Gatwick Express service went the wrong way after previous service cancelled

[northwichcat]

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.

Which is an issue for most EU legislation. There's many Tories who see it as 'EU red tape' rather than something which is there to protect travelers, employees, customers etc. We could end up losing the protection during one government and having the next government reinstate it, probably not in it's original form though as they'll come up with new worded legislation under a new name.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is an issue for most EU legislation. There's many Tories who see it as 'EU red tape' rather than something which is there to protect travelers, employees, customers etc. We could end up losing the protection during one government and having the next government reinstate it, probably not in it's original form though as they'll come up with new worded legislation under a new name.

TBH I do think EU261 is unreasonable, expecting airlines to cough up EUR250 when the ticket price might have been a fraction of that. I'd happily see it replaced with something more reasonable based on the fare paid in the manner of Delay Repay but also requiring provision of accommodation, meals etc proportional to the delay on the basis that the airline is usually in a better place to arrange this than the individual. One exception - keep it for "bumps" (which is what it was really intended for) so as to discourage airlines from overbooking to excess.

And I am not a Tory.

 

[theironroad]

Which is an issue for most EU legislation. There's many Tories who see it as 'EU red tape' rather than something which is there to protect travelers, employees, customers etc. We could end up losing the protection during one government and having the next government reinstate it, probably not in it's original form though as they'll come up with new worded legislation under a new name.

I agree many Tories will just see it as uncessary red tape hindering business. Well as someone who has had three eu261 long haul claims paid out against foreign airlines. , I clearly hope something replaces it.

 

[High Dyke]

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....

Ah, glad to hear it's not just me that has days like that... I was trying to exit a supermarket one rainy day, but because of the force of the rain everyone was stood in the entrance doors blocking the way in and out. I just barged through them chuntering 'had they never seen rain before?'

 

[northwichcat]

TBH I do think EU261 is unreasonable, expecting airlines to cough up EUR250 when the ticket price might have been a fraction of that.

I think the average flight cost on a route should be taken in to consideration. Airlines have a business model which works on the basis that some passengers travel at a very low cost, while others travel at a high cost but the model doesn't work on the basis that those who pay £25 get an inferior service to those who pay £250 (not taking 'add ons' in to consideration.)

I'd happily see it replaced with something more reasonable based on the fare paid in the manner of Delay Repay.

One thing I'd like to see is a change to the way airlines can retime your flight at short notice. When I went to Canada a couple of years ago I had a return flight which was originally scheduled for one time, which got brought forward by around 3 hours and then got changed to times which were 15 minutes different to the original times when booking. I'd booked an advance long distance Via Rail ticket based on the first set of revised flight times so unnecessarily cut short my visit to Montreal, the only consolation being I didn't have to buy a new train ticket which I would have needed to do if the final change had been to bring forward the flight time by 3 hours. Airlines don't offer you the chance to change to another flight 'penalty free' but if there isn't even a flight every day that's not much compensation.

 

[HowardGWR]

BB21 has it totally right. Attempting to catch a flight at 9 am Sunday morning to far-flung destination like Tobago as a once in a lifetime trip, by leaving at 0630 by GTR Gatex is 'courageous' to put it mildly. I would like to see TOCs liable for consequential loss, but let's be realistic here. It's not getting paid out that's important. There could have been a 'one under' or a tree on the line, or any number of possible acts of god. I leave three hours check-in space, even when just nipping across to Schiphol for a week. The last time I travelled from Dorchester, there was a tree on the line at Sway. I had to do some quick thinking, when I simultaneously learnt from RTT that all trains via Barnham to Gatwick, on which we were booked, were cancelled! We eventually stayed on the SWR and went via Clapham Junction and made the flight by the skin of our teeth. An unknowing traveller would have missed their flight.
My point is this: there are many flights from Gatwick to Schiphol, so I suppose we would have got one eventually and this was a short haul run of the mill trip. If I were going on a special holiday to Canada or Australia, I would be at the airport at least half a day beforehand, never mind 3 hours. That might mean an overnight stay. Any other plan is an enormous gamble that one would never consider if one were thinking straight.

 

[otomous]

Something is not right about this story. Taking each point:

We'll overlook the photo of a train that hasn't been used on Gatwick for about 7 years, I suppose at least it wasn't a loco hauled set in Swallow livery

Signalling error - that seems fair enough as all four lines appeared to be open so there was no need to send it via the slow.

Normally "route it back on to the fast". Well if it the driver stopped and queried the route at Balham (which in the context he would not really need to do as early morning trains on Sundays particularly are often switched around), then the signaller could have returned the signal to danger and waited two minutes to clear the route for the fast instead. If the driver had taken the route on to the slow line, routing back to the fast would not be possible anyway until East Croydon, as there are no more crossovers until then.

If the "tracks were blocked between Selhurst and East Croydon by engineering works" then NO trains would be able to reach East Croydon from Selhurst anyway! It appears that the FAST lines were blocked between these points so all trains were being routed Fast to Slow and vice versa at Selhurst Junction.

Another train preventing the Gatwick reversing? Well there is no way a train WOULD be "reversed" if the down slow was open, it would just be sent that way anyway, as it was still able to get to East Croydon that way and had to cross at Selhurst junction anyway.

Trying to find out why it did not reverse at Streatham? Well Streatham is on a different line for one thing, if they meant Streatham Common, as we've established, there are no more crossovers to the fast until East Croydon so this would not have been possible. A wrong direction along the multiple signal sections from Streatham Common to Balham is not going to happen in this sort of case.

Clearly something went wrong - there are three clear hefty delays, I'm guessing one before Balham querying the route, one at Selhurst watching trains on the fast line which may have triggered the alarms, then the usual waiting at Windmill Bridge while half a dozen Thameslinks passed.

Going by RTT, if it is accurate, it seems to me that it would have been quicker to accept the route down the slow as there didn't seem to be much in the way at that time of day.

Clearly the passengers have every right to be annoyed and some sort of compensation is in order.

However the newspaper appears to have cobbled a report out of some tweets and some misunderstandings about engineering works and how railways work. When did The Independent become so tabloid?

 

[northwichcat]

BB21 has it totally right. Attempting to catch a flight at 9 am Sunday morning to far-flung destination like Tobago as a once in a lifetime trip, by leaving at 0630 by GTR Gatex is 'courageous' to put it mildly.

Airports usually advise that for European flights you should arrive at least 2 hours before your flight departures and at least 3 hours for destinations further afield. The 06:30 is supposed to arrive at 07:06. One passenger referred to in the story was planning to catch a 09:05 flight to Rome, it seems the Tobago flight is 9am so the Rome passenger was borderline, while the Tobago passenger should certainly have travelled earlier, especially considering the 06:30 isn't the first train of the day.

 

[sprunt]

TBH I do think EU261 is unreasonable, expecting airlines to cough up EUR250 when the ticket price might have been a fraction of that.

But the cost to a passenger resulting from a cancellation bears no relation to the price they paid for their ticket. I had a flight cancelled earlier this year, and was consequently unable to get home until the next day costing me a day's work. Why should I not be compensated for that loss as a result of a company I'd entered into a contract with not upholding their side of the bargain?

 

[Surreytraveller]

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.

Exactly. There's no need for a driver to know about possessions (unless driving an engineering train into a block), as they can expect not to be routed towards a possession!

 

[northwichcat]

Trying to find out why it did not reverse at Streatham? Well Streatham is on a different line for one thing, if they meant Streatham Common, as we've established, there are no more crossovers to the fast until East Croydon so this would not have been possible. A wrong direction along the multiple signal sections from Streatham Common to Balham is not going to happen in this sort of case.

It's not a piece written for enthusiasts or rail industry workers. Presumably Streatham in the context of the article means on track in the vicinity of Streatham, not specifically at a station called Streatham station, as all Gatwick Express told them was it was not possible at Balham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the cost to a passenger resulting from a cancellation bears no relation to the price they paid for their ticket. I had a flight cancelled earlier this year, and was consequently unable to get home until the next day costing me a day's work. Why should I not be compensated for that loss as a result of a company I'd entered into a contract with not upholding their side of the bargain?

Because that's what insurance is for. There have to be limits, otherwise you could have someone missing out on a $1bn business deal claiming that off the airline.

FWIW, everyone who lost financially through this piece of incompetence will, assuming they were prudent and had adequate travel insurance and allowed journey slack as their insurer specified, have been able to claim the costs it caused (e.g. a new flight) from them. Obviously, though, those with irreplaceable arrangements like weddings, cruises etc are a bit stuck, but then I don't believe in financial compensation for non-financial losses as a principle anyway; those people really should have travelled the previous day to ensure there were no issues.

 

[northwichcat]

Because that's what insurance is for. There have to be limits, otherwise you could have someone missing out on a $1bn business deal claiming that off the airline.

If you had single trip insurance and your airline didn't get back on the scheduled date would you still be covered under your insurance?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you had single trip insurance and your airline didn't get back on the scheduled date would you still be covered under your insurance?

Regular travel insurance wouldn't, no. But you can insure against any risk you wish; speak to a broker[1]. To most people in most circumstances, an employer would allow a day's holiday to be taken at short notice (with a "be more careful next time" rider) in such circumstances provided they were notified as soon as was practical of the issue. Those who are self employed need to consider what cover they require in their circumstances or just accept the risk.

The problem with consequential loss is that it could be very high - this is why insurance exists, and why brokers exist to write policies for an individual's specific circumstances if these are unusual.

[1] AIUI a previous employer actually did take out a custom policy against one of their project managers being seriously injured by going on holiday to the Pamplona bull run, so critical he was to the projects he was on, and given that nothing in his contract stated he couldn't take part in dangerous activities when on holiday so they could hardly stop him.

 

[northwichcat]

Regular travel insurance wouldn't, no. But you can insure against any risk you wish; speak to a broker[1]. To most people in most circumstances, an employer would allow a day's holiday to be taken at short notice (with a "be more careful next time" rider) in such circumstances provided they were notified as soon as was practical of the issue. Those who are self employed need to consider what cover they require in their circumstances or just accept the risk.

The problem with consequential loss is that it could be very high - this is why insurance exists, and why brokers exist to write policies for an individual's specific circumstances if these are unusual.

[1] AIUI a previous employer actually did take out a custom policy against one of their project managers being seriously injured by going on holiday to the Pamplona bull run, so critical he was to the projects he was on, and given that nothing in his contract stated he couldn't take part in dangerous activities when on holiday so they could hardly stop him.

Which means even if you have travel insurance protection, if your airline forces you to travel back on a later date due to a cancelled flight you might find yourself travelling back to the airport, the train breaks down, you miss your rescheduled flight and you have no protection.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to plan to return to work the day after your arrive back. Even if you don't get delayed and aren't likely to be jetlagged it doesn't give you much time to sort out shopping. laundry, any post/emails which arrived while you were away etc.

 

[Mintona]

I travelled from Gatwick on Friday at 12.50* and I travelled there on Thursday, arriving around 14.30. Plenty of time, no panic. I hate to rely on any type of transport getting me to an airport the day of the flight, I always try to book a hotel the night before. A few months ago we were trying to get to Heathrow for a 14.00ish flight, our local station had no car park spaces left and then we got stuck in an accident tailback whilst trying to drive to a bigger station nearby. Fortunately the trains ran perfectly when we did get there and so still made the flight, but it was looking dodgy for a while.

*12.50 was the scheduled departure time, at 12.45 everyone was on board and ready to go and then they told us we had to taxi to another part of the airfield to sit and wait for an hour because of ‘air traffic restrictions’. I don’t understand why air passengers put up with that kind of service, and yet people go nuts when a train is 10 minutes late. Can just imagine the reaction if the 17.45 from Paddington went and sat in Royal Oak sidings for an hour after leaving because there wasn’t any space for it to run on the main line.

 

[theironroad]

I travelled from Gatwick on Friday at 12.50* and I travelled there on Thursday, arriving around 14.30. Plenty of time, no panic. I hate to rely on any type of transport getting me to an airport the day of the flight, I always try to book a hotel the night before. A few months ago we were trying to get to Heathrow for a 14.00ish flight, our local station had no car park spaces left and then we got stuck in an accident tailback whilst trying to drive to a bigger station nearby. Fortunately the trains ran perfectly when we did get there and so still made the flight, but it was looking dodgy for a while.

*12.50 was the scheduled departure time, at 12.45 everyone was on board and ready to go and then they told us we had to taxi to another part of the airfield to sit and wait for an hour because of ‘air traffic restrictions’. I don’t understand why air passengers put up with that kind of service, and yet people go nuts when a train is 10 minutes late. Can just imagine the reaction if the 17.45 from Paddington went and sat in Royal Oak sidings for an hour after leaving because there wasn’t any space for it to run on the main line.

My understanding of this is that ATC (or possibly a related control function) won't consider an aircraft ready for a take off slot until it is fully boarded,door closed and wheels ready to move. So it seems that rather than let passengers wait in the terminal even when they know there will be a lengthy delay, airlines would rather get every one on board and endure a lengthy tarmac delay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which means even if you have travel insurance protection, if your airline forces you to travel back on a later date due to a cancelled flight you might find yourself travelling back to the airport, the train breaks down, you miss your rescheduled flight and you have no protection.

Oh you meant that? I would expect that to be covered, but as ever read your policy and don’t just select the cheapest.

 

[HowardGWR]

One important factor is how far you begin your journey from home to the airport and how complex (changes) it involves. Despite Gatex and Thameslink, Gatwick is not easily accessible from afar. Admittedly the folk on this occasion were very unlucky, but it just backs up the point just made by Mintona.

 

[otomous]

It's not a piece written for enthusiasts or rail industry workers. Presumably Streatham in the context of the article means on track in the vicinity of Streatham, not specifically at a station called Streatham station, as all Gatwick Express told them was it was not possible at Balham.

That’s not the point. The point is the article contains, as usual, several generalisations or misleading notions, which does not do us any favours when we have to explain things to the public.

 

[sprunt]

Because that's what insurance is for. There have to be limits, otherwise you could have someone missing out on a $1bn business deal claiming that off the airline.

Why should it be my responsibility to spend money insuring myself against another party's failure? They should compensate me, and insure themselves against that loss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why should it be my responsibility to spend money insuring myself against another party's failure? They should compensate me, and insure themselves against that loss.

Because consequential loss can be absolutely huge, and having to pay out for it with effectively unlimited liability would be a serious dissuader to setting up any business.

For that reason, most businesses are only liable for direct losses and not consequential ones.

 

[northwichcat]

That’s not the point. The point is the article contains, as usual, several generalisations or misleading notions, which does not do us any favours when we have to explain things to the public.

the train was misrouted by a signalling error at Balham onto the slow line. Normally this would not be a problem, because it would simply be routed back to the fast line. But the tracks were blocked between Selhurst and East Croydon by engineering work.

To me that reads as the slow line was open but the fast lines was closed due to engineering works which prevented the train being sent back at Balham. It can't possibly suggest the slow lines were blocked because it specifically said the train ran down the slow line!

If the "tracks were blocked between Selhurst and East Croydon by engineering works" then NO trains would be able to reach East Croydon from Selhurst anyway! It appears that the FAST lines were blocked

So basically you're saying the article is wrong because you've misinterpreted it.

 

[underbank]

TBH I do think EU261 is unreasonable, expecting airlines to cough up EUR250 when the ticket price might have been a fraction of that.

Why should the compensation/damages be restricted to the price paid?? As an accountant, if I charge, say £100 for some duff advice and the client ends up thousands out of pocket having followed my duff advice, it's me that's liable to compensate him for ALL his losses directly relating to my duff advice, not just the £100 he paid for it. The medical profession can be liable for millions of pounds of compo for botched operations etc - again completely out of proportion to what, if anything, the patient paid for it. Businesses usually have indemnity insurance and/or product liability insurance to cover the consequential loss - surely rail firms and airlines should do the same.

 

[LAX54]

Wouldnt the driver also have some responsibility, although standing instructions may be accept any route I would expect them to be aware of which tracks were open on the day.

Yes and No ! A wrong route if taken is always 50/50, however when there are diversionary routes that are regular routes taken, then maybe no, we have routed down IC services London to Norwich round small blocks at Ipswich, which takes them along the Up & Down Lowestoft some ask 'where am I going siggy' ?
With GSM-R only takes a minute to double check

 

[LAX54]

It isn't reasonable to expect people to leave two hours *additional slack* on a short haul flight. For short haul check in closes at 40 minutes, typically, so in practice an hour minimum. Most sensible people will leave on top of that the possibility of one cancelled train or an additional hour, whichever is longer, so two hours before. So this was clearly going to cause a load of missed flights, and as it was due to incompetence...

or just a simple mistake, that everyone can make from time to time !

 

[Dieseldriver]

Only time a Driver needs to query a route is if it is a 'point of no return' for station calls/line of route or their train is unsuitable for it (a passenger train down a goods line or electric train down an unelectrified loop for example).
In the case of a class 1 train being routed onto a slow line, there would be no reason to query it unless there's a glaringly obvious issue (which in this case there wouldn't have been for the Driver concerned).

 

[Surreytraveller]

or just a simple mistake, that everyone can make from time to time !

Some jobs you are paid a lot of money not to make silly mistakes, as a silly mistake can have massive consequences.

 

[underbank]

Some jobs you are paid a lot of money not to make silly mistakes, as a silly mistake can have massive consequences.

And some people are responsible for the mistakes they make, i.e. by losing their job or having to pay compensation out of their own pocket.

 

[GB]

Some jobs you are paid a lot of money not to make silly mistakes, as a silly mistake can have massive consequences.

Doesn't matter how much someone gets paid. In the history of human employment mistakes always have and always will happen.