Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Surely other operators have high loadings regardless of whether or not you buy a new ticket, or they have ticket acceptance?
All it does is cause more inconvenience to people
Surely other operators have high loadings regardless of whether or not you buy a new ticket, or they have ticket acceptance?
All it does is cause more inconvenience to people
Yes, but why should an operator inconvenience its own passengers by accepting others* if they aren’t compensated for it. It’s a business to maximise profit at the end of the day, even if it’s run by the government. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
* Excluding the rights under section 28.2 of course.
GC could have simply purchased tickets for their stranded customers, but didn't. I suspect that is down to the cash GC would have to outlay, not the lack of a ready mechanism for obtaining a ticket.
The operational process for this is huge whereas some form of rail warrant can be authorised entirely with a couple of calls or messages and someone to hand them out. The paperwork and shifting of funds can be done afterwards when the dust settles and passengers can be on their way. Such a warrant would also include another operator organising onward travel in a taxi for example.
Of course, we don’t know what happens in the accounts department, for all we know GC might not have paid the bill since last year so other operators might be reluctant to help where they’re not contractually obliged (or even when they are).
Certainly other operators have left Taxi/private hire companies on the verge of bankruptcy before by racking up 5 figure debts and just not paying for 100+ days. What can “Terry and Brenda’s cabs” do against “Big-superfast Trains Ltd”
The operational process for this is huge whereas some form of rail warrant can be authorised entirely with a couple of calls or messages and someone to hand them out.
An agreement at company level is even easier, whether a wide ranging all-eventualities agreement or on a case-by-case basis - one phone call, trainload of people dealt with! For reasons unknown, GC seem unable or unwilling to reach a satisfactory agreement with LNER (and, let's face it, they haven't got an option of dealing with anyone else).
Perhaps. The safety and consumer regulation "hats" the ORR wears are separate, and it's not exactly the case that staff could be redeployed from one "hat" to the other. But overall it's clear that the ORR lays supreme importance on railway services being provided in absolute safety, or else not at all.
Little weight is given to considerations such as the climate (c.f. third rail and electrification standards), the wider public interest (c.f. red/green zone working and standards for new or refurbished vehicles, stations and lines), or passengers being protected from operators' aggressive practices (c.f. assistance during disruption).
Perhaps. The safety and consumer regulation "hats" the ORR wears are separate, and it's not exactly the case that staff could be redeployed from one "hat" to the other. But overall it's clear that the ORR lays supreme importance on railway services being provided in absolute safety, or else not at all.
Little weight is given to considerations such as the climate (c.f. third rail and electrification standards), the wider public interest (c.f. red/green zone working and standards for new or refurbished vehicles, stations and lines), or passengers being protected from operators' aggressive practices (c.f. assistance during disruption).
GC seem to have deleted the tweet from last night - in fact they seem to have deleted everything going back to 2021 apart from a post from 20 March sating they're not affected by strike action and today's posts - tough if you're looking to confirm the advice you were given.
GC seem to have deleted the tweet from last night - in fact they seem to have deleted everything going back to 2021 apart from a post from 20 March sating they're not affected by strike action and today's posts - tough if you're looking to confirm the advice you were given.
GC seem to have deleted the tweet from last night - in fact they seem to have deleted everything going back to 2021 apart from a post from 20 March stating they're not affected by strike action and today's posts - tough if you're looking to confirm the advice you were given.
That’s quite the allegation if it’s being suggested that a TOC has deleted tweets in order to obscure the advice they offered customers in the event of disruption. Perhaps somebody should tweet them and ask for a clarification of the original info!
One would sincerely hope that any operator who really was behaving in such a manner could expect a robust approach from the relevant authority. Not to mention the damage to their reputation from lost customer goodwill, of course. It’d be quite the risky strategy in order to save a few quid.
That’s quite the allegation if it’s being suggested that a TOC has deleted tweets in order to obscure the advice they offered customers in the event of disruption
Why they have I don't know, but they absolutely do appear to have deleted all Tweets between yesterday and June 18, 2021, with the exception of one about strikes sent on 20th March. This could of course have been a panicked error. There also appear to be replies missing from yesterday, but this one was still there:
Wow, what outrageously rude bluntness to a passenger being very polite. Not "no, I'm afraid we can't, because we don't have enough drivers/guards/units", but just "no". Get lost. Sorry not sorry. We've got your money, now get stuffed.
An absolutely stinking operation which should be closed down forthwith.
Text version:
User (I obscured name and handle): OK thanks for clarifying. Any plans to add an extra service today to ease congestion?
GC: No. ^JM
One would sincerely hope that any operator who really was behaving in such a manner could expect a robust approach from the relevant authority. Not to mention the damage to their reputation from lost customer goodwill, of course. It’d be quite the risky strategy in order to save a few quid.
That’s the whole point though. There won’t be any approach, robust or otherwise from any authority.
There won’t be any significant lost customer goodwill as most use 3rd party retailers and just go for the cheapest option without any regard (and often any basic understanding) for different operators and the likes.
When an OA operator first applies to run a service, shouldn’t one of the questions in the TAA form P be about their disruption plans? So if they cannot reasonably get you going within an hour, the application fails. If after the last train of the day is cancelled they have no watertight process to deal with stranded passengers, the application fails. Etc etc.
Usual hand ringing about open access operations being cowboys but I'm afraid that they've been far too many instances of regular franchised operations also going about this in a similar way. Avanti had a damn good go at stranding me last November and made absolutely no effort to offer overnight accommodation although thankfully they did endorse my tickets. Swr have seemingly got form for telling passengers to hire and pay for their own taxi and then making it as difficult or impossible as can be to get the money back
And LNER stranded two teenage girls, daughter and her friend of one of my friends back at Christmas and were really nasty about it
It's little wonder that the railway has a bad reputation and its effectively signing its own death warrant with this, we could if we wanted practically abolish short distance air travel other than to those with extremely flexible credit cards willing to pay for British airways or whatever but the most recent email from easyJet hints strongly that they are adding more capacity on Scottish services and those to the likes of Bristol and Southampton
Swr have seemingly got form for telling passengers to hire and pay for their own taxi and then making it as difficult or impossible as can be to get the money back
To be fair with modern taxi apps it does make sense to let people arrange one themselves and reclaim, as for most these days that will be more convenient than waiting for the railway's preferred contractor to faff about. But there does need to be a guarantee it'll be paid back promptly.
Same with hotels, much easier to fire up the Premier Inn or Travelodge app and book my own than to wait for the railway or an airline to faff.
An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Now they've tweeted at 2053 they've got acceptance on the 2200 LNER but that still raises the question of what if you want a station other than York and Thirsk (the tweet is silent on this) and what about those people who, in the intervening half an hour, followed the advice and refunded their original ticket and bought expensive new ones? Or you can travel tomorrow on your existing GC ticket but then says nothing about who is forking out for the hotel at zero notice.
MCOL every day of the week.... Sue them every time. If their business model is based on ignoring legitimate obligations they shouldn't be in business, end of.
An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
They do come with greater risk, but that risk is not supposed to include not getting to your destination when some trains (run by anyone) are running or not being accommodated if the cancellation strands you away from home.
They are a dodgy company who have decided not to follow the law because they know that non-compliance will reduce costs, and no enforcement action is likely. They also know that mostly their business is in selling to consumers who are limited in retaliatory options, except for by claims brought in County Court. They also provide utterly appalling customer care when their services are cancelled.
There has been no evidence of improvement on either point over many years. In my view they should be threatened with non-renewal of their rights if they do not improve, or their firm rights should be downgraded in favour of companies who can follow the PIDD and the law.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Around subjective matters not part of the contract, such as travelling ambience, sure. However, the Conditions, PRO and Consumer Rights Act would treat GC only tickets identically to LNER only, Hull Trains nly, Avanti West Coast only (etc) in respect of getting from a to b.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
At the end of the day I would like to support the business model of GC. But if the company can't improve over their position today, I'd say it's better for the consumer if they don't exist. I take no joy in that whatsoever, but we can't allow special pleadings just because it's a train service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
At the end of the day I would like to support the business model of GC. But if the company can't improve over their position today, I'd say it's better for the consumer if they don't exist. I take no joy in that whatsoever, but we can't allow special pleadings just because it's a train service.
If its business practices prove irredeemable the services could potentially be absorbed into another train operator. Unfortunately other train operators on the ECML aren't exactly covering themselves in glory at the moment though !
That’s quite the allegation if it’s being suggested that a TOC has deleted tweets in order to obscure the advice they offered customers in the event of disruption. Perhaps somebody should tweet them and ask for a clarification of the original info!
One would sincerely hope that any operator who really was behaving in such a manner could expect a robust approach from the relevant authority. Not to mention the damage to their reputation from lost customer goodwill, of course. It’d be quite the risky strategy in order to save a few quid.
It's not really very risky at all as they know the risk of customers or regulators pursuing them is near-zero. In the unlikely event a customer does take them to Court, they can just settle the case.
When an OA operator first applies to run a service, shouldn’t one of the questions in the TAA form P be about their disruption plans? So if they cannot reasonably get you going within an hour, the application fails. If after the last train of the day is cancelled they have no watertight process to deal with stranded passengers, the application fails. Etc etc.
I think the argument could absolutely be made that all passenger operators licensed by the ORR are in breach of their licence if they just say "no trains, no alternatives", as it's alleged that GC did here, though of course it may in some way depend on why they're saying so. I wouldn't like to comment on exactly what the details of the obligations or the different types of licences are for two reasons: one is that this would be long and boring and the other is that at the end of the day none of us is a party to the license, so in law there's actually not anything we can do about it being broken. Because of the latter I'm not sure exactly what turns on this point, maybe not much. But it's a principle to ponder isn't it.
I wholeheartedly agree that GC are truly appalling and I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole, but there are some frankly comical generalised statements in this thread suggesting the poor antics of GC mean open access in general must go!
I’ve been in Kings cross before when a Hull Trains service has been cancelled and no ticket acceptance has been granted. The reps were handing out open tickets that the company had paid for to allow us to travel on the next available service. Given that the HT reps at Kings Cross are shared with GC, and this is something I can’t imagine GC doing, the issue is clearly with GC, not open access as a concept.
The ‘regular TOC’ fans also seem to be forgetting how easily some operators (Northern etc) throw in the towel, issue a do not travel notice and leave you to it.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
