Am I being fobbed off???

[Evie B]

Hi,

I travelled on the 12:41 Truro to London Paddington on Friday 15 June. We spent a lot of the journey sitting and waiting for our train’s turn to go down the single tracks around Yeovil and Honiton. We just kept on being told that other services were late and so we were being held back. When we got to Reading we were told than given the train Was over an hour late it would no longer be going to Paddington and we needed to alight.

I have asked for a refund and provided all the required details, but I’m being told a tree was down and that was the cause of the delay which means they won’t pay up. I can’t help thinking this is a convenient excuse to get out paying me a refund. The weather was fine - it wasn’t as if there was a storm. How can I find out for sure?

Thanks
Evie

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you have the date and time right? Here’s the 1241 on 15 June. 8 late into Paddington.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40057/2018/06/15/advanced

 

[northwichcat]

Do you have the date and time right? Here’s the 1241 on 15 June. 8 late into Paddington.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40057/2018/06/15/advanced

Looks like the incident happened on 14th June: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40057/2018/06/14/advanced

Unfortunately GWR are on a old scheme (which will be replaced by Delay Repay when the next franchise starts.)

Exclusions The arrangements for compensation do not apply for certain delays which are outside the control of the rail industry. These include trespass, vandalism, security alerts and severe weather conditions.

https://www.gwr.com/~/media/gwr/pdf...ds/compensation-for-delays-oct-2017.pdf?la=en

So no GWR (operated by First Group) don't have to pay out (that exclusion clause is similar to one the old First TPE franchise had) but the positive thing is the GWR franchise might be one of the few franchises to offer a 15 minute Delay Repay for any reason in the near future.

 

[northwichcat]

The weather was fine - it wasn’t as if there was a storm.

It only needs one strong gust of wind to bring part or all of a tree down, depending how strong the tree is. Looking at weather reports for Yeovil the wind did change direction and get stronger between 12pm and 4pm on 14th June, with the average wind strength being more than double what it was at the same time on the next day. However, the real question is whether or not it was within the control of the rail industry - unless tree surgeons working for Network Rail left a tree in a dangerous condition, I would say it was outside of the control of the rail industry .

 

[vinnym70]

It only needs one strong gust of wind to bring part or all of a tree down, depending how strong the tree is. Looking at weather reports for Yeovil the wind did change direction and get stronger between 12pm and 4pm on 14th June, with the average wind strength being more than double what it was at the same time on the next day. However, the real question is whether or not it was within the control of the rail industry - unless tree surgeons working for Network Rail left a tree in a dangerous condition, I would say it was outside of the control of the rail industry .

Sidebar - not related to the OP's query: So I'm curious about this one. As a rail user there always seems to be tall trees near to the railway. I would have assumed that the height of any given tree expressed as a ratio to it's distance from the track has to fall in certain boundaries. I know Network Rail have come under criticism recently for felling trees unnecessarily but surely any tree that could fall and foul the running lines/OHLE based on it's height and distance from the railway should be subject to removal or significant pruning/coppicing to ensure the rails are kept clear in *normal* cirucmstances?

 

[farleigh]

I think the ratio would be 1

 

[vinnym70]

I think the ratio would be 1

I'd probably go for something less obvious. 1:1 lacks margin for error. I'm sure HSE would push for something within more acceptable tolerances to include annual growth and/or average wind direction and speeds. Where OHLE is in play then the ratio needs to include tree height vs OHLE height rather than the rail height. Ideally anything natural falling towards the railway needs to fall short of any infrastructure.

But generally my point is this... tree(s) on the railway isn't something a TOC or NR can wiggle out of regardless of their commitment to real Delay Repay or not. Trees that are/were by the railway shouldn't impact the railway if they fall - exceptional weather conditions and unforeseeable circumstances excluded. If falling trees impact a service then someone hasn't done their job properly. Simples?

 

[6Gman]

Sidebar - not related to the OP's query: So I'm curious about this one. As a rail user there always seems to be tall trees near to the railway. I would have assumed that the height of any given tree expressed as a ratio to it's distance from the track has to fall in certain boundaries. I know Network Rail have come under criticism recently for felling trees unnecessarily but surely any tree that could fall and foul the running lines/OHLE based on it's height and distance from the railway should be subject to removal or significant pruning/coppicing to ensure the rails are kept clear in *normal* cirucmstances?

Does Network Rail have rights to carry out work on private trees on private land?

 

[vinnym70]

Does Network Rail have rights to carry out work on private trees on private land?

They certainly should but I'm sure it's fraught with legalese exceptions. But I don't see they manage their own estate exceptionally well in any case so that might be a moot point?

 

[bb21]

But generally my point is this... tree(s) on the railway isn't something a TOC or NR can wiggle out of regardless of their commitment to real Delay Repay or not. Trees that are/were by the railway shouldn't impact the railway if they fall - exceptional weather conditions and unforeseeable circumstances excluded. If falling trees impact a service then someone hasn't done their job properly. Simples?

Trees on the line (JX) are not excludable from passenger's charter compensation commitments. Trees on the line due to extreme weather, wind in this case (XW), however is. (YE is just a reactionary code denoting the type of knock-on delay. The incident cause in this case is XW.)

This has no bearing on Delay Repay commitments for any TOC on that.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Trees on the line (JX) are not excludable from passenger's charter compensation commitments. Trees on the line due to extreme weather, wind in this case (XW), however is. (YE is just a reactionary code denoting the type of knock-on delay. The incident cause in this case is XW.)

This has no bearing on Delay Repay commitments for any TOC on that.

Just how extreme was the wind? As far as I can tell most of the UK has been enjoying a windless heatwave today and for the last few days.

 

[bb21]

Just how extreme was the wind? As far as I can tell most of the UK has been enjoying a windless heatwave today and for the last few days.

Can't tell you I'm afraid as it's a while back. Local conditions may vary.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Can't tell you I'm afraid as it's a while back. Local conditions may vary.

Sorry, I thought this was for a delay yesterday. 10 days ago there may have been greater wind.

 

[vinnym70]

Trees on the line (JX) are not excludable from passenger's charter compensation commitments. Trees on the line due to extreme weather, wind in this case (XW), however is.

This has no bearing on Delay Repay commitments for any TOC on that.

So... who gets to decide JX vs XW? I'm not arguing the demarkation is wrong but generally I don't recall any severe weather in the recent past that might preclude compensating a passenger. Without seeing the tree before and after someone has to accept that the industry is being honest. As noted above, any tree with potential to foul the railway should be long removed by NR. If NR did their pruning/coppicing/felling properly then there would be no tree with the potential to interrupt service if it fell - under anything other than extenuating circumstances.

 

[Clip]

I'd probably go for something less obvious. 1:1 lacks margin for error. I'm sure HSE would push for something within more acceptable tolerances to include annual growth and/or average wind direction and speeds. Where OHLE is in play then the ratio needs to include tree height vs OHLE height rather than the rail height. Ideally anything natural falling towards the railway needs to fall short of any infrastructure.

But generally my point is this... tree(s) on the railway isn't something a TOC or NR can wiggle out of regardless of their commitment to real Delay Repay or not. Trees that are/were by the railway shouldn't impact the railway if they fall - exceptional weather conditions and unforeseeable circumstances excluded. If falling trees impact a service then someone hasn't done their job properly. Simples?

i can't speak for the gwr line but it was very windy in the north weat last week following a large downpour and some thunder. doesn't take much of that following a dry spell to disturb the undergrowth and cause movement.

Plus as has been pointed out gwr do not participate in delay repay so people need to stop mentioning that scheme

 

[Bantamzen]

i can't speak for the gwr line but it was very windy in the north weat last week following a large downpour and some thunder. doesn't take much of that following a dry spell to disturb the undergrowth and cause movement.

Plus as has been pointed out gwr do not participate in delay repay so people need to stop mentioning that scheme

Indeed, a combination of dry spells followed by heavy rain & a few sudden gusts can bring down trees that previously where quite safe (this has happened close to where I live recently). So it is quite reasonable to assume that there may have been no way to prevent this, save as some appear to be suggesting clearing trees in for at least a couple of hundred feet either side of the lines, regardless if they are on NR or private land. But I fear the default position of "its the railway's fault regardless" will prevail here at least, as people seem much happier when they have a scapegoat. Its the way of 21st Century Britain I'm afraid, everything has to be someone's fault so that they can be complained about.

 

[Essan]

Just how extreme was the wind? As far as I can tell most of the UK has been enjoying a windless heatwave today and for the last few days.

Assuming the correct date of the incident was Thursday 14th June, this was the day of Storm Hector which caused widespread disruption across the northern half of the British Isles (including, for example, suspension of services on the WCML due to trees on the line north of Preston).

Winds across the south were not nearly as strong, but were still quite gusty at times, for June, also bearing in mind trees were in full leaf.

 

[bb21]

So... who gets to decide JX vs XW?

Delay attribution people according to the Delay Attribution Guide (or whatever it is called today).

 

[northwichcat]

Does Network Rail have rights to carry out work on private trees on private land?

They certainly should but I'm sure it's fraught with legalese exceptions. But I don't see they manage their own estate exceptionally well in any case so that might be a moot point?

If you own a tree on your land and it grows over on to someone else's land then the other party are allowed to cut it back to the boundary even if they don't ask specifically for your permission. Technically the removed branches have to be returned but usually the tree owner isn't bothered about getting their branches back.

If a new development is to be built near a railway line Network Rail take an interest in whether any trees are to be planted and if they are and the trees aren't one of the approved types for putting near a railway line they'll object.

 

[Elecman]

If a new development is to be built near a railway line Network Rail take an interest in whether any trees are to be planted and if they are and the trees aren't one of the approved types for putting near a railway line they'll object.

And What happens if they are ignored or the new home owner takes that small tree out and plants something that’s not NR approved?

 

[6Gman]

So... who gets to decide JX vs XW? I'm not arguing the demarkation is wrong but generally I don't recall any severe weather in the recent past that might preclude compensating a passenger. Without seeing the tree before and after someone has to accept that the industry is being honest. As noted above, any tree with potential to foul the railway should be long removed by NR. If NR did their pruning/coppicing/felling properly then there would be no tree with the potential to interrupt service if it fell - under anything other than extenuating circumstances.

That's clearly your opinion, but is it practical? I travelled from Crewe to Shrewsbury today and there must be hundreds of trees that meet your definition and I would estimate 80%+ of them are not on NR land.

So that would mean huge cost, intrusion into private property and environmental damage. All because, once in a blue moon, a train will be delayed by a fallen tree.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That's clearly your opinion, but is it practical? I travelled from Crewe to Shrewsbury today and there must be hundreds of trees that meet your definition and I would estimate 80%+ of them are not on NR land.

So that would mean huge cost, intrusion into private property and environmental damage. All because, once in a blue moon, a train will be delayed by a fallen tree.

I think the more serious risk is that a tree falls onto the track, blocking it and causing a train to derail/crash. That could result in serious injuries or even possibly fatalities. I'm sure the rail industry would be willing to spend significant amounts to guarantee that this cannot happen.

 

[Haywain]

The risk should be "as low as reasonably practicable", not non-existent. Removing all trees that could, just perhaps, cause a derailment is not reasonably practicable.

 

[6Gman]

The risk should be "as low as reasonably practicable", not non-existent. Removing all trees that could, just perhaps, cause a derailment is not reasonably practicable.

This.

 

[northwichcat]

And What happens if they are ignored or the new home owner takes that small tree out and plants something that’s not NR approved?

This is getting a bit too off-topic now. From what I understand it's the local council who make the decision about whether planning permission is accepted or not so Network Rail need to present their case effectively to the local council so that they can either reject the application or attach conditions to the application. A couple of years ago there was a planning application to change a warehouse not far from where I live to a soft play centre for children, the warehouse is adjacent to the railway line and separated from it by a wire fence. Network Rail responded saying they thought a condition of the application should be to replace the wire fence with a steel fence, the council rejected Network Rail's proposal on the basis that the planning application didn't include an outdoor play area and the existing wire fence is in good condition.

 

[Mag_seven]

This is getting a bit too off-topic now.

Agreed - getting back on topic I think GWR are being very harsh not allowing at least some compensation for this event as although there were some strongish winds across the south that day there were AFAIK no severe weather warnings in place for the south. Thus I believe the OP is indeed being "fobbed off".

 

[vinnym70]

On holiday so missed the ensuing.

On topic - GWR surely can't absolve themselves (or NR) from liability for delays for fallen trees. After all, it was within *someones* liability.

Off topic - perhaps a new thread? But I'm pretty sure than any tree able to fall foul of a public highway or a railway would be within the owners responsiblity to maintain especially with regard to liability in the event of an accident. However, even the best maintained trees in the world wobble sometimes. I'd suggest that anything that can foul the railway (height vs distance from running rails/OHLE) should be within NR's purview whether or not on NR land.

 

[Haywain]

On topic - GWR surely can't absolve themselves (or NR) from liability for delays for fallen trees. After all, it was within *someones* liability.

Act of God. Claim from God?

Off topic - perhaps a new thread? But I'm pretty sure than any tree able to fall foul of a public highway or a railway would be within the owners responsiblity to maintain especially with regard to liability in the event of an accident. However, even the best maintained trees in the world wobble sometimes. I'd suggest that anything that can foul the railway (height vs distance from running rails/OHLE) should be within NR's purview whether or not on NR land.

So, how often should each tree be checked/inspected? Before and after each event of bad weather? It's just not realistic - a tree can be weakened by winter storms and damaged by a gust of wind in summer when it is drier, or can be severely damaged by lightning when there has been no previous sign of weakness. It may be out of reach of running lines and overhead line equipment in normal circumstances, but that may not help in high winds. We have to be realistic and accept that nature can intervene on occasion. However, all TOCs should be on an equal footing when it comes to Delay/Repay and not the current nonsense of GWR having an apparent lifetime exemption.

 

[vinnym70]

Act of God. Claim from God?


So, how often should each tree be checked/inspected? Before and after each event of bad weather? It's just not realistic - a tree can be weakened by winter storms and damaged by a gust of wind in summer when it is drier, or can be severely damaged by lightning when there has been no previous sign of weakness. It may be out of reach of running lines and overhead line equipment in normal circumstances, but that may not help in high winds. We have to be realistic and accept that nature can intervene on occasion. However, all TOCs should be on an equal footing when it comes to Delay/Repay and not the current nonsense of GWR having an apparent lifetime exemption.

I'm not really concerned with how often trees should be checked (as I'm sure some sort of rules are in place?) but there are numerous trees where their height exceeds distance from the running lines, especially where embankments exist. My personal opinion is that NR have a duty of care to ensure trees are either cut down completely or coppiced sufficiently that the "height:running rail distance" is appropriate - ie significantly less than 1:1. I'm sure some sort of checks of this nature exist to keep NR H&S compliant but I wonder if they go far enough as I see plenty of trees on my travel that probably are too high versus their distance from the running rails and/or OHLE. I fully accept there's no complete answer but I'd be really interested to know the real policies in place - especially when I vaguely recall an news item recently where NR were criticised for over-zealous cutting of trees near the railway.

All trees falling can be classed as an act of god. But, if a 40ft tree exists 20ft from the running rails then surely not dealing with that tree is negligent? Or do we need a significant incident to make the case?

I fully understand that felling trees and disposing of them is a massive task and an expensive one at that but I'd suspect that the costs of doing so really do outweigh any claims for negligence should an incident ever arise that involved significant loss of life with the ambulance chasers baying for blood?