Passenger Assistance at Staffed Stations

[mbreckers]

Today I Learned, that with ScotRail at least, just because you

• book passenger assistance eight days before you travel
• arrive at the station half an hour before travel
• knock on the ticket office window to attract the attention of the member of staff in there who just ignores you

They still may not be able to provide passenger assistance

For the record, the essential duty in question was the member of staff on his mobile phone for the entire half hour we were waiting in the station

(PS. I know it says assistance from the train, they couldnt even get that right)

 

[Jonfun]

To be fair, if he was on his mobile for the entire half hour it does sound as though whatever he was attending to was something important.

It doesn't excuse ScotRail from failing to resource sufficient staff to do the passenger assist though.

 

[Need2]

Just as an aside to the use of mobile phones by platform staff and I obviously do not know the reasons why but, after the evening rush most platform staff at Wimbledon and sometimes Clapham Junc seem to be using there mobiles. This can be the staff sitting in the little platform boxes or staff standing on the platform.
Might be legit work use but it looks extremely unprofessional and can lead to anger as in the OP.

 

[nottinghamcity]

I read the title on the forum list, read it again on the actual post. And still thought"what has scotrail got to do with Stafford station" Amazing how you read what you think it is!

 

[TUC]

To be fair, if he was on his mobile for the entire half hour it does sound as though whatever he was attending to was something important.

One does wonder what would have made it impossible for him to break from his call for a moment, given he must have been aware there was assistance booked, and explain something urgent had arisen and apologise.

Having said that, it's hard to imagine what kind of urgent issue would engage ticket office staff on the phone for half an hour as opposed to having to deal with something urgent within the station.

Also, if the staff member was engaged in 'essential duties' why does Scotrail say that the incident has been logged to ensure it does not happen in the future?

 

[Via Bank]

If true this is rather worryingly indicative of ScotRail's policy and attitude to disabled passengers.

If assistance has been booked and is not provided, that's no good to the passenger at all. Their train might as well have been cancelled.

 

[Jonfun]

One does wonder what would have made it impossible for him to break from his call for a moment, given he must have been aware there was assistance booked, and explain something urgent had arisen and apologise.

Having said that, it's hard to imagine what kind of urgent issue would engage ticket office staff on the phone for half an hour as opposed to having to deal with something urgent within the station.

Also, if the staff member was engaged in 'essential duties' why does Scotrail say that the incident has been logged to ensure it does not happen in the future?

One can wonder as much as one likes but the only way one will get a definitive answer is by asking him.

Perhaps all of his office computer systems had gone down and he was trying to get through to someone to get it back up.
Perhaps the sink in the loos had burst a leak and he was trying to ring the maintenance teams to find out how to stop the cascade of water flooding through the office.
Perhaps he'd been assaulted and had to report it to control and the police.

Who knows?

 

[Qwerty133]

Something doesn't add up here...
The member of staff was supposedly in a ticket office but was not disturbed by anyone wanting to buy a ticket for 30 minutes?

 

[al78]

Having said that, it's hard to imagine what kind of urgent issue would engage ticket office staff on the phone for half an hour as opposed to having to deal with something urgent within the station.

His wife had run out of groceries and wanted him to go to Tesco on the way home?

 

[TUC]

One can wonder as much as one likes but the only way one will get a definitive answer is by asking him.

Perhaps all of his office computer systems had gone down and he was trying to get through to someone to get it back up.
Perhaps the sink in the loos had burst a leak and he was trying to ring the maintenance teams to find out how to stop the cascade of water flooding through the office.
Perhaps he'd been assaulted and had to report it to control and the police.

Who knows?

Why look for excuses to defend bad service?

 

[mbreckers]

Something doesn't add up here...
The member of staff was supposedly in a ticket office but was not disturbed by anyone wanting to buy a ticket for 30 minutes?

He wasnt serving anybody.

 

[Llanigraham]

Why look for excuses to defend bad service?

And?
We don't know why he was on the phone and yet you are willing to criticise others.
Hypocrit!!

 

[TUC]

And?
We don't know why he was on the phone and yet you are willing to criticise others.
Hypocrit!!

It is too easy for issues like this to be hid behind a smokescreen of 'the staff member must have been doing something important'. If there had been a significant incident then it would have been recorded somewhere and the TOC could advise of it in the reply to the customer. If there hadn't been such an incident recorded then it is hard to justify putting other issues ahead of a customer requiring booked assistance.

 

[Via Bank]

And?
We don't know why he was on the phone and yet you are willing to criticise others.
Hypocrit!!

OK, how about this: why, when a customer rang well in advance to indicate they would require assistance, were they stopped from completing the journey for which they had paid?

 

[AlterEgo]

It is too easy for issues like this to be hid behind a smokescreen of 'the staff member must have been doing something important'. If there had been a significant incident then it would have been recorded somewhere and the TOC could advise of it in the reply to the customer. If there hadn't been such an incident recorded then it is hard to justify putting other issues ahead of a customer requiring booked assistance.

As we don't know what the staff member was doing, it seems only fair to assume it must have been something important or vital, in the absence of any information to the contrary.

 

[Llanigraham]

OK, how about this: why, when a customer rang well in advance to indicate they would require assistance, were they stopped from completing the journey for which they had paid?

As I said, I don't know because I wasn't there, so am not willing to speculate. (Unlike others!)

 

[Jonfun]

The TOC says the staff member was engaged in other essential duties, and I can hand on heart say the only time I've personally spent 30 minutes straight on the phone is when I'm dealing with something urgent - under normal circumstances I'll have given up long before then.

For the person who says I'm defending bad service, I'm not. As I say, it doesn't excuse the fact ScotRail haven't provided sufficient staff for the passenger assist. I've personally had times at work where I've been taken away from my main task to attend to other urgent matters. If, for example, old mother Doris has just had a fall getting on the train and she'd shaken up, bleeding, with potential broken bones etc, you have to prioritise that.

 

[TBirdFrank]

He's a railwayman so he is a saint beyond criticism

He was probably talking to his bit of fluff and couldn't be arsed to talk to anything so unimportant as a passenger.

Any properly customer focussed business would have given him his first public warning and the complainant proper recompense!

 

[dviner]

The TOC says the staff member was engaged in other essential duties, and I can hand on heart say the only time I've personally spent 30 minutes straight on the phone is when I'm dealing with something urgent - under normal circumstances I'll have given up long before then.

For the person who says I'm defending bad service, I'm not. As I say, it doesn't excuse the fact ScotRail haven't provided sufficient staff for the passenger assist. I've personally had times at work where I've been taken away from my main task to attend to other urgent matters. If, for example, old mother Doris has just had a fall getting on the train and she'd shaken up, bleeding, with potential broken bones etc, you have to prioritise that.

The TOC says the staff member could have been engaged in essential duties.

The person from the TOC responding to the OP wasn't stating it as a fact, just that it is a possible reason for them not to be available to provide assistance.

I'm reminded of a time a manager of mine stated "I want reasons, not excuses". My opinion was that there wouldn't be any point in providing a reason, as they would just write it off as an excuse.

I would hope that the "logging of the incident" will go towards improving things in the future.

Calling for hanging, drawing, and quartering doesn't really achieve anything.

Schlock Mercenary - 70 Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries

"70. Failure is not an option - it is mandatory. The option is whether or not to let failure be the last thing you do"

 

[najaB]

He was probably talking to his bit of fluff and couldn't be arsed to talk to anything so unimportant as a passenger.

The only way you could know this is if it was you on the other end of the phone. Hmm?

 

[Llanigraham]

He's a railwayman so he is a saint beyond criticism

He was probably talking to his bit of fluff and couldn't be arsed to talk to anything so unimportant as a passenger.

Any properly customer focussed business would have given him his first public warning and the complainant proper recompense!

Conclusion....jumped....how high?:roll:

 

[TUC]

As we don't know what the staff member was doing, it seems only fair to assume it must have been something important or vital, in the absence of any information to the contrary.

Why assume that? There are timewasters in any industry. Why not assume that this was a bad case of a passenger being let down unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary?

 

[dviner]

Why assume that? There are timewasters in any industry. Why not assume that this was a bad case of a passenger being let down unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary?

Innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? It's the standard in the legal world (with certain exceptions).

Assumptions and speculations won't get us anywhere, and we aren't likely to find out what the 'phone conversation was about.

 

[Llanigraham]

Why assume that? There are timewasters in any industry. Why not assume that this was a bad case of a passenger being let down unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary?

Conclusion....jumped....and even higher? :roll:

 

[miami]

Innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? It's the standard in the legal world (with certain exceptions).

Assumptions and speculations won't get us anywhere, and we aren't likely to find out what the 'phone conversation was about.

Plenty of people on this forums assume the worst about passengers they believe are "trying it on", if they "look shifty"

 

[dviner]

Plenty of people on this forums assume the worst about passengers they believe are "trying it on", if they "look shifty"

... which is wrong. That doesn't mean that making the same assumptions about staff is right.

Really, we should be acting like adults here.

So - yah! boo! sucks!

 

[AlterEgo]

Why assume that? There are timewasters in any industry. Why not assume that this was a bad case of a passenger being let down unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary?

Because I prefer to believe the good in people until proven otherwise.

If I believed that people were cynical or useless or malevolent until proven otherwise I wouldn't be living a very happy life.

 

[theironroad]

He's a railwayman so he is a saint beyond criticism

He was probably talking to his bit of fluff and couldn't be arsed to talk to anything so unimportant as a passenger.

Any properly customer focussed business would have given him his first public warning and the complainant proper recompense!

"Talking to his bit of fluff''

What a condescending and probably sexist statement.

Thank the lord you don't work on the railway with such an disgusting attitude to other people you don't even know.

 

[Qwerty133]

Why assume that? There are timewasters in any industry. Why not assume that this was a bad case of a passenger being let down unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary?

Because any member of ticket office staff who doesn't sell a single ticket for over 30 minutes on a regular basis would be investigated and dismissed pretty quickly in an even somewhat organised TOC.

 

[LordCreed]

Because any member of ticket office staff who doesn't sell a single ticket for over 30 minutes on a regular basis would be investigated and dismissed pretty quickly in an even somewhat organised TOC.

I'm wondering where you saw the word regular from... As far as this thread implies it is a one off case...

I do find it amusing the number on people here that take any excuse to put staff down. We don't know if the phone call was of an urgent work matter, or if the member of staff wanted to waste time.