Lost Property - system not fit for purpose

[bahnause]

While that may be, there is also the fact that there is a larger body with sufficient presence and resource that has the ability to steer the process and other operators will jump on board because it makes sense to do so, which isn't the case in the UK - no one operator is large enough to make it worth developing a system that others would then use to effectively centralise the process (not least because owning groups would absolutely want to charge competitors for the privilege, because ancillary revenue was one area that didn't have a chunk removed by the DfT for many operators). I can't see the Jura railway being able to do what SBB has done in terms of developing a large lost property service that others have adopted.

This, ostensibly, was to be the purpose of GBR being able to commit resources and pool revenue from the industry to enable this process.

This does not require a large body; quite the contrary, in fact. There is a general understanding that public transport is an integrated system, not a competitive one. In our company, many of these decisions are made at the lower end of the organisational chart; only a few are made at group level, or even by legislators. I have a telephone, as do my counterparts at BLS and SOB. It is extremely rare for a TOC to develop a big system and then have others jump on board at the end. Collaboration begins in the development phase. Both management and employees have a responsibility to recognise and exploit such synergies. So what are we waiting for?

This rather oversimplifies the nature of things - one can be supremely interested in customers, but not have the capacity or capability to do what's being asked.

The financial environment for the railway at the moment, and the number of competing activities and requests that require money to be spent on them means that you have to decide on priorities. Is it better to be interested in the lost property situation, or the performance situation? Cleaning and hygiene on board, or at the station? Because UK operators are facing that discussion at the minute, with yet more requirements to "find efficiencies", fund their own pay awards, and reduce the cost to the taxpayer with little interest in undertaking the spend required to deliver lasting efficiencies that would actually bring benefits to both the industry and the taxpayer.

Ultimately, Lost Property improvements, in-sourcing portals, and centralisation are at the far end of a long list of things the railway is unlikely to be able to afford to do without some sort of central body providing direction.

Money is tight everywhere. This is another reason to strengthen cooperation. It does not help anyone if every transport company develops its own incompatible solution. The unwillingness or inability to cooperate could explain why money is scarcer than it should be.

 

[Haywain]

There is a general understanding that public transport is an integrated system, not a competitive one.

In Switzerland.

So what are we waiting for?

Britain to be like Switzerland?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2025 ==

It does not help anyone if every transport company develops its own incompatible solution.

They won't be doing anything new under the current financial constraints imposed on them by the DfT.

The unwillingness or inability to cooperate could explain why money is scarcer than it should be.

Or the scarcity of money could explain everything. The current management are being paid to do little more than keep the lights on. Even recruiting a member of staff for a short term part time role requires DfT approval.

 

[35B]

This does not require a large body; quite the contrary, in fact. There is a general understanding that public transport is an integrated system, not a competitive one. In our company, many of these decisions are made at the lower end of the organisational chart; only a few are made at group level, or even by legislators. I have a telephone, as do my counterparts at BLS and SOB. It is extremely rare for a TOC to develop a big system and then have others jump on board at the end. Collaboration begins in the development phase. Both management and employees have a responsibility to recognise and exploit such synergies. So what are we waiting for?

Money is tight everywhere. This is another reason to strengthen cooperation. It does not help anyone if every transport company develops its own incompatible solution. The unwillingness or inability to cooperate could explain why money is scarcer than it should be.

From personal professional experience in IT outsourcing, I have seen how bringing services in house increases costs and reduces quality compared with an outsourced arrangement. I have also seen good and bad internal departments, and how it is far from certain (especially with tight expenditure control) that running something in house can drive quality.

As @Haywain comments, Britain is not Switzerland. The culture of the Swiss railways is the result of many decades of effort and, if comments online are credible, may have passed its peak. For many reasons, the British rail system does not operate to the same high standards - and there are some deep questions to be asked about objectives before it could hope to transform in that direction.

 

[Haywain]

In any event, it's all very well discussing the lost property process and hours during which the left luggage office will deal with such matters, but in the OP's case his items had not got as far as being logged or deposited anywhere other than in the cleaner's cupboard, so no amount of software would have been of any help at that time.