at New St cross city trains always pull up to the platform end signals (at least the do going towards Longbridge.) Lots of fun in the wet cos half the train is on a bit of platform with no cover. Yes I know its comlicated because of varying train lengths, and the need to have 2 trains in a platform but hey, its 2022.
-
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!
Does ‘the railway’ enjoy making things difficult for all its users?
- Thread starter bakerstreet
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bramling
Veteran Member
Stevenage has been a complete nuisance. The stopping position for 8-car 700s was changed in 2020 (though curiously no change was made for 8-car 365/387).
The upshot is the very rear of the train now stops level with the stairs. So any time an 8-car train arrives, especially in the off-peak when it’s less likely to be regular commuters, there will be people rushing along the platform as the rear of the train sails past them, followed by a scrum round the last set of doors. Hardly ideal, and even more of an issue when an 8-car 700 turns up on a 12-car diagram.
If you’ve ever watched a blind person board a train you’ll know they do so with great care, physically checking where the doors are (and that they’re open).
The bigger risk (albeit still very low in the grand scheme of things) is falling out of a train which has stopped at the wrong point and isn’t fully platformed, or where doors have been released on the wrong side.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
I don't know, but there definitely used to be one at Kingston, even after the platform was extended, and it isn't there now. Same at Wimbledon platform 5, and I'm sure I've seen it at other stations too. Not so sure about Grantham as I'm less of a regular there, and until fairly recently all East Coast/LNER trains were about the same length - I don't know whether Hull Trains always stopped at the far end, or indeed whether they have always called at Grantham.
At a pinch, withdrawl of 455/6s, introduction of 701s etc might have something to do with it? AIUI it can be affected by platform furniture, lighting, signal sighting etc.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,844
Touché!We’re none of us perfect. Apparently ticket office staff can’t be trusted to sell tickets correctly either.
No, but it does seem to be increasingly common. At my local station, 12 car trains are the norm and on one of the platforms the entrance to the platform is at the very rear. So, if a 4-car train arrives and sails into the distance before stopping it's not so much inconvenient as panic inducing for people who have waited in the wrong place.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hull Trains have always stopped at Grantham.
Runningaround
Member
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2022
- Messages
- 799
Similar happens at Birmingham International when the Cambrian Train turns round. If it's a four car you'll see it from the waiting area, if it's two car and the driver stops at the end closest to New St you won't know it's turned up. I've seen a number of passengers realise before it's too late. Why cant they put it in the middle or at least near to the stairs where passengers will be sheltering.
Longer trains meaning the shorter length boards are disappearing, perhaps?
Eg some of our new (to us) stock was intended to run only as 12 or 8 cars, hence 12 and 8 car boards were fitted. In fact we sometimes run as 4 cars and are supposed to pull up to the 8 car marker. It’s a pain in the backside for all concerned, basically!
Won’t be an issue once full 8/12 car running achieved…
Last edited:
No-one is "demanding" anything; people can choose not to answer anything, but if the details are not forthcoming then it may weaken their case.
Whether anyone is "at work" or not is completely irrelevant for this discussion.
Who is telling who their TOC policies? Also are you saying there is no universal policy in this area?
If you have a view on the example I provided I would be interested to hear it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Exactly and I'm entitled to express my concerns.
If there is something that someone has said which you disagree with, please quote it and state your view.
What exactly have I said that you think is "hostile"? At the end of the day customers are being treated badly by the rail industry and I firmly believe the way passengers are treated in the examples quoted here are unacceptable.
Anyone who believes it is acceptable to give this level of service should be challenged and I have every right to do so.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Your replies have been contradictory and inconsistent; you have stated that you would refuse to fulfill certain requests but then backtracked. This has caused confusion and frustration for all involved as it's now become impossible to establish what you are saying you would or wouldn't do in any given situation.
You must remember that when you indicate you would refuse certain sales, people here have experienced such refusals which can be very frustrating and to see you not only condone their actions but would make the same decisions yourself just makes that even worse.
In the days before online sales and e-tickets making things so much easier for customers, many of us had a very frustrating experience buying rail tickets. I am absolutely entitled to not only be glad I am no longer treated this way but also to be glad that others in future won't be either.
If anyone has a problem with that, they need to ask themselves this question: what is the purpose of rail? Is it not to transport passengers? If we accept that, surely we should not be acting as an industry in a way that frustrates and deters passengers?
Last edited:
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Possibly, but when the boards disappeared 8 car trains were still possible for the forseeable future, as there were not enough 456s to make all 455 formations up to ten car, and SWT (who were still the operator) had no plans to replace the existing fleet. (Of course, since SWR took over we now have a uniform fleet of ten-car 701s - sound of ironic laughter)
There has been no change to platform furniture, signal sighting etc at the west (country) end of platform 2. It was extended at the east (London) end - that is towards the rear of the train. Initially the only change was to change the 8-car stop board to a 10, and move the 8-car board to where the 6-car one had been. Only later did they remove the 8-car one altogether. You can still see where it used to be by the discolouration of the paint on the lamp post it was attached to.
It’s amazing how switching a franchise’s name from ending with a T, to one ending with an R, seems to immediately flush the whole thing down the toilet.
Exactly the same thing has happened where I am
.== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We have platforms with stop cars marks for three different stock types, and S car boards. Which of them you’re meant to obey and which you ignore vary by location, not necessarily according to what you’re driving. It’s a complete mess.
That’s actually an excellent example of the railway enjoying making things difficult for its staff!
Last edited:
Not at all. You just set up the working timetable to be 30 seconds behind the public timetable, and you would actually get many trains able to depart a few seconds early.
Wyrleybart
Established Member
I totally disagree with that. There are some really really hard working dedicated staff who are really trying to deliver a train service against many odds. A colleague of mine is off sick with stress at the moment - someone I have worked alongside for 21 years and who I rate as the best for doing their job. The TOC I work for has been in a state of chaos which heightened last November. Because of that our work has increased exponentially, as have the level of daily cancellations.
Personal pride was to try and achieve a 100% daily timetable but the DfT and their controls on the TOCs have to take a huge slice of responsibility for the shambles we see everyday. It is very easy for a lack of interest to take over your mental state when you are bombarded by some rigid impositions which vary between one TOC and another. Don't be fooled into believing that the DfT post covid are trying to improve things. Can't really say anymore than that but the thread title tells me more about the individual who created it.
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,414
I'm not sure about making things difficult, but certainly not helping passengers is Stoke-on-Trent waiting room on platform 2.
When I was a little boy, the door would not close fully. It nearly shut, but always left a gap for the wind to blow in and freeze the waiting room down to outside temperatures and thus render the money spent on the electric heaters as pointless.
Fast forward to modern times, and despite several refits of the waiting room during the intervening years, the doors still don't close!
If a company can't shut a door, you do wonder about their ability to do anything else.
When I was a little boy, the door would not close fully. It nearly shut, but always left a gap for the wind to blow in and freeze the waiting room down to outside temperatures and thus render the money spent on the electric heaters as pointless.
Fast forward to modern times, and despite several refits of the waiting room during the intervening years, the doors still don't close!
If a company can't shut a door, you do wonder about their ability to do anything else.
I stopped replying to this because I'm afraid I felt that you would 'jump on me' as soon as I said anything you disagreed with, and I'd agree this feels hostile. Sorry, but that's how you made me feel, like my opinion isn't wanted, because of the way you replied to other people.
And how do you think people feel when they are treated this way by the rail industry?
What other company/organisation/industry refuses to serve people legitimate requests for basic products which are available from another identical outlet simply staffed by a different member of staff (who has a different opinion on what they should sell).and also on a website which offers the same range of products as their store at the same price? (Not talking about special offers or different prices or anything like that)
Are you saying people should just put up and shut up when legitimate requests are refused?
Last edited:
I did not say anything about the behivour of the rail industry being acceptable or otherwise. I said I didn't comment because of your behivour. Your response has simply confirmed my concerns. I'll not bother responding again as you clearly don't want me to.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,844
Rather a lot actually - the "web only price" is rife. This is akin to the supermarket analogy.
Do you have a view on any of the points being debated?
What behaviour? The issue here is that ticket offices are behaving in an unacceptable way by refusing to sell tickets to passengers under circumstances where the passenger would have absolutely no issue buying online, from certain ticket offices.
It's totally unacceptable and I have called it out as such.if you disagree with me that's fine you are entitled to post your alternative view.
Can you please post constructively; if you disagree with any member that is absolutely fine but please state what you disagree with and what your view is.
Simply stating you dislike a post without stating what exactly you are disagreeing with or what your view is, isn't arguing in good faith and isn't constructive.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's not what I meant and I have edited my post to clarify.
What I mean is where the exact same item is available at the exact same price but one particular member of staff or one particular sales outlet takes a different view and refuses a sale that would be made elsewhere.
I'm not talking about special offers or anything like that what I mean is that some staff take a view that is very different to others and simply refuse something on a whim.
I have never known anything like this anywhere else and certainly not on the scale that it occurs in the rail industry.
The rail industry has a big problem in that ticket office experiences can be very inconsistent and passengers can be refused sales or issued the wrong product on a scale that is absolutely unacceptable and not like anything else.
The rail industry needs to get itself in order. Your company is, on average, far better than many others in this area, but at some other companies the bar is set incredibly low.
Last edited:
Philip
On Moderation
It's unacceptable in your opinion (and maybe in others'), that doesn't mean it is unacceptable all things considered though. The alternative side to this is that we're simply doing the job we're asked to do by our employer (subject to different TOCs), not to mention helping to prevent potential ticket fraud. You can't have a 100% consistent approach especially in roles like the ticket office with the various different circumstances it brings and the many different passengers who we deal with.
The system might be broken and there should be solutions put in place to prevent this situation of passengers losing weeks/months of their railcard validity in buying advance tickets from the office, but you can't 'expect' booking office staff to resolve this by not doing things by the book when their employer hasn't permitted them to do this. Any working methods which deviate away from 'the book' (even if it is to help passengers) should only be at the employee or employer's discretion, not something a passenger should come to expect.
Last edited:
Runningaround
Member
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2022
- Messages
- 799
Explain then why a passenger can buy from a computer something a trained booking office clerk cannot? Why put that barrier up. I can sit on the platform or in the booking office waiting area and buy a ticket on a phone that you refused to sell me.
Ticket Office Clerk ''says no''. springs to mind.
Clearly you think it is acceptable to refuse to sell a Railcard discounted ticket where the Railcard isn't present (except you did relent when a disabled Railcard is held) and many of us think that is unacceptable and we are not going to agree on this point.
Fraud is a red herring; see above. You cannot 'prevent' fraud by doing this as people can still commit fraud. If this was a valid argument, why do other sales outlets take a different approach?
You have backtracked and contradicted yourself so many times I am no longer sure what you are saying you would do in any given situation. If at any point you are able to obtain the information to answer the question I asked above that would help provide some clarity.
There is nothing in 'the book' that prevents you retailing such tickets and you also backtracked and admitted you would sell such tickets in certain circumstances (though it's still unclear what exactly they are) when the rules 'by the book' are no different to circumstances where you said you wouldn't.
Due to your changing and contradictory responses I really am unsure exactly what your argument is and what you would do in any given situation.
So you admit you do things which are not, in your opinion, 'by the book', despite previously suggesting you had to do things 'by the book' and we are still not told exactly when this 'discretion' would or wouldn't apply.
It is therefore surely better for passengers to buy online where possible, so they can be sure of not being refused the sale of a product that is clearly available and selectable.
Philip
On Moderation
If you're asking the price of two senior discounted singles from Formby to Matlock at the date/time you specified, the answer is £84 flexible singles; no advance fares showing for the specified time.
Thanks; that provides a bit more clarity. So you would honour the discount without the railcards present in this scenario (good!), but you wouldn't offer split ticketing in this case (which is absolutely correct, but you had previously individual you would, hence my confusion).
I'm puzzled as to why you previously said you had to see Railcards otherwise you would refuse the discount; since then, it turns out there are multiple examples of where you would waive this requirement.
Can you see why this is confusing?
Maybe there is some logic which we are missing?
That’s already the case at a lot of locations (you can sometimes spot it on RTT). The problem is you will then have a lot of passengers who get used to it, so just pushing the problem on by another minute. Adding minutes on also eats into capacity so can only be done sparingly.
A line has to be drawn somewhere and current system works fine. Everyone knows where they stand (which is on the platform if you’re there less than 30 seconds before departure
).Peter Wilde
Member
That seems a good point (below). Infuriating at my local station where the (now 8 car) London trains stop at the end of the 10-car platform and require all passengers to walk further, since the access is at the "country" end.
Another thing is the infuriating delay between the train stopping and the doors opening, which leaves passengers stressed, jabbing repeatedly at the button, and wondering if there is a local door malfunction and if they ought to run along the carriage to the next one. Not only stressful but time wasting - if there are many stops as on commuter lines, surely these delays add up and mean a slower service?
Contrast this with the Berlin S-and U-bahn system, where the door opening buttons are always released just before the train stops moving, so the doors open sufficiently for use at the exact moment the train stops. Efficient - very. Dangerous? Surely not much, especially when everybody has got used to the new characteristics.
This leads on to an important wider point about railway safety. It is possible in the cover-yo-ass and blame avoidance culture to aspire to be too safe. Surely what really matters is the safety performance of the nation's transport networks as a whole?
If a railway network can be made cheaper and simpler, and thus becomes more attractive to more users, it may in itself become a bit less safe. But the enhanced attractiveness of rail, due to its better value for money, should lead to a significant reduction in overall deaths and injuries. More people will take the train and leave their car, motorbike or pedal bike at home. (There could be extra health benefits too, from the walking to and from the station. Also, busier trains are less vulnerable to vandalism and bad behaviour).
It could help solve the railways financial crisis as well. Time for some action on this!
Another thing is the infuriating delay between the train stopping and the doors opening, which leaves passengers stressed, jabbing repeatedly at the button, and wondering if there is a local door malfunction and if they ought to run along the carriage to the next one. Not only stressful but time wasting - if there are many stops as on commuter lines, surely these delays add up and mean a slower service?
Contrast this with the Berlin S-and U-bahn system, where the door opening buttons are always released just before the train stops moving, so the doors open sufficiently for use at the exact moment the train stops. Efficient - very. Dangerous? Surely not much, especially when everybody has got used to the new characteristics.
This leads on to an important wider point about railway safety. It is possible in the cover-yo-ass and blame avoidance culture to aspire to be too safe. Surely what really matters is the safety performance of the nation's transport networks as a whole?
If a railway network can be made cheaper and simpler, and thus becomes more attractive to more users, it may in itself become a bit less safe. But the enhanced attractiveness of rail, due to its better value for money, should lead to a significant reduction in overall deaths and injuries. More people will take the train and leave their car, motorbike or pedal bike at home. (There could be extra health benefits too, from the walking to and from the station. Also, busier trains are less vulnerable to vandalism and bad behaviour).
It could help solve the railways financial crisis as well. Time for some action on this!
I agree but there is no chance of this happening. If anything things will continue to go the other way.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
There seems to be no limit to the amount available to fund increasingly marginal safety improvements, in contrast to most other aspects of the railway. No doubt due the culture which has built up over the last two centuries.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A safety culture is no bad thing, but if you're actually interested in saving lives overall then further railway safety spending should be stopped and diverted to the roads. Or used to reduce fares so more people transfer from road to rail.
In terms of safety "big steps", TPWS was the last thing that was truly worthwhile, other than the general incremental improvement you get to rolling stock just by replacing it on a normal schedule.
One of the more recent "big steps" that changed safety for the better has been the professional driving policies more specifically the introduction of human factors and non technical skill focus.
- Status