How do you enforce pick up and set down only?

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Please do, though I remain to be convinced that Lumo are any different to any other TOC in terms of sweeping such incidents under the carpet, but I'd like to be proven wrong on that.

Based on what you have said, it sounds like Lumo are no better than the rest in terms of making up false claims in order to humiliate customers; I'd expect (and deserve) to be given the sack if I did that in my job!

I will, and I will let you know the outcome

 

[Flying Snail]

I will, and I will let you know the outcome

I assume that your complaint will include the fact that you are a well informed rail enthusiast who was fully aware the service was set-down only and you had no business in boarding it but did so regardless.

You have no reasonable complaint here, the Lumo staff member saw you boarding where you shouldn't have and made a perfectly legitimate announcement to make it clear to you that you needed to disembark ASAP.

You are just butthurt that you were caught out and instead of taking it as a reasonable admonishment for trying something you know you shouldn't have you are attempting to lodge a punishment complaint against the staff member.

Now that you have posted this here it is far from unlikely that it will get back to the person involved that it was not an unwitting random person but a spotter trying it on. People oft complain about how many rail staff members have a bad attitude towards enthusiasts, with this sort of nonsense is it any wonder?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume that your complaint will include the fact that you are a well informed rail enthusiast who was fully aware the service was set-down only and you had no business in boarding it but did so regardless.

You have no reasonable complaint here, the Lumo staff member saw you boarding where you shouldn't have and made a perfectly legitimate announcement to make it clear to you that you needed to disembark ASAP.

You are just butthurt that you were caught out and instead of taking it as a reasonable admonishment for trying something you know you shouldn't have you are attempting to lodge a punishment complaint against the staff member.

Now that you have posted this here it is far from unlikely that it will get back to the person involved that it was not an unwitting random person but a spotter trying it on. People oft complain about how many rail staff members have a bad attitude towards enthusiasts, with this sort of nonsense is it any wonder?

Exactly this.

You cannot expect to be treated nicely if you have knowingly and wilfully broken the rules.

I wouldn't expect someone to be spoken to nicely if they walked into a station and barged through/jumped over the gateline either (whether they held a valid ticket or not).

Any complaint will just be filed in the circular mesh folder in the corner of the room.

If you want to do something "a bit naughty" like this, you can try it on but don't complain if you're caught, or you ask the traincrew and accept refusal gracefully. I'm reminded of being in New York and wanting a ride round the City Hall Loop, which most online sources say is at guard's discretion. I asked one guard and was refused. So I waited for the next train and asked again and she let me. I seem to recall the Kennington Loop being similar, the first driver told me to get off over the PA so I did, the second one let me ride round.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I assume that your complaint will include the fact that you are a well informed rail enthusiast who was fully aware the service was set-down only and you had no business in boarding it but did so regardless.

You have no reasonable complaint here, the Lumo staff member saw you boarding where you shouldn't have and made a perfectly legitimate announcement to make it clear to you that you needed to disembark ASAP.

You are just butthurt that you were caught out and instead of taking it as a reasonable admonishment for trying something you know you shouldn't have you are attempting to lodge a punishment complaint against the staff member.

I'll politely request that you refrain from making sweeping assertions about circumstances of which you are not aware.

The point is, there are many people who would not have known that LUMO is a pick-up only service available at Stevenage, particularly as any fast, bullet-trainesque service is very likely to be assumed by the average person as an LNER service. So it is highly likely that one who is not an enthusiast would board as I did unknowingly (there was no announcement made) - and THIS is why I am making a complaint.

The "ambassador" had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that I know about railway operations; I don't look like a train spotter, not that one should assume anyway, and I am complaining because this manner is not the way to address someone who has made an innocent mistake - which is what it would be for most people who board there. That is not adequate customer service. Furthermore, the condescending manner in which the situation was handled, as well as the making up of rules (I cannot be issued a PF by LUMO in this circumstance) is unfortunately a common issue that is often being done by members of staff with a somewhat entitled attitude, and that is why I am complaining.

Based on what you have said, it sounds like Lumo are no better than the rest in terms of making up false claims in order to humiliate customers; I'd expect (and deserve) to be given the sack if I did that in my job!

If I had a pound for every time I'd heard a Guard make up their own rules, I'd be able to buy a rather expensive ticket with the proceeds.

This is exactly why I wish to complain. The way in which the situation was handled is not acceptable, not the fact they wanted me to alight the train. Someone who really cared that much about someone boarding could easily have made announcement along this line.
"Could all passengers who have boarded here at Stevenage, please be aware that this is not a scheduled call for boarding; it would be appreciated if you could alight from the train and rejoin an LNER or Govia Thameslink Railway service."

Singling one person out - even to the point where you describe their clothing - threatening me with a PF where one is not due, saying condescending things like "Yes, I can see you," and being sarcastic - "even though there are signs displayed on the boards" (which I don't remember seeing) is not the way to do it. Think differently if you wish, @Flying Snail

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If I'm ever going to Waterloo from Clapham Junction, I always hop over the platform 7 for a fast train. Often there is a member of staff already on the platform and they completely ignore me.

 

[Kite159]

If I'm ever going to Waterloo from Clapham Junction, I always hop over the platform 7 for a fast train. Often there is a member of staff already on the platform and they completely ignore me.

Vast majority of SWR mainline services are open calls at Clapham junction heading towards Waterloo, they are even advertised on the screens.

Although depending on the timetable the trains which call at Vauxhall can be faster, especially if the mainline service has a booked wait for a platform

 

[NSE]

I always used to take the StanEx from Liverpool Street to Tottenham Hale when they didn’t advertise it on the departure boards. I knew if it went straight through I could be buying a ticket but that was my risk. It never did anyway. Also, was it officially pick up only? Cause the down train was always advertised to Tottenham and was set down. So makes me think it was just to keep the rabble off.

Also, I don’t see what was wrong with what the Lumo guard did. The PF bit was wrong clearly but you chanced it and got caught. Never mind.

 

[DanNCL]

I assume that your complaint will include the fact that you are a well informed rail enthusiast who was fully aware the service was set-down only and you had no business in boarding it but did so regardless.

You have no reasonable complaint here, the Lumo staff member saw you boarding where you shouldn't have and made a perfectly legitimate announcement to make it clear to you that you needed to disembark ASAP.

You are just butthurt that you were caught out and instead of taking it as a reasonable admonishment for trying something you know you shouldn't have you are attempting to lodge a punishment complaint against the staff member.

Now that you have posted this here it is far from unlikely that it will get back to the person involved that it was not an unwitting random person but a spotter trying it on. People oft complain about how many rail staff members have a bad attitude towards enthusiasts, with this sort of nonsense is it any wonder?

Exactly this.

You cannot expect to be treated nicely if you have knowingly and wilfully broken the rules.

I wouldn't expect someone to be spoken to nicely if they walked into a station and barged through/jumped over the gateline either (whether they held a valid ticket or not).

Any complaint will just be filed in the circular mesh folder in the corner of the room.

If you want to do something "a bit naughty" like this, you can try it on but don't complain if you're caught, or you ask the traincrew and accept refusal gracefully. I'm reminded of being in New York and wanting a ride round the City Hall Loop, which most online sources say is at guard's discretion. I asked one guard and was refused. So I waited for the next train and asked again and she let me. I seem to recall the Kennington Loop being similar, the first driver told me to get off over the PA so I did, the second one let me ride round.

I'll politely request that you refrain from making sweeping assertions about circumstances of which you are not aware.

The point is, there are many people who would not have known that LUMO is a pick-up only service available at Stevenage, particularly as any fast, bullet-trainesque service is very likely to be assumed by the average person as an LNER service. So it is highly likely that one who is not an enthusiast would board as I did unknowingly (there was no announcement made) - and THIS is why I am making a complaint.

The "ambassador" had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that I know about railway operations; I don't look like a train spotter, not that one should assume anyway, and I am complaining because this manner is not the way to address someone who has made an innocent mistake - which is what it would be for most people who board there. That is not adequate customer service. Furthermore, the condescending manner in which the situation was handled, as well as the making up of rules (I cannot be issued a PF by LUMO in this circumstance) is unfortunately a common issue that is often being done by members of staff with a somewhat entitled attitude, and that is why I am complaining.

This is exactly why I wish to complain. The way in which the situation was handled is not acceptable, not the fact they wanted me to alight the train. Someone who really cared that much about someone boarding could easily have made announcement along this line.
"Could all passengers who have boarded here at Stevenage, please be aware that this is not a scheduled call for boarding; it would be appreciated if you could alight from the train and rejoin an LNER or Govia Thameslink Railway service."

Singling one person out - even to the point where you describe their clothing - threatening me with a PF where one is not due, saying condescending things like "Yes, I can see you," and being sarcastic - "even though there are signs displayed on the boards" (which I don't remember seeing) is not the way to do it. Think differently if you wish, @Flying Snail

More likely than not the platform screen will have been displaying the next scheduled pickup from that platform, almost certainly another Kings Cross train. The train will also have displayed Kings Cross. It is completely reasonable to think that a train appearing with the same destination on the side as what’s advertised on the platform screens is the train you should board.

As for some of the arguments that have been made in this thread about it not being something to complain about - yes the poster is an enthusiast who knew the rules but he was doing something that would not be unreasonable (boarding a train with a destination that matched that advertised on the platform screens), and the Lumo crew would have had no way of knowing that he was someone in the know unless he had a sign above his head saying “I’m an enthusiast” - knowing the poster I don’t for one second believe he’d been seen dead with such a sign .

The Lumo crew had no right to go about their conduct in the way that they did. @TT-ONR-NRN is right to be upset, and to be making a complaint about it. A polite “This train is drop off only at this station, if you’ve just boarded please return to the platform and board the following LNER or GTR service” announcement would have sufficed. Suggestions otherwise are frankly ridiculous.

 

[Kite159]

More likely than not the platform screen will have been displaying the next scheduled pickup from that platform, almost certainly another Kings Cross train. The train will also have displayed Kings Cross. It is completely reasonable to think that a train appearing with the same destination on the side as what’s advertised on the platform screens is the train you should board.

As for some of the arguments that have been made in this thread about it not being something to complain about - yes the poster is an enthusiast who knew the rules but he was doing something that would not be unreasonable (boarding a train with a destination that matched that advertised on the platform screens), and the Lumo crew would have had no way of knowing that he was someone in the know unless he had a sign above his head saying “I’m an enthusiast” - knowing the poster I don’t for one second believe he’d been seen dead with such a sign .

The Lumo crew had no right to go about their conduct in the way that they did. @TT-ONR-NRN is right to be upset, and to be making a complaint about it. A polite “This train is drop off only at this station, if you’ve just boarded please return to the platform and board the following LNER or GTR service” announcement would have sufficed. Suggestions otherwise are frankly ridiculous.

And if the platform screens said something like:
"this train calls to set down only, Do not board"?

Similar to what happens at Bolton when a TPE calls towards Manchester or at Watford Junction when an Avanti service calls.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if the platform screens said something like:
"this train calls to set down only, Do not board"?

Similar to what happens at Bolton when a TPE calls towards Manchester or at Watford Junction when an Avanti service calls.

There are only a few places where you get pick up/set down only, but when I've observed it they always say something instructing you not to board, or as a minimum the standard "stand clear, passing train" message would show if the screens weren't configured properly. At Watford Junction for example it contains a very clear "1st DO NOT BOARD" and clear announcements are made by "Anne". The trainside displays do still say Euston but the rest of it makes it totally clear.

The OP knows full well that he should not have boarded and has no right at all to be aggrieved. This is just like the way nearly every post in the Disputes and Prosecutions thread seems to comment that staff were rude, when they were probably in most cases simply clear and to the point when dealing with someone who has committed a breach of the rules and knows full well they have. The talk about Penalty Fares was tripe, but it worked, didn't it? And I believe the new NRCoT is now worded such that a Penalty Fare actually could be applied in this case if Lumo did them. If you've breached the rules and you know full well you have and would know even if half-asleep due to the amount of information available, you don't have a right for people to be nice to you, it's perfectly acceptable for them to be "to the point". Swearing wouldn't be OK, of course, but they didn't. Technically, the OP would be trespassing, so the traincrew could legally use reasonable force to remove him if they wanted, which would be a big step up from just making a slightly pointed announcement.

 

[Watershed]

There are only a few places where you get pick up/set down only, but when I've observed it they always say something instructing you not to board, or as a minimum the standard "stand clear, passing train" message would show if the screens weren't configured properly.

The OP knows full well that he should not have boarded and has no right at all to be aggrieved. This is just like the way nearly every post in the Disputes and Prosecutions thread seems to comment that staff were rude, when they were probably in most cases simply clear and to the point when dealing with someone who has committed a breach of the rules and knows full well they have. The talk about Penalty Fares was tripe, but it worked, didn't it?

"... the police made an unlawful search, but they found the drugs. It worked, didn't it?"

Even if someone is in the wrong, that doesn't mean they lose the right to be treated with respect.

And I believe the new NRCoT is now worded such that a Penalty Fare actually could be applied in this case if Lumo did them.

It's not. A lot of people seem to be reading more into it than there is. There is a new definition of Call. That definition is solely referenced in the section about splitting, not anywhere else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"... the police made an unlawful search, but they found the drugs. It worked, didn't it?"

I don't think there's any rule against wittering on about Penalty Fares. Actually issuing one would be unlawful.

Even if someone is in the wrong, that doesn't mean they lose the right to be treated with respect.

I don't believe there was anything disrespectful about the announcement at all. It was a clear, pointed but not rude instruction for someone who shouldn't be there and knew full well he shouldn't be there to leave, and made clear who it was referring to. If I'm throwing you out of my shop, I don't have to say "please", and I certainly won't.

If you're going to wilfully break the rules in that sort of obvious manner without as much as asking the guard (or Lumo equivalent) first, you need to accept that people will not be nice to you when you get caught, and comply with their instructions with apology and no argument.

Here it is again:
“Would the young customer in the red hoodie who decided to jump on this train at Stevenage despite signs saying Set Down Only, please leave this train now before you are issued with a penalty fare.”

The PF bit is nonsense, but it sounds very polite and respectful to me, it even says "please" and calls him a "customer" despite him having contributed £0 to their coffers for that journey. The OP could complain about the PF bit, but the letter would go in the bin, after no doubt a bit of a collective giggle and a swear word or two around the office about the OP.

It's not like it was
"To the male in the red hoodie who just ignored the clear signage and announcements and boarded this train at Stevenage, leave the train immediately or we will arrange to have you removed".

But I wouldn't even have a problem with that. It's to the point against someone who has wilfully done something wrong. It doesn't have to be nice.

 

[Watershed]

The PF bit is nonsense, but it sounds very polite to me, it even says "please" and calls him a "customer" despite him having contributed £0 to their coffers for that journey. The OP could complain about the PF bit, but the letter would go in the bin, after no doubt a bit of a collective giggle and a swear word or two around the office about the OP.

The problem is that the nonsense about a Penalty Fare undermines it all. You can't go round issuing threats of unlawful penalties like that. It's no way to behave in a customer facing job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that the nonsense about a Penalty Fare undermines it all. You can't go round issuing threats of unlawful penalties like that. It's no way to behave in a customer facing job.

I disagree. It was a minor indiscretion by a member of staff who may well not have known better. It in no way compares with the physical assault that is constituted by an unlawful search by Police, say. The rest of it is far more polite than strictly necessary when dealing with a wilful transgressor, and is the form of announcement I've heard a few times with regard to people doing other stuff they shouldn't, e.g. smoking or cycling on a station platform.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Do you know what then? They shouldn’t have a massive page advertising Stevenage as a destination then, and if they must have one they should say you can’t use their services to travel to/from London.

I know that Lumo won't let you reserve seats from Newcastle to Morpeth. I guess it's to do with the journey being shorter.

 

[permarquis]

Here it is again:

“Would the young customer in the red hoodie who decided to jump on this train at Stevenage despite signs saying Set Down Only, please leave this train now before you are issued with a penalty fare.”

For me, the issue with this is that it a) it assumes negative intent ("who decided [...] despite") which is unnecessary; and b) the tone is a little patronising. It's always better to assume someone made a simple mistake and treat them with empathy as a starting point.

Instead, the guard made a deliberate choice to embarrass this specific passenger. If there were no other alternatives that might be justified, but that wasn't the case here, so why cause upset where none was needed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For me, the issue with this is that it a) it assumes negative intent ("who decided [...] despite") which is unnecessary; and b) the tone is a little patronising. It's always better to assume someone made a simple mistake and treat them with empathy as a starting point.

I suspect this was not an easy thing to do as a mistake. It certainly isn't at Watford; only someone who was deafblind (I think that's the right term now?) would genuinely be confused.

Instead, the guard made a deliberate choice to embarrass this specific passenger. If there were no other alternatives that might be justified, but that wasn't the case here, so why cause upset where none was needed?

It worked, didn't it?

 

[Starmill]

In general there's no need for any enforcement, why would there be?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2022 ==

The problem is that the nonsense about a Penalty Fare undermines it all. You can't go round issuing threats of unlawful penalties like that. It's no way to behave in a customer facing job.

It's also no way to behave as a professional at work in a business to business transaction either. You don't win work by making threats. In any line of business this will work against you in the long term!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In general there's no need for any enforcement, why would there be?

It depends why it's being done. If it's about managing overcrowding, it generally works without, because the odd one really doesn't matter. If it's about Lumo getting no money for passengers doing that journey, then they might well want not to carry any.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Back in around 1970 when things were more laid back I did have an involvement, via 'mishap forms' (they covered everything) with the effects of P.U.Only stops.

What happened a few time was that a driver for an Inter-City service, perhaps having spent too long elsewhere, arrived at the last minute on the concourse and looked at the Solari to see where he stopped.
First stop Wilmslow - easy. Was slightly puzzled by the number of passengers standing on the edge of the platform at Watford Junction as he whizzed through at line speed....

 

[hexagon789]

Perhaps any set-down/pick-up only calls should either be made normal calls or simply removed. Much more straightforward arrangement and ends any ambiguity or conflict.

LUMO could probably remove Stevenage as a call anyway, I always thought it was a pretty pointless token gesture. It's not like Morpeth where there was only a very limited service previously.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Personally, especially for the early morning / late night examples, such restrictions are used far too often anyway. If a service pattern regularly has a call at X station in for pretty much the entire day, it feels like a massive cop out to say that station may not be served on the last train of the night just so replacement transport doesn't have to be arranged for that station in times of engineering works etc.

 

[Starmill]

There are only a few places where you get pick up/set down only, but when I've observed it they always say something instructing you not to board, or as a minimum the standard "stand clear, passing train" message would show if the screens weren't configured properly. At Watford Junction for example it contains a very clear "1st DO NOT BOARD" and clear announcements are made by "Anne". The trainside displays do still say Euston but the rest of it makes it totally clear.

Most operators haven't configured their information system to do this. I know that you know that West Midlands Trains have and therefore you just assume it's widespread but it's not. Most of the time they simply don't recognise that a train which calls to set down only exists, and therefore display whichever service is the next one. This is what happened at Bolton until recently because of course Northern have never needed to be able to show a message about a stop which is restricted before. Same at Horsforth for services which are set down only, people would board them because the screen says they're the train that's due a few minutes later. It will be interesting to see if High Wycombe can do it over Easter weekend.

 

[DanNCL]

And if the platform screens said something like:
"this train calls to set down only, Do not board"?

Similar to what happens at Bolton when a TPE calls towards Manchester or at Watford Junction when an Avanti service calls.

We don’t know if they did or didn’t in this case.

Regarding the Bolton example, I’ve seen that not be the case previously, with instead the next pick up service (the following Northern Manchester Airport train) showing instead.

The OP knows full well that he should not have boarded and has no right at all to be aggrieved. This is just like the way nearly every post in the Disputes and Prosecutions thread seems to comment that staff were rude, when they were probably in most cases simply clear and to the point when dealing with someone who has committed a breach of the rules and knows full well they have. The talk about Penalty Fares was tripe, but it worked, didn't it? And I believe the new NRCoT is now worded such that a Penalty Fare actually could be applied in this case if Lumo did them. If you've breached the rules and you know full well you have and would know even if half-asleep due to the amount of information available, you don't have a right for people to be nice to you, it's perfectly acceptable for them to be "to the point". Swearing wouldn't be OK, of course, but they didn't. Technically, the OP would be trespassing, so the traincrew could legally use reasonable force to remove him if they wanted, which would be a big step up from just making a slightly pointed announcement.

Being polite is part of the job. If they won’t be polite to customers, even when the customer is wrong, they shouldn’t be in a public facing job, quite simple.

Even if someone is in the wrong, that doesn't mean they lose the right to be treated with respect.

Exactly.

I don't think there's any rule against wittering on about Penalty Fares. Actually issuing one would be unlawful.

You can’t threaten to issue someone with a penalty fare that you’re not legally permitted to issue.

I disagree. It was a minor indiscretion by a member of staff who may well not have known better. It in no way compares with the physical assault that is constituted by an unlawful search by Police, say. The rest of it is far more polite than strictly necessary when dealing with a wilful transgressor, and is the form of announcement I've heard a few times with regard to people doing other stuff they shouldn't, e.g. smoking or cycling on a station platform.

If that’s a “minor indiscretion” then I hate to imagine your view of many other things that go wrong on the railways…

As for not knowing better, it’s their job to know better.

For me, the issue with this is that it a) it assumes negative intent ("who decided [...] despite") which is unnecessary; and b) the tone is a little patronising. It's always better to assume someone made a simple mistake and treat them with empathy as a starting point.

Instead, the guard made a deliberate choice to embarrass this specific passenger. If there were no other alternatives that might be justified, but that wasn't the case here, so why cause upset where none was needed?

Exactly that. Singling people out in such a manner is wrong.

It worked, didn't it?

No it didn’t.

It depends why it's being done. If it's about managing overcrowding, it generally works without, because the odd one really doesn't matter. If it's about Lumo getting no money for passengers doing that journey, then they might well want not to carry any.

So what you’re now saying is that it’s alright to treat people like muck if you won’t get any money from them. Do you seriously believe that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most operators haven't configured their information system to do this. I know that you know that West Midlands Trains have and therefore you just assume it's widespread but it's not. Most of the time they simply don't recognise that a train which calls to set down only exists, and therefore display whichever service is the next one. This is what happened at Bolton until recently because of course Northern have never needed to be able to show a message about a stop which is restricted before. Same at Horsforth for services which are set down only, people would board them because the screen says they're the train that's due a few minutes later. It will be interesting to see if High Wycombe can do it over Easter weekend.

I'm very surprised at that, because all the "modern" PIS systems should show "stand clear - passing train" if a train appears whose headcode isn't in the PIS as being a calling service, and in my observation they indeed do, including such sillies as asking you to stand (very) clear of a terminal platform because the next train allegedly isn't stopping. Is Bolton's perhaps still partly manual?

 

[permarquis]

It worked, didn't it?

Sure, but then so would running at the passenger with an axe. My point isn't that it wasn't effective; it's that other equally effective options were available to the guard which wouldn't involve any upset, or prompt a complaint which someone then has to deal with. We need to be encouraging people back onto trains, not finding more reasons to upset the people who actually use them.

If I wandered into the stock room at M&S, for example, someone would politely explain that I wasn't allowed there, show me back onto the shop floor, and that would be that. They wouldn't announce over the store's intercom that I had deliberately broken into the stock room, and that if I didn't leave they'd be calling the police. A bit of empathy never hurt anyone!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I also forgot to say that he said something a long the lines of “Yes I can see you” which to me is rather condescending.

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps any set-down/pick-up only calls should either be made normal calls or simply removed.

Pick up only calls serve a useful purpose - to ensure that there's capacity on a train for people waiting at the relevant station. But it's not necessary to enforce them because people won't know that the train stops.

Set down only calls are useful only for situations where services may depart early. It's very rare indeed for trains to depart Bolton early, and not very common at Stevenage either except for very late at night. The alternative would be to bring the public departure time forwards, in some cases by many minutes. This would imply that a train is running late when it isn't and that would look a bit unprofessional . It would also require trains to be scheduled to depart before it arrived which while probably perfectly permitted would look rather odd! Bolton and Stevenage should probably be full calls southbound, there's really no benefit to the restriction at all. Watford Junction should have normal calls southbound in the daytime.

Some stations also have restrictions as a result of operational issues. Bushey has a restriction on boarding on the fast lines because the up platform is much too narrow. Short of rebuilding the station I don't see how that can be fixed, but alighting at that platform is ok. Horsforth is because the wheelchair space isn't on the platform. Short of doubling the platform length I'm unsure what could be done there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being polite is part of the job. If they won’t be polite to customers, even when the customer is wrong, they shouldn’t be in a public facing job, quite simple.

It was polite. It said "please" and referred to the OP as a "customer".

If that’s a “minor indiscretion” then I hate to imagine your view of many other things that go wrong on the railways…

What, the fact that the railway loves to actually issue PFs and prosecution letters on false pretences? That's a problem, not just a bit of waffle.

Exactly that. Singling people out in such a manner is wrong.

Nothing wrong with it. The description was so the OP knew they'd seen him. This is done all the time (particularly at stations in respect of people smoking, sitting on the coping stones, cycling/skateboarding etc) and it works. I've even heard "can the passenger who owns the grey unattended suitcase on platform 1 please return to it", followed by them doing so. It's very effective indeed at making sure an announcement targetted at a specific individual knows it is and acts on it, and carries no intention to embarrass. The OP was embarrassed because they were caught out doing something wrong. It's quite reasonable that someone feels embarrassed at that, but that embarrassment is their own doing for doing the thing wrong in the first place.

Crikey, I've even had "if there is a Bletchleyite* on the station, can he please go to the customer information office on platform 4 for a message" at Preston. Next thing you'll tell me is that was a GDPR breach. Before mobiles you used to get it all the time.

* Real name, obvs.

So what you’re now saying is that it’s alright to treat people like muck if you won’t get any money from them. Do you seriously believe that?

I hardly think an announcement calling someone a "customer" and asking them to "please" leave the train is treating them like muck. It's equivalent to chucking someone out of a pub, and that's done in a far less pleasant manner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2022 ==

If I wandered into the stock room at M&S, for example, someone would politely explain that I wasn't allowed there, show me back onto the shop floor, and that would be that. They wouldn't announce over the store's intercom that I had deliberately broken into the stock room, and that if I didn't leave they'd be calling the police. A bit of empathy never hurt anyone!

I think you might be surprised, and it's rather more likely you'd be manhandled out by security, out of the door and told you were banned. Store security is often VERY heavy handed, often even more so than bar security. Which is not unreasonable given that the "staff only" on the door is pretty obvious!

 

[Starmill]

I'm very surprised at that, because all the "modern" PIS systems should show "stand clear - passing train" if a train appears whose headcode isn't in the PIS as being a calling service, and in my observation they indeed do, including such sillies as asking you to stand (very) clear of a terminal platform because the next train allegedly isn't stopping. Is Bolton's perhaps still partly manual?

Again, the 'stand back, fast train approaching' or equivalent message usually has to be configured correctly. In most places it isn't, because frankly it probably doesn't really matter.