Gatwick Express service went the wrong way after previous service cancelled

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is this really news - delayed train causes some people to miss flights. Happens everyday!

I think the point here is that the delay to the train was something which was entirely within the industry's control. They can't give the reason as being weather, passengers, unexpected train failures etc. It's the exact kind of scenario which parts of consumer law cater for - where a service is provided without the implied reasonable care and skill. There are not often such clear cut cases in conjunction with substantial, quantifiable and foreseeable consequential losses. It would be interesting to see what response any potential claimants would get, and whether GX would pay out in the first instance, or claim they are not liable.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I think the point here is that the delay to the train was something which was entirely within the industry's control. They can't give the reason as being weather, passengers, unexpected train failures etc. It's the exact kind of scenario which parts of consumer law cater for - where a service is provided without the implied reasonable care and skill. There are not often such clear cut cases in conjunction with substantial, quantifiable and foreseeable consequential losses. It would be interesting to see what response any potential claimants would get, and whether GX would pay out in the first instance, or claim they are not liable.

Indeed, they may pay out in order to prevent it going to court and setting a precedent

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed, they may pay out in order to prevent it going to court and setting a precedent

It would have to go to the High Court (or, on appeal from the County Court it would go straight to the Court of Appeal) in order to set a precedent. But a County Court case in favour of the passenger would indeed be a memorable news story and certainly something to bring up in the event of any future claims.

 

[Mag_seven]

I think the point here is that the delay to the train was something which was entirely within the industry's control. They can't give the reason as being weather, passengers, unexpected train failures etc. It's the exact kind of scenario which parts of consumer law cater for - where a service is provided without the implied reasonable care and skill. There are not often such clear cut cases in conjunction with substantial, quantifiable and foreseeable consequential losses. It would be interesting to see what response any potential claimants would get, and whether GX would pay out in the first instance, or claim they are not liable.

Appreciate that but from a "news" point of view it is effectively a "dog bites man" story in "The Independent". Must have been a slow news day.

 

[Warwick]

Delays on the roads never happen.....

I've been trapped on the M1 for over 2 hours before without moving a single inch. Thankfully I wasn't on my way to the airport but I did miss an important meeting. No delay repay let alone consequential loss is payable of delayed when driving.

That's because you're responsible for yourself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this really news - delayed train causes some people to miss flights. Happens everyday!

It's news because it was incompetence that caused it, not things outside the railway's control as are the cause of most delays.

 

[bb21]

I am of the opinion that it was a pretty poor effort overall, unless GTR really do want a test case in their hands for claims on consequential loss. The solution they found at the end (or rather, were "forced" into) should have been thought of much earlier. When there are people onboard at risk of missing their flights, you pull out all stops to avoid that happening for exactly that reason.

It should not be a surprise to GTR that:
(1) There are people onboard who may be running short on time for check-in due to two previous cancellations, and now a further extended delay.
(2) Many people do not plan for sufficient contingency.
(3) Some people will pull the emergency egress if stuck in between stations and going nowhere fast, under the impression that they would miss their flights, juice rail or no juice rail.

There is no chance in hell I would ever not stay at a nearby hotel for a 9 o'clock flight. There are too many things that can go wrong, whether driving, bussing or training. Airport hotels are mostly affordable, and that is excellent insurance against the possibility of missing the flight due to unexpected circumstances. To me that is shockingly poor preparation and risk assessment from many of those people, but the operator should not be relying on everyone adopting a common sense approach.

It's news because it was incompetence that caused it, not things outside the railway's control as are the cause of most delays.

More how it was dealt with rather than the cause itself. With the latter, as someone mentioned earlier, the real world is unpredictable.

But it is the actions taken in the aftermath in order to minimise potential impact that demonstrates how an organisation really view its customers.

 

[Flying Snail]

That's because you're responsible for yourself.

But who was responsible for the motorway tailback? General congestion could be reasonably considered nobody's fault but a tailback caused by a crash is caused by the party who caused the crash, similar for infrastructure failures being the fault of the managing authority. Just imagine what it would do to insurance premiums if motorists were held liable for consequential delays caused by them as the railways are.

 

[mmh]

There’s always the chance of a delay whatever form of transport is used.

If the journey is that important then you need to allow additional time to be certain.

I never understand why people are less tolerant of railway delays compared to travelling by road or air. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not defending the Gatwick Express performance but people do seem to expect more from the railway compared to other forms of transport.

Because the railway is more predictable, it runs to a timetable and isn't affected by unpredictable congestion, surely?

 

[mmh]

There is no chance in hell I would ever not stay at a nearby hotel for a 9 o'clock flight. There are too many things that can go wrong, whether driving, bussing or training. Airport hotels are mostly affordable, and that is excellent insurance against the possibility of missing the flight due to unexpected circumstances. To me that is shockingly poor preparation and risk assessment from many of those people, but the operator should not be relying on everyone adopting a common sense approach.

Seriously? A 9am flight from London should need an overnight stay at the airport? Many hotels which market themselves as hotels for Gatwick are no quicker (or longer) to the airport than the 30 minutes it's supposed to take from Victoria. The last time I flew from Gatwick was to Jersey, a 30 minute flight after a 15 minute train journey from East Croydon. My "risk assessment" was getting an earlier train than I could have. I didn't have the common sense approach to book an airport hotel for the return journey either.

 

[bb21]

Seriously? A 9am flight from London should need an overnight stay at the airport? Many hotels which market themselves as hotels for Gatwick are no quicker (or longer) to the airport than the 30 minutes it's supposed to take from Victoria. The last time I flew from Gatwick was to Jersey, a 30 minute flight after a 15 minute train journey from East Croydon. My "risk assessment" was getting an earlier train than I could have. I didn't have the common sense approach to book an airport hotel for the return journey either.

Yes.

A 9am flight means generally 8am check-in at the latest at Heathrow/Gatwick, so you should aim to get there for 7am, as most sensible people would, as a minimum. Throw in some insurance and you are looking at planning to get there for 6-6.30am.

All it takes is a small accident on the way and you run the risk of cutting it really fine. Many people seem to think that things would go to plan as long as they take the one train ahead. It may well do in the majority of cases, but many also rapidly change their opinion after just one encounter with a bigger incident. The impact of this incident is actually quite mild in comparison. Throw in a fatality or a broken rail somewhere and you could easily pick up 80/90+ minutes delay.

A lot of what you want to do will partly depend on how important it is for you to be on that flight. If you can afford to miss the flight and go on the one a few hours later (if you have an alternative, perhaps in a different mode altogether even), possibly for a fee just for yourself, then fine, take your chances, but if you were taking your family to Cannes, which is hardly the easiest place to get to and possibly having to shell out additional charges for several people, or Tobago even, as are the two cases quoted in the article, that is terrible planning IMO. Not many people taking flights at Gatwick early morning on a Sunday are going to be those in suits heading for a business meeting, and most leisure destinations aren't known for having several flights a day which you can switch easily between.

The advantage of hotels nearby is that they are mostly a short ride away in a taxi, or on a shuttle bus, or even within walking distance, so you have plenty of options in the morning, and not subject to the unpredictability of a longer journey, even if they may be scheduled to take a similar amount of time. In any case, if you end up in a hotel a 30-minute ride away from the airport, you need to do better as there is almost certainly a more convenient one around. I would urge anyone doing that to do their research and confirm their options beforehand.

The journey home is irrelevant.

If people want to go in the morning and relying on the only 1/2/3 trains that could get them there in time, no problem, just people shouldn't then be surprised when things go pear-shaped, because as they say, such is life. Staying close to the airport would in comparison reduce the probability of being impacted by events not within one's control to the minimum.

 

[Mag_seven]

If people want to go in the morning and relying on the only 1/2/3 trains that could get them there in time, no problem, just people shouldn't then be surprised when things go pear-shaped, because as they say, such is life. Staying close to the airport would in comparison reduce the probability of being impacted by events not within one's control to the minimum.

If you're rail savvy you will know that first thing on a Sunday morning is not a good time with an already thinned out service and the risk of possession overruns etc. And if like me you rely on a TOC like GWR, there is the train crew shortage at weekends issue as well. I would be staying overnight at Gatwick for a Sunday morning flight that departs at 12 noon let alone 09.00.

 

[Robertj21a]

If you're rail savvy you will know that first thing on a Sunday morning is not a good time with an already thinned out service and the risk of possession overruns etc. And if like me you rely on a TOC like GWR, there is the train crew shortage at weekends issue as well. I would be staying overnight at Gatwick for a Sunday morning flight that departs at 12 noon let alone 09.00.

......and that's precisely why people prefer to drive rather than rely on the trains. I wouldn't have a hotel room for a noon or 9am flight - I would have planned the journey to the airport, with contingency, by car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

......and that's precisely why people prefer to drive rather than rely on the trains. I wouldn't have a hotel room for a noon or 9am flight - I would have planned the journey to the airport, with contingency, by car.

And I guess chosen to use single-carriageway A roads instead of motorways, as it is incredibly unusual to be completely trapped on one with no ability to turn around and take another route. As I mentioned above, I tend to use the A5 from MK to Luton Airport instead of the M1 for precisely that reason.

 

[AndrewE]

If you're rail savvy you will know that first thing on a Sunday morning is not a good time with an already thinned out service and the risk of possession overruns etc. And if like me you rely on a TOC like GWR, there is the train crew shortage at weekends issue as well. I would be staying overnight at Gatwick for a Sunday morning flight that departs at 12 noon let alone 09.00.

OK then, going forward:
a) should journey planners put a big "unreliable" warning on all early morning journeys to airports, at least at weekends?
b) in that case why run these trains anyway then? the reputational damage to the railway is so bad that we would be better off not pretending to offer the service. It's interesting that even presumably loyal insiders won't risk taking the train in such circumstances!

 

[bb21]

b) in that case why run these trains anyway then? the reputational damage to the railway is so bad that we would be better off not pretending to offer the service. It's interesting that even presumably loyal insiders won't risk taking the train in such circumstances!

Oh, hell no.

I would not be relying on the railway to get me there, if I cannot afford to risk missing the event.

 

[GB]

OK then, going forward:
a) should journey planners put a big "unreliable" warning on all early morning journeys to airports, at least at weekends?
b) in that case why run these trains anyway then? the reputational damage to the railway is so bad that we would be better off not pretending to offer the service. It's interesting that even presumably loyal insiders won't risk taking the train in such circumstances!

Frankly, as far as public transport is concerned, there are too many links in the chain and thus too many things to go wrong to rely on such an important event....though I am aware millions of people do it every year without issue. For me its just not worth the risk.

 

[Mag_seven]

OK then, going forward:
a) should journey planners put a big "unreliable" warning on all early morning journeys to airports, at least at weekends?

You can check punctuality stats for a particular service now and make your own judgement on how "safe" it is to rely on that service. Then experience of many years of rail travel also comes into play. A lot of it is down to how "risk averse" you are. In my case its due to being "once bitten, twice shy".

 

[sprunt]

Sad as it is, but why can't people plan their travel better?

It's a Sunday, less trains run, lots of people want to travel, the journey "might" take longer than expected....

The bolded part suggests that the failure in planning isn't down to the passengers, but to the service providers.

 

[northwichcat]

Appreciate that but from a "news" point of view it is effectively a "dog bites man" story in "The Independent". Must have been a slow news day.

The travel editor has really used this incident as an example of highlighting the change to NRCoT to include 'consequential loses' giving a real example of where passengers were severely delayed in getting to an airport for reasons entirely within the control of the railways.

 

[WelshBluebird]

OK then, going forward:
a) should journey planners put a big "unreliable" warning on all early morning journeys to airports, at least at weekends?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but why can't journey planners take past performance into account and display a warning if the average reliability of that service is below a particular level? There are other third party sites that use open data to show you that info so why can't journey planners? If a particular service has only been on time 60% of the time over the last say 2 weeks, then I'd say that info is quite valuable to a passenger trying to decide if they can rely on rail or not.

 

[northwichcat]

The Independent needs to buy a set of Quail Maps.

'Trying to establish' presumably means they asked Gatwick Express and/or Network Rail why that wasn't possible and they weren't able to give an answer prior to the article being published.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

This looks like a major opportunity to establish some groundrules on consequential loss, as a result of the change of law Consumer Rights Act, which has always been resisted by the train companies. Train companies (also airlines) have always sought to exclude such loss in the terms and conditions of carriage, but they cannot now do this as a matter of course. They resisted this change for many years. Any solicitors up there looking to take this on? I can see GX making some out of court settlements to avoid any kind of precedent being set, given the kind of consequential costs that Simon Calder has identified....!

 

[Clip]

OK then, going forward:
a) should journey planners put a big "unreliable" warning on all early morning journeys to airports, at least at weekends?

Dont see why not - NRE manages to have a big splash on it when disruption or strikes occur.

b) in that case why run these trains anyway then? the reputational damage to the railway is so bad that we would be better off not pretending to offer the service. It's interesting that even presumably loyal insiders won't risk taking the train in such circumstances!

Now you're just being silly again - if not running the trains due to possible disruption was ever a consideration then you would find we wouldn't have a railway.

Id never want to risk missing a flight by not leaving enough slack in my travelling to get to the airport - im there sometimes 3 hours beforehand for long haul possibly 2 for short - I always do this and do you know why? So i dont miss me bloody flight and have to pay for a new one - maybe people should factor that sort of thinking into their holiday plans and if i have an early flight then ill either be sensible and get a hotel or even go the night before should i have too.

People seem to put a lot of time and effort into booking their holidays yet dont seem to plan to well the getting to/from a port - funny that

 

[theironroad]

Don't they still have to carry a WON? (Weekly Operating Notice)

The WON we are issued and sign for hasn't contained possession and other engineering works for years. It is a very slimmed down publication and I wonder sometimes if it could be written on one side of A4.

NR still do issue a full WON but this seems to be geared more to controls and signallers these days and is not issued to drivers at my TOC.

 

[NSEFAN]

People travelling to the airport tend not to be regular travellers. They probably think there's hardly anyone around at that time on a Sunday, and would have no reason to think it would take longer because its a Sunday morning.

Ironically, the sort of people who tend to travel on Sundays (inexperience, often with big luggage) mean that journeys can take longer than a weekday commute (where most passengers know where they're going and don't dawdle around and block the thoroughfares!). The roads have Sunday drivers, and the railways have Sunday passengers.

 

[theironroad]

I wonder how the delay was split - if it was 50% TOC, 50% NR then that would imply that the driver should have queried the route if 100% NR then not.

No requirement for driver to challenge routing if in normal working they are able to stop at next booked station stop with a platform adjacent.

 

[theironroad]

Ironically, the sort of people who tend to travel on Sundays (inexperience, often with big luggage) mean that journeys can take longer than a weekday commute (where most passengers know where they're going and don't dawdle around and block the thoroughfares!). The roads have Sunday drivers, and the railways have Sunday passengers.

Clearly I'm getting more Victor meldrew in my ageing years as people blocking entrances and exits is becoming more annoying. It's as if some people live in their own little vacuum and have now situational awareness of what is going on around them.

Even then, when you say ' excuse me' to get through a little huddle or around someone blocking and entrance/exit they look at you as if you've inconvenienced them rather than apologising for being a numpty....

 

[radamfi]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but why can't journey planners take past performance into account and display a warning if the average reliability of that service is below a particular level? There are other third party sites that use open data to show you that info so why can't journey planners? If a particular service has only been on time 60% of the time over the last say 2 weeks, then I'd say that info is quite valuable to a passenger trying to decide if they can rely on rail or not.

This should be possible. When you use the planner within the NS website, it shows the historical punctuality and level of crowding for each train.

 

[theironroad]

This looks like a major opportunity to establish some groundrules on consequential loss, as a result of the change of law Consumer Rights Act, which has always been resisted by the train companies. Train companies (also airlines) have always sought to exclude such loss in the terms and conditions of carriage, but they cannot now do this as a matter of course. They resisted this change for many years. Any solicitors up there looking to take this on? I can see GX making some out of court settlements to avoid any kind of precedent being set, given the kind of consequential costs that Simon Calder has identified....!

Maybe it needs to apply to airlines as well, because aside from EU261 regulations, most airlines (especially low cost carriers) will try to squirm their way out of any consequential liability.

On a separate note, in a post Brexit world next year I assume eu261 rules will be incorporated into UK law automatically under the 'great repeal bill' or whatever it has been renamed. Question is, will the government then decide to scrap those equivalent eu261 provisions so we go back in time where passengers leaving the UK will have little protection.