And some enthusiasts will wonder why they get asked to leave railway premises rather than being allowed to take photos, and so the cycle continues. Who benefits from that?
I am not sure what you are suggesting here; are you saying enthusiasts taking photos can be asked to leave if they are heard moaning about customer service on the railway? That sounds a bit odd to me and I don't understand the relevance to this thread?
I don’t agree that that’s generally the case at all. The threads in disputes and prosecutions are almost all people who have tried to evade fares, and are dealt with accordingly, so views of staff on there are a little like what you’d hear of you asked criminals (or should I say other criminals) what they think of police officers! The media is inaccurate about most industries.
There are plenty of instances of poor advice being given to passengers, which is the point that was being made.
The disputes and prosecutions section, when read in conjunction with the IR threads, can easily give the impression that the forum gives a more sympathetic ear to fare evaders than it does to staff.
I don't think so; fare evaders are nearly always advised to settle the matter out of court (which is actually seen by some as being
pro-TOC, as that's generally what TOCs want as it minimises their costs and maximises their return). This is a completely different and unrelated matter to a situation where a member of staff is "suggesting" that passengers for Wakefield and Sheffield delay their journeys and where it is (based on the original post) potentially not made clear if ticket acceptance is in place or not. It is difficult to draw comparisons between the two. However if the member of staff has done something wrong, the result would be nothing more than a word by their manager.
They would be relevant to any passengers who found it useful to be aware of the other services mentioned.
I don't think anyone is doubting that it could be useful to make passengers aware of the alternative services to Wakefield and Sheffield? The usefulness of a train to Sheffield which would result in an hour's delay is perhaps debateable but there is no harm in stating it as a possibility providing the full information is given.
It strikes me that the announcement (as described) was made to make passengers aware of alternatives, not that any particular passengers should change.
The original poster said it was being "suggested", but we don't have the exact wording. As I said above, the announcement could potentially be very helpful, depending on the wording, but if not worded clearly and effectively it could potentially result in the passenger experiencing an unexpected 61 minute delay and it's not 100% clear if their ticket would be accepted or if a delay repay claim would be accepted. We don't know exacly how it was worded and different people interpret less clear messages in different ways.
What I am saying is that it would have been possible for that TM to come up with a formulation of words that wouldn’t have been in any way inappropriate, even if ticket acceptance wasn’t in place, and even if it didn’t mention ticketing at all.
Without mentioning ticketing at all? What did you have in mind?
What comment are you after? The TM would not necessarily have been in a position to know the status of those other services. So the same point surely applies: “other services are available which you may consider using due to the overcrowding” neither implies ticketing acceptance, nor that those services are guaranteed to get you there any quicker, but it might be useful to some people. If people aren’t in a rush they might be happy to break the journey and sit around for an hour to avoid the overcrowding!
If a passenger who isn't particularly familiar with the rail industry heard “other services are available which you may consider using due to the overcrowding”, would you expect them to alight from the train and seek staff or boards, or look this up themselves? Do you think inexperienced passengers would be likely to alight with such a vague message? Would anyone who did alight be likely to be happy if they discovered the next Sheffield stopper would get them in around an hour late?
It sounds to me like they were simply being made aware of the existence of other options, no more and no less. If they add 2+2 and make 6, it’s up to them.
The original post wasn't worded that way.
How could I possibly clarify the exact wording used when I have no idea what the exact wording was!?
Indeed; we don't know what the wording was, hence this debate; I don't think you have enough information to say "It sounds to me like they were simply being made aware of the existence of other options, no more and no less" and other remarks; this is at odds with the description given in the original post.
We are all speculating based on the description in the OP.
I am keeping an open mind regarding exactly what was said; I think we all should do that. As I said above, it could have been useful but it may not have been; it's not entirely clear to me as there isn't sufficient information to be certain.
It’s possible to make an announcement regarding alternatives being available that in no way mentions ticketing, and does not imply ticketing acceptance. Indeed I would personally think that the safest course in this situation.
What did you have in mind? Also would you mention the delay being around an hour or would it be safest not to mention that either?
By whom? Many passengers will consider them interchangeable.
The rail industry itself. Yes many passengers have no idea of the potential pitfalls of simply following advice to take alternative operators or modes if it's unclear whether or not ticket acceptance is in place.
I’ve explained why the comparison is relevant. It’s an alternative which some people on the train will have tickets for, some will not (a little like Northern services, to a trainload of XC passengers).
I agree that the announcement will be applicable to some, not all, of the passengers on the train; would you say such an announcement should make this clear, or would it be best not to do so, and let passengers find out on the platform, after alighting from the train?
When making an announcement that “it may be quicker to continue your journey via London Underground” that in no way implies ticket acceptance. Yet I can easily imagine a thread on here along similar lines to this one if someone was turned away at the LU gateline: “the driver of X train told us to use the underground but our tickets weren’t valid”. I would have absolutely no hesitation in making similar announcements again.
I don't see how such an announcement is comparable to this situation, where it's allegedly "suggested" that passengers take an alternative operator for a journey that would have got them to Sheffield 61 minutes later than the train they were already on.
No, they are not deluded. The OP and follow up were clearly critical rather than neutral, as others have noted. As for staff members, they will simply stumble across threads like this where a member of staff has done something helpful, and see the overreaction to it. They are unlikely to be back.
How can you be sure it was helpful? As I said above, I am keeping an open mind because it's not clear what was said. It seems you don't know what was said either but have decided that whatever was said would have been helpful, as any ticketing matters apparently aren't part of what you'd consider helpful (and the potential delay of 61 minutes?)
Passengers with the wrong tickets are indeed routinely challenged, which is why it’s safest not to make lengthy announcements about ticketing, or even mention it at all.
And yet this routinely does happen.
It is down to individual passengers (who are generally adults, not school children) to ensure they are travelling in accordance with the Ts and Cs of their tickets, for their particular journeys.
Passengers are also entitled to follow advice regarding alternative services when disruption occurs.
As I have already pointed out, there was no need to mention the specific train which makes that person identifiable internally. That information added nothing to the topic. Surely you can understand that? Would you be happy having aspects of a your job performance discussed online on a forum in a way that made it possible for your employer to identify you?
Are you suggesting staff who make PA announcements on busy trains should have a reasonable expectation that their employer would not become aware of such announcements being made? How would staff know that no members of management were on board the train? Are you suggesting passengers are anything wrong by stating what announcement was made on a particular train?
And there we have it! Ticket acceptance was in place anyway, so all of the above negativity and criticism was for nothing. I wonder how many will come back to congratulate that guard on their announcement!
As I said above, if ticket acceptance was in place (someone is stating it was, however we don't have absolute confirmation of this, but in the absense of any conclusive evidence, let's assume that it was), why not mention that?
The moral of the story really is don’t bother to help out and say as little as possible!
In the situation described I think you'd be best either saying nothing or providing the full information.
I suppose the important thing to remember is that the vast majority of passengers “get it” and the reaction on here is not typical.
I think the vast majority of passengers for Wakefield and Sheffield would stay put, to be honest. Many would be apprehensive of alighting from the train if it wasn't made clear what the situation was regarding ticketing and/or the timing of alternative services (as applicable).
The average passenger probably wouldn't expect that following the "suggestion" would result in a delay of one hour into Sheffield; or do you think they would?
