TOCs obligations following train cancellation

[Wigan Wanderer]

A recent personal experience caused me to consider what the obligations of a train operating company are when a train is cancelled.

I won't mention specifics, but I booked a journey involving a change of train part way. The first train ran ok, but the second train was cancelled due to high winds. By that time it was early evening and there were no more trains to my destination (and none back home). In these circumstances does the TOC have any obligations to the passenger at all?

The only advice given by the TOC was to "make your own arrangements" a statement which they refused to expand on. Of course I spoke with the station manager but he refused to give any help or further advice. As it happens I had the cash on me to at least mean I wouldn't be sleeping in a shop doorway, but I was surprised that the TOC thought it acceptable to abandon passengers part way through a journey.

 

[142094]

It depends on what ticket you have, as some people in the industry will argue that if you are travelling A-C via B, and have split tickets for journey A-B and B-C, then they do not have to help you if one of the trains is late/cancelled. Other people will argue the opposite.

If you have a ticket A-C for the whole journey, then TOCs do have an obligation to get you to your end destination. Might be good to put up some further details about your journey so we can help.

 

[Wigan Wanderer]

I had a through ticket for the whole journey booked long before, the change of train was necessary as there are no direct trains. I had always assumed that the TOC had a duty of care to either get you to your destination or to get you back home.

 

[142094]

I had a through ticket for the whole journey booked long before, the change of train was necessary as there are no direct trains. I had always assumed that the TOC had a duty of care to either get you to your destination or to get you back home.

It does, and I'd suggest writing a letter of complaint off to the TOC about this, which is unacceptable.

 

[Wigan Wanderer]

That's encouraging, I've rung their customer services department but they just say the weather is the weather and they can't do anything about it. They have refused compensation saying any additional transport costs to get me to my destination are my "consequencial loss" for which they have no liability. However they have offered a partial refund on the train ticket. At least I know I'm on firmer ground if I decide to take it further to Passenger Focus.

 

[Greenback]

If a passneger chooses to get a taxi, rather than wait for the next train then that would be up to the passneger. From what you say, in these circumstances there wer eno further trains and the TOC faltly refused to provide alternative transport. Is that correct?

If so, and the customer relations team are fully aware of the circumstances, then they are not providing the correct information. I agree that you should put it in writing as a complaint as 142094 has suggested.

 

[Wigan Wanderer]

Yes you are correct in what you say, there were no further trains that evening. I argued the point with the station manager for about half an hour that evening but he just kept saying his control would not authorise anything. I will write as suggested. Thanks both for your advice.

 

[First class]

The TOC does not have to assist if weather is the cause. They will tell you to "make your own arrangements" which is all they can do really seeing as it is not their fault. Adequate travel insurance would cover this situation but many choose not to buy it! You know the person to blame for not getting it!

Would you rather the TOC continued to run the train service with perhaps disastrous consequences?

They will still honour your ticket on the next train, you may have a long, perhaps overnight wait though. They didn't refuse to do this because you went and got yourself a taxi because you were not prepared to wait!

45. Circumstances that are not within a Train Company’s control
For the purposes of Conditions 42 and 43, circumstances that are not within a Train
Company’s control include:
(a) acts or threats of vandalism or terrorism;
(b) suicides or accidents involving trespassers;
(c) gas leaks or fires in lineside buildings not caused by a Train Company or a Rail
Service Company or any of their employees or agents;
(d) line closures at the request of the police or emergency services;
(e) exceptionally severe weather conditions;
(f) industrial action by a Train Company’s, or Rail Service Company’s, staff or agents
or by any other person;
(g) riots or civil commotion; and
(h) fire, mechanical or electrical failure or a defect (except where this is caused by a
Train Company or Rail Service Company or their employees or agents, or as a
result of the condition of a Train Company’s trains).

 

[Greenback]

They do not have to, but they do. It also depends on how you define exceptionally severe weather conditions.

 

[First class]

I would define it as "weather conditions that affect the ability to safely run trains". I don't think the passenger would be in a good enough position to define "exceptional". I do believe that TOCs don't go round willy nilly suspending services- it causes more problems for the operator than the customer!

 

[Greenback]

Indeed, yet TOC's could decide that running a service is more trouble than cancelling it, and then claim it has been cancelled due to severe weather. I would think that a definition of exceptionally severe weather would have to start with safety, which would presumably affect more than one service or line, and could therefore be described as widespread.

As we don't know the location or circumstances in this instance, I wouldn't like to guess if the weather could be described as exceptional or severe. However, I would be disappointed if a TOC simply abandoned their customers, given the heroic efforts that have been made to get people where they are going on numerous other occasions.

 

[Nick W]

High winds is not "exceptionally severe" weather. Even on one of the few days each year where a few houses get blown down I would expect the railway to still be running or provide alternative transport as 3 days a year is still not an exception.

If on the other hand, a hurricane arrives or an area floods (ie high rains) that hasn't flooded in over a decade, that would be exceptionally severe!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

High winds is not "exceptionally severe" weather. Even on one of the few days each year where a few houses get blown down I would expect the railway to still be running or provide alternative transport as 3 days a year is still not an exception.

If on the other hand, a hurricane arrives or an area floods (ie high rains) that hasn't flooded in over a decade, that would be exceptionally severe!

The trained members of Railway staff will decide what weather constitutes exceptionally severe weather. In this case, it would be weather where it is not safe to run trains. The staff will decide, not the passenger.

 

[Greenback]

In this case, though, it would appear that control decided.

 

[driver9000]

High winds is not "exceptionally severe" weather. Even on one of the few days each year where a few houses get blown down I would expect the railway to still be running or provide alternative transport as 3 days a year is still not an exception.

If on the other hand, a hurricane arrives or an area floods (ie high rains) that hasn't flooded in over a decade, that would be exceptionally severe!

Winds high enough to blow "a few" houses down and you expect trains or buses to be running?! If the wind is strong enough to blow a house down what do you think it would do to a train or a bus? To me that is exceptionally severe weather...

 

[HST Power]

I'm useless with ticketing regulations. When it comes to understanding travelcards, breaking journeys, touching in and out etc I haven't the foggiest on how the railway works. Nonetheless, I find it very surprising that a TOC have the right to leave you on your own merely because you have a certain ticket or have taken a certain journey. I may be talking nonsense, because as I said, I'm useless with ticketing, but I'd still expect the station manager and staff on duty to at least provide some form of assistance in how to get home if the train is cancelled, the weather is adverse and no more services are available.

 

[Greenback]

I believe they should not abandon the passenger. It may be different during a period of severe weather when passengers have been warned that services are disrupted and travel is at your own risk - such as the heavy snow last winter.

 

[SteveP29]

My partner came down from Edinburgh to spend the weekend with me.

Connections from Newcastle to Chester le Street after Eureka are now rather poor, so she'd booked to CLS via Durham (with a 6 minute gap between arrival and departure).

Her train was delayed just after crossing the King Edward bridge and was subsequently late into Durham. Her connection was across on the opposite platform. Running under the underpass and up the steps to the platform, her train pulled away as she was about to put her ticket into the barrier.

When she went to the ticket office to see what could be done, they arranged for her to be transferred from Durham to CLS via taxi at their expense.

Not specifically a TOC related story, but good on the staff at Durham for looking after her.

 

[Old Timer]

In terms of strict liability, the ticket entitles a passenger to the journey from A to B.

In purchasing the ticket, the passenger accepts that the TOC has no liability other than to perform the journey. There is no responsibility as to how long the journey should take or by what means the journey should be undertaken. Indeed there is no committment to even running a train, as if any alternative means is available to enable a passenger to complete their journey then the TOC can substitute this.

That is the legal basis from which tickets have been sold since the Railways started.

Whilst it has become custom and practice for TOCs to sometimes provide taxis when a last train is cancelled or has been missed, strictly there is NO liability upon the TOC to do anything other than honour the ticket by the next available service, even if that is the next day.

Similar conditions apply to buses, coaches, airlines, sea journeys, etc.

As someone has already pointed out, that is the purpose of travel insurance - which in many cases now comes as part of a bank account or credit card package.

 

[dviner]

The trained members of Railway staff will decide what weather constitutes exceptionally severe weather. In this case, it would be weather where it is not safe to run trains. The staff will decide, not the passenger.

In this case, though, it would appear that control decided.

Umm... control are trained members of Railway staff.

 

[Wigan Wanderer]

Just to clarify, I wasn't questioning the decision to cancel the train, I'm sure they must have had a good operational reason. (It was three weeks ago when high winds affected much of northern Britain). However there were no problems reported when I set off earlier in the day so I wouldn't say I could have forseen it happening.

If the TOC has a legal right to abandon its passengers at any point then I guess that's that. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

Maybe it depends on the TOC, I recall being taxied from Preston to Crewe by Virgin a few years ago when a similar thing happened, though there were dozens of people stranded and I guess there would have been a riot if everyone had been told to "make their own arrangements".

 

[Old Timer]

Legally all the TOC has to do to comply with the conditions of issue of the ticket is to provide the journey, which has no guaranteed timetable or duration.

That is the reason certainly until recent years there were signs / stickers at booking offices advertising travel insurance.

People confuse the established practice of providing alternative means of transport such as taxis, buses, etc as a good will gesture against the strict legal position - which was what you asked.

Similarly airlines, buses etc have similar conditions attached to their tickets. Non EU airlines have no legal duties to supply food or accommodation in the event of delays, which is why they are generally cheaper than EU registered airlines.

 

[WelshBluebird]

While I understand that it may not be legally required, if a ToC refused to help me get to my destination after a cancelled or delayed train, I would certainly ensure that I continued to make the point and would probably try to make it more difficult and an issue for them than it would be just to pay for a taxi. I know some people here will probably say that isn't acceptable behaviour, but I would suggest that neither is leaving a passenger stranded. And I am sure most other passengers would react in exactly the same way.

 

[barrykas]

That is the reason certainly until recent years there were signs / stickers at booking offices advertising travel insurance.

Last time I went through Enfield Town the signs in question were still there! Can't remember whether they were pre-decimal prices or not though.

I wonder if anyone's tried to buy the advertised insurance...

Back to the matter in hand, Condition 43 of the NRCoC makes it clear that TOCs are only required to assist where you're stranded due to circumstances within their control.

Things like Network Rail closing most of Scotland and slapping a 50mph blanket ESR on the remainder, I would suggest, would not be classed as "within their (a TOC's) control".

Having said that, a friend and I were doing a spot of track bashing in the Manchester area once and there was a signal failure between Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown. Our plan had been to head to Liverpool and back to Manchester Airport in time for said friend's flight back to London, but the failure put the mockers on that.

The Guard contacted Northern (or it may still have been FNW) control and they agreed to provide us with a taxi to the Airport from Victoria when we got back there. (After "doing" the emergency crossover at Earlestown as an added bonus!) Made it to the Airport just in the nick of time.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Old Timer]

While I understand that it may not be legally required, if a ToC refused to help me get to my destination after a cancelled or delayed train, I would certainly ensure that I continued to make the point and would probably try to make it more difficult and an issue for them than it would be just to pay for a taxi. I know some people here will probably say that isn't acceptable behaviour, but I would suggest that neither is leaving a passenger stranded. And I am sure most other passengers would react in exactly the same way.

Well now you know that when you buy a ticket it does not legally cater for that option. Buy yourself some travel insurance - as you would if you were travelling by air ?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well now you know that when you buy a ticket it does not legally cater for that option. Buy yourself some travel insurance - as you would if you were travelling by air ?

While that may be the official line, try telling that to, for example, a large number of people after a football match on a cold and wet Tuesday night.

If a ToC stuck to that line every time a cancelation or delay led to people not being able to get the "last train", I would think they would quickly lose quite a lot of custom and would get an awful lot of complaints.

Also, while I don't know the official statistics, in my personal experience, trains are an awful lot more likely to be delayed or cancelled compared to planes.

This bit is out of curiosity:
What is actually classed as "a fault of the railway"? I was given a taxi by FGW last week because of a 90 minute delay, yet the cause was a signalling fault as a result of vandalism. FGW were taking responsibility for that as "a fault of the railway", yet surely it wasn't? It was the fault of the idiot vandals?

 

[Greenback]

Umm... control are trained members of Railway staff.

Indeed they are of course. However, why I brought it up was that it indicates that it wasn't down to staff 'on the ground', but more likely to be a decision involving more than just the one service or route. It is therefore more likely to be viewed as severe.

Just to clarify, I wasn't questioning the decision to cancel the train, I'm sure they must have had a good operational reason. (It was three weeks ago when high winds affected much of northern Britain). However there were no problems reported when I set off earlier in the day so I wouldn't say I could have forseen it happening.

If the TOC has a legal right to abandon its passengers at any point then I guess that's that. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

Maybe it depends on the TOC, I recall being taxied from Preston to Crewe by Virgin a few years ago when a similar thing happened, though there were dozens of people stranded and I guess there would have been a riot if everyone had been told to "make their own arrangements".

Indeed. Old Timer has, as usual provided a lot of information on the established legal position. However, it is a feature of modern day customer service that strenuous efforts are made by the raiwlay to get passengers home.

Well now you know that when you buy a ticket it does not legally cater for that option. Buy yourself some travel insurance - as you would if you were travelling by air ?

Ther eis more onus placed on suppliers nowadys to provide a good service to their customers. This is generally a good thing as it prevents companies (not just on the railway) from withdrawing their services at short notice and leaving their customers in the lurch.

What is actually classed as "a fault of the railway"? I was given a taxi by FGW last week because of a 90 minute delay, yet the cause was a signalling fault as a result of vandalism. FGW were taking responsibility for that as "a fault of the railway", yet surely it wasn't? It was the fault of the idiot vandals?

That is a very debatable thing, and possibly why TOC's err on the side of caution and do their best to get people to where they are going.

Old Timer is correct; ther eis no legal requirement for the railway to ge tpeople home when factors outside of its control cause services to be suspended. However, they do their best because a failure to do so will lose them customers and provoke a lot of complaints and negative publicity.

 

[Old Timer]

And of course the costs of this are re-couped through the price of fares.

There is no such thing as a free lunch - as motorists are now finding out after years of abusing the claims system.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, that is true. But travel insurance would be the same - if transport companies all abandoned peopel and told them to claim on their insurance, the premiums would rocket too.

When people are travelling, they can often feel vulnerable and upset when things go wrong. Although I think this is sometimes taken too far, as with a lady in Reading years ago who was given a taxi rather than waiting an hour for the next Basingstoke service, all because her flight was late in landing.

 

[Old Timer]

Yes, that is true. But travel insurance would be the same - if transport companies all abandoned peopel and told them to claim on their insurance, the premiums would rocket too.

When people are travelling, they can often feel vulnerable and upset when things go wrong. Although I think this is sometimes taken too far, as with a lady in Reading years ago who was given a taxi rather than waiting an hour for the next Basingstoke service, all because her flight was late in landing.

Yes but travel insurance would remain optional. The increase in tickets costs, however minimal, to placate the demands of a few passengers affects those of the greater majority who would act pragmatically and wait for the next service.

This is in effect what EU Regulations are doing in forcing EU registered airlines to provide compensation and hotels, and other costs. The cheap no frills airline market are pushing the fact that people by their service because they (in general) accept that risk, whereas to force the no frills carriers to comply will inevitably result in very sharp price rises.

Now environmentalists may think this a good thing but it once again illustrates the fact that there are no free lunches, and the more a consumer demands the more they will ultimately end up paying, through one means or another.

As for the major EU airlines, they are under pressure from International airlines who are in competition over the same routes but have no such requirements and thus offer a cheaper flight.

I suppose the only good thing is that this may lead to the EU falling apart at some time in the future as it stifles competition and freedom more and more. At some point soon the EU will price its members goods and services above those which can be procured from the emerging BRIC economies, and that is when the fun will begin.