Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Dave91131]

Crystal clear information from the LNER website about the requirement, or lack of, for face coverings on stations:

Face coverings must be worn on our trains, and are encouraged in our stations

And 2 sentences further on:

Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard

Has anyone travelled with LNER in recent days to know which policy, correctly or otherwise, they are adopting?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crystal clear information from LNER about half way down the below link about the requirement, or lack of, for face coverings on stations.

I think you mean "contradictory"!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Crystal clear information from LNER about half way down the below link about the requirement, or lack of, for face coverings on stations.

Travelling with LNER | LNER

To help your train journey run smoothly, we've got some top tips for travelling with LNER

www.lner.co.uk

Excellent - very well done to be fair.

 

[Dave91131]

I think you mean "contradictory"!

Absolutely!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Excellent - very well done to be fair.

It's not, it's contradictory. One part of it says masks are compulsory on trains and stations, and another part directly above it says they are compulsory on trains but strongly desired (I forget the wording) on stations. That is as poor as poor can be.

Does anyone proof read anything before publishing it any more? Or were the proof readers all furloughed?

 

[alex397]

I am getting concerned that the railways may not recover for months, if not years, due to both bad publicity and the fact they don’t want anyone back.

I share your concerns. I also think that buses will be much more severely affected than trains. Councils have no obligation to fund bus services - with extra financial issues as a result of the virus, and a drop in passengers on lightly used routes (which council-funded routes often are), could see reductions on such routes. With commercial routes, some may no longer be commercially viable, at least in the short term.

Regardless of people's views on mandatory face coverings, I wonder if it could have been used as a marketing tool to try and make public transport seem safer for passengers. For me, even as a huge fan of public transport, and knowing that public transport probably isn't quite as unsafe as has been portrayed, the idea of travelling on a bus or train makes me feel uncomfortable at the moment. There needs to be some sort of marketing to try and get rid of the image of public transport being like a mobile petri dish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There needs to be some sort of marketing to try and get rid of the image of public transport being like a mobile petri dish.

The thing is, some of it (most notably the deep Tube) basically is. Aren't we just being honest with ourselves?

 

[Mojo]

Do you have a link to this on Twitter/similar?

That cannot be an official policy. It must be down to a misunderstanding by the staff concerned (who will likely be NR rent-a-thugs rather than TOC staff. Victoria has a large presence of these due to some of the regular “clientele”).

They will be the latter. I’ve been past a number of Network Rail managed major stations in London and they all have large numbers of agency security staff in either pink or yellow hi-vis jackets, all of which are rudely directing customers and/or gesturing people to put on a face covering. I’ve seen this today at Kings +, Cannon St, and Victoria.

 

[alex397]

The thing is, some of it (most notably the deep Tube) basically is. Aren't we just being honest with ourselves?

Yes, that is the awkward thing....

But there are some trains and buses running around empty, when instead they could have just a handful of passengers, socially distancing and with masks on. Its going to be a difficult balance of trying to encourage more users, but not too many.

It probably is too early to try and encourage more people - as we arn't quite out of this yet!

 

[route101]

They will be the latter. I’ve been past a number of Network Rail managed major stations in London and they all have large numbers of agency security staff in either pink or yellow hi-vis jackets, all of which are rudely directing customers and/or gesturing people to put on a face covering. I’ve seen this today at Kings +, Cannon St, and Victoria.

They have them at Glasgow Central too , to enfoce a one way system into the station.

 

[Dave91131]

It's not, it's contradictory. One part of it says masks are compulsory on trains and stations, and another part directly above it says they are compulsory on trains but strongly desired (I forget the wording) on stations. That is as poor as poor can be.

Does anyone proof read anything before publishing it any more? Or were the proof readers all furloughed?

I have just copied & pasted the below from the LNER website, from just above the contradictory face covering information, and I have bolded 2 basic errors.

Our advice is to booked ahead and go contactless with eTickets on your phone. Choose quieter times to travel and when you're ready, make sure you familise yourself with our five step guide to your journey during Coronavirus

Poor, very poor.

 

[PupCuff]

They will be the latter. I’ve been past a number of Network Rail managed major stations in London and they all have large numbers of agency security staff in either pink or yellow hi-vis jackets, all of which are rudely directing customers and/or gesturing people to put on a face covering. I’ve seen this today at Kings +, Cannon St, and Victoria.

I genuinely do wonder who in the industry thinks this sort of thing is acceptable; it causes conflict and it reflects badly on the properly trained industry professionals. There'll always be one or two bad eggs who'll need more active management but putting contractors in with little training and allowing them to speak to the customers like something on the bottom of their shoe just exposes a dire lack of effective leadership, and it's endemic in certain factions of the industry.

 

[island]

Do you have a link to this on Twitter/similar?

As said above this was privately related to me by a friend travelling from Victoria this evening.

 

[43066]

Its going to be a difficult balance of trying to encourage more users, but not too many.

It probably is too early to try and encourage more people - as we arn't quite out of this yet!

I disagree with this.

We need to encourage as many people as possible to travel, and to get back to work ASAP, even if that means accepting more deaths from the virus (note: that doesn’t necessarily mean more deaths overall, but it might mean more deaths from that particular cause). The ridiculous requirement to wear masks is having the opposite effect for many, and is feeding peoples’ paranoia.

We need to accept that we are going to have to live with this virus, re-open the economy, and get back to normal imminently. Otherwise, there will simply be nothing left, including a functioning health service.

 

[island]

How is it going? I would not know where to start

I am thoroughly bamboozled.

Probably easier than ever, as there are online sales options etc.

A start would be booking some test drives with a dealer and see what you like, though.

We are looking online first of all to try to get some information together.

 

[Journeyman]

I disagree with this.

We need to encourage as many people as possible to travel, and to get back to work ASAP, even if that means accepting more deaths from the virus (note: that doesn’t necessarily mean more deaths overall, but it might mean more deaths from that particular cause). The ridiculous requirement to wear masks is having the opposite effect for many, and is feeding peoples’ paranoia.

We need to accept that we are going to have to live with this virus, re-open the economy, and get back to normal imminently. Otherwise, there will simply be nothing left, including a functioning health service.

Absolutely. No-one is willing to be accountable for this, or explain how we're going to deal with the potential negative consequences. It might "reassure" some people, but ultimately it's absolute nonsense, and now it's been implemented, it's going to be almost impossible to reverse. People will continue to think that wearing masks is the only safe thing to do, and lo and behold, it'll become entrenched in society.

Like it or not, herd immunity is the only game in town.

 

[alex397]

I disagree with this.

We need to encourage as many people as possible to travel, and to get back to work ASAP, even if that means accepting more deaths from the virus (note: that doesn’t necessarily mean more deaths overall, but it might mean more deaths from that particular cause). The ridiculous requirement to wear masks is having the opposite effect for many, and is feeding peoples’ paranoia.

We need to accept that we are going to have to live with this virus, re-open the economy, and get back to normal imminently. Otherwise, there will simply be nothing left, including a functioning health service.

Hence why I thought it could be an opportunity for operators to show that transport isn't as unsafe as portrayed.

I agree we need to accept we need to live with the virus, and the masks are potentially a way of moving forward safely. We can't go exactly back to normal yet. No country appears to be going *exactly* back to normal.

Absolutely. No-one is willing to be accountable for this, or explain how we're going to deal with the potential negative consequences. It might "reassure" some people, but ultimately it's absolute nonsense, and now it's been implemented, it's going to be almost impossible to reverse. People will continue to think that wearing masks is the only safe thing to do, and lo and behold, it'll become entrenched in society.

Like it or not, herd immunity is the only game in town.

Except it isn't conclusive yet if herd immunity is effective or completely possible with Covid-19.

 

[Domh245]

Except it isn't conclusive yet if herd immunity is effective or completely possible with Covid-19.

If herd immunity doesn't work, then neither will a vaccine (which works on the same principle) and so your options are either continuing as we are now forever (no thank you) or accepting some people will die and getting on with life..

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Travellers at London Victoria (NR) are being refused entry to the station this evening by security staff unless wearing a mask. Free disposable masks are being provided. Exemptions are not being entertained.

Expect a prosecution soon then, from a genuine exemption unlawfully denied travel!

 

[ashkeba]

"Even with those that claim a positive effect, its in symptomatic people (i.e. people giving off large droplets).

That is not what symptomatic means, is it? Else there would be no asymptomatic spreaders and less need for everyone to wear masks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is not what symptomatic means, is it? Else there would be no asymptomatic spreaders and less need for everyone to wear masks.

It's hay fever season, and so a good many people with COVID19 who are not symptomatic of COVID19 will be spreading it through those symptoms.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It's not, it's contradictory. One part of it says masks are compulsory on trains and stations, and another part directly above it says they are compulsory on trains but strongly desired (I forget the wording) on stations. That is as poor as poor can be.

Does anyone proof read anything before publishing it any more? Or were the proof readers all furloughed?

I was multi tasking preparing dinner for the workers - so apologies ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was multi tasking preparing dinner for the workers - so apologies ...

No worries

 

[BJames]

It's not, it's contradictory. One part of it says masks are compulsory on trains and stations, and another part directly above it says they are compulsory on trains but strongly desired (I forget the wording) on stations. That is as poor as poor can be.

Does anyone proof read anything before publishing it any more? Or were the proof readers all furloughed?

This is really really poor from LNER. If they'd accidently contradicted themselves further down it would have been frustrating but there's literally two sentences pretty much one after the other saying completely different things (exact wording was "encouraged in our stations" vs "must be worn at stations"). Unbelievable and it makes policies like this unenforcable, two people could be quoting different viewpoints from the same webpage and both be right!

 

[Journeyman]

It's hay fever season, and so a good many people with COVID19 who are not symptomatic of COVID19 will be spreading it through those symptoms.

As a hay fever sufferer, I refuse to be treated like some sort of disgusting, dirty threat. Once that attitude sinks in, I'll end up being a social pariah every summer for the rest of my life.

 

[Enthusiast]

but there's literally two sentences pretty much one after the other saying completely different things

I must be reading a different version. In the one I'm reading it says:

"At the station - Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

"Onboard the train - Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

Is there nobody in government watching what these TOCs are spewing out? They can only be "gold plating" legislation in order to make train travel as unpleasant as possible.

Expect a prosecution soon then, from a genuine exemption unlawfully denied travel!

Or one from somebody not exempt having been unlawfully denied entry to the station.

 

[mmh]

I must be reading a different version. In the one I'm reading it says:

"At the station - Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

"Onboard the train - Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

There is a graphic which says "Face coverings must be worn on our trains, and are encouraged in our stations."

Two sentences below the graphic is this text: "Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

 

[Gadget88]

Face masks compulsory from tomorrow according to one of the Scottish newspapers. Scotrail refuse to say if I will be exempt with anxiety can anybody offer any advice?

 

[BJames]

I must be reading a different version. In the one I'm reading it says:

"At the station - Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

"Onboard the train - Face coverings must be worn at stations and onboard."

Is there nobody in government watching what these TOCs are spewing out? They can only be "gold plating" legislation in order to make train travel as unpleasant as possible.


Or one from somebody not exempt having been unlawfully denied entry to the station.

It says on a blue banner "Face coverings must be worn on our trains and encouraged in our stations" and then contradicts below with what you've said.

No matter anyway - we are in agreement here. We need to stop making travel such a horrifying idea for the general public.

 

[sheff1]

Crystal clear information from LNER about half way down the below link about the requirement, or lack of, for face coverings on stations.

Travelling with LNER | LNER

To help your train journey run smoothly, we've got some top tips for travelling with LNER

www.lner.co.uk

Crystal clear ?

"Face coverings must be worn on our trains, and are encouraged in our stations"

Two lines further down (their bold, not mine): "Face coverings must be worn at stations and on board"


Edit: I am obviously not the only one confused by this "crystal clear" information.