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!
Has there been any public comment from the leadership of South Western Railways (Claire Mann, Managing Director, I believe) on this event, following its appearence in the national press?
It's not the first time that a service has had to be cut short in the rural fastness they serve, where station staff, taxis and replacement buses are anyway in short supply, so there must surely be a procedure to handle this type of event.
Which is almost all cases is the private car, and perhaps long distance coaches. Air competes for, I estimate, less than 1% of rail journeys in this country.
We aren't talking about "wholly domestic air fares". This discussion has arisen because someone has suggested the regulatory regime which applies to airlines should apply to every railway journey in the UK. One of the key factors is - airline travel is global and the average ticket price is vastly higher than the average ticket purchased in the UK. Nobody is talking about domestic air fares and I happen to be quite cogniscant of what a plane ticket will cost.
, I'm sorry but I'm also going to have to disagree with you. Most long distance journeys are cheaper or competitive by air, especially when booked well in advance. Short notice bookings also are broadly competitive. To suggest they're 10x more effectively implies that for every person paying £100 to take the train Kings Cross to Edinburgh (and at £100 that would still be an apex or off peak fare) there's numerous people paying £1000 to fly, which quite evidently is nonsense. Good luck even finding such an expensive air fare in economy.
As we've just examined, you are disagreeing with me based on something I didn't say and which I took pains to spell out very specifically in the post you quoted!
In terms of care and compensation, firstly, airlines are required to provide care, which isn't a stipulation of NRCoC, except in a handful of extreme and ridiculously rare circumstances - so already, aviation is doing better.
In relation to providing accommodation, it is much easier to find 200 rooms near Heathrow Airport than 50 at Yeovil Junction. You have to travel to what is in effect a built up area with accommodation nearby just to take a flight!
You would only not be entitled to compensation for the ticket in the circumstances described above if they provided an alternative flight - which coupled with the care provided, should make for a reasonably well dealt with disruption incident.
Absolutely incorrect. Because the delay/cancellation was due to the weather, it would be written off as exceptional circumstances, and you would receive zero pounds and zero pence by way of compensation. The majority of delays are non-compensable even with EC261 protection.
Are the provisions good or not? I'd say probably not so much - there is a single clause relating to providing accommodation or onward transport which has "if it reasonably can" and "where necessary" inserted, giving quite a lot of wiggle room. I'd suggest that's where the debate really ought to be starting here. Why do you think the railway didn't book the author's son into the Premier Inn he ended up in?
My main issue is TOCs repeated failures to actually honour those conditions in a timely fashion, never mind to simply do what's right by their customers.
What do you think it's like travelling by plane for most people? There are myriad failures every day even within Europe when it comes to fulfilling the airline conditions of carriage and the provisions set out in EC261.
I really do not suggest posters try to advocate for the airline industry and suggests its protections should apply to rail journeys here, because not many people seem to actually know:
1) what those protections actually are
2) how they work in practice
3) why they differ so much from the NRCoT
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It is correct to say the railway did fail its passengers, however to blame the driver and guard is absurd. They had nothing to offer their passengers. There reportedly was no taxis on the rank to issue an IOU to (if they even existed, which they don’t, station staff can issue a docket, however guards only have vouchers which effectively rubber stamp a refund request when accompanied with a receipt and the original ticket)
It would appear 1L57 1820 Waterloo - Exeter (1827 off Clapham) terminated 7 late at YVJ to form 1L80 2025 Exeter - Waterloo starting YVJ 2127.
finally I’m led to believe that SWR are one of the only TOCs to answer help point calls directly, however the help point call is taken by a Route information controller who is also responsible for updating internal and external systems to reflect train service alterations. There was been a staff shortage recently for this role, partly due to DfT meddling and partly due to covid. Apparently it’s not uncommon for only 1 of the 3 desks to be covered.
Well found - I couldn’t search that far back: I also saw that SWR were already advising they were having issues with sourcing transport later that evening. They continually broadcast DO NOT TRAVEL as well.
Okay so not everyone has Twitter, but it’s the same sort of message that would be on CIS and other information systems including colour boards at Waterloo or Clapham Junction.
Plenty of timely and helpful advice on SWR Twitter. Some experienced travellers who saw this in time would have used alternative routes.
But were passengers who joined the train at Waterloo and subsequent station stops planning to travel beyond Yeovil Junction proactively advised to use an alternative route by station staff or onboard announcements？
Well found - I couldn’t search that far back: I also saw that SWR were already advising they were having issues with sourcing transport later that evening. They continually broadcast DO NOT TRAVEL as well.
Okay so not everyone has Twitter, but it’s the same sort of message that would be on CIS and other information systems including colour boards at Waterloo or Clapham Junction.
I also note that ticket acceptance with GWR was in place. As the child was travelling to Exeter, it is a great pity that neither he, nor the parent, nor supposedly rail staff, suggested doing just that.
So, this is the sort of thing the railway can look to resolve. Guards should, therefore, going forward, be able to issue Hackney carriage dockets. They shouldn't be issued at the drop of a hat, so there should need to be Control authority to do so, but they should have them in their bag just in case.
It sounds like it might not have helped here, but this is the sort of "learn from experience" thing that the railway isn't often very good at. It does it very, very well with accidents (by way of the RAIB), but it should do that kind of "root cause analysis" of customer service matters, too. Any business that truly cares about customer service does.
This is all well and good and many crews do have this facility but if there were no taxis available the point is entirely moot. Yeovil Junction does actually have a small taxi rank. I think contacting local companies in the Yeovil area would have been SWR / FTS first point of call much earlier in the day.
I have seen similar situations in other places whereby replacement transport has just dried up - in fact it led to me making this thread - when the railway has really struggled for one reason or another. It’s really frustrating and difficult when you are simply unable to accommodate people’s journeys and communicate that to them; some will make their own provisions and ticket acceptance will sometimes be with buses, but others will be looking for news from staff but sometimes the answer will be “sorry there’s no provision”.
I think the root problem is that Yeovil Junction is a poor terminating point, yet they had seemingly been doing this all day without much bother so presumably the replacement transport eventually dried up by the end of the day as coach / bus drivers changed shifts. SWR had some form for this - they were roundly criticised for continuously terminating at Raynes Park in busy times which was seen as unsuitable for busy, narrow platforms.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I also note that ticket acceptance with GWR was in place. As the child was travelling to Exeter, it is a great pity that neither he, nor the parent, nor supposedly rail staff, suggested doing just that.
Not when you carry out the form of root cause analysis I'm talking about. Extrapolating to slightly different situations that could occur in future (or simply if a taxi had shown up that'd be five people out of the way) it is worth considering this option for the future.
Noted. Due to lack of timestamps, that thread is difficult to interpret - but I gain the impression that services were expected to be 'ok' in the afternoon/evening (although in the end they weren't).
But the question I have is to what extent was this tweeted info communicated to passengers (not on Twitter) boarding or travelling (or intending to) to Exeter via Yeovil? Were such passengers sought out east of Salisbury and advised (on Waterloo-Exeter services)?
A thought: should SWR/other TOCs have 'flying squads' that can be despatched to the likes of Yeovil Jn in this sort of circumstance, to supervise there? (And, yes, a 'yes' answer is going to have implications as to who? where? etc. that will need consideration)
Unfortunately there isn’t many, if any suitable places to terminate and start back west of Salisbury, but a balance also needs to be struck to keep those moving to stations Salisbury - Yeovil. Yeovil has a large catchment area which is why trains continue to run to there. the only other option would have been to terminate at Salisbury and leave Tisbury, Gillingham, Templecombe and Sherborne unserved which isn’t ideal for those passengers
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Noted. Due to lack of timestamps, that thread is difficult to interpret - but I gain the impression that services were expected to be 'ok' in the afternoon/evening (although in the end they weren't).
But the question I have is to what extent was this tweeted info communicated to passengers (not on Twitter) boarding or travelling (or intending to) to Exeter via Yeovil? Were such passengers sought out east of Salisbury and advised (on Waterloo-Exeter services)?
A thought: should SWR/other TOCs have 'flying squads' that can be despatched to the likes of Yeovil Jn in this sort of circumstance, to supervise there? (And, yes, a 'yes' answer is going to have implications as to who? where? etc. that will need consideration)
The information on Twitter would have been published on the SWR website, Journey check, recorded manual station announcements on repeat and direct to guards mobile phones, who also should have been making announcements on board.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Rereading the twitter thread implies that the incident may have actually happened on the 20th of October, not the 21st.
this then changes the arrivals and departures which show 1L57 arriving 53’L, and either shunted into the sidings and Yeovil junction or formed 1L88 the 2330 departure
But the question I have is to what extent was this tweeted info communicated to passengers (not on Twitter) boarding or travelling (or intending to) to Exeter via Yeovil? Were such passengers sought out east of Salisbury and advised (on Waterloo-Exeter services)?
Agreed with this. I'm a pretty heavy Twitter user and there's been numerous occasions where a ToC has been saying something on there but the staff on the ground have no idea or haven't tried to communicate it to passengers.
Unfortunately there isn’t many, if any suitable places to terminate and start back west of Salisbury, but a balance also needs to be struck to keep those moving to stations Salisbury - Yeovil. Yeovil has a large catchment area which is why trains continue to run to there. the only other option would have been to terminate at Salisbury and leave Tisbury, Gillingham, Templecombe and Sherborne unserved which isn’t ideal for those passengers
Indeed, although with benefit of hindsight this still may have been preferable. But it is easy to play the Monday morning quarterback with these events.
Just why are some people here determined to protect rail staff from any responsibility come what may? Worse, they defend some ontrain staff by saying 'it wasn't their job to see that the passengers were OK', without taking any account of what would be expected as decent, reasonable human behaviour, regardless of what was technically one's job or not.
This works both ways. Some people are keen to have staff shot at dawn for anything and everything. What most people (myself included) would really like to see is Passengers and The Railway each doing their bit and applying common sense. We’d like the railway to communicate with passengers at every step of the way. We’d like passengers to listen and comply and politely discuss any further issues with them. We’d like the contractual rights to be followed, after all it is what passengers have paid for and forms part of the ‘value’ of the ticket. And most of all we would like ‘The Railway’ which for these incidents is essentially the tax payer to pay what is due to passengers without hassle.
I appreciate this question was aimed at someone else but the answer is because they rather hope they wouldn’t have to. They could have organised it straight away but then it has cost them money. If they don’t there’s a good chance that nothing will come of it.
I’d compare this sort of thing to sitting in First class on a Sunday. You could hunt the guard down and say I’d like to pay my £12 for the upgrade or you could not do that and hope they don’t bother to come around.
Okay so not everyone has Twitter, but it’s the same sort of message that would be on CIS and other information systems including colour boards at Waterloo or Clapham Junction.
I have no idea of the specifics on that day of course, but I know that if a Do Not Travel message is sent out, it should be pushed through all information formats including the website, industry messaging system and normally the big red notices (OIS screens) that you see at major NR stations
I have no idea of the specifics on that day of course, but I know that if a Do Not Travel message is sent out, it should be pushed through all information formats including the website, industry messaging system and normally the big red notices (OIS screens) that you see at major NR stations
On the other hand it does appear that they had been turning other trains short at Yeovil all day, but this evening train was still advertised in London as going to Exeter.
I appreciate this question was aimed at someone else but the answer is because they rather hope they wouldn’t have to. They could have organised it straight away but then it has cost them money. If they don’t there’s a good chance that nothing will come of it.
That's partly it, but also that the NRCoT includes weasel phrases which do not make it an absolute entitlement for the passenger in all cases, unlike, say, EC261.
That's partly it, but also that the NRCoT includes weasel phrases which do not make it an absolute entitlement for the passenger in all cases, unlike, say, EC261.
It needs to be something more insurance-policy-like. Indeed I created a thread elsewhere that suggested it should actually be an insurance policy.
e.g. "If you are delayed or expected to be delayed overnight, where "overnight" is defined as a delay covering the whole period of 0200 to 0500, and alternative transport or hotel accommodation is not provided directly by the railway company within one hour of the start of the delay, you are entitled to £100 (one hundred pounds) of receipted expenses for overnight accommodation and/or alternative transport organised by yourself. This will be paid on submission of receipts. This figure will increase each year by the Retail Price Index figure."
£100 is a random figure, but is in the right ballpark, and ensures the cheaper of a hotel or taxi is likely to be taken.
On the other hand it does appear that they had been turning other trains short at Yeovil all day, but this evening train was still advertised in London as going to Exeter.
Was it? Or was it 'Exeter (bus from Yeovil)'? 'Yeovil (for bus to Exeter)'? 'Yeovil (with bus for stations to Exeter. Passengers for Exeter change [to alternative service, i.e. GW] at Salisbury)'?
Which? And which should (as the best/most realistic) it have been? Maybe the last? And how were the other trains (that terminated at Yeovil) advertised?
While it's been implied that it was advertised as for Exeter, I'm not sure it's actually been stated.
And the British way of identifying trains by time and destination doesn't make things simple ('1820 (or whenever) to Exeter' is a bit confusing when it's only going to Yeovil, change before then for Exeter)
But methinks this thread is getting divided between 'How to stop passengers ending up at Yeovil (or wherever), when there is no way forward' and 'What should be done when they do'.
But if a “do not travel” warning has been issued and ignored, as appears to have been the case here, it’s ludicrous to expect the railway to bail people out regardless of cost.
In the case of advanced tickets that cost will in many cases be a multiple of the value of the ticket actually bought.
But if a “do not travel” warning has been issued and ignored, as appears to have been the case here, it’s ludicrous to expect the railway to bail people out regardless of cost.
Issuing a "do not travel" warning isn't a get out of jail card. The railway won't exactly put you up in a hotel in your origin if you decide to abandon your journey as a result. You'll get a refund and may well be heavily out of pocket.
But if a “do not travel” warning has been issued and ignored, as appears to have been the case here, it’s ludicrous to expect the railway to bail people out regardless of cost.
In the case of advanced tickets that cost will in many cases be a multiple of the value of the ticket actually bought.
As mentioned EU261 is primarily an anti-overbooking thing, though it does catch a few other things. Overbooking is an unnecessary for-profit activity, quite different from "accidental" disruption and done deliberately for no other reason than maximising profit. (Quite different from railway "overbooking" as it often results in people being stranded for a prolonged period).
This is not quite correct: the exclusion applies to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the operator.
There is already a CJEU opinion (from Bot, I think) which intimates that weather conditions will not in themselves constitute such extraordinary circumstances.
"Do not travel" is more usefully "do not travel outwards from home". People have to get home; they may have no accommodation at their destination.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As mentioned EU261 is primarily an anti-overbooking thing, though it does catch a few other things. Overbooking is an unnecessary for-profit activity, quite different from "accidental" disruption and done deliberately for no other reason than maximising profit. (Quite different from railway "overbooking" as it often results in people being stranded for a prolonged period).
I agree with that homeward bound travellers are in the lurch here, my line of thought is that if the said travel is deemed unsafe due to the conditions which were forecast then passing the safety decision to the passenger is not a safety decision. In the OP’s instance this was outward travel.
This is not quite correct: the exclusion applies to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the operator.
There is already a CJEU opinion (from Bot, I think) which intimates that weather conditions will not in themselves constitute such extraordinary circumstances.
Sorry, I should have said extreme weather, e.g. storms. Obviously not contracting de-icing facilities at an airport in Switzerland, or not being able to operate during rain in England, would not be accepted.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree with that homeward bound travellers are in the lurch here, my line of thought is that if the said travel is deemed unsafe due to the conditions which were forecast then passing the safety decision to the passenger is not a safety decision. In the OP’s instance this was outward travel.
"Do not travel" is more "if you do travel you may get stranded". If you're already away from home, you're already stranded, so you can't really get more stranded, give or take some very rural routes.
Safety considerations (of the train and of people travelling on it while they are so doing) are separate, and the railway will not operate if it is considered unsafe to do so.
Safety considerations (of the train and of people travelling on it while they are so doing) are separate, and the railway will not operate if it is considered
I understand this too and when such instances occur as this one where no harm to the passenger was done then the stranded risk should be taken by the traveller. (Once such travel guidance has been declared)
As a parent in this situation there were multiple flaws from beginning to end.
But if a “do not travel” warning has been issued and ignored, as appears to have been the case here, it’s ludicrous to expect the railway to bail people out regardless of cost.
In the case of advanced tickets that cost will in many cases be a multiple of the value of the ticket actually bought.
The cost of doing business, be better at dealing with things and you’ll reduce the problem, even when the issue is caused by the weather. We have already seen how most rail journeys cost more than the equivalent journey on other forms of public transport and part of that cost is held in the rights you have as a passenger above what you would have in a megabus for example.
For your Newcastle to Plymouth journey (to use a substantial distance flow), for your £378.20 OFF PEAK any permitted return fare you get to travel on most trains and can break your journey wherever you want. You also SHOULD get the assurance that in the event of severe disruption, for your £378.20 (or your £12 for a local journey) the railway will look after you and get you to where you are going or a suitable alternative. Afterall it’s in the rules that they will do this. You may pick this method of transport specifically because you know you should be in a safer place. If you booked a couple of buses you’d have far less protection and importantly if you drove you’d have none at all. The issue is of course operators started testing the water some time ago to see what would come of it if they just plain refused to comply with the rules. Nothing came of it because the regulators are soft. And the only times they have to pay out is when someone with a bit of knowledge kicks off, they’re paid off to shut up and not draw attention to the despicable behaviour that the operators now know they can get away with.
Issuing a "do not travel" warning isn't a get out of jail card. The railway won't exactly put you up in a hotel in your origin if you decide to abandon your journey as a result. You'll get a refund and may well be heavily out of pocket.
Unfortunately whilst I’d like to agree, in the real world it appears to be used as a get out of jail free card more and more. Operators are throwing the towel in earlier and earlier into developing situations because they have out their toes in the water and got away without being bitten by that family of crocodiles.
That family of crocodiles are the ORR, The Rail Ombudsman, The Rail Delivery Group, Transport Focus, the DfT. They’re made of plastic and just bob about aimlessly in the water.
Realistically, if "do not travel" warnings are to have true weight, they need to come with something akin to a lockdown for areas affected. Not "you must stay at home", but a mandatory closure of businesses which would mean people could not be disciplined for heeding it and not going to work. Effectively a Christmas Day style super-public-holiday.
Realistically, if "do not travel" warnings are to have true weight, they need to come with something akin to a lockdown for areas affected. Not "you must stay at home", but a mandatory closure of businesses which would mean people could not be disciplined for heeding it and not going to work. Effectively a Christmas Day style super-public-holiday.
You do get weather situations where multiple agencies issue 'do not travel' (highways agency, police etc). It would be interesting to see how many rail 'do not travels' are issued compared to multiple agency ones.
Even in those multiple agency situations, I suspect many managers still expect their staff to get to work! The alternative being an interview without coffee, or at least a shouting at for not trying. Mrs X got to work, she walked 7 miles in the snow, why didn't you do the same, is one personal example. My response was, shall we say, rather robust anglo-saxon along the lines of please go back into your office, sit down, and keep quiet.
We return to my standard response to the 'the rail industry can do no wrong, ever, department': What is your advice for people already away from home and needing to return, having travelled out before any ‘Do Not Travel’ instruction / request was issued? If you have an Advance, and wished to come home early, say the day before the instruction having seen Met Office warnings, you would not be allowed to do so (at the moment due to COVID Advances can be changed, but not necessarily for the same ticket cost).
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.
