Disabled Woman Stranded Overnight At Lime St

[AlterEgo]

Why do some people appear to come to the defence of the rail industry straight away, rather than take the position of believing the passenger and their experience?

With stories like this you should assume you don’t have all the facts, either from the person allegedly discriminated against or the train companies. We really don’t know what happened and there are lots of unanswered questions, as is always the case with outrage stories garnered by the local press.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I think many posters on here, including many passengers, are familiar with the reality. Your reality will be very different to the next person. To me it comes across as folk sticking their head in the sand. A passenger tells of a bad experience using the railway and then we have people simply not believing they are telling the truth.

But the issue is, and we see it day in and day out, is that stories like this one are greatly exaggerated and the "poor customer service" is down to the actions of the individual concerned. "My train left without me" is 99% of the time due to them not being there on time, in the shop or getting a coffee.

Especially as no TOC would leave a disabled girl on a platform overnight. After the taxi wasn't an option, A hotel would have been sourced. No ifs or buts. It would have been done. The fact it wasn't leads me strongly to believe the girl carries more responsibility for missing her train than is portrayed in the article.

And this is the context in which Gem and I refer when saying there's always more to this than meets the eye.

 

[Purple Orange]

People simply can’t comprehend that some people may have screwed up doing their job.

As a passenger, what you’re telling me is that if I had a negative experience using the railway, and there have been several, you wouldn’t believe me.

 

[tiptoptaff]

People simply can’t comprehend that some people may have screwed up doing their job.

You can't seem to comprehend that what you've read isn't always true at face value.

 

[Purple Orange]

You can't seem to comprehend that what you've read isn't always true at face value.

Not at all. I just don’t jump straight for the conclusion that the railway industry can’t have failed.

I’ll repost my edited point from earlier in that if I, as a passenger, was to have a poor experience using the railway, you simply would not believe me as your first reaction.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Not at all. I just don’t jump straight for the conclusion that the railway industry can’t have failed.

I’ll repost my edited point from earlier in that if I, as a passenger, was to have a poor experience using the railway, you simply would not believe me as your first reaction.

No one is saying that.

In fact I don't think anyone has said the railway is infallible.

What we have all said is there is always more to the story than makes a local press outrage article. Regardless of whether its railway, a supermarket or a holiday company.

 

[Falcon1200]

As a passenger, what you’re telling me is that if I had a negative experience using the railway, and there have been several, you wouldn’t believe me.

No, simply that there are always two sides to every story, and in this particular case we do not actually know the full details from either side of the story. For example; The article states that the 'after some time the passengers were told they were not getting a taxi' - Why was that ? In my experience of such incidents it would be investigated at the time and if the railway was at fault a taxi certainly would be provided (and sometimes also when the railway was not at fault, eg when a child was stranded through their own actions).

 

[Purple Orange]

No one is saying that.

In fact I don't think anyone has said the railway is infallible.

What we have all said is there is always more to the story than makes a local press outrage article. Regardless of whether its railway, a supermarket or a holiday company.

And that, as it always is with these threads, is based on an assumption of disbelief first. Rather than considering the passenger’s experience, these threads always get the usual treatment of “two sides to a story” etc etc. What will have clearly have been a distressing experience is clearly being overlooked and the comments that question what the passenger is saying never seem to question whether the railway could have done better. The assumption is that staff did everything correct or even if the staff did follow the right procedures, it is not questioned that the system/process needs changing.

 

[AlterEgo]

And that, as it always is with these threads, is based on an assumption of disbelief first. Rather than considering the passenger’s experience, these threads always get the usual treatment of “two sides to a story” etc etc. What will have clearly have been a distressing experience is clearly being overlooked and the comments that question what the passenger is saying never seem to question whether the railway could have done better. The assumption is that staff did everything correct or even if the staff did follow the right procedures, it is not questioned that the system/process needs changing.

I really do beg of all posters who approach these kinds of threads to keep an open mind and realise that you almost never have enough information to form an opinion either way. Nobody is *disbelieving* the passenger, but it may well be the case that they haven’t divulged all of the details of the incident which would help us to decide exactly what happened and what, if anything, the railway should do differently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably because many posters on here are very familiar with the railway system, passenger behaviour, and reality. And therefore know that what a passengers says, thinks, or believes happened often isn't the case.

I don't require assistance, but the number of assistance failures (and downright hostility towards those requiring it in some cases) I have observed would suggest that a passenger reporting a problem with assistance is very, very likely to be telling the truth.

It simply is not good enough.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Just a minor point, and unconnected really. But not all Taxi's can take a wheelchair ( they are few and far between) and the ones that can are pretty busy and booked up most of the time.

Journalism 101 - simplify then exaggerate.

All the black cabs can of which there are usually a line full of them up the hill outside lime street and most taxis are mini van/bus type and can these days (excluding private hire ) so to say few and far between is not accurate. Some council's refuse to grant licneces these days to any vehicles that is not disabled accessible.

 

[mpthomson]

Given the opportunity to tell the "other side" of the story, Network Rail apologised for not being able to arrange assistance. They didn't blame the customer given the opportunity to do so. So to me it's a simple railway cock-up.

Blaming a disabled passenger isn't a good look, whatever happened.

 

[scrapy]

Having had a think the only thing I can assume is that with staffing being reduced later in the evening the passengers were unfortunate enough to initially come across someone who wasn't either passenger assistance or operationally involved, NR provide passenger assistance but Northern provide train dispatch to WMR at Lime St, possibly security staff or similar, and as a result they've fallen through the cracks with the hand off from their initial meeting with a staff member failing.

Depending on what is going on the Northern dispatchers have quite a lot of running around to do there at times particularly later in the day when there are fewer of them and trains coming out of service to go on the depot.

I suppose it is possible that they turned up without much time before departure, or were further up the platform because of the curve and didn't note the wheelchair user and given most/all WMR trains are 8 cars at the moment the guard is likely to have been in the middle cab so again, might not have seen someone further towards the platform entrance waiting.

If the dispatcher couldn't see a passenger in a wheelchair on the platform and their friends, (assuming they actually were on the platform, and had positioned themselves as though they wanted to board the train) then the dispatch needs investigating. If they couldn't see the length of the train then how did they know it was safe to dispatch? Something doesn't add up, either the train was dispatched without a proper view along the platform and in which case the dispatcher could possibly be sacked, or the passengers weren't there. I'm sure the whole thing will be investigated and on CCTV.

It would also be interesting to note the guards position as if they could not see due to the curve they may have been in the middle of the train if it was 8 cars. I suppose it's possible the passengers were not actually on the platform but at the end on the concourse waiting for a staff member (assuming that the staff member would come from that direction). If the dispatcher and guard were already both half way up the train to get a better view then it's possible they didn't see them.

 

[zwk500]

Something doesn't add up, either the train was dispatched without a proper view along the platform and in which case the dispatcher could possibly be sacked, or the passengers weren't there. I'm sure the whole thing will be investigated and on CCTV.

I think that without further definite information further speculation on what happened and what the consequences should be is not helpful. Let the investigation happen. I'm sure NR will want to reassure disabled travellers that the railway is working to increase accessibility when they know what went wrong with this incident.

Clearly, what happened isn't good enough. But who was responsible for what and how it could have played out differently are 2 things we do not know, unless anybody on here happened to be at Lime Street that evening.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I work in customer service and we know that everyone is the hero in their own story. No one complains by saying "we made a mistake, but..." it's always the company's fault.
Sometimes, of course, it is. That's what we are paid to find out! If the company is at fault, it must learn from it. But sometimes it isn't. Most of the time it's a bit of both. Neither customer nor company shining themselves in glory, in which case, generally, the company apologises for good service and PR.
Whilst paying for a hotel is always option of last resort, I've never known it refused on the railway. But a taxi would always be preferable, even if it involved a wait.
I'm not saying the passenger isn't telling the truth, I'm just saying that it would appear to me there is a bit of the story we're missing.

 

[LowLevel]

If the dispatcher couldn't see a passenger in a wheelchair on the platform and their friends, (assuming they actually were on the platform, and had positioned themselves as though they wanted to board the train) then the dispatch needs investigating. If they couldn't see the length of the train then how did they know it was safe to dispatch? Something doesn't add up, either the train was dispatched without a proper view along the platform and in which case the dispatcher could possibly be sacked, or the passengers weren't there. I'm sure the whole thing will be investigated and on CCTV.

It would also be interesting to note the guards position as if they could not see due to the curve they may have been in the middle of the train if it was 8 cars. I suppose it's possible the passengers were not actually on the platform but at the end on the concourse waiting for a staff member (assuming that the staff member would come from that direction). If the dispatcher and guard were already both half way up the train to get a better view then it's possible they didn't see them.

My thoughts are my own though if you read them it does indicate a degree of familiarity with the situation - I have signed Lime St as a guard for a fair while now and that includes long trains. WMR usually use platform 9 or 10 which requires precise positioning on the part of the dispatcher to see the whole train, and they'll usually be middle to front.

 

[tiptoptaff]

My thoughts are my own though if you read them it does indicate a degree of familiarity with the situation - I have signed Lime St as a guard for a fair while now and that includes long trains. WMR usually use platform 9 or 10 which requires precise positioning on the part of the dispatcher to see the whole train, and they'll usually be middle to front.

As a more general point, although not specific to Lime Street, local dispatch arrangements can mean the dispatcher doesn't need to see the whole train.

For example, at Bridgend, the rear 3or4 vehicles are the responsibility of the guard, and the front 5or6 are that of the dispatcher. The dispatcher cannot see the ones around the curve, but the guard takes dispatch responsibility for those vehicles. At Newport, they use two dispatchers on long trains due to the curve as the "lead" dispatcher can't see all of the train.

Point being, the dispatcher doesn't always have to be able to see all of the train to be doing their job safely and correctly.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

According to RTT for Saturday 10 July, the LNWR 2134 Liverpool-Birmingham (1G33) left on time from P6.
P6 (newly rebuilt) is straight at the buffers end but has reverse curves at the country end.
The formation is not shown. The train had arrived at 2118, so 16 minutes turn-round.
There was also an LNWR ECS train to Crewe P12 at 2217 (5K59) from P10 which would have made a pretty good taxi.
Realtime Trains - Departures from Liverpool Lime Street

 

[The exile]

According to RTT for Saturday 10 July, the LNWR 2134 Liverpool-Birmingham (1G33) left on time from P6.
P6 (newly rebuilt) is straight at the buffers end but has reverse curves at the country end.
The formation is not shown. The train had arrived at 2118, so 16 minutes turn-round.
There was also an LNWR ECS train to Crewe P12 at 2217 (5K59) which would have made a pretty good taxi.
Realtime Trains - Departures from Liverpool Lime Street

Quite apart from whatever did or did not happen, it’s a pretty poor showing if the last train between two of Britain’s major cities is at half past nine in the evening!

 

[SAPhil]

If I was one of the friends and wasn't able to get her on board without the promised assistance, I would have obstructed the doors from closing!

 

[option]

Some points, in no particular order;

1 - even if a taxi would have been expensive, surely the TOCs & NR have a corporate rate with local firms, which would make it cheaper than 'public' prices.
2 - to avoid arguments over who pays for what, why isn't there a discretionary fund that NR & all operators at a station put into, for use in these sort of situations.

3 - why isn't there a general 'assistance may be needed/required' system in place? A marked out area on the platform, with the ramps, where the customer can wait, & an indicator sign/light activated by station staff, so that platform staff or train staff can see more clearly that there's someone needing assistance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I was one of the friends and wasn't able to get her on board without the promised assistance, I would have obstructed the doors from closing!

If I was travelling with a disabled friend I too certainly would not just leave them on the platform, so yes, that bit is a bit strange.

 

[zwk500]

If I was one of the friends and wasn't able to get her on board without the promised assistance, I would have obstructed the doors from closing!

May not have been as easy to think of that (or accomplish it) after a night out.

1 - even if a taxi would have been expensive, surely the TOCs & NR have a corporate rate with local firms, which would make it cheaper than 'public' prices.
2 - to avoid arguments over who pays for what, why isn't there a discretionary fund that NR & all operators at a station put into, for use in these sort of situations.
3 - why isn't there a general 'assistance may be needed/required' system in place? A marked out area on the platform, with the ramps, where the customer can wait, & an indicator sign/light activated by station staff, so that platform staff or train staff can see more clearly that there's someone needing assistance.

1 - they do. But there still needs to be a cab available.
2 - because then there'd be an argument over who pays how much into the discretionary fund, and when it can be accessed.
3 - A couple of reasons: the safety element of holding areas on a general concourse is a factor, but also it's not particularly helpful to put people on a train they won't be able to get out of at the other end. This is one reason for pre-booking, and one that isn't easily resolved until all stations have been rebuilt to accessible standards. Especially on the last train at night, overcarrying somebody is not any better than just booking a replacement taxi from origin.

If I was travelling with a disabled friend I too certainly would not just leave them on the platform, so yes, that bit is a bit strange.

My reading of the story was that at least one of her friends missed the train to stay with the lady on the platform, but was equally unfamiliar with Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My reading of the story was that at least one of her friends missed the train to stay with the lady on the platform, but was equally unfamiliar with Liverpool.

Ah, I see, fair enough.

To be honest what I'd probably have done is together with my friends lifted her, in her chair, on board - but that rather depends on the size of your friends!

 

[zwk500]

Ah, I see, fair enough.

To be honest what I'd probably have done is together with my friends lifted her, in her chair, on board - but that rather depends on the size of your friends!

Again, even if you get them on board you've got to get them off again at the other end. If it's a motorised wheelchair (as was suggested upthread), then I wouldn't want anybody who wasn't trained and stone-cold sober handling it with the person sitting on it. If they've come for a night out I'm also taking a punt that they are more likely to be wearing heels than steel-capped boots. The last thing I'd want on a night out is to end up with some broken ankles/feet and my wheelchair-using friend sent crashing into the platform on trapped under the train.

 

[notlob.divad]

That particular train has a scheduled 7 minute turn around and arrived 1 minute late. Normally LM have a 20 minute turnaround, so it is certainly one of the snappier ones for a terminus station.

According to RTT for Saturday 10 July, the LNWR 2134 Liverpool-Birmingham (1G33) left on time from P6.
P6 (newly rebuilt) is straight at the buffers end but has reverse curves at the country end.
The formation is not shown. The train had arrived at 2118, so 16 minutes turn-round.
There was also an LNWR ECS train to Crewe P12 at 2217 (5K59) from P10 which would have made a pretty good taxi.
Realtime Trains - Departures from Liverpool Lime Street

Yes you are right, sorry I was looking at the P10, 2217 departure not realising it was ECS

Quite apart from whatever did or did not happen, it’s a pretty poor showing if the last train between two of Britain’s major cities is at half past nine in the evening!

Welcome to Liverpool. Truth is it isn't just other major cities that have their last train that early, some significant large swathes of Liverpool's hinterland have no decent evening connection, hence a lot of Taxi drivers on Merseyside do a roaring trade most nights of the week, and in particular on a Friday and Saturday.

 

[24Grange]

All the black cabs can of which there are usually a line full of them up the hill outside lime street and most taxis are mini van/bus type and can these days (excluding private hire ) so to say few and far between is not accurate. Some council's refuse to grant licneces these days to any vehicles that is not disabled accessible.

My point wasn't specifically about Lime Street ( which would seem to be awash with disabled access taxis by your description), But a more general one - most ( outside the main cities to be sure) taxi's outside of normal working hours are few and far between - especially those with wheelchair access. Not everywhere has access to "Black Cabs" - most are just normal salon cars.

 

[notlob.divad]

Again, even if you get them on board you've got to get them off again at the other end. If it's a motorised wheelchair (as was suggested upthread), then I wouldn't want anybody who wasn't trained and stone-cold sober handling it with the person sitting on it. If they've come for a night out I'm also taking a punt that they are more likely to be wearing heels than steel-capped boots. The last thing I'd want on a night out is to end up with some broken ankles/feet and my wheelchair-using friend sent crashing into the platform on trapped under the train.

However since when is getting the 2134 train home a night out? As evidenced by a picture in the original article they are wearing converse, jeans and a hoody. People do go to Liverpool for reasons other than partying. Everything you say is correct, in terms of not wanting to injure themselves or their friend, and neither should it be expected of them. It isn't their job and the facilities should be made available. But what they were doing and the purpose of their visit should be neither here nor there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However since when is getting the 2134 train home a night out?

People in places where the last train home is quite early just tend to go out earlier.

 

[AlterEgo]

So much speculation about this woman - it could well be they just went shopping and out for dinner with friends, that’s the sort of evening out most people have when they need to go home at 9:30pm.