and is being put across in the right way. Certainly some companies are very keen on doing this as it reduces mistakes and improves customer experience.

Indeed. What I'm guessing the OP didn't bother to check was that Ticket Acceptance has been in effect through the day for XC customers due to short forms and a fatality earlier, along with several other issues. Some was blanket for certain areas, the others were calls to individual trains for crowding or cancellation reasons. I see no issues with the advice the TM gave out.

That said, I stand by my remark. I read this, and just think well why bother trying to help if your just going to be criticised.

 

[yorkie]

Indeed. What I'm guessing the OP didn't bother to check was that Ticket Acceptance has been in effect through the day for XC customers due to short forms and a fatality earlier, along with several other issues. Some was blanket for certain areas, the others were calls to individual trains for crowding or cancellation reasons. I see no issues with the advice the TM gave out.

I see no issue with it either in that case, but why not reassure people of the acceptance?

Also do you think that the extent of delay into Sheffield of around an hour (61 minutes in the end) should have been communicated?

That said, I stand by my remark. I read this, and just think well why bother trying to help if your just going to be criticised.

The original post asked if this was company policy; do you interpret that question as criticism of an individual?

 

[Scott1]

I see no issue with it either in that case, but why not reassure people of the acceptance?

Also do you think that the extent of delay into Sheffield of around an hour (61 minutes in the end) should have been communicated?

The original post asked if this was company policy; do you interpret that question as criticism of an individual?

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.

I interpreted this post as criticism, yes, and yes I think it is indeed aimed at the TM for trying to help in a situation where some passengers are likely to be left behind. Make room for those going the furthest with the least number of alternatives.

 

[yorkie]

I interpreted this post as criticism, yes,

Asking if it is policy is criticism of who?

In any case, whether you consider such a question to be criticism or not, I think it has to be accepted that people are entitled to ask the question regarding whether or not this is policy; are you suggesting they shouldn't be?

and yes I think it is indeed aimed at the TM for trying to help in a situation where some passengers are likely to be left behind. Make room for those going the furthest with the least number of alternatives.

As I said above:

I see no issue with it either in that case, but why not reassure people of the acceptance?

Also do you think that the extent of delay into Sheffield of around an hour (61 minutes in the end) should have been communicated?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It’s so typical that, rather than praising a guard for showing great customer service, the reaction is yet more criticism and massive over analysis.

Don’t you think it says a lot if good customer service is now such a remarkable feat that it deserves “praise?” Once upon a time it was supposed to be standard.

Sadly this forum is almost universally seen on the railway as being anti staff, and threads like this are a perfect demonstration of why.

I’m honestly not surprised the forum is seen that way by the railway, as it’s one of the few places where people will call them out for when things are wrong.

Immediately on reading this thread I thought, unfortunately the lack of joined up thinking and communication on our railways will no doubt mean some alight that XC train and then get hit by heavy penalties from LNER/TPE staff refusing to accept they were told to get on board. Such has almost been the case with me both when Avanti put me onto XC and EMR, and when LNER put me onto TPE and VT. During both times acceptance was listen on NRE. The unwelcoming St Pancras gate staff have also refused to let me through to travel to MKC via Bedford at a time this was listed as an agreed alternative route due to disruption at Watford.

The point being I don’t actually think many members are anti-staff, more exasperated by the continued downtread of customer service across the railway, and further wound up by the tendency of some members in the industry to immediately jump to the defence of the railway even when they shouldn’t - and no, I do not necessarily mean you by that.

 

[Starmill]

That said, I stand by my remark. I read this, and just think well why bother trying to help if your just going to be criticised.

I am unclear on what the criticism that's being felt actually is, or who it's being levied against. I have tried to understand and asked for clarification but I don't think we're getting anywhere. Obviously, nobody could stop you from interpreting it in the most cynical way, as this is a matter for you, but it's unlikely that this would be what I would take away form it. You are entitled to your views.

 

[XAM2175]

On the contrary, less is more with an announcement like this. A simple, helpful announcement could make people aware of other services but wouldn’t, of itself, imply ticket acceptance. If anything, it would be more of a risk to go into detail about what will and won’t be accepted because it will be a. Impossible to understand, and b. carries a risk of something being omitted.

I'm inclined to agree. Without ticket acceptance in place, I wouldn't risk making an announcement such as the OP describes for fear of accidentally failing to to include a pertinent caveat, let alone the chance of being misunderstood.

The original post asked if this was company policy; do you interpret that question as criticism of an individual?

I interpreted this post as criticism, yes, and yes I think it is indeed aimed at the TM for trying to help in a situation where some passengers are likely to be left behind. Make room for those going the furthest with the least number of alternatives.

I don't think that the OP intended to criticise the TM, but the description is unquestionably negative (especially the OP's second post, at #5). In my line of work, if I made a public communication - however valid and legitimate - that generated a response such as the OP's I am very certain that I would have management would be looking to have words with me and I would be the defendant by default in that encounter.

Had the OP asked the question in a neutral manner rather than jumping to unfounded conspiracy, and thus tainting the TM by association, it might have been possible to have this discussion in a less heated manner.

 

[yorkie]

Don’t you think it says a lot if good customer service is now such a remarkable feat that it deserves “praise?” Once upon a time it was supposed to be standard.

If the TM said something like the following, I would absolutely be praising them:

"Apologies for the overcrowding; this is due to the train being formed of 4 coaches instead of 9.​

​

In order to enable as many passengers as possible to board at Leeds, and to give everyone a more comfortable journey, there are a couple of alternatives you may wish to consider if travelling to Wakefield or Sheffield​

​

Passengers for Wakefield can take the 1621 from platform 11, due into Wakefield at 1634, while passengers for Sheffield can take the 1632 from platform 17, due into Sheffield an hour later than planned at 1754.​

​

Ticket acceptance is in place with Northern if anyone would like to change at Leeds for Wakefield and Sheffield. Thank you"​

 

[Starmill]

During both times acceptance was listen on NRE. The unwelcoming St Pancras gate staff have also refused to let me through to travel to MKC via Bedford at a time this was listed as an agreed alternative route due to disruption at Watford.

Unfortunately, in the general case, it's common for information on ticket acceptance to be inconsistent or incorrect. However, there's no evidence of that happening here.

I’m honestly not surprised the forum is seen that way by the railway, as it’s one of the few places where people will call them out for when things are wrong.

It is very strange how a small number of people are highly sensitive about this point. When people have criticised my employers on social or in traditional media, I've considered neutrally if the criticisms have a basis or not. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. If I thought they didn't I just ignored the criticism entirely. If I thought that they did I, knew that for the future I'd have a different perspective on the matter to help me consider the matter. It wouldn't have occurred to me to start taking it personally.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If the customer said something like the following, I would absolutely be praising them:

"Apologies for the overcrowding; this is due to the train being formed of 4 coaches instead of 9.

In order to enable as many passengers as possible to board at Leeds, and to give everyone a more comfortable journey, there are a couple of alternatives you may wish to consider if travelling to Wakefield or Sheffield

Passengers for Wakefield can take the 1621 from platform 11, due into Wakefield at 1634, while passengers for Sheffield can take the 1632 from platform 17, due into Sheffield an hour later than planned at 1754.

Ticket acceptance is in place with Northern if anyone would like to change at Leeds for Wakefield and Sheffield. Thank you"

Yes I definitely think including these due times are especially important. I’d feel a bit stitched up if I’d been suggested I change for my own benefit to be landed on a stopper adding all that extra time on.

 

[Bluejays]

I read threads like this, and I just think why do I bother trying? I could sit in the back cab, doing nothing, and get less grief than this.

100 percent. I work a train in 90 minutes time. It sits in the platform for about half hour before leaving, 5 minutes before we leave an express comes through. So I always make a little announcement, if you're travelling to 'next station' the train on platform 1 will get you there quicker. It's normally followed by a few people wandering over. Don't particularly fancy (the admittedly small chance of) having to explain myself to management about it in response to a forum or social media query such as this , so I think announcements like this will be stopped by myself from now on.

 

[AlterEgo]

100 percent. I work a train in 90 minutes time. It sits in the platform for about half hour before leaving, 5 minutes before we leave an express comes through. So I always make a little announcement, if you're travelling to 'next station' the train on platform 1 will get you there quicker. It's normally followed by a few people wandering over. Don't particularly fancy the (admittedly small) of having to explain myself to management about it in response to a forum or social media query such as this , so I think announcements like this will be stopped by myself from now on.

That says more about your management than it does about the OP though.

 

[Bluejays]

That says more about your management than it does about the OP though.

I highly doubt my management would be interested in it whatsoever to be honest. But why take the risk?

 

[yorkie]

100 percent. I work a train in 90 minutes time. It sits in the platform for about half hour before leaving, 5 minutes before we leave an express comes through. So I always make a little announcement, if you're travelling to 'next station' the train on platform 1 will get you there quicker. It's normally followed by a few people wandering over. Don't particularly fancy (the admittedly small chance of) having to explain myself to management about it in response to a forum or social media query such as this , so I think announcements like this will be stopped by myself from now on.

Is this a comparable situation to the scenario in the original post? It sounds the opposite to me; people will be arriving quicker, rather than an hour later.

Also are there any potential ticketing issues involved in your scenario?

I highly doubt my management would be interested in it whatsoever to be honest. But why take the risk?

What's the risk?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Indeed. What I'm guessing the OP didn't bother to check

I’m not sure you should criticise others for guessing in a sentence in which you admit to guessing yourself

 

[43066]

There seems to be an ever increasing number of people advocating such behaviour unfortunately. And then some wonder why people moan about poor customer service on the railway…

And some enthusiasts will wonder why they get asked to leave railway premises rather than being allowed to take photos, and so the cycle continues. Who benefits from that?

If you read some of the threads in disputes and prosecutions, and some of the headlines about the railway in mainstream media, I think you’d understand why some here are “anti staff”. Staff are increasingly portrayed in a very negative manner, sometimes justified (for example when someone actually does something wrong) but often not justified (for example media spin on strikes).

I don’t agree that that’s generally the case at all. The threads in disputes and prosecutions are almost all people who have tried to evade fares, and are dealt with accordingly, so views of staff on there are a little like what you’d hear of you asked criminals (or should I say other criminals) what they think of police officers! The media is inaccurate about most industries.

The disputes and prosecutions section, when read in conjunction with the IR threads, can easily give the impression that the forum gives a more sympathetic ear to fare evaders than it does to staff.

Clearly the TM's remarks would only be applicable to walk-up passengers, agreed?

They would be relevant to any passengers who found it useful to be aware of the other services mentioned.

If you are suggesting it is appropriate to suggest that any passenger on the train who is heading for Wakefield or Sheffield should be changing at Leeds, this would surely not be appropriate unless ticket acceptance was in place.

It strikes me that the announcement (as described) was made to make passengers aware of alternatives, not that any particular passengers should change.

What I am saying is that it would have been possible for that TM to come up with a formulation of words that wouldn’t have been in any way inappropriate, even if ticket acceptance wasn’t in place, and even if it didn’t mention ticketing at all.

Also do you have any comments regarding the delay at Sheffield, which would have been 61 minutes?

What comment are you after? The TM would not necessarily have been in a position to know the status of those other services. So the same point surely applies: “other services are available which you may consider using due to the overcrowding” neither implies ticketing acceptance, nor that those services are guaranteed to get you there any quicker, but it might be useful to some people. If people aren’t in a rush they might be happy to break the journey and sit around for an hour to avoid the overcrowding!

If passengers are being advised to take a particular service due to a service disruption issue (which may include a short formed service or any other cause of unexpected overcrowding), it is not unreasonable to assume that the relevant acceptance was in place.

It sounds to me like they were simply being made aware of the existence of other options, no more and no less. If they add 2+2 and make 6, it’s up to them.

This is a fairly detailed description of what was said; can you clarify the exact wording please? If you are unfamiliar with the exact wording, I am unsure how such a description can be made.

How could I possibly clarify the exact wording used when I have no idea what the exact wording was!? We are all speculating based on the description in the OP. It’s possible to make an announcement regarding alternatives being available that in no way mentions ticketing, and does not imply ticketing acceptance. Indeed I would personally think that the safest course in this situation.

It is deemed to be a separate mode,

By whom? Many passengers will consider them interchangeable.

I am unsure what your point is here or how it is relevant; you are talking about a journey potentially being quicker, rather than advising or asking people to take a train that would have resulted in a 61 minute delay compared to remaining on board. Does that ever happen at London Bridge?

I’ve explained why the comparison is relevant. It’s an alternative which some people on the train will have tickets for, some will not (a little like Northern services, to a trainload of XC passengers).

When making an announcement that “it may be quicker to continue your journey via London Underground” that in no way implies ticket acceptance. Yet I can easily imagine a thread on here along similar lines to this one if someone was turned away at the LU gateline: “the driver of X train told us to use the underground but our tickets weren’t valid”. I would have absolutely no hesitation in making similar announcements again.

Anyone who makes such claims is clearly deluded; the original post asked if it was company policy or not and the original poster was absolutely entitled to ask the question.

Given passengers are routinely challenged for being on the wrong TOC on journeys such as Leeds to Sheffield, there absolutely is a legitimate concern regarding what advice is being given out in respect of travelling on an alternative operators' service.

No, they are not deluded. The OP and follow up were clearly critical rather than neutral, as others have noted. As for staff members, they will simply stumble across threads like this where a member of staff has done something helpful, and see the overreaction to it. They are unlikely to be back.

Passengers with the wrong tickets are indeed routinely challenged, which is why it’s safest not to make lengthy announcements about ticketing, or even mention it at all. It is down to individual passengers (who are generally adults, not school children) to ensure they are travelling in accordance with the Ts and Cs of their tickets, for their particular journeys.

I refer you to posts above by myself and @Starmill.

As I have already pointed out, there was no need to mention the specific train which makes that person identifiable internally. That information added nothing to the topic. Surely you can understand that? Would you be happy having aspects of a your job performance discussed online on a forum in a way that made it possible for your employer to identify you?

Indeed. What I'm guessing the OP didn't bother to check was that Ticket Acceptance has been in effect through the day for XC customers due to short forms and a fatality earlier, along with several other issues. Some was blanket for certain areas, the others were calls to individual trains for crowding or cancellation reasons. I see no issues with the advice the TM gave out.

That said, I stand by my remark. I read this, and just think well why bother trying to help if your just going to be criticised.

And there we have it! Ticket acceptance was in place anyway, so all of the above negativity and criticism was for nothing. I wonder how many will come back to congratulate that guard on their announcement!

The moral of the story really is don’t bother to help out and say as little as possible! I suppose the important thing to remember is that the vast majority of passengers “get it” and the reaction on here is not typical.