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!
As an occasional user of Merseyrail, I also like how it operates. I like that it has plenty of staff around. I feel safer travelling on that system than anywhere else, and that includes my own local rail network. Top marks to Merseyrail and long may it continue.
I'm anti a lot of ongoing poor decisions made by the management of Merseyrail Electrics (2002) Ltd, yes. To detail them all here would go well off topic, but I think it's fair to say I have very little time for them or their approach.
I don't think there is anything commendable about the way they have been documented multiple times for refusing travel to people who they think are drunk but in fact have a coordination disability.
No indeed, and that points to a lack of knowledge. But that doesn’t mean a zero tolerance approach to drunkenness, with appropriate disability recognition training for staff, isn’t sensible. Personally I would like to see that elsewhere.
No indeed, and that points to a lack of knowledge. But that doesn’t mean a zero tolerance to drunkenness, with appropriate disability recognition training for staff, isn’t sensible. Personally I would like to see that elsewhere.
I don't think it could be properly done without an actual breath alcohol content limit and breathalysers to be honest - that's why that's the rule for driving - and that isn't really feasible. Plus by turning people away they create risk, just risk that's not on their watch. As a public service I am unconvinced that is the right approach.
I know it's about the James St incident, but that was criminal negligence by the guard - all that should have happened there was a delay while the Police attended, not a death, and preventing the death was wholly within the ability of the guard involved, hence why he was rightly prosecuted.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The closest London comparison is the EL station at Paddington - that has lots of staff to clear the terminating trains as well, so the OP's point is fundamentally wrong
Merseyrail has trains mostly a third of the length and with guards, who both act as pseudo dispatchers and are responsible for clearing the 4tph that use the reversing siding.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I can’t say I have ever had anyone moan to me personally about overstaffing. Unless you are a disgruntled LCR taxpayer then I’d say you have no say in Merseyrail’s staffing levels.
I don't think it could be properly done without an actual breath alcohol content limit and breathalysers to be honest - that's why that's the rule for driving - and that isn't really feasible. Plus by turning people away they create risk, just risk that's not on their watch. As a public service I am unconvinced that is the right approach.
The current method seems to work pretty well for them! No need for breathalysers because we aren’t talking about people who have just had a few (for many that’s the whole point of taking the train!) but those who can barely stand up, and are too intoxicated to act safely and responsibly.
And yes the railway absolutely should turn people who are unfit to travel away. The fact so many people in this country choose to while away their time by getting absolutely paralytic is a societal issue, not one the transport system is in any way equipped to deal with.
I know it's about the James St incident, but that was criminal negligence by the guard - all that should have happened there was a delay while the Police attended, not a death, and preventing the death was wholly within the ability of the guard involved, hence why he was rightly prosecuted.
It isn’t just about that one incident, though. There are many injuries and a few fatalities every year due to drunkenness on the railway that don’t involve any negligence by staff.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No need for breathalysers because we aren’t talking about people who have just had a few (for many that’s the whole point of taking the train!) but those who can barely stand up, and are too intoxicated to act safely and responsibly.
I did nearly put it in quotes, to be fair. They are I think advisory pseudo dispatchers similar to what you have on some London Underground stations. Not sure what the actual title is.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It isn’t just about that one incident, though. There are many injuries and a few fatalities every year due to drunkenness on the railway that don’t involve any negligence by staff.
I did to be fair see one on Merseyrail myself which was narrowly averted by the driver seeing it happen in the DOO cameras and stopping...does show that these can be a benefit even with guarded operation! The guy was genuinely paralytic and I have no idea how he got past them.
(Would also have been averted by the old "guard stays at open door until platform is cleared" approach to be fair).
The fact a couple of unfortunate incidents like that have happened does not mean the wider policy doesn’t work. The vast majority of people who appear to be drunk are, in fact, drunk, and I’d argue that the solution is better staff training regarding disabilities, rather than tolerating excessive drunkenness “just in case”.
As a DOO driver I certainly refused passengers who were too drunk/out of it a couple of times, where I encountered them as I was changing ends. There is an element of discretion involved, but ultimately it’s a safety issue, not only for the person themselves, but also staff and other passengers.
I did to be fair see one on Merseyrail myself which was narrowly averted by the driver seeing it happen in the DOO cameras and stopping...does show that these can be a benefit even with guarded operation! The guy was genuinely paralytic and I have no idea how he got past them.
(Would also have been averted by the old "guard stays at open door until platform is cleared" approach to be fair).
Although it adds ambiguity around responsibility should the worst happen. When I have a guard I want no part of the dispatch process whatsoever. Same reason I’m not too keen on the pseudo-dispatcher arrangement on LU.
I *think* drivers are fully responsible for dispatch on Merseyrail and the guards tap a card on a sensor to let them know they’ve completed station duties?
I *think* drivers are fully responsible for dispatch on Merseyrail and the guards tap a card on a sensor to let them know they’ve completed station duties?
Also, why are guards on Merseyrail checking tickets when they are not revenue trained, able to sell tickets or issue a PF. Another pointless forced interaction.
Was this a door operating guard? I've never seen a door operating guard checking tickets. I don't think guards on merseyrail have ever sold tickets anyway as MR are very strict about purchasing before you board.
Was this a door operating guard? I've never seen a door operating guard checking tickets. I don't think guards on merseyrail have ever sold tickets anyway as MR are very strict about purchasing before you board.
They used to many years ago. They had a little white book to issue hand written tickets. This was before the TVMs came in at Overpool, Little Sutton etc, late 90s/early 2000s? I believe that's why the units were fitted with saloon guard panels, they didn't have them from new. They also used to stamp tickets with a round ink stamper with the guards number and their depot on it. Eg BC 1234. The revenue inspectors stamps said RP.
They were supposed to check tickets on the 507/8 stock too, rarely did as mentioned above not much they can do if somebody doesn't have one.
It seems a bit more common now on the 777s than it did on the old stock, a few guards I know say they do it more now out of boredom for something to do. They are supposed to be getting card scanners when contactless comes in. Similar to TfL/Metrolink etc it won't tell the guard anything, but is checked behind the scenes automatically for no touch in etc.
Perhaps in some peoples' eyes. I remain unconvinced that due to the obstruction they cause they aren't actively negative, and at best a profligate waste of money.
I find it incredulous that you think one person on a platform is an 'obstruction' amongst the whole throng of other people on the platform. Im not sure i can take you seriously anymore with these silly statements.
Go down there and look. Someone standing still among the throng of moving people in a bit of platform that's barely wide enough for two people is an obstruction. People waiting tend to stand back in the "cubby holes" and so don't cause an obstruction like someone trying to see the length of the train does.
I find it incredulous that you think one person on a platform is an 'obstruction' amongst the whole throng of other people on the platform. Im not sure i can take you seriously anymore with these silly statements.
Fact is, they’re not an “obstruction”. They’re a person doing a job. A job which Merseyrail have deemed necessary for the safety of their passengers. Frankly, unless you’re train crew and the presence of dispatchers on the platform is impeding you from doing your job, then it’s not really any of your concern why they’re there.
As for comments about the cost and Merseyrail being a “subsidy pit”, I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe penny-pinching should come before passenger safety. If the presence of a dispatcher can prevent another tragedy such as James Street, then quibbling over the financial ramifications of one extra person on a platform is petty to say the least.
As for comments about the cost and Merseyrail being a “subsidy pit”, I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe penny-pinching should come before passenger safety. If the presence of a dispatcher can prevent another tragedy such as James Street, then quibbling over the financial ramifications of one extra person on a platform is petty to say the least.
A couple of facts that are often disregarded when the railway starts chasing diminishing safety returns at high cost are:
1. If ticket prices are lower and capacity is higher, more people will switch from road to rail. As road is MUCH less safe than rail, this provides a more significant safety benefit than chasing diminishing returns on the railway by way of overstaffing and other expensive safety measures that might prevent one death/life changing injury in 10+ years.
2. Given (1), if there's transport money to be spent on safety, you'll save far more lives by spending it on the roads rather than the railways.
And as I'm a taxpayer I have every right to an opinion on the matter, just as I do on TfL as long as the national taxpayer contributes to its upkeep.
I think I'll throw in a separate speculative thread about this general issue as I don't think we've ever addressed it specifically, but it's a fairly strong view of mine than money needs to be targetted for maximum benefit rather than diminishing returns.
Go down there and look. Someone standing still among the throng of moving people in a bit of platform that's barely wide enough for two people is an obstruction. People waiting tend to stand back in the "cubby holes" and so don't cause an obstruction like someone trying to see the length of the train does.
1. If ticket prices are lower and capacity is higher, more people will switch from road to rail. As road is MUCH less safe than rail, this provides a more significant safety benefit than chasing diminishing returns on the railway by way of overstaffing and other expensive safety measures that might prevent one death/life changing injury in 10+ years.
So this argument which I’ve seen on here before is basically “let’s save money by making rail less safe because it’s safer than road”. No thanks! It could be used to justify almost anything.
Oh dear, one extra person on a platform however will the crowds cope!!
However, it doesn't matter because they are deemed necessary by the people who run the railway and are appreciated by those who need the help and as a taxpayer and a fare payer on merseyrail i for one am more than happy to pay for someone there.
There really are bigger things to worry about than staffing a station
and Merseyrail crowds are like sheep. Frequently I get off towards the front (of a northbound train) and other people turn backwards towards the more distant, and crowded, of the two escalators. The other one is rarely busy whereas the southern one is often rammed on both sides (not allowing people to walk up on the left). Shepherds can be useful.
There is quite a lot of waste on Merseyrail. But having platform staff at the busiest station on the network, which is also the busiest underground station outside of London, isn't the first example of waste that comes to mind.
And yes the railway absolutely should turn people who are unfit to travel away. The fact so many people in this country choose to while away their time by getting absolutely paralytic is a societal issue, not one the transport system is in any way equipped to deal with.
The trouble is, of course, that there are a number of disabilities that make someone appear drunken when they are not. Slurred speech, unsteady on their feet, maybe they're drunk and maybe they are disabled after a stroke.
I've seen plenty of staff turn the latter away for being drunk when clearly they weren't. Not just on Merseyrail either; the T&W Metro gateline staff can be just as bad.
Leaving aside the duty of care ethics of whether, even if someone is drunk, that telling them to sod off is the best way of looking after them. Maybe trains will be delayed if you have to wait for the police or the paramedics to come and scoop up a drunk, but so what?
The refusing to allow 'drunk' passengers on the trains is very contentious. The bar is set very low. Many of us know someone who's been turned away for the slightest preceived sign of alcohol consumption. I told someone who'd fallen foul of this rule to walk to Lime Street and take the lift to the platform.
Plenty of much smaller stations have platform staff despatching trains. E.g. Cambridge North has them, with a tenth as many passengers as Liverpool Central.
Plenty of much smaller stations have platform staff despatching trains. E.g. Cambridge North has them, with a tenth as many passengers as Liverpool Central.
Yet Thameslink are DOO driver dispatched at I think every single station now, using the same sort of camera kit on trains mostly three times the length? I can see the benefit of having platform staff on stations where a lot of occasional users are present and services are complex, though, but that's more to answer queries than for safety of dispatch.
I've seen plenty of staff turn the latter away for being drunk when clearly they weren't. Not just on Merseyrail either; the T&W Metro gateline staff can be just as bad.
It’s down to the individual staff member to assess, so presumably they came to a different view. It isn’t exactly common for people to be turned away on most of the network - certainly on the occasions when I’ve seen it happen the behaviour displayed has been very concerning.
The trouble is, of course, that there are a number of disabilities that make someone appear drunken when they are not. Slurred speech, unsteady on their feet, maybe they're drunk and maybe they are disabled after a stroke.
The majority of people who do the above are simply drunk, though. As discussed earlier, by all means train staff to recognise disabilities etc. (and do I agree that’s something the railway in general needs to get better at) but the fact a tiny number of people have these disabilities, and some unfortunate mistakes have been made, is not an argument for tolerating excessive drunkenness.
Leaving aside the duty of care ethics of whether, even if someone is drunk, that telling them to sod off is the best way of looking after them. Maybe trains will be delayed if you have to wait for the police or the paramedics to come and scoop up a drunk, but so what?
Presumably Merseyrail take the view that the best thing to do is to not assume a duty of care to them in the first place. Not unreasonably, as it shouldn’t be the railway’s job to “look after” drunk people. As for “so what?”, trains being delayed is generally considered a bad thing because it costs money, causes inconvenience and of course creates other risks.
That view will be influenced by policy and training. I suspect it's not random that the only place I've ever heard of people being turned away who weren't even visibly drunk and incapable was Merseyrail. And I've certainly been on a train in a state where Merseyrail would no way have let me on (though not often, indeed probably about twice ever).
There is quite a lot of waste on Merseyrail. But having platform staff at the busiest station on the network, which is also the busiest underground station outside of London, isn't the first example of waste that comes to mind.
I'm never quite sure about the apportionment of tickets between the 4 underground stations in Liverpool which results in the Central usage numbers, Moorfields gets a lot of commuters but is more capable of dealing with the numbers. But those platforms are busy and poorly designed and it's hard to argue with someone being on there. The loop platforms are perhaps less critical as you always have until Hamilton Square to get off and wait for the correct train.
Tap and go ticketing should be introduced soon which should, once it's bedded in allow savings on ticket offices, which do seem to be a bit of an unnecessary cost if we're prioritising either reducing fares or subsidy.
The main issue Merseyrail has right now though is reliability, and the utter lack thereof, the drainage at Hooton is not a new issue and needs fixing, this at least should be a straightforward fix of better drains and pumps. Then the new trains seem to struggle with pretty much everything, which is going to possibly be more complicated to fix.
In the example the person I was with had slurred speech and an unsteady gait due to the effects of their stroke. The rainbow lanyard had no effect. That was on T&W Metro, not Merseyrail.
They clearly "came to a different view". Sadly the view they came to was about as wrong as it's possible to be.
Maybe it is an edge case and clearly on a Saturday night there will be more drunk people than sober disabled people, but it does underline the issue with unqualified gateline staff making decisions based on what they reckon.
I'm never quite sure about the apportionment of tickets between the 4 underground stations in Liverpool which results in the Central usage numbers, Moorfields gets a lot of commuters but is more capable of dealing with the numbers.
It's hard to tell, Moorfields and James Street are busy in commuter hours but outside of those hours they do feel deserted. Central has more of a consistent flow of passengers, including on evenings and weekends.
Tap and go ticketing should be introduced soon which should, once it's bedded in allow savings on ticket offices, which do seem to be a bit of an unnecessary cost if we're prioritising either reducing fares or subsidy.
Staffing has been a bit more variable recently at some of the smaller stations in the Wirral, which indicates they've already cut staffing numbers right back. But, as with the platform staff at Central, I think there is a genuine benefit to having a staff member on every station. You only have to look at the chronic anti-social behaviour on Metrolink and on the T&W Metro to see that benefit. There's a reason why the first thing TfL did when they took over the North London Line was to bring back staffing at every station.
You only have to look at the chronic anti-social behaviour on Metrolink and on the T&W Metro to see that benefit. There's a reason why the first thing TfL did when they took over the North London Line was to bring back staffing at every station.
MT have said 2025 and then it became delayed and now no date is known, also no one has actually said what their vision is of smart ticketing on Merseyside going forward, not MR or MT, the back office required for smart ticketing and payg is huge, also the software costs are massive.
I’ve yet to see a definitive scheme proposed, I suspect there’ll be a concrete proposal when the concession ends and MT (hope to) take it on.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As an occasional user of Merseyrail, I also like how it operates. I like that it has plenty of staff around. I feel safer travelling on that system than anywhere else, and that includes my own local rail network. Top marks to Merseyrail and long may it continue.
I agree, it amazes me how reading this thread that they’re tax payer gatekeepers when the northern line on MR is very heavily used compared to many urban lines in the UK.
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.
.