Passenger Assist Issue

[Adam Williams]

I do think in RPM's pal's case, there was a much better way of handling it and educating them. In fact, if their account is accurate (appreciate we only have one side here), then the staff have actually made a judgement about their disability or lack thereof, if they literally took one look at the pram and said, "We don't do prams."

Agree, not the way it should've been approached. And if there really was no hidden disability then despite that I don't think the UI was clear enough to set out the acceptable and unacceptable uses of the service - which isn't entirely the passenger's fault.

 

[michael8]

TOCs have a legal duty to offer assistance for disabled and elderly passengers under the Equality Act 2010. This is why they offer this as a free service. If a person with a pram and luggage needs assistance, may I suggest that they engage the services of a paid porter ?

 

[RPM]

TOCs have a legal duty to offer assistance for disabled and elderly passengers under the Equality Act 2010. This is why they offer this as a free service. If a person with a pram and luggage needs assistance, may I suggest that they engage the services of a paid porter ?

You can indeed suggest it. It doesn't reflect particularly well on you, but you are free to say it. My reaction, after many years in this industry, is that we could and should do much better than this.

 

[michael8]

Porters used to ply for trade on the rail network - indeed, they still do at airports in other countries. We now have a system of trollies which can be used at stations in this country.

 

[RPM]

Porters used to ply for trade on the rail network - indeed, they still do at airports in other countries. We now have a system of trollies which can be used at stations in this country.

Children used to be sent up chimneys...

 

[michael8]

Which was a danger to life, hence why it was banned. I don't think portering is a danger to life. And I don't think it reflects badly on me if I am suggesting that passengers do what is expected of them in other developed countries around the world, in employing the services of a porter... Even Heathrow Airport has (paid-for) porters ! The pre-booked assistance is for disabled, mobility issues, and elderly travellers only, to allow the TOCs to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

Porters

Pre-book your Porter online, by email or by phone to guarantee a helping hand with your luggage

www.heathrow.com

 

[norbitonflyer]

Because the assistance isn’t being rendered to the six month old, who isn’t travelling on their own, but with a parent. And buggies/pushchairs are excluded?

Older people who are not mobile can get assistance even if they are travelling with a companion. So why the distinction?

Having travelled with a double buggy and a wheelchair (not at the same time!) and the steps at my local station were just as difficult with both.

 

[HullRailMan]

Don’t travel with a pram and luggage if you can’t cope with it. The level of entitlement demonstrated by some people with children is off the scale. Having a child isn’t a novelty and it certainly isn’t a disability. Don’t have them if you can’t manage dealing with them.

 

[michael8]

Don’t travel with a pram and luggage if you can’t cope with it. The level of entitlement demonstrated by some people with children is off the scale. Having a child isn’t a novelty and it certainly isn’t a disability. Don’t have them if you can’t manage dealing with them.

I like your attitude

 

[WAB]

For an institution so focused on health and safety, I'm surprised that the default is that those travelling with prams and luggage aren't afforded some assistance. I can quite easily see a situation where a lone parent in struggling with buggy and luggage and something goes rolling off a platform. I know it could be a slippery slope (no pun intended) to those travelling with lots of luggage asking for assistance, but I'm less worried about someone's smalls getting run over as opposed to someone small being run over!

You can indeed suggest it. It doesn't reflect particularly well on you, but you are free to say it. My reaction, after many years in this industry, is that we could and should do much better than this.

But it would cost, and you have to draw the line somewhere. The increased use of the network by passengers with disabilities (a good thing!) is already putting pressure on staffing, and increasing that pressure further by broadening the scope of the assistance beyond those with disabilities etc. would incur a significant cost in additional headcount.

 

[43066]

Sure, but passengers who book Advance fares should also know that they're only valid on that particular train; passengers who hold Family & Friends Railcards should know they need to travel with a child to use the discount; passengers should know that at penalty fare stations if they board without a ticket and buy it on their phone on-board, it's not valid. But people make mistakes or mis-read things, etc. There's a polite but firm way of informing a passenger that Passenger Assist isn't simply for heavy luggage or pushchairs, there's no need to be rude unless the passenger is aggressive or is fully aware that they're abusing the system. I've got the Passenger Assist app on my phone as I use it when I travel with my mum (electric wheelchair user) - I can't remember if it gave any info when I installed it, but certainly if I make a booking now it doesn't state what type of passenger it is for. I can simply select 'Help with luggage' and make a booking.

Saying “we don’t do prams” seems perfectly reasonable to me and isn’t what I’d consider rude. As always, we’d need to have witnessed the interaction to form a full judgement. But I can understand the staff members being irritated by the situation.

I do find it revealing that there’s more criticism of what staff (allegedly) said than there is of the person using the system incorrectly.

Older people who are not mobile can get assistance even if they are travelling with a companion. So why the distinction?

Because a six month old isn’t able to buy a ticket and travel independently, and must be accompanied by a parent or responsible carer, so clearly isn’t eligible for assistance. Unless you imagine parents can book assistance for a baby, turn up at the station and hand it over to staff?!

As for parents, someone able bodied with a pushchair also isn’t disabled, or elderly, and simply isn’t in the category of people assistance is intended for. I think the distinction will be clear to most people - unless you think it’s acceptable for blind people or wheelchair users to wait while parents with buggies use assistance staff as porters?

 

[TUC]

I do think there is an attitude by some parents these days that taking a pushchair together with luggage on/off public transport is in the 'too difficult' box when previous generations of parents managed it as part of life.

 

[Mat17]

I do think there is an attitude by some parents these days that taking a pushchair together with luggage on/off public transport is in the 'too difficult' box when previous generations of parents managed it as part of life.

Totally! Especially when you consider slamdoor trains and high floor buses (with a flight of stairs to climb), meant all prams would have to be folded to board. It was never the guard or bus driver's job to fold up prams. How did all those people travelling with children prior to the year 2000 cope?

Obviously, the modern access arrangements are far superior for disabled passengers.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

If the luggage is too heavy for the passenger, is it not too heavy for the staff member too?

The staff should have still helped with the luggage and let the parent deal with the buggy safely, if they were already there with them it would have surely been easier than leaving the passenger alone.

Talking strictly about able bodied pax here:

Why are they carrying luggage heavier than they can handle and then expect a member of rail staff to assist, when they can't handle it themselves?

I wouldn't expect someone to do something I couldn't do myself.

That depends. Different people can lift different amounts to different heights, as I'm sure we all remember from our Manual Handling courses... Perhaps that person can lift it over a step or two, or into a low floor bus, but due to the lack of level boarding can't lift it from the platform into a train? Do we need to measure the height of all trains and platforms, and only take luggage accordingly now?

Don’t travel with a pram and luggage if you can’t cope with it. The level of entitlement demonstrated by some people with children is off the scale. Having a child isn’t a novelty and it certainly isn’t a disability. Don’t have them if you can’t manage dealing with them.

What a lovely attitude. I sincerely hope you aren't dealing with the general public on a day to day basis... Having a child isn't a novelty, but it is a necessity for the human race, in case you've missed that small point? If you look to South Korea, they are making every effort to encourage people to have children as they are in population decline!

But it would cost, and you have to draw the line somewhere. The increased use of the network by passengers with disabilities (a good thing!) is already putting pressure on staffing, and increasing that pressure further by broadening the scope of the assistance beyond those with disabilities etc. would incur a significant cost in additional headcount.

I didn't say it wouldn't cost. But it's a balance of costs, I feel - what cost the disruption as someone's buggy rolls off a platform while they deal with luggage, or vice versa? I'd have no objection to offering it as a paid service to a wider audience and charging them for it - the money from which could be used to effectively subsidise the required passenger assistance staff.

 

[michael8]

Interesting the design of buggies has changed. I remember they used to be really lightweight and foldable - I think they're more sturdy nowadays ?

 

[43066]

What a lovely attitude. I sincerely hope you aren't dealing with the general public on a day to day basis... Having a child isn't a novelty, but it is a necessity for the human race, in case you've missed that small point? If you look to South Korea, they are making every effort to encourage people to have children as they are in population decline!

But it’s a valid point when some people with pushchairs seem to think they should take precedence over wheelchair users as increasingly seems to be the case as part of the “me me me” culture since Covid. That is a pretty despicable attitude in my book. Having children is still ultimately a lifestyle choice - it is not the same as a disability.

 

[harz99]

Interesting the design of buggies has changed. I remember they used to be really lightweight and foldable - I think they're more sturdy nowadays ?

Those were proper pushchairs though, not prams masquerading as buggies...

 

[styles]

Saying “we don’t do prams” seems perfectly reasonable to me and isn’t what I’d consider rude. As always, we’d need to have witnessed the interaction to form a full judgement. But I can understand the staff members being irritated by the situation.

That's not the full description of what happened:

"we don't do prams" and walked off, loudly complaining that they were fed up with assistance bookings coming through for prams "which we don't do".

It's also not correct to say, "we don't do prams" - it's that, "we don't do prams for passengers who aren't disabled, elderly, or less mobile". They could've taken 10 seconds to explain that passenger assist is for those groups, not just any passengers who have prams or heavy luggage. Given the Passenger Assist forms I've just sampled, most of them don't actually require selecting a disability, mobility need, etc; you can indeed tick that you need help with luggage and proceed to booking. It doesn't sound like RPM's pal intentionally booked it knowing it wasn't designed for them.

I do find it revealing that there’s more criticism of what staff (allegedly) said than there is of the person using the system incorrectly.

I mean it's been roundly pointed out to RPM in this thread that this isn't the intended use of Passenger Assist.

As my mum would say though, "two wrongs don't make a right." Passenger mistakes are common; unless there's reason to believe it was an intentional misuse of the system, there's no excuse for poor customer service and loudly complaining about passengers as you walk away from them.

 

[saismee]

If the staff are already with the passenger, available to help, they should've helped. If finding out that passenger assist is for disabled/impaired people is hidden in the fine print, the passenger shouldn't be abandoned for a mistake (although to us it's misuse is common sense). A better solution overall would've been to aid with luggage and explain that passenger assist is for disabled people, and that this is a one-time courtesy.

It doesn't matter what the tone of the staff was, leaving a customer to struggle with luggage after they booked an unclear service to help with it is rude and unfair.

 

[185]

The most shameful thing is the actual operators (under orders from their insurers) for not being straight with customers about what their policies are. DfT publicity suggests that non-disability assistance policies vary company to company ie at the TOC directors' discretion.

From the TOC business perspective, if one of their insurers such as eg Travelers Insurance Company ltd mandates that your local company has a 'don't carry prams' or 'don't carry non disabled peoples luggage' policy, the train operating company can pay lower premiums as they have mitigated against insurance claims. This could also apply to other risk activities including hands off policies or train evacuation method policies - by restricting a risk activity, a lower premium can be charged.

Where does this nonsense fit into this case? I recall one company some years ago, 'do not handle prams!' - clear as crystal. Then, over time, companies change hands and bosses seemingly forget or don't know that staff have previously been warned not to do something.

- Leaving us with staff who won't carry out a procedure as they've been told not to, and TOC senior management denying all responsibility, because they've either forgotten or didn't know.

 

[TUC]

What is of help is a member of staff who will ensure the train doesn't depart whilst you're getting luggage, pushchair and child on board. I can remember when our children were little being concerned of this happening whilst one of the above was still on the platform.

 

[RPM]

The most shameful thing is the actual operators (under orders from their insurers) for not being straight with customers about what their policies are. DfT publicity suggests that non-disability assistance policies vary company to company ie at the TOC directors' discretion.

From the TOC business perspective, if one of their insurers such as eg Travelers Insurance Company ltd mandates that your local company has a 'don't carry prams' or 'don't carry non disabled peoples luggage' policy, the train operating company can pay lower premiums as they have mitigated against insurance claims. This could also apply to other risk activities including hands off policies or train evacuation method policies - by restricting a risk activity, a lower premium can be charged.

Where does this nonsense fit into this case? I recall one company some years ago, 'do not handle prams!' - clear as crystal. Then, over time, companies change hands and bosses seemingly forget or don't know that staff have previously been warned not to do something.

- Leaving us with staff who won't carry out a procedure as they've been told not to, and TOC senior management denying all responsibility, because they've either forgotten or didn't know.

That's the level of mess I feared we might be in. Yet another thing to be sorted out and brought to parity by GBR, eventually.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2025 ==

That's not the full description of what happened:



It's also not correct to say, "we don't do prams" - it's that, "we don't do prams for passengers who aren't disabled, elderly, or less mobile". They could've taken 10 seconds to explain that passenger assist is for those groups, not just any passengers who have prams or heavy luggage. Given the Passenger Assist forms I've just sampled, most of them don't actually require selecting a disability, mobility need, etc; you can indeed tick that you need help with luggage and proceed to booking. It doesn't sound like RPM's pal intentionally booked it knowing it wasn't designed for them.


I mean it's been roundly pointed out to RPM in this thread that this isn't the intended use of Passenger Assist.

As my mum would say though, "two wrongs don't make a right." Passenger mistakes are common; unless there's reason to believe it was an intentional misuse of the system, there's no excuse for poor customer service and loudly complaining about passengers as you walk away from them.

Agreed on all points.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2025 ==

But it would cost, and you have to draw the line somewhere. The increased use of the network by passengers with disabilities (a good thing!) is already putting pressure on staffing, and increasing that pressure further by broadening the scope of the assistance beyond those with disabilities etc. would incur a significant cost in additional headcount.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that it would make the railway accessible to a broader range of passengers and bolster the case for having stations properly staffed.

 

[vidal]

Who is responsible for the lost time if someone is struggling with a recalcitrant toddler, a buggy and one or two bags? If the passenger is getting the buggy off whilst holding the child, leaving the buggy on the platform and then getting their luggage off it will all take time.

I'd hope that people would assist, but in this case as recounted by the OP it appears that help was withdrawn by the staff involved.

James

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

But it’s a valid point when some people with pushchairs seem to think they should take precedence over wheelchair users as increasingly seems to be the case as part of the “me me me” culture since Covid. That is a pretty despicable attitude in my book. Having children is still ultimately a lifestyle choice - it is not the same as a disability.

I agree - it's a choice people make, and while it doesn't give them any extra rights, it does mean that sometimes they need a little extra help, and if it's asked for nicely, why should we begrudge that? Would you deny assistance to someone in a wheelchair who was their because they fell off a bike, because that's a result of a lifestyle choice?

Regardless though, you're right that being a parent doesn't give anyone a right to be an unpleasant person!

What is of help is a member of staff who will ensure the train doesn't depart whilst you're getting luggage, pushchair and child on board. I can remember when our children were little being concerned of this happening whilst one of the above was still on the platform.

This. 1000 times this. Still looking at you TPE, and still haven't forgotten how you separated me and the pram from the 12 month old child on a cold winter evening, and I'll never forgive your guard for that.

 

[chrisjo]

Just to show another side of the coin:

I spent a few hours at Cardiff Central a few days ago. During that time I watched a passenger assistance boy meet GWR trains from Paddington three times. On one occasion out of the three he found an old lady needing assistance in the coach where they should have been. The other two times there was nobody needing assistance in the coach he'd been told to meet, and he spent the next while running up and down the platform looking in every coach and speaking on his phone at the same time, to no avail and eventually giving up when the train was either empty or departed.

 

[Haywain]

From the TOC business perspective, if one of their insurers such as eg Travelers Insurance Company ltd mandates that your local company has a 'don't carry prams' or 'don't carry non disabled peoples luggage' policy, the train operating company can pay lower premiums as they have mitigated against insurance claims. This could also apply to other risk activities including hands off policies or train evacuation method policies - by restricting a risk activity, a lower premium can be charged.

Is this based on what you know or on speculation? Whilst train companies will have public and employers liability insurance it is doubtful that the sort of differences you suggest will have any noticeable effect on premiums for a company in the wider scheme of things.

 

[WAB]

I didn't say it wouldn't cost. But it's a balance of costs, I feel - what cost the disruption as someone's buggy rolls off a platform while they deal with luggage, or vice versa? I'd have no objection to offering it as a paid service to a wider audience and charging them for it - the money from which could be used to effectively subsidise the required passenger assistance staff.

This doesn't happen enough to justify such a massive increase in staffing. If it was paid, fine, but I'm not sure you'd get enough business for such a service except at the most major stations.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that it would make the railway accessible to a broader range of passengers and bolster the case for having stations properly staffed.

Which would require funding. Would the increase in passenger numbers because of the additional support increase revenues enough to offset the cost of providing the service?

Who is responsible for the lost time if someone is struggling with a recalcitrant toddler, a buggy and one or two bags? If the passenger is getting the buggy off whilst holding the child, leaving the buggy on the platform and then getting their luggage off it will all take time.

The TOC operating the train, with further attribution to stations if it occurs at a manned station or to guards if at an unmanned station.

I spent a few hours at Cardiff Central a few days ago. During that time I watched a passenger assistance boy meet GWR trains from Paddington three times. On one occasion out of the three he found an old lady needing assistance in the coach where they should have been. The other two times there was nobody needing assistance in the coach he'd been told to meet, and he spent the next while running up and down the platform looking in every coach and speaking on his phone at the same time, to no avail and eventually giving up when the train was either empty or departed.

Unfortunately, this is rife throughout the system. It relies on everyone involved keeping the app up to date and this often does not happen. Progress is being made, but there's a lot further to go before the railways are providing passenger assistance to an acceptable quality.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

This doesn't happen enough to justify such a massive increase in staffing. If it was paid, fine, but I'm not sure you'd get enough business for such a service except at the most major stations.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "massive increase in staffing". You could quite easily start off just filling gaps in the existing staff schedules. Or advertise it, let people ring up and say "sorry, we're at capacity" to judge whether there is sufficient demand, something which would require no extra staffing.

@WAB would you mind me asking if you are (or have been) a railway employee?

 

[185]

Is this based on what you know or on speculation?

Not specifically this policy, but one company was forced to admit, under oath in court, that they receive reduced insurance premiums for implementing a "broad spectrum of risk-averse policies within their business". Quite straightforward.

 

[Haywain]

Not specifically this policy, but one company was forced to admit, under oath in court, that they receive reduced insurance premiums for implementing a "broad spectrum of risk-averse policies within their business". Quite straightforward.

Well, that would apply for any business in any sector. That doesn't mean that handling or not handling prams would alone make a difference.