You can’t get this train, it’s slower

[island]

Virgin contract staff at Liverpool South Parkway (where trains are terminating owing to upgrade works at Liverpool Lime Street) are refusing passengers with valid tickets to Crewe and referring them to LNWR. The reason cited is that the LNWR service is faster – which it is – but if someone wants to travel by Virgin and has an Any Permitted ticket, I fail to see why they should be prevented.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Virgin contract staff at Liverpool South Parkway (where trains are terminating owing to upgrade works at Liverpool Lime Street) are refusing passengers with valid tickets to Crewe and referring them to LNWR. The reason cited is that the LNWR service is faster – which it is – but if someone wants to travel by Virgin and has an Any Permitted ticket, I fail to see why they should be prevented.

It's a breach of contract and of Virgin's franchise agreement - both things that probably occur upwards of 100 times a day, or even more. Do the DfT, the ORR or anyone else care? Not a damn.

 

[AlterEgo]

Urghhhhhhh why is this industry so anti-passenger????

 

[najaB]

Virgin contract staff at Liverpool South Parkway ... are refusing passengers with valid tickets to Crewe and referring them to LNWR.

Are they actively refusing? As in "You can't get this train." or are they advising against - "You don't want to get this train."?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is the LNR service faster?

It appears it indeed is, though - the xx43 LNR arrives at Crewe at xy16 1/2, and the preceding xx34 VT not until xy23 1/2. RTT seems to have them running the same way, and in any case I can't think of a diversion you could take once you'd got to South Parkway - the usual diversion would be via Huyton.

What is the VT doing in between? Quick coffee? Powder its nose? Luxurious bath?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The reason cited is that the LNWR service is faster

But according to ATOC/RDG, rail passengers always want to take the shortest route, even if there is a faster alternative

 

[Bletchleyite]

RTT suggests the VT sits at signal AN4 for 15 minutes and the LNR shoots past...wha?!

Edit: oh, it seems to reverse and run through with passengers on board. Is it going from the only long enough platform?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But according to ATOC/RDG, rail passengers always want to take the shortest route, even if there is a faster alternative

The LNR takes the shortest route. The VT goes north to signal AN4, sits there for 15 minutes and reverses.

Bet that's confusing the life out of everyone.

 

[mallard]

Urghhhhhhh why is this industry so anti-passenger????

Because there is no effective consumer protection in the rail industy. The TOCs know this and are taking full advantage.

They're also (successfully so far) holding up the implementation of the promised consumer protection body which is now several months overdue (according to the initial "comittment" from mid-2017, the ombusman was supposed to be "expected to start early next year". We're well past that point now. Presumably they're dragging their feet in an effort to get the idea dropped.)

 

[PeterC]

Are they actively refusing? As in "You can't get this train." or are they advising against - "You don't want to get this train."?

Not answered.

From my, non railway, experience you often need to be quite forceful in directing people away from a sub-optimal alternative. If they ignore you and find that they have been disadvantaged they will still make a fuss and blame you.

The Virgin staff are damned of they do and damned if they don't!

 

[pemma]

The LNR takes the shortest route. The VT goes north to signal AN4, sits there for 15 minutes and reverses.

Bet that's confusing the life out of everyone.

Could the GPS activate the automated "We are shortly arriving at Liverpool Lime Street" announcement after it's departed South Parkway for London?

The xx:43 LNR service is the one which stops at 3 stations on the way to Crewe, I bet that could get cosy if none of the Crewe passengers are travelling on Virgin.

 

[Warwick]

Urghhhhhhh why is this industry so anti-passenger????

They get in the way of their running trains.

 

[robbeech]

The LNR takes the shortest route. The VT goes north to signal AN4, sits there for 15 minutes and reverses.

Bet that's confusing the life out of everyone.

Yes. As mentioned there’s only the one platform long enough and no suitable crossover I guess so it has to travel the wrong way, reverse and go through the correct way.

As for the topic. It’s sometimes difficult to understand what staff are implying with these statements. Not all people are particularly clear with what they say. If they know what they mean sometimes they’ll say something and assume others do. It may well be that they meant that the VT is slower so they were simply trying to help the passenger by saving them time.

 

[sheff1]

Virgin contract staff at Liverpool South Parkway (where trains are terminating owing to upgrade works at Liverpool Lime Street) are refusing passengers with valid tickets to Crewe and referring them to LNWR.

Where are the Virgin contract staff located at the station ? Have they appeared in the last couple of days ?

I have been through South Parkway a few times since the blockage began and the staff at the 'mainline' entrance did not appear to be connected to Virgin and have been solely concerned with making sure people know where they need to go, not checking tickets.

 

[gray1404]

Quite honestly the contracted staff during the Lime Street closure try to be helpful, but sometimes are not. Since the closure a lot of have appeared at Moorfields. I often travel with a suit case on wheels that is small enough to be allowed on a plane as hand carry luggage. The end result is I can get though any ticket barrier without the barrier closing on my bag. Since these helpful staff have appeared at Moorfields upon seeing me approach the usual barrier on 2 occasions I have been invited to use the manned barrier and 2 told to like it was an order. I know they are trying to be helpful but this "has luggage must use manned barrier approach" is not helpful when some of us know what we are doing when we use the railway. Had it been in London not one would have said a word. It is annoying because I am not using Moorfields because Lime Steet is closed, it is on my local line anyway.

As a side, does anyone know until what times the Old Hall Street for Moorfields station is open? Has it been extended during the Lime Street closure. I was able to use it around 21:30 recently and this seemed most unusual. It would be useful to know and it is only Monday to Friday it is used?

 

[jon0844]

What is the VT doing in between? Quick coffee? Powder its nose? Luxurious bath?

If you want to arrive awesome, it takes time!

 

[Merseysider]

What is the VT doing in between? Quick coffee? Powder its nose? Luxurious bath?

...Preventing people from using the bloody toilet in peace with ridiculous nonsense about goldfish and sweaters?

 

[Ianno87]

Quite honestly the contracted staff during the Lime Street closure try to be helpful, but sometimes are not. Since the closure a lot of have appeared at Moorfields. I often travel with a suit case on wheels that is small enough to be allowed on a plane as hand carry luggage. The end result is I can get though any ticket barrier without the barrier closing on my bag. Since these helpful staff have appeared at Moorfields upon seeing me approach the usual barrier on 2 occasions I have been invited to use the manned barrier and 2 told to like it was an order. I know they are trying to be helpful but this "has luggage must use manned barrier approach" is not helpful when some of us know what we are doing when we use the railway. Had it been in London not one would have said a word. It is annoying because I am not using Moorfields because Lime Steet is closed, it is on my local line anyway.

And at other locations I've been point blank refused to be let through the manual gate with a suitcase with an "oh you'll be fine through the automatic gates*". Talk about nationwide consistency...

[*Actually meaning, I suspect "I can't be bothered to manually inspect your ticket and get my key to open the gate for you, so take your chances". Should've deliberately got my case stuck to prove a point...]

 

[thedbdiboy]

Because there is no effective consumer protection in the rail industy. The TOCs know this and are taking full advantage.

They're also (successfully so far) holding up the implementation of the promised consumer protection body which is now several months overdue (according to the initial "comittment" from mid-2017, the ombusman was supposed to be "expected to start early next year". We're well past that point now. Presumably they're dragging their feet in an effort to get the idea dropped.)

If I responded to every inaccurate assertion posted on Railforums I would never be off the site but this one is so far from the truth that it does need to be corrected.

Firstly, this is in no way a defence about the reason for the OP - train company staff shouldn't be giving incorrect advice about ticket validity.

However, in terms of consumer protection, it is Government that makes laws and it is Government that has to change those laws. The rail industry is subject to the Consumer Rights Act, so no different to any other service provider, but in terms of adjudicating for customer disputes, the rail industry is still subject to the legislation that mandates the existence of the Rail Passenger Councils (Transport Focus and London TravelWatch to you and me). The use of these to adjudicate disputes is out of date but to formally replace these with an Ombudsman requires legislation. Because there is no prospect of such legislation being passed in the next few years, the industry is voluntarily setting up an paying for an Ombudsman scheme. This was announced by the previous rail minister but that was on the back of the industry agreeing to set it up and fund it.

Believe it or not, establishing that scheme within the legal framework of the current obligations is extremely complex and is taking time. If it is going to work properly it needs a lot of care - especially as the industry has to fund it (because the DfT has no money to pay for it) but it needs to be structured so as to operate impartially. We have seen elsewhere what happens when a complex change on the railway is pushed through too quickly without proper resourcing.

By the time it is set up it will have taken around 2 years from first suggestion, which is around the time it was always going to need from a standing start, regardless of some of the pronouncements at the time made by people who do not actually have to plan and make these things work. Please do not confuse 'dragging their heels' with 'lets do it properly'. And just to repeat the key issue - the Ombudsman scheme is a voluntary one being funded by the industry.

 

[bnm]

Believe it or not, establishing that scheme within the legal framework of the current obligations is extremely complex and is taking time. If it is going to work properly it needs a lot of care - especially as the industry has to fund it (because the DfT has no money to pay for it) but it needs to be structured so as to operate impartially. We have seen elsewhere what happens when a complex change on the railway is pushed through too quickly without proper resourcing.

As you've given the choice, I'll choose not to believe it.

It was the Rail Delivery Group themselves who said in August 2017 that the scheme would start 'early next year'. We've just passed the middle of the year...

 

[mallard]

If I responded to every inaccurate assertion posted on Railforums I would never be off the site but this one is so far from the truth that it does need to be corrected.

What's inaccurate? I have seen no evidence that there is any effective consumer protection for rail users. Sure, there are laws that are barely enforced and a few next-to-useless bodies like "Transport Focus" (the fact that their name is no longer "Passenger Focus" clearly shows what their "focus" is.

The fact that the ombudsman scheme is well behind the intended schedule is indisputable (and you seem to be agreeing with that, while trying to excuse it). Whether that's due to deliberate "dragging of heels" is debateable, but note that I prefaced that with "Presumably...", indicating that it's my own personal opinion, not a statement of fact. Far more complex things have been achieved in far less time, even within the nortoriously slow-moving rail industry.

I also have severe doubts that any scheme/body set up by and paid for by the rail industry could ever be truly independent. Thankfully, the ORR (i.e. the government) appears to be the driving body behind the Ombudsman scheme, contrary to your assertions. The ORR has annouced that participation in the scheme will be manatory, so there goes your nonsense stating otherwise...

 

[thedbdiboy]

There's plenty of consumer protection but room for improvement in claiming it. You're entitled to your opinion, I have access to information and insights that you don't and am offering other information. For example, the ORR making it mandatory is part of the complex legal process needed to wire it into the industry processes without additional legislative change.

You can choose to believe that the industry consists of wicked private sector operators trying to get one over on noble public servants trying to uphold the finest standards against terrible odds. Or you might choose to believe that the industry is managed by government via a publicly owned infrastructure operator and publicly procured contracts by which the DfT are trying to achieve the maximum possible return to the taxpayer and therefore do not want a situation whereby fare levels drop or compensation levels rise too high.

 

[sheff1]

RDG announced in August 2017 that the independent ombudsman was "expected to start early next year".

By October that had changed to "will" (be introduced) "by Summer 2018".

Summer is now here, but the ombudsman is not and, it would seem, is not imminent either.

>>>>>>
Back on topic, hopefully the OP will be back to clarify some of the points rasied.

 

[Jonfun]

The VT staff at South Parkway haven't once asked to see my ticket, never mind questioned it's validity. I don't doubt one of them has given someone the wrong info, but it isn't a regular ongoing issue. If someone wants to go to Crewe via the scenic route then by all means let them, they might even have a VTWC only ticket.

I've found that this closure has been much better than the last one. Even the Rail Replacement Buses seem to have got the hang of stopping where they're supposed to at the right times, too.

 

[185]

Urghhhhhhh why is this industry so anti-passenger????

My only guessing in this case is that the staff are more concerned with stopping complaints from the majority of punters who would moan if it went on a guided tour of the hamlets of Gate-Acre and Garstonia prior to heading to Crewe. It's how you word it to passengers that does the trick... "d'you know this one takes longer than the stopper?" is all they need to ask.

 

[mallard]

There's plenty of consumer protection but room for improvement in claiming it.

That sounds like you're agreeing with my assertion that there is no effective consumer protection in the rail industry. A lot of ineffective wastes of time/space/money, but nothing effective.

I have access to information and insights that you don't and am offering other information. For example, the ORR making it mandatory is part of the complex legal process needed to wire it into the industry processes without additional legislative change.

If you have access to such top-secret information (why does the railway always act as though every little thing is worthy of the Official Secrets Act? Some attempt at transparency would vastly improve the general public opinion...), why were you trying to insist that the scheme was something "voluntary", dreamed up by the TOCs out of the goodness of their pure and incorruptible hearts?

Or you might choose to believe that the industry is managed by government via a publicly owned infrastructure operator and publicly procured contracts by which the DfT are trying to achieve the maximum possible return to the taxpayer and therefore do not want a situation whereby fare levels drop or compensation levels rise too high.

I fully believe that. I also believe that TOCs are taking full advantage of the lack of effective consumer protection to maximise revenue (e.g. GTR's brand-specific pricing, made up ticket restrictions, refusal to sell certain tickets, etc.) and minimise compensation payouts ("accidental" underpayment, rejection of claims due to their own incompetence, chasing regular claimers under dubious "fraud" accusations). If the industry were truly on board with a scheme to ensure passengers are treated fairly and honestly, they'd be getting their houses in order in anticipation of the introduction of the Ombusman. That is manifestly not happening. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[PeterC]

My only guessing in this case is that the staff are more concerned with stopping complaints from the majority of punters who would moan if it went on a guided tour of the hamlets of Gate-Acre and Garstonia prior to heading to Crewe. It's how you word it to passengers that does the trick... "d'you know this one takes longer than the stopper?" is all they need to ask.

Much as I posted earlier, but far too reasonable to get in the way of some rants about the evil TOCs.

 

[185]

the evil TOCs.

In fairness, they are inherently evil. RDG is infact a satanic cult and that double arrow symbol is actually two red pitchforks.....

 

[Merseysider]

...RDG is infact a satanic cult...

I thought that was common knowledge?

Really Demonic Group

 

[thedbdiboy]

I fully believe that. I also believe that TOCs are taking full advantage of the lack of effective consumer protection to maximise revenue (e.g. GTR's brand-specific pricing, made up ticket restrictions, refusal to sell certain tickets, etc.) and minimise compensation payouts ("accidental" underpayment, rejection of claims due to their own incompetence, chasing regular claimers under dubious "fraud" accusations). If the industry were truly on board with a scheme to ensure passengers are treated fairly and honestly, they'd be getting their houses in order in anticipation of the introduction of the Ombusman. That is manifestly not happening. Quite the opposite in fact.

But ALL GTR's revenue goes to DfT, it is run for a management fee. So GTR has no incentive to artificially maximise revenue. And regardless of whether you think TOCs are getting their house in order or not, the Ombudsman scheme is coming, so I'm not sure what this point proves.

In fairness, they are inherently evil. RDG is infact a satanic cult and that double arrow symbol is actually two red pitchforks.....

Darn it, it's been rumbled!!!!