Gatwick Express service went the wrong way after previous service cancelled

[EAD]

This thread has drifted around a bit: is anything more known about what actually happened?

Meanwhile, it is an interesting insight into how people view travel against risks. What the casual reader can observe is that:

a) a lot of people it appears maybe fly only for holidays as opposed to needing to do so for work and so have the luxury of building in a hotel stay at the airport and many hours of buffer to make that flight. To be clear - of course you need to build in a reasonable buffer and allow for check in (if relevant - usually that is painless now with it being on your phone and only a bag drop if needed).

b) there is a split opinion on Regulation 261/2004 compensation - all I would say is it is up to you if you want to claim or not.

On the ATC points above - slot restrictions are regulated by Eurocontrol. The situation is fluid and changes all the time. You have to be loaded and ready to go for your slot - if it gets pushed back through restrictions then you are ready to react to any changes e.g. your flight-plan team can be looking to re-route and get a new slot on that basis or the issue clears (weather at destination/en route/closed space etc.).

 

[bnm]

Delays on the roads never happen.....

Who have you paid to provide the service of getting you from A to B with reasonable care and skill when driving yourself?

if they can afford to sue

£105 for a claim of up to £3000. As little as £25 for a claim up to £300.

As for the many times travel disruption insurance is mentioned in this thread then its worth noting that most insurers require you to seek compensation from the service provider (including any claims for consequential loss) before making a claim on the insurance. So, for those mentioned in the article (all of whom would have arrived before their minimum check-in time had the train been on time), their first port of call is a request to the train operator for compensation under the Consumer Rights Act.

 

[Dieseldriver]

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.

And you don't think that Drivers/Signallers face consequences for making mistakes? It's one of the reasons I am so paranoid during my working life and so committed to trying to do the job as safely and professionally as I can (as are the vast majority of my colleagues).
Maybe educate yourself on what Signallers and Drivers responsibilities are and how seriously incidents are taken (and rightly so).

 

[sarahj]

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).

Often on the late night/early and sunday morning trains, the fact is you often get switched from line to line quite often. I've had it where I was sure the signaler was just testing not often used points as we switched over and then back again, just up the line and no guys in orange around. So early on a sunday morning, unless you were switched over and you could see STOP boards on the line, there would be no reason to question, unless it was taking you off your known routes.

 

[otomous]

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!



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

No this is not the case. Certainly the fast lines between Selhurst and East Croydon were closed. The train travelled from Victoria to Balham where it looks as if it should have been switched to the down fast UNTIL Selhurst, but it continued down the slow instead.

I have not misinterpreted anything. The article is misleading. I have a rather more intimate knowledge of the lines in question than The Independent, the passengers on Twitter, and most of the posters on here, so I venture that I am well placed to respond as I have.

 

[hwl]

No this is not the case. Certainly the fast lines between Selhurst and East Croydon were closed. The train travelled from Victoria to Balham where it looks as if it should have been switched to the down fast UNTIL Selhurst, but it continued down the slow instead.

I have not misinterpreted anything. The article is misleading. I have a rather more intimate knowledge of the lines in question than The Independent, the passengers on Twitter, and most of the posters on here, so I venture that I am well placed to respond as I have.

Agreed.
The Fast lines were closed Victoria - Balham and Selhurst - East Croydon.
So it should have run slow lines Vic - Balham then fast lines till Selhurst to overtake the slow Sutton service in front before going back to the slow lines at Selhurst.

 

[northwichcat]

I have a rather more intimate knowledge of the lines in question than The Independent, the passengers on Twitter, and most of the posters on here, so I venture that I am well placed to respond as I have.

And that's the issue. You're not the average reader and you seem to think it should be explained in a way which would be confusing to passengers to be 100% factually correct. Like I've said previously it sounds like they asked Gatwick Express or Network Rail for a comment and didn't get one so they said "We are trying to establish why" opposed to dismissing an option which they didn't know whether or not it was possible. Using the names of districts like Streatham and Balham is probably confusing enough to passengers, with many probably only really aware the train starts in London and ends at Gatwick Airport, given it will include a lot of tourists not from the area and the train doesn't stop at any intermediate stations.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Exactly. Newspapers exist to sell newspapers. They are not there to establish an intimatly factually correct account of what happened. They would need to interview the train driver and signaller for that to occur. All the newspaper is interested in is reporting the fact that a load of passengers on a train missed their aeroplanes at Gatwick Airport because the railway industry c0cked up.

 

[theironroad]

Exactly. Newspapers exist to sell newspapers. They are not there to establish an intimatly factually correct account of what happened. They would need to interview the train driver and signaller for that to occur. All the newspaper is interested in is reporting the fact that a load of passengers on a train missed their aeroplanes at Gatwick Airport because the railway industry c0cked up.

Well it would be good if some newspapers stick to report 'facts' rather than trawling twitter for what the equivalent of some blokes and women said down the pub .

I'm not going to use that 'Fa**' word in relation to news,but a lot of people do still take everything they read in a paper as the gospel truth when in reality a lot of journalism is pretty poor these days when it comes to ascertaining facts and truth.

 

[northwichcat]

Well it would be good if some newspapers stick to report 'facts' rather than trawling twitter for what the equivalent of some blokes and women said down the pub .

06:30 train cancelled due to staff shortages - fact
07:00 train arrived 57 minutes late after departing on time - fact
Price of Gatwick Express ticket - fact
Changes to NRCoT and the Consumer Right Act of 2015 - fact
Gatwick Express' Delay Repay scheme - fact
Gatwick Express' punctuality record - fact
Stories of those affected - normal for a news report to include even if a mix of fact and opinion.

 

[theironroad]

06:30 train cancelled due to staff shortages - fact
07:00 train arrived 57 minutes late after departing on time - fact
Price of Gatwick Express ticket - fact
Changes to NRCoT and the Consumer Right Act of 2015 - fact
Gatwick Express' Delay Repay scheme - fact
Gatwick Express' punctuality record - fact
Stories of those affected - normal for a news report to include even if a mix of fact and opinion.

Thanks for the detailed analysis of the report cited in the op. However, as the conversation had drifted and evolved somewhat my post was a more general observation of journalistic reporting rather an analysis of the original article which I didn't reference, but I guess you knew that anyway.

 

[joncombe]

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.

Whilst i can quite understanding chosing to stay at a hotel before an early flight (especially for piece of mind), it's not practical for anything but a small perecentage of passengers. At a busy airport like Gatwick there are well over 100 flights before 9am every day. Assuming a typical load of 100 passengers per flight (this is probably way too low), you can see there is nothing like enough hotel beds at or within walking distance of Gatwick for this to be an option for more than a tiny fraction of the passengers. This is why reliable transport to the airport is so important.

 

[CeeJ]

So perhaps a solution is the any ticket bought with an airport destination (Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Luton), is insured for certain consequential losses (i.e. the cost of rebooking a flight, or a refund of said flight if its untenable to fly) if it is something that is either the fault of Network Rail or the operator which results in a delay of more than 60 minutes. Would of course only apply If the train was due to arrive at least 2 hours (or 2 and a half hours for Luton, where there is a bus transfer) before the scheduled flight. It could even only cover the cost of the insurance excess, but I think most insurers don't cover for delays in the UK, so that would have to be looked in to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So perhaps a solution is the any ticket bought with an airport destination (Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Luton), is insured for certain consequential losses (i.e. the cost of rebooking a flight, or a refund of said flight if its untenable to fly) if it is something that is either the fault of Network Rail or the operator which results in a delay of more than 60 minutes. Would of course only apply If the train was due to arrive at least 2 hours (or 2 and a half hours for Luton, where there is a bus transfer) before the scheduled flight. It could even only cover the cost of the insurance excess, but I think most insurers don't cover for delays in the UK, so that would have to be looked in to.

Or just that people take out the appropriate travel insurance before their trip. It's dirt cheap, what, 50-60 quid a year for unlimited worldwide trips, or about 12 quid a trip for a one off. You even get it free with all sorts of things e.g. bank accounts and home insurance policies, and those free policies aren't the rubbish ones, either. If you can't afford it, you can't afford to travel - simple as that. It is as important as your flight ticket.

And yes, it does cover delays within the UK that knock onto an international journey, unless you take an incredibly cheap medical-expenses-only policy, but if you do you are a fool unless you have the funds and intention to self-insure (but if you do don't whine about it, just take the money out of the account where you have set it aside for that purpose).

But if your trip will be ruined if you miss the flight even if you get all your money back (e.g. those on group holidays or cruises), that's the time to book a hotel to make sure.

 

[CeeJ]

Or just that people take out the appropriate travel insurance before their trip. It's dirt cheap, what, 50-60 quid a year for unlimited worldwide trips, or about 12 quid a trip for a one off. If you can't afford it, you can't afford to travel - simple as that. It is as important as your flight ticket.

And yes, it does cover delays within the UK that knock onto an international journey, unless you take an incredibly cheap medical-expenses-only policy, but if you do you are a fool.

But if your trip will be ruined if you miss the flight even if you get all your money back (e.g. those on group holidays or cruises), that's the time to book a hotel to make sure.

Having read the T&Cs of my own world travel insurance, it appears that is the case! In that instance, it would be appropriate to cover the cost of the excess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having read the T&Cs of my own world travel insurance, it appears that is the case! In that instance, it would be appropriate to cover the cost of the excess.

TBH I'd just say cough up Delay Repay as usual, which can contribute to it. May even exceed it for the kind of delays we're talking about, depending obviously on the policy.

 

[bb21]

Whilst i can quite understanding chosing to stay at a hotel before an early flight (especially for piece of mind), it's not practical for anything but a small perecentage of passengers. At a busy airport like Gatwick there are well over 100 flights before 9am every day. Assuming a typical load of 100 passengers per flight (this is probably way too low), you can see there is nothing like enough hotel beds at or within walking distance of Gatwick for this to be an option for more than a tiny fraction of the passengers. This is why reliable transport to the airport is so important.

Yes, you do have a point there.

However if more people on early flights decided to take the safe option and demand could not keep up, there is no doubt that we would see more hotels springing up around airports too. There may eventually be a limit to how many can be accommodated but I don't think we are anywhere near that limit yet. I regularly need to check hotel prices around different airports in the country and have yet to really struggle to find an acceptable choice once around the bigger ones like Heathrow and Gatwick, and I don't exactly have a massive budget so currently the supply is still plentiful in general.

It is unfeasible to expect everyone to do this, and some people simply would not do it whatever happens. It is also understandable somewhat that certain journey profiles (people travelling alone, on short-haul flights with good alternatives, going on business meetings, etc) reasonably allows people to take on slightly higher risks, but I find it quite astonishing someone in the two examples quoted (one a family holiday, the other a far-away destination) would be willing to risk not making it to the airport by travelling in the morning with very little back-up considering the importance of these journeys. Maybe I am wrong to assume they were considered important trips. I don't know.

None of it takes the obligation away from the operator to provide a satisfactory level of service however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think as you say the time-critical nature of the flight varies. As I said, for a cruise or organised group tour holiday, you don't want to take the risk at all, so go for the hotel. But if you're flying somewhere in Europe on an independent trip and you've got an alternative flight 3 hours later, your insurance will cough up, so why take the hit? Similarly on business if you're on a flexible ticket, by all means cut it fine, you can just change your ticket and get your laptop out if you miss it (I've done exactly that before, though I have only missed a flight once!)

Even a family holiday might not be that important if you're just going to somewhere in southern Spain where there are likely to be plenty of flights, or worst case you spend a day at Gatwick and go in the morning, paid for by your insurance.

 

[bb21]

I think the time-critical nature of the flight varies. As I said, for a cruise or organised group tour holiday, you don't want to take the risk at all, so go for the hotel. But if you're flying somewhere in Europe on an independent trip and you've got an alternative flight 3 hours later, your insurance will cough up, so why take the hit? Similarly on business if you're on a flexible ticket, by all means cut it fine, you can just change your ticket and get your laptop out if you miss it (I've done exactly that before, though I have only missed a flight once!)

Yes, i did mention that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, i did mention that.

Sorry, edited my post to say "as you said" just as you posted that

 

[Mag_seven]

So perhaps a solution is the any ticket bought with an airport destination (Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Luton), is insured for certain consequential losses

There are lots of tickets that people use to get to airports that won't have an airport destination on them however. e.g. legitimate stopping short, rover tickets, season tickets etc.

 

[CeeJ]

TBH I'd just say cough up Delay Repay as usual, which can contribute to it. May even exceed it for the kind of delays we're talking about, depending obviously on the policy.

I see the logic in this - but essentially delay repay is just compensation for expenses already incurred.

There are lots of tickets that people use to get to airports that won't have an airport destination on them however. e.g. legitimate stopping short, rover tickets, season tickets etc.

Good point, perhaps then just apply usual delay repay mechanisms (proof of valid journey).

 

[northwichcat]

Whilst i can quite understanding chosing to stay at a hotel before an early flight (especially for piece of mind), it's not practical for anything but a small perecentage of passengers. At a busy airport like Gatwick there are well over 100 flights before 9am every day. Assuming a typical load of 100 passengers per flight (this is probably way too low), you can see there is nothing like enough hotel beds at or within walking distance of Gatwick for this to be an option for more than a tiny fraction of the passengers. This is why reliable transport to the airport is so important.

Gatwick's average flight loading is 159. If the timetable is similar to Manchester Airport then a lot of the early arrivals and departures will be long distance flights using large aircraft meaning the average morning loading is higher than the average afternoon loading.

 

[northwichcat]

Having read the T&Cs of my own world travel insurance, it appears that is the case! In that instance, it would be appropriate to cover the cost of the excess.

Not sure if that would work. Say the new flight costs £200 and your excess is £50, would the insurance company see the amount they have to pay still as £200 minus the excess or would they now see it as £150 minus the excess as another party has already given you £50?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure if that would work. Say the new flight costs £200 and your excess is £50, would the insurance company see the amount they have to pay still as £200 minus the excess or would they now see it as £150 minus the excess as another party has already given you £50?

Depends on how the policy is written. Certainly with car insurance having cover on the excess does not reduce the payout provided that cover *is* excess cover and not joint/several liability.

 

[Muzer]

Whatever you plan for sometimes crazy numbers of things can combine to go wrong and ruin the first day or so of your trip. My friends and I a few years back had a trip where we intended to travel on every DB sleeper (back when they still existed). One of my friends was delayed on the road down to Southampton where he was to meet us, delayed by about an hour and missing our intended train. Then we had problems on the Southern service to Gatwick, being delayed by about a further hour and a half to two hours if I recall (this was not actually strike related but was down to a whole bunch of broken down trains). Then there was a huge queue at security, causing us to miss our flight. But that's OK, there was a later flight that still would have made it in time for the sleeper. After buying a new ticket (budget airlines...) for this, we then sat on the tarmac for three hours. Got into Amsterdam many hours late and missed our sleeper. Still managed to recover the holiday though by booking an expensive last-minute flight to Zurich, from which point onwards, everything went off without a hitch (besides the small matter of us voting to leave the EU).

 

[al78]

True, and the vast majority of the time you will get where you need to be by train far more reliably than by car.

But mistakes happen, equipment fails, things go wrong. Worst case scenario (happens almost daily somewhere), someone jumps in front of the train immediately ahead of yours. All bets are off and you’re not going anywhere for a couple of hours.

That’s life.

As always with these threads I find it regrettable that a forum of railway enthusiasts doesn’t seem to have any more insight into these issues than the man on the street.

When making a journey, at some point you have to decide how much slack to allow before you have any knowledge of delays/cock-ups that are going to affect your journey in the future. It doesn't matter how much slack you include, if the delay then exceeds the slack. The best you can do is a probabilistic estimate of what the maximum delay is likely to be and plan for that. If you then get the ridiculous extreme delay you are still stuffed.

How much slack do you expect people to incorporate into a journey? One hour? Two hours? Five hours? A full day? If all those in authority can do is blame the victims and try to dismiss every act of carelessness as "that's life", because no-one can be bothered to make an effort to improve things, it will end up getting to the point where it is quicker to ride a bicycle than use a train, at which point you might as well rip it all up and replace with roads, since it will be unfit for purpose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How much slack do you expect people to incorporate into a journey? One hour? Two hours? Five hours? A full day? If all those in authority can do is blame the victims and try to dismiss every act of carelessness as "that's life", because no-one can be bothered to make an effort to improve things, it will end up getting to the point where it is quicker to ride a bicycle than use a train, at which point you might as well rip it all up and replace with roads, since it will be unfit for purpose.

It depends on how critical the journey is and what the effect of failing to make it would be. Because it's all very well saying it's someone else's fault, but that doesn't stop it having happened.

It's similar to road traffic collisions. You don't want to have a crash, because you might die even if it is someone else's fault, and even if you don't it's a load of administrative faff. So it is prudent to drive defensively and give leeway for the errors of others, even if you might well get your car fixed and a whackload of compensation if they did hit you.

 

[northwichcat]

It depends on how critical the journey is and what the effect of failing to make it would be. Because it's all very well saying it's someone else's fault, but that doesn't stop it having happened.

It's similar to road traffic collisions. You don't want to have a crash, because you might die even if it is someone else's fault, and even if you don't it's a load of administrative faff. So it is prudent to drive defensively and give leeway for the errors of others, even if you might well get your car fixed and a whackload of compensation if they did hit you.

Sometimes it's hard to estimate. Off the top of my head two occasions I can think of when someone has collected me from Manchester Airport:
1. A flight arriving late afternoon on a Friday when the following Monday was a Bank Holiday
2. A flight arriving mid morning on a Sunday.

Which do you think took longest? In the first case I expected it to take longer than usual to get back but it didn't, the roads seemed unusually quiet considering the time. The second occasion I expected it to be relatively quick to get back but I was wrong, apart from a delay in leaving the pick up zone, it seemed everyone with a bike had taken to the roads that day and with a lot of bends in the road it meant not travelling much faster than the cyclists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it's hard to estimate, and the journey is critical, you leave more slack.

I find Google Maps to be quite accurate these days though.