They don't (and if you already know that, I'll just add sarcasm will likely reduce people's eagerness to help you
) but in these times of complete abdication from a route, there's almost certainly going to be a removal of such route restrictions.I completely sympathise with the frustration.Right, so the buck is passed to the retailer to deal with the problem.
Perhaps you see the source of my annoyance now
I completely agree with you.
I think that the sad reality is that Chiltern do not see doing anything to help with your problem here as a priority.
In general such restrictions remain in place. I don't think that the railway industry wants them to be relaxed. It could be because they think that people who have already booked tickets for, say, Leeds to Manchester will turn up at the station and demand to be accommodated on services via London, which they don't want to allow. It could also be because they want to charge higher prices for the services which do run during the industrial action than those prices which have previously been paid for tickets before the action was notified. But who knows, they won't go on the record about the matter. They won't even go on the record with honest explanations of why the industrial action is causing so much disruption on 18 December.They don't (and if you already know that, I'll just add sarcasm will likely reduce people's eagerness to help you
If there is no ticket acceptance in place and the passenger can’t refund the ticket, then surely the train operator would be breaking the law as the passenger would have purchased something that has no value (in this case providing transport from A to B). For this reason I assume either ticket acceptance would be put in place or passengers would be able to get a refund, regardless of the ticket type.
They haven't given a reason for running no service on some days but not others during the industrial action. If they have please point me to it?
Because that's how public services work? Publicly funded organisations are generally expected to be transparent about the services they're providing to the point that when they're inadequate they can at minimum accept that and explain why!
They would indeed be breaking the customer's contract yes. That does appear to be their publicly stated position on the matter.
Maybe we need to look for alternatives to railways for those without a car? As a lifelong public transport advocate that is sad to say. Self driving taxis I guess will be the end of most public transport but that will probably be too late for most people reading this. @Bletchleyite already pointed out that public transport is largely irrelevant for most trips outside the TfL area.
But there have been many strikes called off after people have made alternative arrangements.
I didn't say they were lying. I said that they were plainly making an error of omission.
I'm surprised that more jurisdictions don't go for New York state's approach of genuinely binding arbitration as an alternative to strikes.
As has been stated before, the industrial action is on a handful of days in the next month. The TOC is pulling services for an entire month, and therefore it is fair to require a reasonably comprehensive explanation as to why there is no train service on the many days in that month where staff aren't striking.
But London is so unrepresentative of the UK. The first rule of any research of what people in the UK or how they live has to be 'ignore London'.
Except for the small detail that London has a higher population than that of Scotland and Wales combined.
Which is why it's unrepresentative. Studying anything in the UK starts with 'within London' and 'everywhere Else'.
I don't follow. How can it be unrepresentative if it has a higher population than two of the UK's nations combined? Just how much of the UK has to discounted before we are left with the supposed "representative" bit?
Because population density means that things are economical in London that simply aren't elsewhere, other than in places like central Manchester or Birmingham.
