Oxford 'not part of Chiltern network'

[pdeaves]

Hasn't Oxford technically been part of the Chiltern network for years now, with its one service each night from Stratford-Upon-Avon?

Yes, and from 2011 to 2014 when they ran the Bicester service pre branch rebuild (and then the replacement bus service whilst the rebuild took place)

 

[PeterC]

Hasn't Oxford technically been part of the Chiltern network for years now

The point was that "Chiltern network" was being interpreted as stations that they staffed not stations served by their trains.

I haven't seen the flyers but the website is quite clear that the latter definition is the correct one although without clarification both would make sense.

 

[Elecman]

The SFO ( Station Facility Operator) just means who is responsible for the station maintenance and upkeep, there are a few stations on the Network where the relevant SFO TOC services doesn't even stop at that station.

 

[67018]

To be fair, I've used my Chiltern gold card fairly regularly at Oxford and never had any problem at all at the barriers. So most staff must have been correctly briefed.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Whoa!

You really don't want to go down that route.

Funny, that's what the man on the gateline said to the OP !!

 

[Bletchleyite]

What needs to change is from this:

Staff: not valid
Passenger: But it is because X
Staff: not valid
<repeat until PF issued>

to this:

Staff: I don't think that is valid, sorry
Passenger: It is because X
Staff: Let me check
<checks>
Staff: Sorry, it is valid. I'll remember that for next time

The problem, in 2017, is not knowledge, it's a unwillingness to check.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What needs to change is from this:

Staff: not valid
Passenger: But it is because X
Staff: not valid
<repeat until PF issued>

to this:

Staff: I don't think that is valid, sorry
Passenger: It is because X
Staff: Let me check
<checks>
Staff: Sorry, it is valid. I'll remember that for next time

The problem, in 2017, is not knowledge, it's a unwillingness to check.

Oh if only! Try asking just about any staff whose role involves checking tickets anywhere on the network what they know about the Routeing Guide. In fact ask as many as possible to build a decent sample size. Then the supplementary questions about how to use it or, if unaware of the Routeing Guide, how to confirm the validity of an unfamiliar ticket by using NRE. I guarantee you will be disappointed by the outcome of such a survey because such knowledge is not included as part of any retail training. Such a poor omission will be justified by the TOCs by the incredible complexity of our ticketing system generally and the tiny proportion of tickets that will actually cause any validity dispute.

So no, the problem actually is knowledge and the unwillingness of the TOCs to ensure that it is part of the training of all staff involved with ticketing in any way. The only bright spot in the whole messy situation is there are at least a few trainers who advise their trainees to do exactly as suggested upthread, ie if in doubt let it go but remember to properly check the situation so as to be ready for the next time. Even that falls down when such checks don't happen because the manager who is asked to assist with that check doesn't know and almost certainly won't be bothered to find out leading some to go down the route of making up their own rules. And sadly Retail Controllers are often no better.

 

[furlong]

What needs to change is from this:
Staff: not valid
Passenger: But it is because X
Staff: not valid
<repeat until PF issued>

Not a good example - every member of staff who charges a Penalty Fare has been properly trained in the National Routeing Guide and ticket types and restrictions etc. Otherwise they couldn't have been authorised to issue one!

 

[causton]

Not a good example - every member of staff who charges a Penalty Fare has been properly trained in the National Routeing Guide and ticket types and restrictions etc. Otherwise they couldn't have been authorised to issue one!

In theory, yes.

In practice, I doubt many staff would be able to use the routeing guide, penalty fare trained or not. Even I would be very uncomfortable using it as it has been at least a year since I last used it myself. My ticket office software works out whether a route is permitted or not anyway, of course it is not infallible though.

 

[Haywain]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the Routeing Guide and any staff knowledge of it.

 

[sheff1]

My ethos when working on gatelines is that if I'm in any doubt as to the validity of a ticket, I should always err on the side of the passenger and let them travel, and then look the ticket up myself so I know for next time. I will only ever refuse travel if I am 100% sure a ticket is invalid, as standing my ground to then be proved wrong is very embarrassing!

Good to hear. Unfortunately, some of the numpties out there are completely beyond embarrassment.

 

[Ianno87]

What needs to change is from this:

Staff: not valid
Passenger: But it is because X
Staff: not valid
<repeat until PF issued>

to this:

Staff: I don't think that is valid, sorry
Passenger: It is because X
Staff: Let me check
<checks>
Staff: Sorry, it is valid. I'll remember that for next time

The problem, in 2017, is not knowledge, it's a unwillingness to check.

Quite literally had the top conversation not too long ago with an EMT TM (apart from the PF part - this was a barrier line check). Complaint to EMT and an apology plus full refund of the ticket in the post a few weeks later...

 

[island]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, a Zone 1-3 Annual Travelcard is not valid for the offer,as there is no Chiltern journey for which that ticket is ordinarily valid.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123210

Whilst that may be your opinion, I've used the ticket without the slightest issue or challenge a number of times over the last two years, so it would appear Chiltern are happy to accept it.

 

[BestWestern]

I certainly believe it to be a big problem that when you have staff who won't learn you can't get rid of them, and that when you recontract an operation you can't actually change the substantial makeup of the company. There needs to be good employee protection but equally there needs to be a way to get rid of genuinely bad staff.

I don't know what the answer is. I wouldn't want it US-style, either. In any case it's one for a separate thread if anyone does want to pursue that discussion further I guess.

OTOH, the prevalence of this in certain TOCs but much less in others (GWR and GTR seem notable, while even fellow Govia TOC LM seems rather superior in terms of customer facing staff quality, give or take the odd one like one specific member of the Watford Jn ticket office staff - not the one who posts here!) would seem to suggest it's mostly just grossly bad management and training.

Any organisation can get shot of any bad employee, it merely takes performance management. Abandoning TUPE and waiting for refranchising is not going to be an efficient means of ensuring staff discipline!

I would argue that there is a clear need for two things; firstly and most pressingly decent retail training, refreshed regularly and properly formally assessed; and secondly widespread use of 'mystery shoppers' and direct accountability to ensure that unsatisfactory behaviours are attended to. It shouldn't be difficult, but the fragmented mess of a railway system that we now have, appears not to have the overall capacity to give a stuff about such things! :roll:

 

[Greenback]

Those are good points, Best Western. The retail training clearly needs to be improved. It was a long time ago now, but the training I had on Great Western was pretty poor. It seems nothing has really changed. There was no real assessment involved and no refreshers.

I'm not a huge fan of mystery shopping, I'd much rather see competent managers who are able to supervise their staff, identify weaknesses in their perfoirmance and put it right. That probably costs far too much money for GWR's liking. I suspect it's all about money in the end. Most things are.

 

[35B]

Those are good points, Best Western. The retail training clearly needs to be improved. It was a long time ago now, but the training I had on Great Western was pretty poor. It seems nothing has really changed. There was no real assessment involved and no refreshers.

I'm not a huge fan of mystery shopping, I'd much rather see competent managers who are able to supervise their staff, identify weaknesses in their perfoirmance and put it right. That probably costs far too much money for GWR's liking. I suspect it's all about money in the end. Most things are.

Indeed. If - and only if - you have the front line management in place , then mystery shopping works well. As a student working in McDonalds it kept me on my toes, and the feedback when I was mystery shopped was both useful to me and to colleagues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Greenback]

Mystery shoppers or mystery shopping can have some use when it is employed in a constructive manner and in support of effective management. FGW needs the second to be in place or it wll all be useless waste of time and money.

 

[bnm]

I suspect it's all about money in the end. Most things are.

Indeed it is. All about the money GWR can extract from passengers through their lies, obfuscation and parsimoniousness. The front line staff are merely the tools used by management to extract (or attempt to extract) additional revenue when none is due.

That management then hides behind the excuse that the fares system is complex. Bull****. Any complexity is the fault of the operators, not the passenger.

The unwillingness to change, or to train front line staff properly, is deliberate. It's far easier to screw additional revenue out of passengers when it isn't due than to acknowledge the glaringly obvious shortcomings in the system.

 

[BestWestern]

Indeed it is. All about the money GWR can extract from passengers through their lies, obfuscation and parsimoniousness. The front line staff are merely the tools used by management to extract (or attempt to extract) additional revenue when none is due.

That management then hides behind the excuse that the fares system is complex. Bull****. Any complexity is the fault of the operators, not the passenger.

The unwillingness to change, or to train front line staff properly, is deliberate. It's far easier to screw addĺitional revenue out of passengers when it isn't due than to acknowledge the glaringly obvious shortcomings in the system.

Are you certain that it's conspiracy, rather than incompetence? You have rather more experience of it than most, of course, regretful as that is. It's an interesting thought...

 

[Greenback]

I believe it;s more incompetence than conspiracy. I don't believe that GWR is wilfully sending out staff who ar epoorly trained deliberately so that they can increase revenue.

I believe it's far more likely that they just won't spend the money on proper training, supervision and performance management of their staff. Any additional revenue they manage to take as a result is merely an unintended bonus

 

[hounddog]

I believe it;s more incompetence than conspiracy.

That's more or less my view on just about everything in life.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I believe it;s more incompetence than conspiracy.

It's a very deliberate sort of cynical incompetence though. "We could train our staff properly, but that costs money and might even reduce revenue, so we won't".

It's not a conspiracy but it's not exactly a whoopsee either.

 

[Greenback]

Oh yes, it's pretty cynical and definitely not a whoopsee! That's first for you, they won't spend any money if they can help it.

 

[TUC]

The frustrating aspect is that there are plenty of non-rail staff on this forum who clearly know more than the staff under discussion. Is it really so unreasonable to expect staff to show enough interest in the basics of their job to know as much as non-rail staff know? In these online days, training or not, it's not difficult to check the facts when a query arises.

 

[BestWestern]

The frustrating aspect is that there are plenty of non-rail staff on this forum who clearly know more than the staff under discussion. Is it really so unreasonable to expect staff to show enough interest in the basics of their job to know as much as non-rail staff know? In these online days, training or not, it's not difficult to check the facts when a query arises.

Nobody should be expected to have sufficient 'interest' in their job to spend their own time self-training beyond what their employer provides for and expects of them, in my view. It is up to the employer, always.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

A lot of these issues are the biggest argument against TUPE that one could imagine. You basically have no way of getting rid of these people. And they know it.

well other than actually using the disciplinary regulations in place you mean ?

 

[mattdickinson]

Apparently GWR require a scan of my Oyster card to investigate my complaint....

 

[185]

well other than actually using the disciplinary regulations in place you mean ?

It is for their management to properly oversee staff training issues, and if errors by frontline staff are being repeatedly raised & overlooked then it is management who should be the first to fall... only then the staff training issue can be tackled.

 

[philthetube]

Apparently GWR require a scan of my Oyster card to investigate my complaint....

I am sure that will be most helpful to them,

 

[bb21]

I am sure that will be most helpful to them,

Nothing wrong with establishing in the first place that the customer indeed had a valid ticket.

It is not being personal. It is just standard procedure. I am surprised that evidence was not submitted in the first place with the complaint.