Following instructions after disruption.

[Greenback]

If someone asks a question where the answer is entirely dependent on the kind of ticket they have, I can't say I've come across anyone who has begrudged showing me their ticket - in fact it's usually brandished at me in advance. Those who ask questions are generally more than happy with complying with anything that will help them get a proper answer.

Someone suggested that asking all passengers to show their ticket when they ask a question would be a good idea. I don't think it is necessarily a good idea as I have seen some passengers display quite an attitude when they are asked to show a ticket - perhaps they do not consider the question ticket dependent, perhaps they are riled that they have just produced it for soemone else, or gone through a barrier.

Those who do begrudge showing tickets generally aren't the ones asking the questions as a) they know the crack and just want to get where they're going with minimal interaction or interference or b) they're fare evaders trying to wing it anyway

That is sometimes the case, but not always. I remember receiving grief from a person compalining about a late running train to Slough when I asked them what ticket they had and they didn't have one at all. Nor did they intend buying one!

Similarly, some people do not understand that their 'simple' question ie what time is the next train to Didcot may not be so simpe, after all. Or perhaps they do, and want to be instructed to board a fast train with their restricted and invalid ticket!

As for platform staff and tickets, it's important to know the basics for your area, and it's also important to know when you've reached the limits of your knowledge and to refer people to the booking office.

That's right, but a few railway staff do prefer to guess and make things up rather than admit they don't know!

 

[reb0118]

The guard mentioned to me that with my great escape ticket, I was not insured to be on that train. (presuming no official ticket acceptance was in place) That's not something I had thought about before. Anyone know anything more?

I have been told something similar. Previously when dealing with passengers on train unable to purchase tickets it was custom & practice to take their details for further action but not to issue a ticket. You would only issue a ticket (zero fare) if you withdrew a ticket already held for further enquiry.

Now we have been told that we must issue a zero fare ticket regardless, even if the passenger is only travelling a few stops on your train, as this is a legal requirement and one of the reasons given is that the passenger is not insured to travel without a ticket. NB, however, on pay trains where you are expected to pay on the train there is am implicit contract to travel and this is not diminished because the conductor has not reached you prior to any incident taking place.

We have a product called "Kids go free" but the children still have to have a ticket (albeit a zero fare). Why do children under five not require tickets - again I have been told that they have no value under law - that I find hard to believe!

As to what would happen in real life and in fact what this "insurance" is actually for I concur with DaveNewcastle's views above. Could this be another railway myth?

As a further aside when purchasing rail tickets in former Soviet countries I have always been issued with an insurance ticket on top - usually for a few shekels - I will try to find one of these and see what it says the insurance is for and scan & attach here.

 

[Tibbs]

From your language, I expect that this isn't a sincere enquiry, but . . .
While I can't comment on "gets killed and their family doesn't get a payout", I can assure you that anyone travelling under a Contract, whether evidenced by a ticket or not, will be subject to the same duty of care, and the same degree of proportionate recompense where appropriate. The liability to third parties (their family) will be subject to reasonable assessment - ticket-holding or not.

The protection of a rail passenger appears to me to be substantially more robust when tested in extreme incidents than in some equivalent modes of transport.

The question was serious, but the tone was because I couldn't quite believe that someone would assert that without a formal contract in place the railway has no duty of care to that person.

The quickest look at compensation awards to people who are injured trespassing on building sites, people who are hurt in shops, a whole host of other places that people go without a formal contract in place will show that that's not the case.

The concept of duty of care seems to be something that passed right over people's heads.

 

[reb0118]

I suggest you put in a complaint about the matter.....

Why? It is my understanding that the OP was allowed to travel after explaining the situation. The guard's gripe seemed to be about LM's lack of service & Virgin having to take up the slack. To be fair this would have been probably best kept internal between VT & LM. Unless the OP was dealt with in a unprofessional manner I see no cause for complaint.

A small minority of staff really hate it when they are required to accept tickets issued for travel by another Companies trains. If the Company is made aware of this, then the problem can be reduced in future. Problems such as this are rare though, in my experience staff are normally very helpful in times of disruption. I think Tractakid was unlucky, and for the benefit of anyone who has the misfortune to encounter this guard, I think he needs to report the matter.

One of the major problems I find personally is that it is rare to be informed as the guard of a train that we are to accept other operators tickets. In times of major disruption it can be obvious but recently XC have been having driver shortages resulting in random cancellations - this is not always brought to the attention of other TOC staff and results in confusion & poor customer service.

Solution: replace all the various TOCs with one national company - public or private - one railway.

Interim solution: to all rail staff start to believe in one railway if one TOC has a problem use that to show your TOC in a good light - if you can help then do help. Try not to see internal competition amongst TOCs but see the real competition between the railway and other forms of transport e.g. the private car. Remember it might be your TOC and your passengers in need of help next time!

 

[martinsh]

when purchasing rail tickets in former Soviet countries I have always been issued with an insurance ticket on top - usually for a few shekels

Not in Latvia in my extensive experience. [ Unless you are talking about international journeys] Mind you the shekel isn't legal currency there !!!

 

[sheff1]

Oh silly me I forgot, its always the staffs duty to interrogate the passenger so they have all relevant details rather than the passengers duty to provide the information isnt it! :roll:

If the answer to the question asked needs the staff member to know what ticket is held then said staff member needs to say so. A passenger may well not know what 'all the relevant details' are.

A simple 'It depends on which ticket you have, can I see it please ?' should result in the passenger providing the information required. If the passenger refuses to show the ticket/provide the required information then a polite reply that they unable to give an answer without it is, again, pretty simple.

 

[VauxhallandI]

If the answer to the question asked needs the staff member to know what ticket is held then said staff member needs to say so. A passenger may well not know what 'all the relevant details' are.

A simple 'It depends on which ticket you have, can I see it please ?' should result in the passenger providing the information required. If the passenger refuses to show the ticket/provide the required information then a polite reply that they unable to give an answer without it is, again, pretty simple.

Does this not assume that all guards etc of all TOC's need to learn all the rules of offers from each other's companies?

Seems a far stretch to be honest, and rightly do to an extent.

If this is a manned station with barriers and ticket line staff then the passenger has already proved they are valid to travel so the only knowledge the staff member needs to know is if company x and being let use company y.

In this case they had not yet been informed ah instead of acting in a professional manner and finding out they aired their dirty laundry in public to the passenger?

 

[tsr]

If this is a manned station with barriers and ticket line staff then the passenger has already proved they are valid to travel so the only knowledge the staff member needs to know is if company x and being let use company y.

No. It proves that either the barriers have not been programmed to reject the ticket or that the staff have let the customer through the barriers. Both gatelines and their staff could well be subject to errors in programming and training, respectively.

 

[trentside]

Someone suggested that asking all passengers to show their ticket when they ask a question would be a good idea. I don't think it is necessarily a good idea as I have seen some passengers display quite an attitude when they are asked to show a ticket - perhaps they do not consider the question ticket dependent, perhaps they are riled that they have just produced it for soemone else, or gone through a barrier.

The one I always think of in this case is "What time's the next train to London?". It can have multiple answers depending on the type of ticket held, so I always tend to ask them to show me their ticket. More often than not, such a ticket is endorsed "Advance" and to send them on the wrong train would land them in a bad situation and likely result in a complaint winging its way to my manager. The only time I've had people be reluctant, it turned out the ticket was for an earlier train, or not valid at the time of day they were wanting to travel.

 

[Greenback]

The one I always think of in this case is "What time's the next train to London?". It can have multiple answers depending on the type of ticket held, so I always tend to ask them to show me their ticket. More often than not, such a ticket is endorsed "Advance" and to send them on the wrong train would land them in a bad situation and likely result in a complaint winging its way to my manager. The only time I've had people be reluctant, it turned out the ticket was for an earlier train, or not valid at the time of day they were wanting to travel.

You are obviously good at your job! Your last sentence also backs up my suspicion that soem people want to be 'instructed' to board a train for which their ticket is not valid.

However, I remain unconvinced that it is a good diea to ask passenegers to show their ticket in every situation, as suggested earlier.

 

[trentside]

However, I remain unconvinced that it is a good diea to ask passenegers to show their ticket in every situation, as suggested earlier.

I totally agree - it depends on the question asked. Someone who wants to know the time of the next train to a local destination doesn't need to show me their ticket, or someone who comes up to ask for a route to Plymouth and states their ticket is routed 'Not Via London' - as they've already given me the information I need.

 

[Flamingo]

I always ask to see the ticket if there is any possibility of doubt. I have had somebody ask me about my train, when I saw their ticket I told them it was not valid, and subsequently on the train, they insisted they had been told by "The man on the platform" it would be ok to travel. When I said they were wrong, the said "Are you calling me a liar!", to which I had great pleasure in replying "Yes Ma'am, because it was me you asked!". (Ching Ching)

 

[anme]

In my understanding, all the talk about contracts is itself a red herring. Travel on the railway is subject to various bylaws and acts of parliament. Many of the normal provisions of contract law don't apply.
There are cases when someone is legitimately on a train without a ticket - for example, when boarding at an unstaffed station before they had the opportunity to buy a ticket. I am sure they are still covered by normal provisions in the event of an accident. I don't think contract law has anything to do with it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . Many of the normal provisions of contract law don't apply.
There are cases when someone is legitimately on a train without a ticket - for example, when boarding at an unstaffed station before they had the opportunity to buy a ticket. I am sure they are still covered by normal provisions in the event of an accident. I don't think contract law has anything to do with it.

Passengers travelling without a ticket in circumstances which demonstrate an intention to be bound by the terms of the Contract, but where it is not practical or possible to obtain a ticket, ARE under a Contract, with obligations applying to both parties.

In my understanding, all the talk about contracts is itself a red herring. Travel on the railway is subject to various bylaws and acts of parliament.

Contract Law does apply. It is not a 'red herring'. The Railway Byelaws and Railway statutes do not diminish the application of Contract Law to passenger travel on the Railways.

 

[dvboy]

There was ticket acceptance in place on 29 Oct initially between MK and BHM and later extended to Euston.
I was travelling on a great escape and two friends on free day passes, we checked both with LM on Twitter that we could use these on virgin from MK and it was confirmed

It was due to broken down freight at Northampton, so VT services were unaffected.

 

[tractakid]

There was ticket acceptance in place on 29 Oct initially between MK and BHM and later extended to Euston.
I was travelling on a great escape and two friends on free day passes, we checked both with LM on Twitter that we could use these on virgin from MK and it was confirmed

It was due to broken down freight at Northampton, so VT services were unaffected.

Twas handy for me in the end. Delays equals getting home earlier!

 

[dvboy]

Twas handy for me in the end. Delays equals getting home earlier!

Likewise, we hopped onto Virgin at MK.