WCML Preston-Carlisle: prospects for Monday

[Philip Phlopp]

Disagree (and I think that allegation is borderline slanderous against Megabus and Nat Ex, as you seem to be stating that they are putting their passengers at risk, which I do not believe they would do). I'm sure they will have done the appropriate risk assessments. There are no known issues with the motorway network that would mean these services could not operate.

National Express and Megabus have no obligation to carry you anywhere or look after you if the weather gets so severe they can't operate. It's in their T&Cs, so they can risk carrying you and if it gets to be unsafe, they can stop carrying you. Passengers are infrequently left at places like motorway service stations or bus stations.

The railway works differently and has certain obligations, which is why the railway quite rightly doesn't want to be starting to carry people it can't reasonably be certain of getting to their destinations.

 

[najaB]

Not all main roads are closed.

Not all main roads are still there either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railway works differently and has certain obligations, which is why the railway quite rightly doesn't want to be starting to carry people it can't reasonably be certain of getting to their destinations.

Perhaps, then, it should be able to declare a "we'll try but we won't guarantee it" day in such extreme circumstances. Certainly if they are advising not to travel it would not seem unreasonable for that to apply. Not that that should be used as a get-out, of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not all main roads are still there either.

Indeed not. But that does not mean they should not operate a service from Preston north to a suitable station to restart rail services[1] northwards, calling at as many intermediate stations as it is possible to serve, where the roads *are* still there. It appears if one looks at a map that the situation is very bad in a number of specific places, but by no means everywhere. My sister is in Ulverston and has not been flooded, for instance; roads in were closed yesterday but are not now.

[1] Who runs them is secondary; anyone remember when, after a bit of WCML disruption, 2 Pendolinos were used to run the Tring stoppers? Wasn't so long ago.

 

[6Gman]

To me, that Megabus, Nat Ex, and I'm told Stagecoach Lancaster's long distance services, are operating, says to me that it is safe. Thus, what precisely is the railway playing at?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not all main roads are closed.

Can I suggest you go to the relevant website to examine the long list of services cancelled/ curtailed/ diverted etc.

Carlisle - depot flooded; some city centre streets flooded
Lancaster - both bridges closed:- services unable to reach the Bus Station

The 555 Lancaster - Keswick is able to serve neither Lancaster nor Keswick

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 555 Lancaster - Keswick is able to serve neither Lancaster nor Keswick

https://www.stagecoachbus.com/servi...rticle?SituationId=ID-06/12/2015-15:12:20:458 if anyone is interested. FWIW, it is a very comprehensive list, showing Stagecoach are doing their best to operate what they can rather than just giving up and going home. Quite impressed, actually.

 

[sheff1]

Can I suggest you go to the relevant website to examine the long list of services cancelled/ curtailed/ diverted etc.

The website shows that a service is operating between Carlisle and Penrith via the M6.

A relative in the area tells me that the M6 from Preston to Penrith is open and flowing well.

Taking the above facts together suggests running a road service from Preston to Carlisle calling, at least, at Penrith would be safe ...

... so I am wondering about the thinking behind this post

No safety reason. What little fantasy world do you live on ?

Megabus and National Express probably shouldn't be running, their own foolhardy behaviour is not an excuse to berate Virgin Trains and others for refusing to run rail replacement bus services.

 

[DarloRich]

The website shows that a service is operating between Carlisle and Penrith via the M6.

A relative in the area tells me that the M6 from Preston to Penrith is open and flowing well.

Taking the above facts together suggests running a road service from Preston to Carlisle calling, at least, at Penrith would be safe.

not if you cant get to Carlisle/penrith station!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not paid to work out the logistics of it. VT are, however, and should be ploughing on with it. There certainly will be some buses available somewhere in the country, at the right price. They can't necessarily be obtained at zero notice, but it certainly should be possible to obtain some within 24 hours as would be required to begin service tomorrow first thing.

And if there aren't VT should be honest about why they cannot offer a service. There is no safety reason why rail replacement bus services cannot run tomorrow. The storm is over. They won't be able to serve everywhere due to flooding, but that is no reason not to serve the places they can.

They aren't going to need the full capacity of their normal service, as buses will put many people off, while many others will use alternative routes. They just need a basic service from Preston to Carlisle calling at as many stations as are accessible by road.

with the greatest of respect it is very easy to criticise from the comfort of a warm living room. Even taking my limited front line operational experience into account things are a lot more difficult at the "coal face".

I wonder how many critics have walked a mile in the other persons shoes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

not if you cant get to Carlisle/penrith station!

Yes if you can get to a suitable location reasonably near them. From reading the above linked Stagecoach report, it sounds like both towns are accessible to some extent.

Lancaster could be served as far as the roundabout just short of the city centre, supposedly, again according to the Stagecoach brief.

Someone will no doubt quote that rail replacement buses are only supposed to serve railway stations - well, yes, they are - but the law here should not be stopping people getting a service at all, and in practice I don't believe it would do so provided the nearest safe location to the railway station was served.

 

[sheff1]

not if you cant get to Carlisle/penrith station!

Are the stations inaccessible ? If they are, I am sure people who need to travel to/from Carlisle or Penrith would be more than happy to travel to/from the bus station (or wherever the above Stagecoach bus is using). I know that when Sheffield station was flooded some years back people, myself included, were quite happy to to be conveyed to the bus station on a replacement bus

 

[DarloRich]

Yes if you can get to a suitable location reasonably near them. From reading the above linked Stagecoach report, it sounds like both towns are accessible to some extent.

Lancaster could be served as far as the roundabout just short of the city centre, supposedly, again according to the Stagecoach brief.

Someone will no doubt quote that rail replacement buses are only supposed to serve railway stations - well, yes, they are - but the law here should not be stopping people getting a service at all, and in practice I don't believe it would do so provided the nearest safe location to the railway station was served.

I agree that in theory that idea is fine and sensible. However we have a few problems, namely if the bus doesn't come to the station the passengers must leave the station and go to the bus.

The TOC would have a duty to ensure everyone makes it without incident particularly those with mobility impairments/ old age/ visual impairment etc etc. I am not sure they would have the staff to marshall the route effectively and see to the more vulnerable passengers.

And yes I know this is all very ambulance chasing but that is the world we live in.

BTW how close is close enough. 100 yds, 200? 500? ha;f a mile? A mile? Consider that many will travel with luggage/bikes/buggies etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that in theory that idea is fine and sensible. However we have a few problems, namely if the bus doesn't come to the station the passengers must leave the station and go to the bus.

The TOC would have a duty to ensure everyone makes it without incident particularly those with mobility impairments/ old age/ visual impairment etc etc. I am not sure they would have the staff to marshall the route effectively and see to the more vulnerable passengers.

You've used a replacement bus in a rural/unstaffed location, right? This sort of service is not routinely offered, and in such places replacement buses often do not directly serve the railway station.

And yes I know this is all very ambulance chasing but that is the world we live in.

That, bluntly, is an excuse, and a poor one at that. Virgin Trains would not have a successful legal case against them if they had a rail replacement bus service that didn't serve the station because you can't get there because the road is flooded (but you could get to the new location from a number of places south of Lancaster, for instance). To suggest they would is simply scaremongering. Has there ever been such a legal case? I doubt it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BTW how close is close enough. 100 yds, 200? 500? ha;f a mile? A mile? Consider that many will travel with luggage/bikes/buggies etc.

As close as they can reasonably get, which I would believe to be the nearest bus stop to the roundabout just south of Lancaster city centre in that city's case (from reading the Stagecoach briefing). Any service is better than no service in what are exceptional circumstances.

 

[sheff1]

I agree that in theory that idea is fine and sensible. However we have a few problems, namely if the bus doesn't come to the station the passengers must leave the station and go to the bus.

If the station is inaccessible the passengers would not be there in the first place.

The TOC would have a duty to ensure everyone makes it without incident particularly those with mobility impairments/ old age/ visual impairment etc etc. I am not sure they would have the staff to marshall the route effectively and see to the more vulnerable passengers.

If this is true, which of course it isn't, TOCs would be failing every time they run rail replacement buses run in connection with engineering works to/from locations other than railway stations. This scenario does not just effect small stations with few passengers - at Sheffield the buses leave from a point well away from, and out of sight of the station, and the number of staff marshalling the route is precisely zero.

 

[DarloRich]

You've used a replacement bus in a rural/unstaffed location, right? This sort of service is not routinely offered, and in such places replacement buses often do not directly serve the railway station.

yes many times, usually accompanied by a few other people. Not quite the same at a major mainline station with hundreds of people all trying to get somewhere. Through flood water.

That, bluntly, is an excuse, and a poor one at that. Virgin Trains would not have a successful legal case against them if they had a rail replacement bus service that didn't serve the station because you can't get there because the road is flooded (but you could get to the new location from a number of places south of Lancaster, for instance). To suggest they would is simply scaremongering. Has there ever been such a legal case? I doubt it.

regardless of your view the train companies have a legal duty to their passengers. Imagine the bad press when little Johnnie or great aunty Elsie wander of in some god forsaken hell whole of a town having taken a wrong turn looking for a bus. A PR disaster! And whilst it is unlikely no one would be injured and subsequently sue it is still a risk the companies must consider. You wont like that but it is a fact.

As close as they can reasonably get, which I would believe to be the nearest bus stop to the roundabout just south of Lancaster city centre in that city's case (from reading the Stagecoach briefing). Any service is better than no service in what are exceptional circumstances.

I agree that would be a good idea in the ideal world. However, you are still failing, perhaps deliberately, to grasp the point about those unable to walk that distance or how those with baggage are delivered to this point. How should an already stretched workforce ensure their duty of care to these passengers ( and the others waiting at the station) is discharged?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just checked the VT website, and among the poorly-written text thereon, it seems that train service as far as Carlisle will be resumed tomorrow.

However, if you can run a bus from Carlisle to Penrith via the M6, you can run one from Carlisle to Glasgow via the M6 and the A74M/M74. So even less of an excuse now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that would be a good idea in the ideal world. However, you are still failing, perhaps deliberately, to grasp the point about those unable to walk that distance or how those with baggage are delivered to this point. How should an already stretched workforce ensure their duty of care to these passengers ( and the others waiting at the station) is discharged?

I'm suggesting that as long as the exceptional circumstances are made clear, they in fact do not have that common law duty of care. Stagecoach clearly do not either; they are running what they can.

Your argument is that if we can't serve everybody, we shouldn't serve anybody, and it is short-sighted. We should serve as many as we can - remember some of them may for instance be carers for elderly relatives etc, and you might as a result actually be serving them quite well by allowing the able-bodied person to reach them.

 

[DarloRich]

If the station is inaccessible the passengers would not be there in the first place.

they would be if they were on the train :roll: we are taking about road access

If this is true, which of course it isn't, TOCs would be failing every time they run rail replacement buses run in connection with engineering works to/from locations other than railway stations. This scenario does not just effect small stations with few passengers - at Sheffield the buses leave from a point well away from, and out of sight of the station, and the number of staff marshalling the route is precisely zero.

That's odd that because the last time I used a bus from Sheffield there were several people with high visibility tabards and clipboards helping people and ensure the buses were correctly loaded.

Same at Crewe where buses seem to leave from Nantwhich and at York where they leave right outside of the front door

hell even at Bletchley one of the station staff comes out to make sure you get on the right bus! I guess i have been lucky.

 

[Bletchleyite]

hell even at Bletchley one of the station staff comes out to make sure you get on the right bus! I guess i have been lucky.

Or have travelled only during the day. Try the evening, when there are far fewer staff around (Bletchley is now only staffed to around 1900). The late-night WFJ-MKC stopping buses (avoid! ) are not overly well marshalled, there's the bus driver and one person from whatever contractor it is.

 

[DarloRich]

Your argument is that if we can't serve everybody, we shouldn't serve anybody, and it is short-sighted. We should serve as many as we can - remember some of them may for instance be carers for elderly relatives etc, and you might as a result actually be serving them quite well by allowing the able-bodied person to reach them.

So your suggestion amounts to:

leave the elderly and infirm, women and children second - its every man for himself chaps!

I would rather we tried to make sure we didn't leave anyone behind. I simply point out that it is harder than declaring "make it so" and expecting things to fall into place.

And exceptional circumstances or not there is a still a duty of care placed upon the TOC. It is created when they accept the passenger onto their service

 

[sheff1]

they would be if they were on the train :roll: we are taking about road access

We are talking about road transport because the trains aren't running :roll:

 

[DarloRich]

We are talking about road transport because the trains aren't running :roll:

erm - we are talking about railway passengers ( at the station) having to get a bus and how difficult that might be if the roads were flooded. The key item being railway. That assumes they arrived at the station by ...... train!

 

[Bletchleyite]

erm - we are talking about railway passengers ( at the station) having to get a bus and how difficult that might be if the roads were flooded. The key item being railway. That assumes they arrived at the station by ...... train!

There are no trains presently serving Lancaster station, as such they would be arriving on foot (or by boat ) and could thus redirect themselves to another location without too much difficulty - indeed, at present, much more easily.

If there were trains serving Lancaster that would be different, of course, and a suitable connecting station (not necessarily Lancaster) would need to be found.

 

[sheff1]

That's odd that because the last time I used a bus from Sheffield there were several people with high visibility tabards and clipboards helping people and ensure the buses were correctly loaded.

You referred in your earlier post to marshalling the route not loading the buses. I have never seen any route marshalls for a route which is not particularly obvious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So your suggestion amounts to:

leave the elderly and infirm, women and children second - its every man for himself chaps!

That's one way of putting it. Or another is that if it's infeasible in exceptional circumstances it is better to transport some people than no people. By another example, the railway quite rightly is not permitted to open any new non-accessible stations, but they aren't being forced to close stations that are not accessible.

I would rather we tried to make sure we didn't leave anyone behind.

Ideally, but if it isn't possible to do that I don't agree that the best thing to do is to transport nobody. We may differ there, of course, but that is my firm view.

And exceptional circumstances or not there is a still a duty of care placed upon the TOC. It is created when they accept the passenger onto their service

Any common law duty of care will depend on the circumstances. For instance, the floor at Preston station or an unheated Pendolino were all that could be reasonably provided yesterday when things were really bad. If there were hotel rooms available in Preston, that would not have fulfilled a reasonable duty of care in my view. As there were not, it did. See what I mean?

 

[sheff1]

erm - we are talking about railway passengers ( at the station) having to get a bus and how difficult that might be if the roads were flooded. The key item being railway. That assumes they arrived at the station by ...... train!

I give up

If trains were running between Preston and Carlisle, calling at Penrith, there would be no need for any discussion regarding replacement bus services !

 

[DarloRich]

That's one way of putting it. Or another is that if it's infeasible in exceptional circumstances it is better to transport some people than no people. By another example, the railway quite rightly is not permitted to open any new non-accessible stations, but they aren't being forced to close stations that are not accessible.

Ideally, but if it isn't possible to do that I don't agree that the best thing to do is to transport nobody. We may differ there, of course, but that is my firm view.

I am happy to agree that in the ideal world common sense should be used in the provision of alternative transport for train passengers. Clearly walking 100 yds is better than sleeping on the station.

In agreeing with that point it is important not to forget that in the real world many passengers travel with large amounts of luggage, are aged and infirm, disabled, travel with youngsters, bikes, budgies and all manner of stuff. You have got to get them AND all that stuff, safely, from A-B via a bus replacement service through F.

it is those practicalities that make or break a suggestion and whilst you might be happy to leave behind those less fortunate than you the railway company cant. You haven't suggested how those people less mobile should be conveyed safely to their destination.

Any common law duty of care will depend on the circumstances. For instance, the floor at Preston station or an unheated Pendolino were all that could be reasonably provided yesterday when things were really bad. If there were hotel rooms available in Preston, that would not have fulfilled a reasonable duty of care in my view. As there were not, it did. See what I mean?

indeed

but, using the example we were discussing previously, by exposing the passengers to greater risk outside the station ( in asking them to walk an undefined distance to a bus in bad weather) you may fail to discharge that duty of care. I agree that risk of incident may be small but unless you take steps to mitigate such risks you leave your self open to further action.

BTW i understand duty of care quite well thanks

 

[Bletchleyite]

it is those practicalities that make or break a suggestion and whilst you might be happy to leave behind those less fortunate than you the railway company cant. You haven't suggested how those people less mobile should be conveyed safely to their destination.

It might not be possible; the railway does not after all have a fleet of boats. But these are exceptional circumstances, in which something is better than nothing, provided everyone knows what form the something takes before they commence a journey.

but, using the example we were discussing previously, by exposing the passengers to greater risk outside the station ( in asking them to walk an undefined distance to a bus in bad weather) you may fail to discharge that duty of care. I agree that risk of incident may be small but unless you take steps to mitigate such risks you leave your self open to further action.

Most of the passengers can't get to the station. Lancaster is not being served by rail at present (though may be tomorrow). So by providing somewhere they can get to that is accessible, that's better, surely? Nobody will be dumped at the station because it is not being served by rail.

FWIW, I'm going to close (for now, as I'm going to bed) with a bit of common sense from Northern:

Those customers who hold tickets dated for this weekend may use them on any day until Monday December the 14 2015.

VT, why not you?

Edit, TPE almost as good:

If you have chosen not to travel or have been unable to travel, tickets for Saturday 05, Sunday 06 or Monday 07 December will be valid for you to travel on First TransPennine Express services up to and including Friday 11 December 2015 without incurring any additional charge.

It is again only VT who are preventing passengers making proper plans by nudging things forward one day at a time. Though I think including a weekend as Northern have done is only right; some trips will only make sense on a weekend, so next weekend should also be allowed.

 

[DarloRich]

I give up

If trains were running between Preston and Carlisle, calling at Penrith, there would be no need for any discussion regarding replacement bus services !

I have got it! You were talking about people wanting to go from Penrith to Carlisle. Ideally by train but if that was blocked by road between the two BUS stations

I was talking about rail replacement services between the two being unable to run to the RAILWAY stations!

 

[Starmill]

I agree that would be a good idea in the ideal world. However, you are still failing, perhaps deliberately, to grasp the point about those unable to walk that distance or how those with baggage are delivered to this point. How should an already stretched workforce ensure their duty of care to these passengers ( and the others waiting at the station) is discharged?

How are NX and Megabus achieving it? They have no more of a responsibility to ensure you walk across town safely than VT or TPE do.

 

[DarloRich]

It might not be possible; the railway does not after all have a fleet of boats. But these are exceptional circumstances, in which something is better than nothing, provided everyone knows what form the something takes before they commence a journey.

so what do you do with those left behind? Seems rather callous to simply dump them at a cold, wet station and say tough!

One day you may find yourself in the party that currently you don't care about!

Most of the passengers can't get to the station. Lancaster is not being served by rail at present (though may be tomorrow). So by providing somewhere they can get to that is accessible, that's better, surely? Nobody will be dumped at the station because it is not being served by rail.

I am not talking about people wanting to get to Lancaster station. I am talking about a hypothetical situation suggested via your ideas.

Although i think i agreed that common sense should be applied in such exceptional circumstances - subject to the above caveats!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have got it! You were talking about people wanting to go from Penrith to Carlisle. Ideally by train but if that was blocked by road between the two BUS stations

Er, yes.

We aren't talking about people wanting to go from London to Edinburgh/Glasgow as arrangements have been made for them to use VTEC, TPE, XC[1] and all sorts of other options.

We *are* talking primarily about local journeys north of Preston.

[1] For some nonsensical reason, only for tickets "dated" Monday. Which is again misleading information, as Off Peak Return return halves are often if not usually used on a date *not* printed on the ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

so what do you do with those left behind? Seems rather callous to simply dump them at a cold, wet station and say tough!

I'm confused now - who's dumping who at Lancaster station (the place in question)? It has no rail services today. So whether the buses went precisely there or not (had there been any) is of little relevance to much other than convention.

 

[DarloRich]

How are NX and Megabus achieving it? They have no more of a responsibility to ensure you walk across town safely than VT or TPE do.

Again you seem unable to grasp the point. It is really quite simple.

Massivebus sell you a ticket from Stop a - stop B and drive between the two dropping you off safely. Their responsibility for you ends at that point

Massivetrain sell you a ticket from station A to Station B.

Sadly the line is blocked and the train had to terminate at an alternative station. It is very wet so the line is flooded. Massivetrain arrange a bus replacement service for you but you have to walk a little way to reach it before you continue on your journey as the road to the station has flooded. you get off the train and walk to the bus and enjoy a nice ling ride to station B

Only when you reach station B safely is the duty extinguished. At all times between the 2 you are still in their care. If something happens to you whilst walking to the bus or the bus crashes etc etc Massivetrain have failed, prima facie, to have adequately discharged their duty.

In similar circumstance the duty of Massivebus should be tier same unless their t&c seek to limit it as much as possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm confused now - who's dumping who at Lancaster station (the place in question)? It has no rail services today. So whether the buses went precisely there or not (had there been any) is of little relevance to much other than convention.

if i may refer you to the answer i gave moments ago:

I am not talking about people wanting to get to Lancaster station. I am talking about a hypothetical situation suggested via your ideas.

Although i think i agreed that common sense should be applied in such exceptional circumstances - subject to the above caveats!

You may be talking about this specific situation - i was talking about a general situation.