Trains cancellations - latest

[Earl Aelfheah]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi rahrahrah,

> That's how TfL manage London Overground and it

> seems to work really well.

> GTR management with the help of the RMT union,

> supported by the DfT seem to have all forgotten

> rail services are meant to be a service for the

> convenience of passengers.

I'm kind of surprised by that. I think it's quite unusual for Train franchises, but obviously not unique.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

@Cardelia, except that that means that I have to wait around for another 30 minutes only to be told that they next train has been delayed or cancelled, when otherwise I can just go and find some other way home and get home in 1 hour rather than 2.

Besides, the TOCs don't pay the comp, so I'm not convinced they care.

[dirac]

Anyone managed to claim back money because of not being able to board a train because of only three carriages rather than 8? Train left on time but just no way to get on it...

[JW]

dirac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone managed to claim back money because of not

> being able to board a train because of only three

> carriages rather than 8? Train left on time but

> just no way to get on it...

Maybe claim anyway and see? Just select Other and fill in the next section. I just got a few vouchers through in the post for cancelled trains - barely enough to cover a glass of wine, but better than nothing.

[JW]

dirac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone managed to claim back money because of not

> being able to board a train because of only three

> carriages rather than 8? Train left on time but

> just no way to get on it...

Just checked the website and it says this...

If you were unable to board the train due to crowding please select 'other' and advise us of the details.

So it gives the impression that you can. Claim, claim, claim!

[Lowlander]

dirac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone managed to claim back money because of not

> being able to board a train because of only three

> carriages rather than 8? Train left on time but

> just no way to get on it...

Yes I have done it once or twice (there are no three carriage trains, but occasionally four instead of eight).

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

We should be able to claim that every morning with the sardine tin I normally face.

[dirac]

JW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dirac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Anyone managed to claim back money because of

> not

> > being able to board a train because of only

> three

> > carriages rather than 8? Train left on time but

> > just no way to get on it...

>

> Just checked the website and it says this...

>

> If you were unable to board the train due to

> crowding please select 'other' and advise us of

> the details.

>

> So it gives the impression that you can. Claim,

> claim, claim!

Thanks. I ended up having to leave the station and get a bus back from Blackfriars to Peckham, so want to claim back the money I've inevitably been charged for no journey. There was just no way anyone was getting on the trains. I waited over an hour on the platform, and missed two because of overcrowding. The guys working on the platform were great, and I can't fault them at all; they were saying they find it nuts that Thameslink operate 4 carriage trains for the 1734 and 1804 leaving blackfriars during peak time, even on a regular day without problems it's rammed.

[Cardelia]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Cardelia, except that that means that I have to

> wait around for another 30 minutes only to be told

> that they next train has been delayed or

> cancelled, when otherwise I can just go and find

> some other way home and get home in 1 hour rather

> than 2.

>

> Besides, the TOCs don't pay the comp, so I'm not

> convinced they care.

I'm not sure I follow. If your normal train is cancelled and you can get home within 30 minutes of your scheduled arrival time by using another train, then you've been inconvenienced but not severely delayed. Rightly or wrongly, 30 minutes is the defined cutoff point for compensation so I'm not sure why you feel it's a con?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it is the TOCs who pay compensation.

[Cedges]

>

> I'm not sure I follow. If your normal train is

> cancelled and you can get home within 30 minutes

> of your scheduled arrival time by using another

> train, then you've been inconvenienced but not

> severely delayed. Rightly or wrongly, 30 minutes

> is the defined cutoff point for compensation so

> I'm not sure why you feel it's a con?

Because a 30 minute delay on a 4 hour cross country train is a very different prospect to a 30 minute delay on what should be a 12 minute journey.

I also get nothing because I don't buy a travel card, I pay as you go so whilst my bus journey is supposedly cheaper (except when I have to get a total of 3 buses like yesterday) my journey now takes 50 minutes and not 12 - there is no compensation for time lost. Thats over an hour and a half of my day gone.

[Cardelia]

Cedges Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because a 30 minute delay on a 4 hour cross

> country train is a very different prospect to a 30

> minute delay on what should be a 12 minute

> journey.

>

> I also get nothing because I don't buy a travel

> card, I pay as you go so whilst my bus journey is

> supposedly cheaper (except when I have to get a

> total of 3 buses like yesterday) my journey now

> takes 50 minutes and not 12 - there is no

> compensation for time lost. Thats over an hour and

> a half of my day gone.

Oh, I agree that 30 minutes is completely unsuitable for defining delays on suburban commuter journeys, but it is what we're stuck with and everyone knows in advance what the criteria are. That's why I don't see it as a con.

You can get compensation for PAYG journeys. If you register your card (either Oyster or bank/credit) with Southern, they keep a log of all taps in/out and it should be straightforward to highlight the journeys which are eligible for compensation. I don't think it will work if you're using buses instead of trains, but if your bus journey is taking 50 minutes surely you're better off getting the train from ED to London Bridge using the revised timetable?

[wroed]

Rather oddly the 17.50 London Bridge to Wimbledon calling at East Dulwich was back on the timetable last night. I caught it home. Doesn't appear to be running this eve.

I've found the service actually better this week while the strike has been on. Guess that will now change since it's been suspended tomorrow and Friday.

[Cedges]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cedges Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Because a 30 minute delay on a 4 hour cross

> > country train is a very different prospect to a

> 30

> > minute delay on what should be a 12 minute

> > journey.

> >

> > I also get nothing because I don't buy a travel

> > card, I pay as you go so whilst my bus journey

> is

> > supposedly cheaper (except when I have to get a

> > total of 3 buses like yesterday) my journey now

> > takes 50 minutes and not 12 - there is no

> > compensation for time lost. Thats over an hour

> and

> > a half of my day gone.

>

> Oh, I agree that 30 minutes is completely

> unsuitable for defining delays on suburban

> commuter journeys, but it is what we're stuck with

> and everyone knows in advance what the criteria

> are. That's why I don't see it as a con.

Just because you know something in advance, doesn't not make it a massive con!

> You can get compensation for PAYG journeys. If you

> register your card (either Oyster or bank/credit)

> with Southern, they keep a log of all taps in/out

> and it should be straightforward to highlight the

> journeys which are eligible for compensation. I

> don't think it will work if you're using buses

> instead of trains, but if your bus journey is

> taking 50 minutes surely you're better off getting

> the train from ED to London Bridge using the

> revised timetable?

Thanks, hadn't thought of that. Just to clarify - do you suggest I get up even earlier and get the over packed 8.30am train or the 9.30am train for my 9.30 work start time? I appreciate you were trying to be helpful but we're not all thickos - please don't patronise me.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

@ Cardelia.

Say my train leaves at 6:00pm. If it runs, I get to my home station at 6:15pm. If it gets cancelled and I look for an alternative immediately, I should be able to get home by around 6:50pm.

I'm forced to wait for the next train scheduled to leave at 6:29pm, and it leaves on time, I get home by 6:44pm, so waiting around seems the better option in theory. However, if the train is delayed by more than 15mins (which happens most of the time these days), I get home later than if I'd cut my losses at 6:00pm and if it is cancelled (which is alarmingly frequent as well), I get home nearly 2 hours later than when I should have left the station.

The reason it is a con is that most people I have spoken to no longer have any faith that waiting for the next scheduled train will leave on time, or at all for that matter. They would prefer to lose the chance of compensation and get home quickly rather than wait around for 30 minutes only to get screwed over again. A friend who used to work for a different train company said they are well aware of it. Hence the train companies get away with murder.

The same friend told me the comp is paid by the government.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Oh, I agree that 30 minutes is completely

> unsuitable for defining delays on suburban

> commuter journeys, but it is what we're stuck with

> and everyone knows in advance what the criteria

> are. That's why I don't see it as a con.

Sorry, just saw this. I can only assume that you are equating a con with lack of foresight. That is a very limited definition by any modern standard. Any system that purports to compensation passengers for their losses and to hold train companies to account which fails to do so because neither of those things occur without people being prepared to stand around and lose yet another hour of their day to a horrendous commute is, manifestly, a con.

[Cardelia]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, just saw this. I can only assume that you

> are equating a con with lack of foresight. That

> is a very limited definition by any modern

> standard. Any system that purports to

> compensation passengers for their losses and to

> hold train companies to account which fails to do

> so because neither of those things occur without

> people being prepared to stand around and lose yet

> another hour of their day to a horrendous commute

> is, manifestly, a con.

To call something a con essentially means that there is some kind of deception being perpetrated. You could call the train timetable itself a con and I'd probably agree with you, but I don't see the deception involved with the compensation scheme. I agree that the definition of a delay is unsuitable for suburban commuting but that's not a deception and it doesn't mean that the compensation scheme itself is a con.

Delay repay is there to compensate passengers whose train journeys are delayed for more than 30 minutes. If a passenger chooses to take a bus/bike/whatever instead of a train, then their train journey hasn't been delayed because they've actively chosen to not take a train journey in the first place. Is this just semantics? Perhaps. But it's an important distinction to make: how many situations can you think of where a company offering a service is forced to compensate a customer who chooses not to pay for and use said service?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compensation-figures-paid-to-passengers-by-train-operating-companies

This would suggest that it is the TOCs who pay compensation, not the government.

Cedges: my apologies, I didn't mean to be patronising, that wasn't at all my intention.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I'm struggling to believe I am still arguing about this. I'm beginning to wonder if you work for Southern's PR department.

A con does involve a deception. Southern continue to hold up the compensation as a method of accountability, but when the rules mean that a large chunk of their customer base are disauded from applying for compensation owing to, inter alia, the circumnstances I described above, that representation is misleading and therefore deceptive.

And thank you for going to the trouble of bolding the words "train journeys" but in doing so you are demonstrating that you misunderstood my point. I have paid for a train ticket. Thanks to Southern's poor service, I can only get compensation for the ticket I have paid for if I'm prepared to wait risk waiting more than 2 hours to get home. I am being put into a position where the diminishing odds of my trains running at all mean I have to suffer the loss of the train fare if I want some certainty of getting home within 4 times the usual commute.

I am not suggesting that any company does or should offer compensation for a service that I have not chosen to pay for, so please use take your straw man elsewhere.

You may not mean to be patronising, but you're doing an excellent impression of it.

[Alan Medic]

I just got my first rail vouchers. 90p compensation for ED to LB being cancelled. I thought it would have at least covered the cost of the bus journey but what do I know?

[New Girl]

90p? I've no words.

[Gilloc]

Its a joke. Its not even worth wasting your time. I did it a week or so ago and didn't even get an email about all the journeys I had claimed for, just one email for a 3 of them.

[dirac]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just got my first rail vouchers. 90p

> compensation for ED to LB being cancelled. I

> thought it would have at least covered the cost of

> the bus journey but what do I know?

that is absolutely unacceptable. If there was no train and you had to pay for other transport then how can they not give you a full refund? Is there a local newspaper that can take this story maybe?

I was going to claim back my non-journey the otherday because the train was too overcrowded two times in a row, but it's not worth it.

[Alan Medic]

The way they work it out based on my monthly season ticket cost. The amount is right even if it doesn't seem right. What bugs me is sometimes you find out you can use the ticket on other forms of transport. When do they relay this information? Usually after you have paid for an alternative form of transport.

[Cardelia]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A con does involve a deception. Southern continue

> to hold up the compensation as a method of

> accountability, but when the rules mean that a

> large chunk of their customer base are disauded

> from applying for compensation owing to, inter

> alia, the circumnstances I described above, that

> representation is misleading and therefore

> deceptive.

You're still not getting it. It's not a question of dissuasion. If a passenger doesn't take a train journey they're simply ineligible for delay compensation. Passengers have to take the train journey and suffer the delay. I understand your point that commuters would rather get home quicker than be deliberately delayed and claim compensation - I'm in exactly that situation myself - but that still doesn't make the compensation scheme a con.

> And thank you for going to the trouble of bolding

> the words "train journeys" but in doing so you are

> demonstrating that you misunderstood my point. I

> have paid for a train ticket. Thanks to

> Southern's poor service, I can only get

> compensation for the ticket I have paid for if I'm

> prepared to wait risk waiting more than 2 hours to

> get home. I am being put into a position where the

> diminishing odds of my trains running at all mean

> I have to suffer the loss of the train fare if I

> want some certainty of getting home within 4 times

> the usual commute.

I haven't misunderstood your point at all. You may have paid for a train ticket but you haven't taken a train journey. If you want your money back for an unused train ticket then you need to ask for a refund, not delay compensation. It's no wonder you're seeing the delay compensation scheme as a con if you want it to do something it's not designed to do.

> I am not suggesting that any company does or

> should offer compensation for a service that I

> have not chosen to pay for, so please use take

> your straw man elsewhere.

Interestingly (or not, depending on your point of view), revenue allocation for London transport is not as straightforward as "I take a Southern train therefore I pay Southern for my ticket". You're not directly paying Southern to use their service. Instead you're paying for a permit to travel which covers Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink, LOROL etc., not to mention TfL and the various London bus companies if you have a travelcard. Revenue is allocated centrally at a later date. So if you're not directly paying Southern for their services, and you're choosing to not use Southern services, why should Southern be paying you compensation?

[Cedges]

Cardelia - please stop defending the lying conning deceptive b**tards that are southern rail. Just know when to hush.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you buy a ticket and plan around it, then the train company should liable for your losses as a result of any cancellations. Not just the pro-rata cost of a season ticket. If you need to get a cab, in order to make an appointment, then they should pick up the cost. Trains would soon start running on time, if there were real and serious costs imposed. Personally, I think the trains should be bought back into public ownership, properly funded and run with the dual aims of providing good value for the taxpayer and a reliable service for commuters.