Driver refusing request to call at additional stations - is this really a thing?

[gaillark]

You basically have to carry on until you can bring your train home. Including if someone is threatening to kill themselves for hours and sitting above a bridge/tunnel etc. (you pray you’ve started/finished before those shifts). I know a driver who had an 18 hour shift because of that scenario!

The grim reality is that a jumper is cleaned up and dealt with far quicker than someone who spends hours deciding whether or not to do the deed…

Thanks @43066.

 

[Geeves]

Certainly lots of times during disruption the person controlling the screens is so hammered they never get round to adjusting the stopping pattern, so as mentioned trains arrive at places stopping specially, but no one knows about it! I know lots of instances where its paperwork or nothing, Controller John on the phone to said driver will not even cut it ha. Its the drivers prerogative and their record on the line after all.

 

[Shrop]

Of course I don't know whether the driver had received this but does the fact that the train was shown on the departure boards give any indication of this?

As a rail user never having been an employee, you have my sympathy, and I feel inclined to express concern about the apparently lackadaisical attitude towards passenger information.
Rail staff and management all too often seem to forget that passenger trains are run for the benefit of passengers and not just for the purpose of getting staff and trains into the right positions for their own convenience. Therefore, if a train is advertised on the platform to be stopping, it should be effectively a SPAD situation if it fails to stop. There could be some very limited exceptions, but the whimsical attitudes about the treatment of passengers, as is so often sadly the case (many, many times throughout the entire network every single day) is an absolute disgrace.
Simply forgetting to tell drivers about an additional stop, as has been intimated upthread, should be a disciplinary offence at very least, yet it seems to be seen by some within the industry as just something to have a laugh about.

 

[ComUtoR]

Rail staff and management all too often seem to forget that passenger trains are run for the benefit of passengers and not just for the purpose of getting staff and trains into the right positions for their own convenience.

There is the other side of this where staff need to be in place to ensure other services are run on time. If I'm diverted somewhere but my next service is elsewhere. What do you propose happens ?

What if I'm going to be late because of the additional pickups so my next service runs +10 and blocks the platform for those 10 minutes causing more delays ?

What if that not to stop order causes a member of staff to miss their pass train ?

There are so many variables that it's difficult to understand what is actually going on. Most Railway staff tens to understand the complexity and the reality.

I think those who wear the tinfoil hats often only year the voices in their head telling them how naughty the railway is.

Therefore, if a train is advertised on the platform to be stopping, it should be effectively a SPAD situation

How do you SPAD a station ? There is no signal or danger. Are you proposing putting a red at the end of the platform to force a stop ? You realise the Driver/Guard/etc. Could simply not open the doors many Drivers will trickle towards a station with a red to prevent PTI (platform train interface) issues if the train isn't booked to call there and the starter is red.

If your intention is that missing a station that is advertised should be considered equivilant to a SPAD then the Driver should then stop at the next station, detrain all passengers, and go ECS to depot. Medscreen, interview, probably about a week off. Not sure that's helpful for passengers either.

 

[Urban Gateline]

There are some drivers who flat out refuse additional calls on their last trip, or demand stops removed from the schedule prior to departure from a terminus on their last trip if starting late.

I had a case recently with my control, I was going to the cinema and needed to finish on time, I agreed to take the train to London, starting late from the terminus, on the agreement they would get a stop order to me to ensure I finish on time, or have me relieved by another driver on the way.

They never did organise anything, and I lost the cinema tickets as a result.

In future I'll simply use my right not to begin a trip that will push me into overtime. The favours seem to always be going in one direction.

I can't help but thinking the "goodwill" is disappearing from most grades for a multitude of reasons.

There has always been, and always will be times of friction between grades, however I hope that in most cases front line staff can stick together with solidarity. If a stop order is refused it really is most likely for a very good reason.

Exactly, I can see why you feel like that and don't blame you, nobody can be forced to work overtime and it's especially gutting to lose the cinema tickets having made those plans! This is why I never argued if a driver refused an SSO, I was just the messenger.

Very much agree with others above that any such orders should be on company issues paper/slips and only from those in authority, revenue staff shouldn't be getting involved and agency only if they are covering platforms but should still present the SSO properly!

 

[Shrop]

There is the other side of this where staff need to be in place to ensure other services are run on time. If I'm diverted somewhere but my next service is elsewhere. What do you propose happens ?

What if I'm going to be late because of the additional pickups so my next service runs +10 and blocks the platform for those 10 minutes causing more delays ?

What if that not to stop order causes a member of staff to miss their pass train ?

There are so many variables that it's difficult to understand what is actually going on. Most Railway staff tens to understand the complexity and the reality.

I think those who wear the tinfoil hats often only year the voices in their head telling them how naughty the railway is.



How do you SPAD a station ? There is no signal or danger. Are you proposing putting a red at the end of the platform to force a stop ? You realise the Driver/Guard/etc. Could simply not open the doors many Drivers will trickle towards a station with a red to prevent PTI (platform train interface) issues if the train isn't booked to call there and the starter is red.

If your intention is that missing a station that is advertised should be considered equivilant to a SPAD then the Driver should then stop at the next station, detrain all passengers, and go ECS to depot. Medscreen, interview, probably about a week off. Not sure that's helpful for passengers either.

The point is, if the train might not be stopping, why not just be honest with passengers, rather than misleading them into believing that it will be? Have you never been on the receiving end of this when needing to travel?
My mention of SPAD was obviously not literal, only to say that if passengers have been told that a train is coming for them, then operationally it should be accepted that this WILL happen. Imagine air travellers being told that their pilot decided to ignore their airport just because he was running late. Ah no, you might say, very different obviously. However it's pretty similar to the passengers, some of whom might just be using the train to head for their flight.

 

[skyhigh]

Therefore, if a train is advertised on the platform to be stopping, it should be effectively a SPAD situation if it fails to stop.

Right okay, so if the screens say the train is stopping but nobody told the driver and they go sailing through they get taken off trains and stood down for investigation?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

The point is, if the train might not be stopping, why not just be honest with passengers, rather than misleading them into believing that it will be? Have you never been on the receiving end of this when needing to travel?

You seem to be under the impression that situations like these are a deliberate attempt to mislead passengers. They are not - in disruption there are so many things going on that it can be easy to miss something. Staff are human, mistakes happen.

 

[357]

As a rail user never having been an employee, you have my sympathy, and I feel inclined to express concern about the apparently lackadaisical attitude towards passenger information.
Rail staff and management all too often seem to forget that passenger trains are run for the benefit of passengers and not just for the purpose of getting staff and trains into the right positions for their own convenience. Therefore, if a train is advertised on the platform to be stopping, it should be effectively a SPAD situation if it fails to stop. There could be some very limited exceptions, but the whimsical attitudes about the treatment of passengers, as is so often sadly the case (many, many times throughout the entire network every single day) is an absolute disgrace.
Simply forgetting to tell drivers about an additional stop, as has been intimated upthread, should be a disciplinary offence at very least, yet it seems to be seen by some within the industry as just something to have a laugh about.

Re: staff getting to the right places. And example from yesterday.

This train was cancelled because the inbound stock was so late: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P63012/2022-07-08

Then look here: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/simple/gb-nr:SOC/2022-07-08/1528

The driver for the 15:41 from Southend was supposed to travel passenger on that cancelled service. They had to catch the next down road half an hour later.

The next down road was diverted via platform 3 at Southend Central so the driver could get over to their train in platform 4 as quickly as possible.

This delayed the up road service.

The train from platform 4 had to run fast to Fenchurch Street

That's five trains affected by one incident

That's how important it is to move staff around during disruption

 

[Shrop]

Right okay, so if the screens say the train is stopping but nobody told the driver and they go sailing through they get taken off trains and stood down for investigation?

I'm talking about treating the incident with similar severity, with appropriate action accordingly. This may well not lead to any action against the driver, it's more likely to be the fault of the person who "forgot" to tell them, or who cared so little that they treated passenger information with contempt. I'm arguing the case that passengers are more than just objects of little or no significance. Even if some of them can be a right pain, that's not for the information providers to decide.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

Re: staff getting to the right places. And example from yesterday.

This train was cancelled because the inbound stock was so late: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P63012/2022-07-08

Then look here: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/simple/gb-nr:SOC/2022-07-08/1528

The driver for the 15:41 from Southend was supposed to travel passenger on that cancelled service. They had to catch the next down road half an hour later.

The next down road was diverted via platform 3 at Southend Central so the driver could get over to their train in platform 4 as quickly as possible.

This delayed the up road service.

The train from platform 4 had to run fast to Fenchurch Street

That's five trains affected by one incident

That's how important it is to move staff around during disruption

No dispute at all about the need to move drivers and trains around, my dispute is about the frequent and often avoidable contempt shown to passengers with misleading information.

 

[Edsmith]

Exactly, I can see why you feel like that and don't blame you, nobody can be forced to work overtime and it's especially gutting to lose the cinema tickets having made those plans! This is why I never argued if a driver refused an SSO, I was just the messenger.

Very much agree with others above that any such orders should be on company issues paper/slips and only from those in authority, revenue staff shouldn't be getting involved and agency only if they are covering platforms but should still present the SSO properly!

I can understand that but it's an inevitable fact of life that in any driving job, road or rail, there is no guarantee of finishing on time because of unexpected disruption etc.

 

[ComUtoR]

The point is, if the train might not be stopping, why not just be honest with passengers, rather than misleading them into believing that it will be?

There isn't any dishonesty. The process has failed because of a lack of communication. Whoever uploaded the data was most likely told the service will stop. The fact is doesn't, isn't dishonesty. It's an error.

, only to say that if passengers have been told that a train is coming for them, then operationally it should be accepted that this WILL happen.

I don't disagree.

Imagine air travellers being told that their pilot decided to ignore their airport just because he was running late. Ah no, you might say, very different obviously. However it's pretty similar to the passengers, some of whom might just be using the train to head for their flight.

You realise, of course, that pilots also go over their time and cause cancellations. I think it's also the case where some pilots don't 'sign' an airport either. (Happy to be corrected)

 

[LRV3004]

Only the other day my instructor was telling me how he refused a stop order. While working for his previous operator many years ago, he was asked to make an additional stop at Abergele & Pensarn late one evening. He told the station staff he couldn’t unless they were going to provide him with some very long planks of wood.
This was because, at the time, there was a Down Fast line at Abergele with the corresponding points to route trains into the platform controlled by the now-gone signal box. Because of the time, the signal box had been switched out for the evening and the points left in the ‘normal’ position as nothing else was due to call on the Down side!

 

[357]

I can understand that but it's an inevitable fact of life that in any driving job, road or rail, there is no guarantee of finishing on time because of unexpected disruption etc.

It's one thing to finish late because of disruption when it's unavoidable, it's another to finish late because of voluntary changes to your shift or starting your last journey knowing it will make you finish late

You'll be surprised how many drivers get on with it 99% of the time. It's the small minority of cases where a driver has plans after work and refuses that get remembered. For example, many drivers on a long weekend book a holiday with a flight in the afternoon after an early shift.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm talking about treating the incident with similar severity, with appropriate action accordingly.

Fail to calls are already investigated.

As mentioned already, this can lead to the Driver detraining all passengers at the next stop. How is that beneficial to the passenger ?

 

[bramling]

As a rail user never having been an employee, you have my sympathy, and I feel inclined to express concern about the apparently lackadaisical attitude towards passenger information.
Rail staff and management all too often seem to forget that passenger trains are run for the benefit of passengers and not just for the purpose of getting staff and trains into the right positions for their own convenience. Therefore, if a train is advertised on the platform to be stopping, it should be effectively a SPAD situation if it fails to stop. There could be some very limited exceptions, but the whimsical attitudes about the treatment of passengers, as is so often sadly the case (many, many times throughout the entire network every single day) is an absolute disgrace.
Simply forgetting to tell drivers about an additional stop, as has been intimated upthread, should be a disciplinary offence at very least, yet it seems to be seen by some within the industry as just something to have a laugh about.

The root of all this is that controls simply aren’t resourced to be able to handle disruption with this level of perfection. Workloads often rise to the point of bordering on the unmanageable. The industry doesn’t want to pay for vast numbers of control staff who would spend most of their time sitting around when everything is running fine (and to be fair there’s an argument that too many controllers can be a problem in itself). Unlikely to change.

 

[357]

The root of all this is that controls simply aren’t resourced to be able to handle disruption with this level of perfection. Workloads often rise to the point of bordering on the unmanageable. The industry doesn’t want to pay for vast numbers of control staff who would spend most of their time sitting around when everything is running fine (and to be fair there’s an argument that too many controllers can be a problem in itself). Unlikely to change.

Following on from this, no TOC wants to invest money in improving the situation.

Eg change the stopping pattern in one application, it automatically updates CIS, data feeds, driver iPad, and prints a stop order at a station to be given to a driver.

I mean, if they could put stop orders on our iPads (with correct notification and acknowledgement of course) it would solve most of the "issues" with stop orders not being given correctly!

 

[Shrop]

Fail to calls are already investigated.

As mentioned already, this can lead to the Driver detraining all passengers at the next stop. How is that beneficial to the passenger ?

There is no need whatsoever to stop the train just to investigate the incident, only a need to investigate why passengers have been given misleading or completely false information.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

Following on from this, no TOC wants to invest money in improving the situation.

Eg change the stopping pattern in one application, it automatically updates CIS, data feeds, driver iPad, and prints a stop order at a station to be given to a driver.

I mean, if they could put stop orders on our iPads (with correct notification and acknowledgement of course) it would solve most of the "issues" with stop orders not being given correctly!

Yes, it's not rocket science, and should be manageable without this crazy interpretation that it would have massive resource implications.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

The root of all this is that controls simply aren’t resourced to be able to handle disruption with this level of perfection. Workloads often rise to the point of bordering on the unmanageable. The industry doesn’t want to pay for vast numbers of control staff who would spend most of their time sitting around when everything is running fine (and to be fair there’s an argument that too many controllers can be a problem in itself). Unlikely to change.

I don't think you get the point, either about taking passengers seriously, or how easy it should be to address. You dismiss it into the "too difficult" box with alarming ease and disregard for those who the industry is really all about.

 

[ComUtoR]

There is no need whatsoever to stop the train just to investigate the incident, only a need to investigate why passengers have been given misleading or completely false information.

There is a need to stop the train. There could be other reasons why there was a fail to call. There is no cake and eat it here. You have stayed that this should be SPAD level severity. This may involve detraining passengers and removing the Driver from duty.

Would you let a Driver who has just had a serious incident continue in service ? Even a normal fail to call can have the Driver removed from duty.

With any investigation you don't start with any assumptions. You need to gather facts first. If a train blows through a station, you don't just assume the passengers have been lied to in some way. It could have been Driver error or deliberatly ignored instruction.

Your assumption that passengers have been misled or lied to and then wanting punitive measures put in place is clouding your judgement. I'm more than willing to accept it happens and I'm more than willing to accept punitive action but that comes at a cost and will have a direct impact on the passenger.

 

[bramling]

There is no need whatsoever to stop the train just to investigate the incident, only a need to investigate why passengers have been given misleading or completely false information.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==


Yes, it's not rocket science, and should be manageable without this crazy interpretation that it would have massive resource implications.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==


I don't think you get the point, either about taking passengers seriously, or how easy it should be to address. You dismiss it into the "too difficult" box with alarming ease and disregard for those who the industry is really all about.

I’m not offering an opinion on anything, just stating how things are. Though, of course, the cost of more resources would ultimately be at least partly borne by the end-user.

 

[ComUtoR]

I mean, if they could put stop orders on our iPads (with correct notification and acknowledgement of course) it would solve most of the "issues" with stop orders not being given correctly!

I'm interested....

Are you allowed your iPads in the cab ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I’m not offering an opinion on anything, just stating how things are. Though, of course, the cost of more resources would ultimately be at least partly borne by the end-user.

We could raise ticket prices to pay for more control staff.

 

[Shrop]

There is a need to stop the train. There could be other reasons why there was a fail to call. There is no cake and eat it here. You have stayed that this should be SPAD level severity. This may involve detraining passengers and removing the Driver from duty.

Would you let a Driver who has just had a serious incident continue in service ? Even a normal fail to call can have the Driver removed from duty.

With any investigation you don't start with any assumptions. You need to gather facts first. If a train blows through a station, you don't just assume the passengers have been lied to in some way. It could have been Driver error or deliberatly ignored instruction.

Your assumption that passengers have been misled or lied to and then wanting punitive measures put in place is clouding your judgement. I'm more than willing to accept it happens and I'm more than willing to accept punitive action but that comes at a cost and will have a direct impact on the passenger.

You're deliberately overstating my SPAD comment. My original reference included the comment "forgetting to tell drivers about an additional stop, as has been intimated upthread, should be a disciplinary offence", ie targeted at someone other than the driver. You'll also have seen my comment that "My mention of SPAD was obviously not literal". I'm talking about the fact that once a station stop has been advertised to the public, it should be adhered to unless there are exceptional circumstances, and this does NOT include someone just not bothering to tell the driver. Our railways are better than this with their generally very rigid rules, for good reason, but those reasons too often don't include consideration for their passengers. Please don't labour this SPAD point out of context.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I’m not offering an opinion on anything, just stating how things are. Though, of course, the cost of more resources would ultimately be at least partly borne by the end-user.

What extra cost to be borne by the customer? Surely you're not saying it's unimportant that a driver should be notified of an extra stop for his/her train as part of normal practice? And if it is important then it's part of an existing duty, with no additional resource requirement whatsoever.

 

[Dougal2345]

I mean, if they could put stop orders on our iPads (with correct notification and acknowledgement of course) it would solve most of the "issues" with stop orders not being given correctly!

I have to admit that I'm amazed by all this talk of needing a signed chitty to be prepared and handed out. Does the driver then have to verify the signature in their book of authorised signatories, or are wax seals involved?

 

[theking]

Therefore, if a train is advertised on the platform to be stopping, it should be effectively a SPAD situation if it fails to stop.

Absolutely ridiculous comment.

Honestly I see some comments on here and think they can't get any worse and then another comes along to top it.

Obviously you haven't got a clue what happens if a train spads so best keep your "ideas" to yourself.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm talking about treating the incident with similar severity, with appropriate action accordingly. This may well not lead to any action against the driver, it's more likely to be the fault of the person who "forgot" to tell them, or who cared so little that they treated passenger information with contempt. .

What is the context then ? You clearly state it should be treated with the same severity.

What exactly does that involve from your perspective ? It's is the Driver who has SPADs so I only see this an an accusation against the Driver.

My original reference included the comment "forgetting to tell drivers about an additional stop, as has been intimated upthread, should be a disciplinary offence", ie targeted at someone other than the driver.

I would agree. How do you find that out ? What if the member of staff says they did tell the Driver ?

I'm talking about the fact that once a station stop has been advertised to the public, it should be adhered to unless there are exceptional circumstances, and this does NOT include someone just not bothering to tell the driver.

If the Driver gets told, then the stop happens. If the Driver is told but then blows through the station then it's an incident and treated accordingly. Again, for clarity, how do you know which occured ?

What would the 'exceptional circumstances' be ?

Our railways are better than this with their generally very rigid rules, for good reason, but those reasons too often don't include consideration for their passengers.

Yes the railway should be better than this. This goes without saying.

However, they are considering their passengers. One reason which has already been explained to you by the excellent post by @357

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I have to admit that I'm amazed by all this talk of needing a signed chitty to be prepared and handed out. Does the driver then have to verify the signature in their book of authorised signatories, or are wax seals involved?

I will always check to see who authorised it. I never accept a signature just from platform staff. All ours must be authorised by very specific people.

 

[skyhigh]

this does NOT include someone just not bothering to tell the driver.

Go on then. How often does a special stop order not happen because someone thinks "it could work, but I just can't be bothered to tell the driver"?

 

[driverd]

I suppose, ultimately, it comes down to your operation method (DOO vs Guard) and TOC policy.

We have guards and our policy is we can accept not to calls/additional stops via the official paper slip, via instruction from control or via the guard verbally.

Personally, with a special stop, I'll be reasonably comfortable taking that on the verbal authority of the guard. The way our safety management system is set up means that it's not an imcident per se, for me to stop additionally. It would simply cause delay and if it wasn't an authorised special stop, I might get a slightly awkward to explain "please explain" (a request for delay info). The operational incident would fall to the guard, for releasing the train doors at an unauthorised stop. Of course, if a special stop order comes to me from the guard, I'll check who's told them and make sure they've checked with control.

When it comes to "not to calls", I'm much more careful, as failing to call at a station /is/ a drivers operational incident. Basically the instruction must be officially written or issued directly to me from control. If anyone else (including the signaller) tries to issue me one, I'll always confirm, again, with control. This is also likely TOC specific, but there have been a number of occasions where the signaller has v1 of the plan, whilst control are working to v2 (or v3, or usually something like v17 - they do quite like to change their minds)...


EDIT (just to keep up with the last few posts):
I can't imagine many scenarios where a driver would refuse a special stop order unless it wasn't issued properly. Certainly, we would get a phone call from a manager if we did so. I can't think of many colleagues who would refuse on the grounds that it would take them over their day - each additional stop only causes circa 2 mins of delay - which is usually made up in pathing time or engineering time built into the timetable, or simply through scheduled 2/3 minute dwells at larger stations that become 1 minute dwells. It's hardly going to ruin your after work plans to stop once or twice additionally.

What would ruin your day is to have an operational incident investigation against yourself because you stopped/didn't stop when the instruction wasn't officially issued.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Interestingly I've had 2 fail to calls in my time on the railway, once when the driver accidentally failed to call at a scheduled stop due to being in autopilot and then seeing a signal in a different aspect to usual and so focused on that and missed the next station (2 minutes away).

2nd was under instruction from the signaller due to police dealing with an incident at the station and requested no trains to stop.

Both of these would have affected passengers both on and off the train, with one having the driver removed from service.

A fail to call is not always what it seems, and in my experience the communication breakdown is usually between the IT systems rather than a failure to pass on the message such as not updating PIS screens or apps correctly/quickly enough.

Often the train crew are the last to know as they normally find out on the platform about changes to calling patterns.

 

[Tomnick]

I'm talking about treating the incident with similar severity, with appropriate action accordingly. This may well not lead to any action against the driver, it's more likely to be the fault of the person who "forgot" to tell them, or who cared so little that they treated passenger information with contempt. I'm arguing the case that passengers are more than just objects of little or no significance. Even if some of them can be a right pain, that's not for the information providers to decide.

I suspect that you might need to look a little higher up the management tree. I've never had any problems with special stop or not to stop orders, but that's on properly staffed trains that are still dispatched from major stations. There's no need for someone to come tearing down the platform with the paperwork in the hope of getting to the cab before the driver self-dispatches and clears off. Instead, it's a quick radio message from the supervisor to the dispatcher, who then simply doesn't dispatch the train until everything's been sorted in a much more civilised manner. If all else fails, the arrangements can be made verbally with my guard who can then advise me.

If we, collectively, are happy for the DfT to relentlessly pursue cost-cutting measures, to remove more and more staff from the operational railway, to spread controllers even more thinly during disruption, then unfortunately we also have to accept that we're increasingly going to be unable to manage this sort of thing effectively.

 

[Bantamzen]

No dispute at all about the need to move drivers and trains around, my dispute is about the frequent and often avoidable contempt shown to passengers with misleading information.

This is the sentiment I agree with most of all. Sure there will be occasions when services have to but cut short or not call at some stops to prevent massive knock on delays, or where safety critical staff risk becoming fatigued. It annoys the passengers for sure, but is just a reality. But the industry needs to be honest, and better at communication. It surely cannot be impossible in most situations to be able to communicate and agree short notice changes between control and crew, and get that updated information into the public domain once done. And once it is it should be clear and honest, like "due to the driver working over their hours...", making sure relevant station staff are aware of alternative plans to move passengers.

What is slightly concerning is reading about drivers worrying about cinema tickets, or just simply being stubborn. I've not idea how widespread this may or may not be, but it's not acceptable especially where there might be a risk of punters being left high and dry, especially given the eye-watering cost of some tickets. Perhaps in the most extreme of circumstances an airline style compensation scheme might focus TOC management a bit more? So say if passengers face more than a couple of hours delay, with mitigations for things like extreme weather, accidents etc, they can not only claim the cost of their ticket back but compensation for the inconvenience of being stranded, with perhaps an obligation to provide food and drink where available? I'll say now I'm not the biggest fan of compensation culture, but in some instances may actually help improve the passenger experience, which should be a key focus for all in the industry.

 

[MotCO]

I accept that during periods of disruption, things in the control room may be chaotic, and there could be lack of available resources to issue stop notices. However, can there be emergency plans devised for common problems (e.g. overhead wires down on ECML) so that an emergency timetable including stop orders etc can be pulled out of a drawer and used?