Virgin Employee Travel Perks

[ANorthernGuard]

Perhaps our forces do deserve free travel (when travelling to and from deployment) but we seem to be adding new groups all the time so perhaps we should just let anyone on a train who wants to travel and not charge them, would make your life a little easier.

Now methinks you are taking the p***

Goodnight

 

[tbtc]

Everyone passengers and staff are treated equal

They're clearly not in the "nudge nudge, wink wink" world of some railway staff, are they?

Still, this thread has helped me. As a qualified First Aider, I know I should be allowed free train travel "in case I am useful", apparently. Because it'd be hypocritical to start drawing the line, now you are agreeing that the rules can be ignored

 

[Mr Spock]

Now methinks you are taking the p***

Goodnight

"Moi".

 

[Striker]

"Moi".

He'll be back, don't worry. I've lost count of the number of times he's "gone away" only to return a few minutes later. Unless he's got to go let a mate travel on the train for free.


This thread reminds me of a time a friend was late getting ready to go out. His wife shouted, "come one, we're going to be late, what are you doing?!" His reply was, "somebody on the internet is wrong!"

 

[90019]

He'll be back, don't worry. I've lost count of the number of times he's "gone away" only to return a few minutes later. Unless he's got to go let a mate travel on the train for free.

Perhaps he's gone to

find [a] slack alice from the arches

 

[313103]

Letting somebody on the train for free is breaking the rules not bending them. Exploiting a fare to it's max is most definitely NOT breaking the rules, so I don't know what you're talking about.

OK in order that i don't get into a petty argument with you i will agree with you on the first point. However can you please elaborate and explain what you mean when you say 'Exploiting the fare to its max is most definitely NOT breaking the rules'

As i am just a Guard on a train and ignorant of such things!

 

[Striker]

OK in order that i don't get into a petty argument with you i will agree with you on the first point. However can you please elaborate and explain what you mean when you say 'Exploiting the fare to its max is most definitely NOT breaking the rules'

As i am just a Guard on a train and ignorant of such things!

I don't know much about fares but I do believe there are certain ways of exploiting fares and taking advantage of loopholes. One example could be splitting tickets rather than buying one through fare. Others will surely have better examples where people exploit anomalies in fare rules.

 

[Legzr1]

I love it when people resort to personal abuse because they know they're losing an argument :roll:

Simple remedy : admit it's none of your business and jog on.


You (and your jealous mates) are out to get a bite and you're arguing for arguments sake.

Imagine if you put all this time and effort into something useful rather than winning points in an iternet argument :roll:

Grow up mate,move on and keep away from things that don't concern you.



If that sounds like 'arrogance towards fare-paying passengers' to you then I suggest the problem is with your comprehension.

 

[Striker]

Simple remedy : admit it's none of your business and jog on.


You (and your jealous mates) are out to get a bite and you're arguing for arguments sake.

Imagine if you put all this time and effort into something useful rather than winning points in an iternet argument :roll:

Grow up mate,move on and keep away from things that don't concern you.



If that sounds like 'arrogance towards fare-paying passengers' to you then I suggest the problem is with your comprehension.

Does anybody else feel a little bit grubby reading this? I do. I have an image in my head of Lenny McLean and maybe a snooker ball in a sock.

 

[scotsman]

Does anybody else feel a little bit grubby reading this? I do. I have an image in my head of Lenny McLean and maybe a snooker ball in a sock.

No, I just get the impression that someone dislikes the fact that a valid argument against has been made and are going for vague possible implied meanings in order to stir things up when they have come to end up.

Please don't rise to the bait.

 

[Darandio]

I do if I am honest.

What strikes me is the nature of the whole thread and in particular the "band of brothers" who seem to think that because they are in the profession, they know more and know what is right regardless of whether it is or not.

Look at certain posts from these guys, resorting to personal insults and complaining of point scoring. Anyone new to the thread could easily come in, read all of the pages and see that the point scoring is coming from those "in the know", telling everyone that its all fine, it's camaraderie and that everyone else should butt out regardless of the legality of the whole thing.

 

[Fred26]

all this griping is getting pathetic, so i'll make it clear then I have finished with this forum until some actual "Railway" employees turn up!

This is the way it is, always has been, always will be (except for a very small minority)

Deal with it

There are so many more important things in the world, like whats for dinner?

get over it

end of


That feels better

I am a rail employee and I still disagree with you.

 

[Striker]

I am a rail employee and I still disagree with you.

You'll be one of the 5% then.

 

[ukrob]

I am a rail employee and I still disagree with you.

Same here.

 

[theblackwatch]

Has anyone surveyed the management of TOC's to see what their view is?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Blimey, this thread has moved some...

....Strange how it's one railway in some respects but when it comes to (for example) holding passenger's train connections.... :roll:

Holding connections is not always in the control of the guard, the decisions are often made at Operations Control.

....My god, a whole 75p more to be able to travel in the peak as opposed to £213 more for everyone else! Oh the injustice!

It is wonderful how that changes depending on how the discussion goes. One minute it's "yeah but you get 75% off", and when it's pointed out that means very little for most of the day, people resort to the old peak time chestnut. Did you know some TOCs ask staff NOT to travel during peak times on discounted fares, and at all times they should give up their seat if needed by 'fare paying passengers'? They can also be further requested to be of assistance when needed by on train staff.

I actually try to avoid travelling at peak time for my own comfort, but that point will probably be lost on some people.

Letting somebody on the train for free is breaking the rules not bending them....

It's not breaking the rules, see the railway byelaws 17(3) (iii), 18 (3) (iii) and 19. Infact I think you'd be suprised the number of times it's done for passengers, maybe not to the same degree or for the same reason, but it's definately done.

I don't know much about fares but I do believe there are certain ways of exploiting fares and taking advantage of loopholes. One example could be splitting tickets rather than buying one through fare. Others will surely have better examples where people exploit anomalies in fare rules.

Splitting tickets is not bending or breaking any rules, provided it is done within NCoC condition 19. In any case, it appears most people, staff or otherwise, would rather have black and white rules enforced to the letter.....except when it suits them.

 

[Legzr1]

Does anybody else feel a little bit grubby reading this? I do. I have an image in my head of Lenny McLean and maybe a snooker ball in a sock.

Again,a simple remedy for you (by now you should start to realise that simple answers normally get to the point) :

A.Don't read it and/or

B.Don't respond.


I still reckon this whole thread is driven by envy.

Akin to splitting up children arguing over pocket money.

No, I just get the impression that someone dislikes the fact that a valid argument against has been made and are going for vague possible implied meanings in order to stir things up when they have come to end up.

Please don't rise to the bait.

Excuse me?

Nothing vague in what I say - you want to travel?Then pay the price.
You don't want to travel?Then don't.

But,please,don't get all arsey if someone is getting a similar service at less cost.


Oh,my intention is not to 'stir things up' - some of us can't be sat at the PC all night just waiting to submit a reply - If it takes me a few hours to answer a point made then that's what it takes.

If that annoys certain people then that's tough

 

[ukrob]

I still reckon this whole thread is driven by envy.

Akin to splitting up children arguing over pocket money.

I still think this is quite funny. Considering you don't know who people are or what they do (unless they state what they do, obviously).

There is at least one person on this thread who disagrees with you who is senior to traincrew.

 

[90019]

you want to travel?Then pay the price.

Which applies to staff as well.

 

[tbtc]

you want to travel?Then pay the price

Or wink at the Guard and let him defraud his employer?

 

[theblackwatch]

Holding connections is not always in the control of the guard, the decisions are often made at Operations Control.

But if it's one railway, they are part of the same organisation! Unless its 'one railway excluding operations control'. :?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Or wink at the Guard and let him defraud his employer?

Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or

(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or

(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

The Guard/Conductor IS an AUTHORISED PERSON

so rightly or wrongly, morally or not that is the answer and that is the exact wording of the byelaw (from wikipedia)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if it's one railway, they are part of the same organisation! Unless its 'one railway excluding operations control'. :?

Techinically the only time a train can be held without the TOC being fined is for disabled passengers, if I do have a Disabled Pax on board I will always try and ring ahead, but even that as far as I know is not foolproof

 

[theblackwatch]

So it would appear the 'one railway' is not actually that!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So it would appear the 'one railway' is not actually that!

Wow now that is splitting hairs!

 

[the sniper]

But if it's one railway, they are part of the same organisation! Unless its 'one railway excluding operations control'. :?

This thread is getting ridiculously petty now. The reasons why connections can often not be held are very well documented, that's without even taking into account that it is normally outside of the guards hands...

 

[Legzr1]

I still think this is quite funny. Considering you don't know who people are or what they do (unless they state what they do, obviously).

There is at least one person on this thread who disagrees with you who is senior to traincrew.

At least one,possibly 500 - is that your premise?

What business is it of anyone else if railway employees seem to be getting a good deal?

Why do those outside of the industry cry so much about it?

If all railway employess suddenly lost all free travel (meaning no chance of some taking a few liberties/doing favours) what difference would that make to full-fare paying passengers?

I'll tell you shall I?

None.

No difference whatsoever (bar that lovely warm 'that's them f***ed' feeling...)

Or wink at the Guard

Hey,it's 2010 - whatever turns you on...


Are we all done now?

 

[ukrob]

At least one,possibly 500 - is that your premise?

What? I said for a fact I know there is at least one. Don't see your point.

What business is it of anyone else if railway employees seem to be getting a good deal?

It is perceived as the public's business because they are funding the railways through taxation irrespective of if they pay for a ticket or not.

Why do those outside of the industry cry so much about it?

I don't know - ask them, not me.

If all railway employess suddenly lost all free travel (meaning no chance of some taking a few liberties/doing favours) what difference would that make to full-fare paying passengers?

I'll tell you shall I?

None.

Nobody has said railway employees should lose all free travel. A point you seem to like ignoring.

Hey,it's 2010 - whatever turns you on...


Are we all done now?

Petty cheap digs from you again I see. They just weaken your argument.

 

[Striker]

Splitting tickets is not bending or breaking any rules, provided it is done within NCoC condition 19.

It's not in the "spirit" of how things should be, just like back to back ticketing and throw away ticketing in the airlines.

Nobody has said railway employees should lose all free travel. A point you seem to like ignoring.

I know. He's not the only one ignoring this either. :roll:

 

[TheBigD]

Give it a rest. Everyone.

 

[Striker]

Give it a rest. Everyone.

Says who? :roll:

If you don't want to participate just don't click on the thread! It's quite simple!