How much discretion does a train manager have?

[bramling]

No doubt there will be a part of their job description that requires them to issue tickets correctly and that ticketing rules are followed.

Indeed. I'm afraid I simply don't see why discretion should be given to holders of advance tickets, unless the specific journey itinerary is delayed. People seem happy to accept the hefty discount that advance tickets give, but less keen to accept the conditions which go with that discount.

It's the same with hotels - people buy advance-rate deals where there is a "non refundable" condition clearly advertised at the time of booking, then make all manner of complaints when they need to cancel and feel the company is being mean because they are sticking to their side of the agreement.

The difficulty is that everyone considers their delay to be exceptional and merit some form of "discretion" to be shown.

Personally I see it as showing good customer service to those who have bought full-price flexible tickets to see advance ticket holders held to their conditions.

 

[TheEdge]

Once again the D word starts to get thrown around. bramling sums my views up very well.

Discretion, as the name suggests, is entirely at the control of the TM. In my experience the easiest way to not get any was to demand it. I remember one incident where a lady of certain age was giving me, a twenty something, hell for not showing her the discretion she demanded for travelling without a railcard. Meanwhile behind me where two of a similar age to me, who said to each other "its good that he is doing his job properly".

 

[yorkie]

Indeed. I'm afraid I simply don't see why discretion should be given to holders of advance tickets, unless the specific journey itinerary is delayed. People seem happy to accept the hefty discount that advance tickets give, but less keen to accept the conditions which go with that discount.

It's the same with hotels - people buy advance-rate deals where there is a "non refundable" condition clearly advertised at the time of booking, then make all manner of complaints when they need to cancel and feel the company is being mean because they are sticking to their side of the agreement.

The difficulty is that everyone considers their delay to be exceptional and merit some form of "discretion" to be shown.

Personally I see it as showing good customer service to those who have bought full-price flexible tickets to see advance ticket holders held to their conditions.

Not comparable with hotels; a hotel is not going to penalise hundreds of guests due to unforeseen gridlock causing hour long delays outside the hotel.

Based on what the OP says, it sounds to me that the customer was authorised to take the train, and was therefore valid. The TM does not have the authority to undo that authorisation, whether they like it or not.

 

[Antman]

Once again the D word starts to get thrown around. bramling sums my views up very well.

Discretion, as the name suggests, is entirely at the control of the TM.

There is a difference between the discretion being at the control of the TM, and the TM denying they have any discretion -

the train manager insisted I buy a new ticket and said he had no discretion whatsoever to allow me to travel on my existing ticket.

Now that may just be the wording the OP has given to what they were told, but there is a HUGE difference between telling someone they have considered the circumstances and have decided not to exercise discretion and telling someone no matter what the circumstances they do not have the power to do anything else.

 

[bramling]

Not comparable with hotels; a hotel is not going to penalise hundreds of guests due to unforeseen gridlock causing hour long delays outside the hotel.

Doesn't matter whether it was unforeseen. It's unforeseen that I may decide to travel an hour later, but that certainly wouldn't get any discretion shown. My view is simple - if you accept the cheap advance deal with strings attached, make damn sure you arrive at the station on time, or else chalk it up to experience and buy another ticket (or don't make the journey of course).

Based on what the OP says, it sounds to me that the customer was authorised to take the train, and was therefore valid. The TM does not have the authority to undo that authorisation, whether they like it or not.

Agree with this - there shouldn't be mixed messages coming out. In my view discretion shouldn't have been shown in the first place. One suspects the station staff are more inclined to start making concessions simply because they are getting a barrage of people turning up and so it's the easy option to avoid having multiple arguments with people. Just because it's the easy option doesn't make it the right one.

 

[TheEdge]

Not comparable with hotels; a hotel is not going to penalise hundreds of guests due to unforeseen gridlock causing hour long delays outside the hotel.

Based on what the OP says, it sounds to me that the customer was authorised to take the train, and was therefore valid. The TM does not have the authority to undo that authorisation, whether they like it or not.

It is comparable, its entirely comparable. If I buy a cheap hotel room I need to abide by the rules of said rate, same as advance tickets. In certain situations and maybe with a nice person on the reception desk they might waive some of the restrictions but they don't have to.

If the TM has not been made aware of any authority and the passenger has not been given some sort of written authority then this situation happens. The "man on the gate said" is one of the most common fare evasion techniques so any interaction that starts with that as its basis is already onto a loser.

If it was that bad station staff really should have been making TMs aware when they arrive or ticket office or revenue staff should be providing written authorisation.

 

[TheEdge]

There is a difference between the discretion being at the control of the TM, and the TM denying they have any discretion -

The difference is the reaction of the customers. Some will (and again, experience) demand discretion and make a massive song and dance about how awful your customer service is for not showing them any. Sometimes it is just easier to say that there is no discretion.

And honestly, with Advance tickets that really should be the default position.

 

[bramling]

And honestly, with Advance tickets that really should be the default position.

Absolutely. Otherwise everyone would buy an advance ticket and then expect the same terms & conditions as a full-price ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, what this comes back to is that...

(a) No person who is not an authorised person should be even hinting that discretion will be given.

(b) If discretion is given by an authorised person, it should be in writing such that it cannot be questioned (and it made clear to passengers this is the only form it should ever be given in), and if it is questioned it is an internal disciplinary matter if it should not have been given, not any matter for the passenger to have to deal with nor pay for.

Any other situation is really poor customer service.

 

[yorkie]

The anti-passenger views of one or two people are duly noted, but the fact is that the customer was told to board the train and was therefore valid.

The TM was wrong on two counts
1) to charge the customer, when the customer had been given authority to travel; and
2) to claim they have no powers of discretion.

The outcome is therefore unsurprising, and hopefully the TM has learnt their lesson.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed. I'm afraid I simply don't see why discretion should be given to holders of advance tickets, unless the specific journey itinerary is delayed. People seem happy to accept the hefty discount that advance tickets give, but less keen to accept the conditions which go with that discount.

I am happy for tickets to be non-refundable. I am even happy for tickets to have charges for ammendments. What I dislike is the notion that if I miss my train my ticket has no value.

If I had the choice, I would never buy an Advance ticket because of that. It might be anything which is utterly beyond my control (and the failure of traffic lights seems a good example - others are cancelled or severely delayed bus or tram services, issues on London Underground, accidents or illnesses en route etc etc).

The reality is that the railway has made the commercial decision to offer unbelievably cheap very restrictive tickets booked a long way in advance (some of the cheapest in Europe) and very very expensive flexible tickets - even the cheapest (Super) Off-Peak tickets (some of the most expensive in Europe) with nothing as a middle ground.

I would be happy, for example, if there was an overall increase in the price of advance tickets and an overall decrease in the price of the cheapest flexible tickets. Alternatively, increase the average price of an Advance ticket, but change the rules so that if a train is missed the ticket can still be amended the same day, subject to a fee (or no fee in the case of the XC website) and any difference in price.

Same day Advance tickets are in part helping with this, but they are still very expensive not very widely available yet.

There is almost always middle ground, which I would like to see made the formal position. For example a friend recently missed their Leeds to London train with their ~£30 Advance ticket. I can't remember why they missed it but I think it was because their bus had not turned up. They caught a taxi instead but still missed the train by seconds. Anyway the important thing is I advised them to speak to the train manager of the next service rather than going to the booking office. The train manager sold them an excess between what they had paid and the £105.20 Super Off-Peak single. If they had gone to the ticket office they would have been charged the full £105.20 (one would hope they would have been informed that a Super Off-Peak Return was available for just £1 more). Better them than me for having to pay that kind of fare for such a short journey but the train manager was both reasonable and helpful and also still collected a fare due. Charging people twice over for missing their train is the problem I have with the current Advance terms and conditions.

 

[bramling]

The anti-passenger views of one or two people are duly noted,

Why is it anti-passenger?

As a passenger who tends to use full-price tickets (as I value flexibility), I object to others getting a hefty discount in return for accepting certain restrictions, but then claiming a situation is "unforeseen" and therefore that "discretion" should be shown to them, with the end result that they get the same conditions with the cheap ticket as someone else has paid a lot more for.

If one buys a cheap product with conditions attached, how about one actually abides by those conditions?

As I say, everyone's delay is unforeseen otherwise they'd have booked a different train in the first place!

but the fact is that the customer was told to board the train and was therefore valid.

The TM was wrong on two counts
1) to charge the customer, when the customer had been given authority to travel; and
2) to claim they have no powers of discretion.

The outcome is therefore unsurprising, and hopefully the TM has learnt their lesson.

This is a different issue, and one which I agree shouldn't have happened. The position should be simple - turn up on time for your advance journey, or pay again, or abort the journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

No doubt there will be a part of their job description that requires them to issue tickets correctly and that ticketing rules are followed.

There is also the part of the job description that means they should treat customers fairly and consider each case on its own merits. If the passenger is saying in no uncertain terms that they were given authority by the station staff then they ought to be treated at face value unless it can be showed the passenger was untruthful.

The station staff should have endorsed the ticket, that is the #1 failure here. Euston have always done that when helping me with delays to Advance departures.

Agreed.

Indeed. I'm afraid I simply don't see why discretion should be given to holders of advance tickets, unless the specific journey itinerary is delayed. People seem happy to accept the hefty discount that advance tickets give, but less keen to accept the conditions which go with that discount.

The OP did not expect any discretion; station staff used their discretion proactively.

Discretion, as the name suggests, is entirely at the control of the TM. In my experience the easiest way to not get any was to demand it. I remember one incident where a lady of certain age was giving me, a twenty something, hell for not showing her the discretion she demanded for travelling without a railcard. Meanwhile behind me where two of a similar age to me, who said to each other "its good that he is doing his job properly".

Nobody demanded any discretion here.

It should also be noted that "discretion" does not equal "letting someone off". Discretion is simply the ability of the individual to judge a given situation on its own merits, with knowledge of both the rules, and other factors which may influence any decision they make. It is not being bound by strict rules. An RPI may use discretion to not charge a Penalty Fare, but instead write up a miscreant for prosecution, for example.

The railway gets a lot of stick when it applies hard and fast rules in an unthinking way. Sometimes, it is just good customer service to waive the rules occasionally.

 

[Starmill]

Why is it anti-passenger?

As a passenger who tends to use full-price tickets (as I value flexibility), I object to others getting a hefty discount in return for accepting certain restrictions, but then claiming a situation is "unforeseen" and therefore that "discretion" should be shown to them, with the end result that they get the same conditions with the cheap ticket as someone else has paid a lot more for.

In my example you would likely be paying £105.20 or even £122 for a Leeds to London single then. You must accept that these kind of fares are a fairytale for most people, who could never pay them. The choice is buy an Advance ticket or drive - and we all know that having more people in their cars is bad for the environment and causes more traffic congestion. It should be an issue of public policy that very very cheap, very restrictive tickets and very very expensive flexible ones are a not a conducive to encouraging rail use.

Changes in the rules could both reduce the oppourtunity for people to claim they want discretion (which hasn't happened here in any case) and broaden the appeal of the railway.

 

[Moonshot]

In my example you would likely be paying £105.20 or even £122 for a Leeds to London single then. You must accept that these kind of fares are a fairytale for most people, who could never pay them. The choice is buy an Advance ticket or drive - and we all know that having more people in their cars is bad for the environment and causes more traffic congestion. It should be an issue of public policy that very very cheap, very restrictive tickets and very very expensive flexible ones are a not a conducive to encouraging rail use.

Changes in the rules could both reduce the oppourtunity for people to claim they want discretion (which hasn't happened here in any case) and broaden the appeal of the railway.

It hasnt stopped passenger numbers growing year on year for the last 20 years despite the fact that there is a perception of very expensive rail fares.

 

[Senex]

It should be an issue of public policy that very very cheap, very restrictive tickets and very very expensive flexible ones are a not a conducive to encouraging rail use.

That's a very strong point that never seems to be addressed. It's following the airline model without asking whether that is appropriate in a society where we expect people to be readily mobile within their own country.

 

[bramling]

Sometimes, it is just good customer service to waive the rules occasionally.

Okay, next time I make a journey, why should I not buy an advance ticket (at heavy discount) and then travel on a different train and claim the circumstances leading to that were "unforeseen"?

 

[Starmill]

It hasnt stopped passenger numbers growing year on year for the last 20 years despite the fact that there is a perception of very expensive rail fares.

Perhaps not - but what kind of growth might have been achieved if incremental growth and capacity / scope expansion, rather than private profit and DfT Premiums, if that had been the main aim these past two decades?

Rail still has a small overall market share and though growth has been large as a percentage, it was from a very very low base.

What's more it's clear that policy as it is creates some conflict (as bramling and The Edge are complaining about) which could be removed and mitigated by a policy change.

 

[bramling]

In my example you would likely be paying £105.20 or even £122 for a Leeds to London single then. You must accept that these kind of fares are a fairytale for most people, who could never pay them. The choice is buy an Advance ticket or drive - and we all know that having more people in their cars is bad for the environment and causes more traffic congestion. It should be an issue of public policy that very very cheap, very restrictive tickets and very very expensive flexible ones are a not a conducive to encouraging rail use.

Changes in the rules could both reduce the oppourtunity for people to claim they want discretion (which hasn't happened here in any case) and broaden the appeal of the railway.

I must admit I don't really like the system of advances full stop. I'd prefer a much simpler system.

As has been posted elsewhere, the perception of expensive fares doesn't seem to be stopping passenger numbers growing at massive levels however, so clearly people are finding a way to afford them.

I also object to cheaper fares being offered on certain routes, especially where those routes then suffer capacity issues as a result. London Midland seems to be the absolute worst offender in this respect, but GN's cheap Peterborough-London fares are another. It's never the best solution to have long-distance passengers cluttering up a busy slow service, where users of the intermediate stations don't have a choice and suffer daily overcrowding as a result.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Okay, next time I make a journey, why should I not buy an advance ticket (at heavy discount) and then travel on a different train and claim the circumstances leading to that were "unforeseen"?

Because you would be lying!

This was a genuine case that the staff all seemed to know about.

 

[Starmill]

Okay, next time I make a journey, why should I not buy an advance ticket (at heavy discount) and then travel on a different train and claim the circumstances leading to that were "unforeseen"?

Can you produce any evidence for what happened? How long a connection did you leave yourself? How do you conduct yourself when you ask for discretion to be applied? At what point before or after boarding do you ask for it? How do you speak and what words do you choose?


Are you really saying that none of these things could influence the likelihood of discretion being appropriate? Really?

I even had one case myself where I purchased a First Class advance, missed the train due to something that wasn't my fault but which according to the rules would have required me to pay for a new ticket, but the train manager agreed it was reasonable for me to travel on the next train at no extra charge - in Standard. This was only achieved because I went to speak to the train manager before departure, and because I asked politely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The LM Crewe issue is to be solved in the next timetable; they will be going to 8-car. However, I do agree with the general point which I've made before - passengers shouldn't be being attracted onto services not intended for them by artificially low fares.

 

[Moonshot]

Perhaps not - but what kind of growth might have been achieved if incremental growth and capacity / scope expansion, rather than private profit and DfT Premiums, if that had been the main aim these past two decades?

Rail still has a small overall market share and though growth has been large as a percentage, it was from a very very low base.

What's more it's clear that policy as it is creates some conflict (as bramling and The Edge are complaining about) which could be removed and mitigated by a policy change.

Well in terms of growth, there has certainly been an incremental change upwards in the number of services UK wide.

As far as policy goes, frontline staff are there to enforce it, not to dictate it. But seen as though this thread is about discretion by onboard staff, as I am one myself, I m more than happy to show as much as I can. I will agree however that not all staff are the same.

 

[AlterEgo]

Okay, next time I make a journey, why should I not buy an advance ticket (at heavy discount) and then travel on a different train and claim the circumstances leading to that were "unforeseen"?

Because that would be a lie, and not the truth.

In the OP's case, the case was

1) bona fide and genuine,
2) could be verified, and importantly,
3) was already known about by the staff on the ground.

I haven't suggested just ripping up T+Cs altogether.

 

[bramling]

Because that would be a lie, and not the truth.

In the OP's case, the case was

1) bona fide and genuine,
2) could be verified, and importantly,
3) was already known about by the staff on the ground.

I haven't suggested just ripping up T+Cs altogether.

Why would it be a lie? If something crops up which causes it to be more convenient for me to catch another train, that's unforeseen, and I expect to receive good customer service and see discretion shown to me...

 

[MCSHF007]

Discretion (especially in a case such as that outlined by the OP) is entirely sensible, but I've observed many instances where passengers who are clearly regular 'chancers' as regards Advance Tickets have quoted previous instances of being 'let off' - "the guard on this train last week said it was OK" etc etc.

So there can be cases where exercising 'too much discretion' can cause problems for 'less easily swayed' colleagues on the same route a few days later.

 

[Starmill]

Growth in percentage terms might seem large, but it is insignificant in the big picture. More than 90% of passenger journeys are still made by road. This is off-topic now though.

 

[Bellbell]

Same day Advance tickets are in part helping with this, but they are still very expensive not very widely available yet.

There is almost always middle ground, which I would like to see made the formal position. For example a friend recently missed their Leeds to London train with their ~£30 Advance ticket. I can't remember why they missed it but I think it was because their bus had not turned up. They caught a taxi instead but still missed the train by seconds. Anyway the important thing is I advised them to speak to the train manager of the next service rather than going to the booking office. The train manager sold them an excess between what they had paid and the £105.20 Super Off-Peak single. If they had gone to the ticket office they would have been charged the full £105.20 (one would hope they would have been informed that a Super Off-Peak Return was available for just £1 more). Better them than me for having to pay that kind of fare for such a short journey but the train manager was both reasonable and helpful and also still collected a fare due. Charging people twice over for missing their train is the problem I have with the current Advance terms and conditions.

The problem with excessing is that there's no disincentive for the passenger. If passenger A has a cheap advance and makes his train, happy days. If he has a cheap advance and misses his train, whether for a 'good' reason or not, he ends up either being let off, happy days, or worst case, paying no more than he would have done if he'd bought the flexible ticket in the first place (you make no mention of the change fee in your post, and from my experience it's rarely charged on board). It's good customer service for passenger A, whatever happens. But for passenger B, who couldn't commit to a particular timed train and believes that rules on advance tickets are rigidly enforced so bought the flexible ticket, it's a bit unfair.

Same scenario with excessing railcard tickets, passenger who never had a rail card to begin with either gets let off, or pays no more than they should have done. However, there is a middle ground here now that the new rules have been introduced, and this does make it a bit easier to deal with the problem by going the correct route and charging for a new ticket.

I hate advance tickets too, I wish they didn't exist. There are plenty of genuine issues which deserve discretion, but also plenty who completely abuse the system. I know it's not that simple, but I'd far rather advance tickets were abolished and fares brought down overall.

 

[yorkie]

I must admit I don't really like the system of advances full stop. I'd prefer a much simpler system.

I'd prefer you created a new thread where you propose your new system. I'll be more than happy to critique it.

As has been posted elsewhere, the perception of expensive fares doesn't seem to be stopping passenger numbers growing at massive levels however, so clearly people are finding a way to afford them.

This really has nothing to do with the matter at hand, but growth is limited by expensive fares and would be even higher if people had a choice. I do not see what this has got to do with the OP's thread, so I suggest you make a new one if you wish to argue further.

I also object to cheaper fares being offered on certain routes, especially where those routes then suffer capacity issues as a result. London Midland seems to be the absolute worst offender in this respect, but GN's cheap Peterborough-London fares are another. It's never the best solution to have long-distance passengers cluttering up a busy slow service, where users of the intermediate stations don't have a choice and suffer daily overcrowding as a result.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter we are discussing. We will clearly have to agree to disagree on whether or not staff were right to grant the OP authority to travel. I am glad we agree the TM acted incorrectly though; of that there can be no doubt!

 

[Antman]

I hate advance tickets too, I wish they didn't exist. There are plenty of genuine issues which deserve discretion, but also plenty who completely abuse the system. I know it's not that simple, but I'd far rather advance tickets were abolished and fares brought down overall.

Why on earth would you think fares would come down overall if Advance tickets were abolished? The exact opposite would happen and fares would increase substantially.

Advance fares attract voluntary travellers, and if those substantially cheaper fares were removed and the only option was the full price ticket then quite simply a proportion of these people would not travel. So now you are taking less revenue and your full price fares go up, so even more of these travellers stop travelling (and some of your full price travellers). And so on, and so on.

Anyway, back to the issue, it seems to me the usual rail industry foul up.

Everyone saying one member of staff should or should not have done something, and meanwhile the poor customer who is only following the guidance they were given, is the one who suffers.