Will my Delay Repay be validated?

[radamfi]

The 1800 from London Victoria to Brighton arrived at Gatwick more than 30 minutes late this evening so I was going to claim on Delay Repay.

However, I just looked at:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/A54035/2013/01/18

and it looks like the real time information from Gatwick onwards was not recorded. I know www.realtimetrains.co.uk is not official but is that an indication that Southern will not have the information either when they validate my claim?

 

[yorkie]

Hmm, well it stopped reporting at Stoats Nest Junction, 28 mins late.

I can't speak for Southern (who are the Train Company who operate this train) but I am reasonably confident they will not dispute the claim. In the unlikely event that Southern dispute it, I can put you in touch with someone who may be able to assist.

 

[Ferret]

The 1800 from London Victoria to Brighton arrived at Gatwick more than 30 minutes late this evening so I was going to claim on Delay Repay.

However, I just looked at:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/A54035/2013/01/18

and it looks like the real time information from Gatwick onwards was not recorded. I know www.realtimetrains.co.uk is not official but is that an indication that Southern will not have the information either when they validate my claim?

What a dumbass ridiculous system we run whereby people can legitimately claim delay repay when trains are delayed by a deluge of snow. I despair, really I do.

 

[Zoidberg]

What a dumbass ridiculous system we run whereby people can legitimately claim delay repay when trains are delayed by a deluge of snow. I despair, really I do.

On the other hand, some might think, "What a dumbass ridiculous system we run whereby trains are delayed by a deluge of snow."

"Some", I said.

 

[Ferret]

On the other hand, some might think, "What a dumbass ridiculous system we run whereby trains are delayed by a deluge of snow."

"Some", I said.

Haha! Given the RSSB rulebook effectively requires trains to be late in falling snow, it's hardly a surprise when they are indeed late! We really do not do ourselves any favours as an industry sometimes - would any other industry effectively stand on a street corner handing out free money, when it is constantly seeking ways to cut costs and reach profitability?! Madness, sheer madness.

 

[DelayRepay]

What a dumbass ridiculous system we run whereby people can legitimately claim delay repay when trains are delayed by a deluge of snow. I despair, really I do.

Nearly every day my train is late by 5 - 10 minutes, and I cannot claim. Occasionally when there is snow, or a trespasser longer delays will occur, and I can claim. I see these claims as "payback" for all the small delays which I am not compensated for, but sum to several hours a year.

It is ironic that the delays I am compensated for are those which are generally outside of the railway's control. The short delays are probably within the railway's control but no compensation is due.

 

[Goatboy]

This is a difficult one really, isn't it?

On the one hand it seems bizarre that a TOC must compensate somebody for delays which are outside of the control of the TOC.

On the other hand it seems bizarre that if operational difficulties are encountered all the financial penalty is on the customer, which is the situation where Delay Repay doesn't exist. Especially in the case of snow - snow isn't like floodwater, with the correct equipment and planning it can be cleared, the fact it cannot is down to being unable or unwilling to spend the required money (For which there may well be good reasons) but again, is it the customer who should take the financial penalty for that decision?

At the end of the day the customer has purchased a service which has not been provided in the way it was advertised. I went to the cinema once and a powercut knocked the entire building out. It was not the fault of the cinema but I still got a refund and a rescheduled showing.

And remember, it's not even a cash refund. It's RTV's which MUST be spent on more travel. They don't really get a financial payment they get a free trip which has a marginal cost to the TOC of zero (Or should do, if the industry was structured sensibly). Whilst I appreciate I'm sure our bizarrely fragmented railway has accounting procedures which mean the TOC's need to pay actual money for those vouchers, again thats an industry issue not a customer issue.

 

[Ferret]

On the one hand it seems bizarre that a TOC must compensate somebody for delays which are outside of the control of the TOC.

Totally bizarre.

On the other hand it seems bizarre that if operational difficulties are encountered all the financial penalty is on the customer, which is the situation where Delay Repay doesn't exist. Especially in the case of snow - snow isn't like floodwater, with the correct equipment and planning it can be cleared, the fact it cannot is down to being unable or unwilling to spend the required money (For which there may well be good reasons) but again, is it the customer who should take the financial penalty for that decision?

I take issue with this. The rulebook requires running brake tests in falling snow (for very good reason - the Stobart shed falling off the railway was caused by frozen brakes!!!), and a 10mph reduction in permissible speed for disc-braked multiple units so by definition, trains will run late. Much like my slow drive home at night last night - I took it easy on the roads last night so shall I write off to HM Government with a delay repay form because my journey home took longer than it should?!

And remember, it's not even a cash refund. It's RTV's which MUST be spent on more travel. They don't really get a financial payment they get a free trip which has a marginal cost to the TOC of zero (Or should do, if the industry was structured sensibly).

Regular delay-repay claimants will do it to save themselves money, so it is clearly a cost to the industry. In the economic times in which we live, is that sensible, or craven stupidity?!

 

[Tom B]

If somebody buys a ticket they enter into a contract with the railway firm to get them to a given destination by a given time. If the firm fails to do so in a timely manner, it refunds the customer.

In the case of snow, why should the passenger take the loss over the rail firm? The latter is equipped to take precautions to improve reliability, the former can do little other than wait for their train. (Yes, some of these are network rail issues not the individual TOC - but it is not a concern of the passenger that the industry is overcomplicated).

The problem with get outs such as "bad weather" is that the passenger has no ability to query it. Bad weather may be a freak snow drift which nobody can do anything about, or a not-abnormal amount of snow which the company is ill-equipped to deal with.

And as others have said there are very many occasions where trains may run late by 10, 15, 20 minutes - which still cause disruption, but are well below the threshold. Perhaps the companies could reduce the delay-repay threshold to 10 minutes but exclude bad weather?

 

[Ferret]

If somebody buys a ticket they enter into a contract with the railway firm to get them to a given destination by a given time.

Does it? Care to quote a source for that at all?

In the case of snow, why should the passenger take the loss over the rail firm? The latter is equipped to take precautions to improve reliability...

As I said, no it is not.

The problem with get outs such as "bad weather" is that the passenger has no ability to query it. Bad weather may be a freak snow drift which nobody can do anything about, or a not-abnormal amount of snow which the company is ill-equipped to deal with.

What is there to query about what happened yesterday?! Have you read my post about what the rulebook requires of drivers in snowy conditions for very good reason, or have you chosen to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument?

And as others have said there are very many occasions where trains may run late by 10, 15, 20 minutes - which still cause disruption, but are well below the threshold. Perhaps the companies could reduce the delay-repay threshold to 10 minutes but exclude bad weather?

Or perhaps people should just accept that sometimes delays happen while travelling, and while severe late running owing to things like train failures and signalling problems should always be eligible for compensation, delays caused by such thing as weather and fatalities should not.

 

[DelayRepay]

The problem then is how would you define/monitor "bad weather"? It could obviously vary from area to area, and it would inevitabley lead to disputes when claims were declined inwhat appeared to the passenger to be normal weather. If I was catching an EC service from Newcastle to Scotland, where the sun was shining, and it was delayed due to snow in London, would I be able to claim?

It's easier to leave it as it is I think

Remember that TOCs can introduce emergency timetables which can reduce their liability for Delay Repay.

 

[Goatboy]

I take issue with this. The rulebook requires running brake tests in falling snow (for very good reason - the Stobart shed falling off the railway was caused by frozen brakes!!!), and a 10mph reduction in permissible speed for disc-braked multiple units so by definition, trains will run late.

The customer is buying a service - the rulebook is an internal railway regulation. Ahderence to the rulebook is important but in doing so you could argue that it's unfair to push all of the financial consequences onto the customer. The rulebook is a rail industry construct - they wrote it for the safe operation of the current stock. Therefore if trains are late because of adherence to the rulebook, however sensible and correct this may be, is this a rail industry cause or a natural cause?

Weather is part of the natural hazard of doing business. With enough money spent, snow could have zero effect on the safe and timely operation of our railway. However, I think we all agree that the level of money required to acheive this would be grossly disproportional to the disruption snow causes. Therefore it's a business decision not to spend this money, therefore the customer is late as an indirect result of this business decision.

Sending out RTV's to those who can be bothered to claim seems like a far better solution, financially, for the TOC than spending millions on snow-proofing the services they operate.

And, as a passenger, I think I'd rather the TOC handed out some vouchers in the rare event of snow than spent a huge pile of cash that could be better spent elsewhere making the trains run perfectly in the event of snow.

Or perhaps people should just accept that sometimes delays happen while travelling

That they do but the difference between rail and road is that if I'm driving, I'm taking myself from A to B. If there is a traffic jam on the route I've chosen, or I've not equipped my car properly for driving in snow, thats my problem. If I've paid somebody else to take me from A to B, that burden switches to them.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Does it? Care to quote a source for that at all?



As I said, no it is not.



What is there to query about what happened yesterday?! Have you read my post about what the rulebook requires of drivers in snowy conditions for very good reason, or have you chosen to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument?



Or perhaps people should just accept that sometimes delays happen while travelling, and while severe late running owing to things like train failures and signalling problems should always be eligible for compensation, delays caused by such thing as weather and fatalities should not.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Carriage
Details of the contract formed when you buy a ticket. Wikipedia, I know, but the quoted conditions seem accurate.

 

[DelayRepay]

Or perhaps people should just accept that sometimes delays happen while travelling, and while severe late running owing to things like train failures and signalling problems should always be eligible for compensation, delays caused by such thing as weather and fatalities should not.

I accept that delays happen. I expect to be compensated if the delay is significant and is the responsibility of the railway. I do consider train failures to be the responsibility of the railway as the railway maintains the trains. But tresspass incidents, bad weather, cars on level crossings, disruptive passengers etc should not entitle me to compensation.

However, the TOCs invite me to claim compensation, and some of them even tweet reminding people to submit their claim. So why shouldn't I? As I said, I treat the compensation in these circumstances as an apology for all the 0 minute delays which as a daily commuter I encounter on a regular basis.

 

[Goatboy]

His point is that there is no guarantee that you will arrive at time X when you buy a ticket. He's right, but then its also the case that the TOC's Passengers Charter also regulates the contract between you and the TOC. And in some TOC Charters, it outlines that if they cannot get you to your destination within X minutes of the agreed time, you are entitled to recompense. It's there in black and white.

 

[Flamingo]

One thing that constantly amazes me is the railway seems to be the only form of transport that pays compensation for delays, whether within it's control or not.

Add to that the constant whining over "delays" that are no more than 5-10 minutes, sometimes on journey times that measure several hours, or over a route where there is no means of transport that is even vaguely comparable in terms of time. Do people really have a sad enough life that a five minute delay on a journey makes that much difference? And if the delay is as frequent as they say, why not leave 10 minutes earlier?

I can drive to work in 30 minutes door to door at 3 am. It doesn't mean I try to do it in 30 minutes to start work at 9am on a Wednesday morning, or complain to the Highways Agency when I can't (let alone think I am owed anything by anybody).

 

[Goatboy]

I accept that delays happen. I expect to be compensated if the delay is significant and is the responsibility of the railway. I do consider train failures to be the responsibility of the railway as the railway maintains the trains. But tresspass incidents, bad weather, cars on level crossings, disruptive passengers etc should not entitle me to compensation.

It should if its written into the TOC's Charter. And external causes of disruption CAN be influenced by the TOC. More security staff on trains would discourage disruptive passengers. Better lineside security would discourage tresspass. Better prepared and designed rolling stock would mitigate the effect of bad weather. BUT - all that would take ridiculous amounts of money which it would be neive to expect a TOC to spend. So, instead, with new franchises, this is recognised by an entitlement to Delay Repay regardless of the cause of the delay.

 

[Ferret]

The problem then is how would you define/monitor "bad weather"? It could obviously vary from area to area, and it would inevitabley lead to disputes when claims were declined inwhat appeared to the passenger to be normal weather. If I was catching an EC service from Newcastle to Scotland, where the sun was shining, and it was delayed due to snow in London, would I be able to claim?

No!

Remember that TOCs can introduce emergency timetables which can reduce their liability for Delay Repay.

Ah yes, the P-code scam that LM use to get round driver shortages impacting PPM!:roll:

 

[Goatboy]

One thing that constantly amazes me is the railway seems to be the only form of transport that pays compensation for delays, whether within it's control or not.

This is probably because of the amount of government control over the rail network. It's much harder to regulate entirely private transport industries - but the EU has mandated various levels of compensate for air travel.

Some of the levels of compensation you are entitled for air delays would make TOC's weep. It's cash, too, not vouchers, so real cost to the business.

Add to that the constant whining over "delays" that are no more than 5-10 minutes, sometimes on journey times that measure several hours, or over a route where there is no means of transport that is even vaguely comparable in terms of time. Do people really have a sad enough life that a five minute delay on a journey makes that much difference? And if the delay is as frequent as they say, why not leave 10 minutes earlier?

2 points:

a) People can moan all they like over a 10 minute delay, they are not getting compensated for it and neither should the TOC compensate them for it so the context of this thread they can quite rightly put up or shut up
b) The people you mention on long journeys often have connections where a 10 minute delay to once service can result in a significant delay to the overall journey.

complain to the Highways Agency when I can't (let alone think I am owed anything by anybody).

Because you've not specifically paid the Highways Agency to take you from A to B for that particular journey, therefore this isn't the same situation. You can't claim from Network Rail as a passenger, either. Plus comparing road and rail delays is rather odd - the railways run to a strict and approved timetable specifically designed to ensure every train can run on time. The roads have nothing of the sort. Anyone can drive anywhere they want at whatever time they want with zero capacity planning whatsoever. Of course this is going to result in delays you wouldn't expect on a planned and timetabled transport network.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

I take issue with this. The rulebook requires running brake tests in falling snow (for very good reason - the Stobart shed falling off the railway was caused by frozen brakes!!!), and a 10mph reduction in permissible speed for disc-braked multiple units so by definition, trains will run late. Much like my slow drive home at night last night - I took it easy on the roads last night so shall I write off to HM Government with a delay repay form because my journey home took longer than it should?!

...

...

In the case of snow, why should the passenger take the loss over the rail firm? The latter is equipped to take precautions to improve reliability,

...

...

Have you read my post about what the rulebook requires of drivers in snowy conditions for very good reason...

But is not the Rule Book requirement there because the industry chooses not to spend money to address, via technology, the potential for brakes to freeze?

 

[Ferret]

His point is that there is no guarantee that you will arrive at time X when you buy a ticket. He's right, but then its also the case that the TOC's Passengers Charter also regulates the contract between you and the TOC. And in some TOC Charters, it outlines that if they cannot get you to your destination within X minutes of the agreed time, you are entitled to recompense. It's there in black and white.

The basic contract is the NRCoC. The passenger's charter is something that can easily be changed, which is what I'm arguing for. My understanding is that delay repay was something of a DfT approved gimmick, but one that is really ill-thought out.

 

[DelayRepay]

Add to that the constant whining over "delays" that are no more than 5-10 minutes, sometimes on journey times that measure several hours, or over a route where there is no means of transport that is even vaguely comparable in terms of time. Do people really have a sad enough life that a five minute delay on a journey makes that much difference? And if the delay is as frequent as they say, why not leave 10 minutes earlier?

I'm not whinging. I accept delays happen and given that we have a train into London every few minutes in the peaks it's not much of a hardship if one is cancelled.

But equally I could ask why the TOCs think they're owed double the single fare to the next station (minimum £25) if a passenger makes an "honest mistake".

Why did the industry move from the "old" way of compensating season ticket holders via a discount based on performance during the period, to Delay Repay?

 

[rebmcr]

One thing that constantly amazes me is the railway seems to be the only form of transport that pays compensation for delays, whether within it's control or not.

Add to that the constant whining over "delays" that are no more than 5-10 minutes, sometimes on journey times that measure several hours, or over a route where there is no means of transport that is even vaguely comparable in terms of time. Do people really have a sad enough life that a five minute delay on a journey makes that much difference? And if the delay is as frequent as they say, why not leave 10 minutes earlier?

I can drive to work in 30 minutes door to door at 3 am. It doesn't mean I try to do it in 30 minutes to start work at 9am on a Wednesday morning, or complain to the Highways Agency when I can't (let alone think I am owed anything by anybody).

It's because the railways are a closed system, and delays are seen (correctly or not) as a failure of the system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I could ask why the TOCs think they're owed double the single fare to the next station (minimum £25) if a passenger makes an "honest mistake".

Because in that scenario there is the additional factor of having to deter fare dodging.

 

[Ferret]

But is not the Rule Book requirement there because the industry chooses not to spend money to address, via technology, the potential for brakes to freeze?

Or chooses not to mess with the laws of science at vast expense?

 

[Goatboy]

Or chooses not to mess with the laws of science at vast expense?

No, not really. There is no 'law of science' that means a 158 can only do 80mph in snowy conditions but a 175 can do 90. It's a technical limitation, not a law of science. If the 158 had a design speed of 100mph then accoridng to the Rule Book it could operate at 90mph in snow. So, there are technological ways to overcome that.

Not that I am arguing they should spend the money to do it - handing out vouchers is more cost efficient and arguably more appropriate than proofing stock for 2 days of the year.

You recognise that it's possible with 'vast expense'. It is therefore a business decision that results in the money not being spent, which means units run 10mph slower not because the laws of physics mean nature wont let them go any faster, but because nobody will spend the money on modifying them. Again, I stress, not that they should - but it makes it far less clear cut than 'Its not our fault, its all natural causes'.

If it was a tornado or something perhaps but snow is not unheard of in the UK so claiming its 'natural causes' 'beyond our control' doesn't really work. It's an accepted weather condition for this country. If I operate a bus service and choose not to spend money on a roof, I can't blame the weather when I cannot operate the bus in the rain. I can only blame my planning or lack of a roof. Which is my issue, not the weather nor the customer. It's a business decision I've made/

 

[Ferret]

It's because the railways are a closed system, and delays are seen (correctly or not) as a failure of the system.

Perhaps we need a more mature and intelligent attitude whereby we accept that some delays don't have to be anybody's fault.

Because in that scenario there is the additional factor of having to deter fare dodging.

Which doesn't seem to be working so well, given the current thread regarding our Five Ways to New Street dodger who thought that the worst that could happen was a £20 PF so thought it worth the gamble.:roll:

 

[Zoidberg]

Or chooses not to mess with the laws of science at vast expense?

Well, it could fight the laws of science with the laws of science by spending money on some sort of heating around pieces of equipment which could be prone to icing up.

But, yes, the expense, given the frequency (or lack thereof) of having to apply the Rule Book running brake test requirement, is probably disproportionate.

 

[Flamingo]

This is probably because of the amount of government control over the rail network. It's much harder to regulate entirely private transport industries - but the EU has mandated various levels of compensate for air travel.

Some of the levels of compensation you are entitled for air delays would make TOC's weep. It's cash, too, not vouchers, so real cost to the business.

Like Ryanair do? All the airlines have to say is that the delay is due to "safety" and they don't have to pay. Ask Michael O'Leary.

The last time I flew I had a three hour delay on the way out and a five hour delay on the way back (both due to mechanical faults), I got a voucher for the equivalent of £7 for food in the airport on the way back.

 

[Westboy]

Perhaps we need a more mature and intelligent attitude whereby we accept that some delays don't have to be anybody's fault.



Which doesn't seem to be working so well, given the current thread regarding our Five Ways to New Street dodger who thought that the worst that could happen was a £20 PF so thought it worth the gamble.:roll:

Eh. There was a thread on staff reciprocal travel where people openly state they travel free on a nod and a wink from other staff when they are not entitled too acccoriding to the rules. That's fare dodging too. Or is that different?

Amazes me how high and mighty some staff get.

 

[Goatboy]

Perhaps we need a more mature and intelligent attitude whereby we accept that some delays don't have to be anybody's fault.

Especially when you can just expect the customer to take the financial penalty for the delay
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Eh. There was a thread on staff reciprocal travel where people openly state they travel free on a nod and a wink from other staff when they are not entitled too acccoriding to the rules. That's fare dodging too. Or is that different?

Amazes me how high and mighty some staff get.

Thats really not fair, is it? Ferret has never indicated he'd do that so it's really not cricket to use the fact that other staff might to counter his own views in this thread.