Should passengers have spare money and/or travel insurance rather than expect the railway to help in disruption?

[Bletchleyite]

I get that it's frustrating when something happens which messes up plans, fully sympathise with that. The flip side of the coin, however, is that weather events are a fact of life, they have always happened and always will. When it happens, it's time to take some responsibility.

So you believe nobody should go for a day trip further than walking distance unless they can afford a taxi back or a hotel there? Outrageous privilege.

Privilege of what, exactly? That I organise my finances so I have a spare £50 sitting in the bottom of the current account in case of emergency. That is simply being sensible. Indeed, I'd say it's an inverse privilege that human exceptionalism is such
that we expect to *always* be able to do what we want, when we want to do it; sometimes things we can't control, like weather, mean we simply can't.

Privilege to be able to do that (particularly if the destination is London, where hotels booked on the day for £50 are not really a thing). A huge proportion of the population live "hand to mouth".

Indeed, weather sometimes means you can't go on a day-trip, and so you get your tickets refunded and don't go. But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about people who are stranded in a foreign city having to sleep on the streets in a severe storm because you don't want the railway to spend about £0.02 of each fare* you pay on providing them hotels.

* I don't know the figure, but it's going to be somewhere near that, as it is very, very rare to be stranded overnight by the railway's doing - it is mostly an issue of the Sleepers rather than day trains. In the vast majority of cases the problem is solved using buses and taxis, even when the cause is weather. Or do you think the railway shouldn't pay for those either? Generally operating those is cheaper than operating the train they replaced...

 

[bussnapperwm]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #21 originally in this thread.



Do people not keep a bit of money in their accounts to cover the cost of an emergency situation?

To be honest I don’t see why the farepayer and taxpayer should pay for hotel accommodation for people caught out by a forecasted weather event.

Ok.

My credit record is crappie because I messed up with credit cards and overdrafts as a early 20something. Partly because of my naivety and partly because of my autism.

As a result I choose willingly not to have such debt nowadays now I've managed, thanks to relatives and colleagues helping me and coaching me.

I'm employed but only part time and therefore do not have as much disposable income as my colleagues because I've been aggressive in paying off my debts.

Under your plans to do a day out anywhere out of the WMCA area I should get myself in debt if they cancel all the trains due to major signal faults/trees falling/the zygons invading earth or not be allowed to leave the Midlands.

 

[JKF]

Slightly OT, but having been so used to airlines and trains being compelled to look after their passengers it came as a bit of a curveball a couple of years ago when my ferry back from Spain was postponed due to bad weather, and the company had no responsibility to look after me at all or even offer helpful advice. You’re on your own, with a car full of valuable possessions in a country you don’t speak the language of, late in the evening. Thankfully the mother-in-law had enough rudimentary Spanish to sort something out for me via phone/internet, but it brought home how good it is that airlines and railways will take care of you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slightly OT, but having been so used to airlines and trains being compelled to look after their passengers it came as a bit of a curveball a couple of years ago when my ferry back from Spain was postponed due to bad weather, and the company had no responsibility to look after me at all or even offer helpful advice. You’re on your own, with a car full of valuable possessions in a country you don’t speak the language of, late in the evening. Thankfully the mother-in-law had enough rudimentary Spanish to sort something out for me via phone/internet, but it brought home how good it is that airlines and railways will take care of you.

Of course one thing about a car is that you can (uncomfortably, but safely) sleep in it. A foot passenger is by definition more vulnerable.

Surely this is what travel insurance is for? Ie if you can't make it to your hotel and then you cannot reschedule, then you would be able to claim off your travel insurance. And with any insurance, if you under insure or fail to insure, then you pay the consequences

Do you take travel insurance covering a 50 mile day trip?

 

[43066]

we buy tickets which imply they will get us to our destination or look after us.

I think this is the problem nowadays. A lot of supposedly grown up adults seem to retain an infantile expectation that they should be “looked after” by someone else when things go awry, rather than taking responsibility for themselves and having a plan B (a general point, not directed specifically at @AndrewE ).

If you haven't got a car and (e.g.) a relative is dying and you want to visit while you can, are you really saying you shouldn't go unless you can pay for a night in a hotel if things go wrong?

Again, this is a typical RailUK Forums extreme outlier. Someone who is in dire financial straights, travelling during extreme weather, to visit a dying relative. For a start, if you’re urgently travelling to visit a relative on their death bed, you’re unlikely to be travelling on a rock bottom advance ticket, surely?

£50 for a budget room in London on the day, where can I find that?

Advances can be very cheap.

Well yes in London £50 might be a stretch. But if you’ve paid £25 for a cheap advance what is it reasonable to expect? What does National Express or FlixBus do in this situation (less likely to come up I suppose as they’re less reliant on critical infrastructure)?

If advances really are that cheap perhaps it should be made clear to passengers that they’re travelling on a no frills basis which extends to less protection in extremis. One pays one’s money and takes one’s choice (or not as the case may be).

If anyone finds themselves stranded in London overnight, and can’t afford a hotel, I’d suggest going for a long walk. There’s plenty to go and look at in order to kill time for a few hours overnight if necessary!

Do you not understand the amount of privilege this statement & your posts in this thread scream? I happen to be travelling this weekend, as a uni student, halfway across the country to see immediate (read: parent) family I've not seen in a few months who has moved in the time since I last saw them. I booked my tickets far in advance to be able to afford to see them and I can't rescheduled my travel within the dates of acceptance, as I need to see them this weekend but have to be back Monday afternoon at the latest for Uni. I managed to find a friend whose room I can crash in for one night, but should my train back be cancelled how can I reasonable be expected, as a uni student who lives off under £100 p/w, to fork out my entire weekly budget on a hotel room for one night. Among my mates, I'm one of the ones who has a higher weekly budget due to lower outgoings.

Check your privilege, it reeks.

“Privilege” meaning what in this context exactly?! Budgeting and managing finances sensibly? Working hard to earn the money in the first place? That sounds more like being responsible to me.

As a student you’re hardly some impoverished victim of circumstance who should be pleading poverty. Rather the opposite, in fact. You’re choosing to borrow money from the government, on non commercial terms, in order to razz it up at uni for a few years in order to enhance your own future earning potential. If you can’t afford to travel by train, why not use the coach, or consider getting a job while studying? The rest of us managed it.

So you believe nobody should go for a day trip further than walking distance unless they can afford a taxi back or a hotel there? Outrageous privilege.

If we’re talking about the extreme example of someone who can’t lay their hands on £50-£100, then perhaps they need to realise they can’t afford to go out on longer distance day trips until their financial position improves. If I don’t have any money why should I expect other people to fund my lifestyle? I’d call that outrageous freeloading.

As a result I choose willingly not to have such debt nowadays now I've managed, thanks to relatives and colleagues helping me and coaching me.

I'm employed but only part time and therefore do not have as much disposable income as my colleagues because I've been aggressive in paying off my debts.

That all sounds very sensible and well done for getting your finances under control. I don’t think anyone is suggesting getting into debt on a regular basis is a good idea. Rather that, if you don’t have a lot of cash to hand, it might be prudent to have source of readily available credit for use in emergencies. A credit card with a £2k credit limit would be quite adequate to cover your typical boiler breakdown or burst pipe scenario.

Privilege to be able to do that (particularly if the destination is London, where hotels booked on the day for £50 are not really a thing). A huge proportion of the population live "hand to mouth".

Privilege? Or making sensible decisions and working hard to ensure one isn’t in that position? I’m staggered by this sudden enthusiasm for the railway funding hotels for passengers given the amount of energy expended on this forum bemoaning the cost of rail tickets.

The only privilege I detect on this thread is in the self entitled assumption that someone who has paid a pittance for an advanced train fare (whose travel is therefore already being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer and full fare payers) should expect the full five star treatment, magic carpet home or a suite at the Ritz if there is major disruption.

 

[bramling]

Privilege that you can't understand that just because you're Mr Money with £3k in every current account you own doesn't negate the fact that there are people out there who have to stretch every penny and every pound. Why should someone who saves up to be able to day trip not be able to day trip unless they can set aside an extra £50/100 just in case, each time they want to do something. Why should students who go to uni halfway across the country have to budget for 3 weeks of food just to be able to go home for a weekend.

The living wage in the UK is £8.91 an hour. If you're earning £8.91 an hour, that's ~10h extra of work you have to put in (presuming no extra outgoings as a result of these 10h extra) just to be able to afford your "emergency fund"

10h of extra work, on top of the insane 60h weeks some people work just to get by. Just because bramling on railuk forums says poor people shouldn't be on trains unless they can budget £100 over what they actually need to.

If I am privileged to have enough money in my bank account to be able to afford a hotel in an emergency, it’s because I have earned that money. Yes, earned it, by getting up in the morning and going to work. I’m absolutely not going to be made to feel guilty about that.

Funnily enough, I have been a student myself (itself a lifestyle choice, incidentally), and in that situation I wouldn’t have been irresponsible enough to gallivanting round the country with no emergency source of funds. And I certainly wouldn’t be *expecting* others to then finance putting me up in a hotel or compensate me should a weather event happen, especially when it’s been forecast for several days.

The railway is currently receiving massive support from the taxpayer, and elements of the industry are having to quite literally watch every pound that’s being spent. I would expect the railway to look out for people who are specifically vulnerable, for example minors or those with disabilities, but not for otherwise grown adults who should reasonably be expected to be able to take some responsibility for themselves.

 

[mmh]

If an am privileged to have enough money in my bank account to be able to afford a hotel in an emergency, it’s because I have earned that money. Yes, earned it, by getting up in the morning and going to work.

Your money is not going to be able to magic up hotel rooms, taxis and the like where they simply don't exist. Neither will travel insurance, despite some people seeming to think that is also magical.

 

[bramling]

Your money is not going to be able to magic up hotel rooms, taxis and the like where they simply don't exist. Neither will travel insurance, despite some people seeming to think that is also magical.

Absolutely. The original point I was trying to make was about unrealistic expectations, before the discussion seemed to turn into making out that having a spare £50 makes someone hideously privileged.

 

[mmh]

Absolutely. The original point I was trying to make was about unrealistic expectations, before the discussion seemed to turn into making out that having a spare £50 makes someone hideously privileged.

Yes, I think this conversation has sadly become somewhat polarised, one extreme being having travel insurance for a day trip (to what end?), and the other "I found a 2.50 ticket from Edinburgh to London so I'm having a day out to London despite not being able to afford to do anything there, and if anything goes wrong I am entitled to a hotel!"

Thankfully most people, including yourself I imagine!, are a little more realistic and pragmatic.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[mmh]

You wouldnt accept being dumped in a foreign country by an airline, why should you

Plenty of people have to accept that all the time. Why on earth do you think that doesn't happen? There are no standby fleets of intercontinental replacement buses.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[HSTEd]

This ultimately sounds like a good way to save a tiny amount on hotel stays and buses and simultaneously convince very large numbers of people that they cannot rely on the railway.

This does not sound like a good way to improve the railway's financial opsition.

We are no longer in some halcyon era of railways where the public have no choice but to pay up and travel on the railway.
The railway has to be attractive, and abandoning people sounds like a great way to do the opposite.

 

[mmh]

Because the airline gets them home.

So should the train company get people home.

its not much good as a transport company if it cannot fulfill its objective, is it ?

The next day. Or, potentially, the next week. No different. In fact the railway, which I'm the first to criticise, is far better at getting people home than airlines are.

 

[bramling]

I have to say that if that is the voice of a railway employee l suddenly think that 50%+ paycuts are a damned good idea. Why should Joe Taxpayer featherbed your entitlement? If you don't like it seek alternative better paying employment.

Presumably because Joe Taxpayer has deemed that it wants railways to continue to run. If Joe Taxpayer decides that it doesn’t want railways then it won’t pay.

In the meantime, there continues to be a shortage of train drivers.

 

[Wolfie]

Presumably because Joe Taxpayer has deemed that it wants railways to continue to run. If Joe Taxpayer decides that it doesn’t want railways then it won’t pay.

In the meantime, there continues to be a shortage of train drivers.

Joe Taxpayer wants railways. This taxpayer is fed up with the current deal. Just waiting for HMT to really get to work.

 

[Sm5]

The next day. Or, potentially, the next week. No different. In fact the railway, which I'm the first to criticise, is far better at getting people home than airlines are.

But the airline foots the bill… if they chose to hole someone up in a hotel, its at their leisure.

Whilst i’m not advocating GBR employees walk around cashing things out… they cant just turn off the lights and go home either.

They have responsibilities to their customers.

Put it another way, are you happy if your grandparents were left stranded a few hundred miles from home overnight on a deserted platform, because of some unforseen event that may have occurred in between changing trains on their way home ?… because I wouldnt be.

 

[mmh]

But the airline foots the bill… if they chose to hole someone up in a hotel, its at their leisure.

Whilst i’m not advocating GBR employees walk around cashing things out… they cant just turn off the lights and go home either.

They have responsibilities to their customers.

Put it another way, are you happy if your grandparents were left stranded a few hundred miles from home overnight on a deserted platform, because of some unforseen event that may have occurred in between changing trains on their way home, even worse they perish overnight in the cold, because Joe the union emoloyee said it was his right to go home on time at shift end and theres no obligation by the company to help its passengers.

I wouldnt be

What a load of codswallop, sorry. Tales of people sleeping on airport floors are hardly rare. They don't have spare drivers either.

I'll assume you've never experienced a significant air delay (which can be far, far longer than by rail!) and also note you said this:

because Joe the union emoloyee said it was his right to go home on time at shift end

Yawn. Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with unions. Thank you for letting us all know to disregard your comment as irrelevant prejudice though.

 

[Sm5]

What a load of codswallop, sorry. Tales of people sleeping on airport floors are hardly rare. They don't have spare drivers either.

I'll assume you've never experienced a significant air delay (which can be far, far longer than by rail!) and also note you said this:



Yawn. Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with unions. Thank you for letting us all know to disregard your comment as irrelevant prejudice though.

I hope you dont end up stranded.
you might think differently then, when its about you, rather than someone else.

Theres a bit of a difference between an open exposed railway station, often not close to much retail, and an enclosed warm airport lounge, with catering and retail… plus the EU gives you protections and compensation in some circumstance…..
ive never come across passengers stranded in airport lounges for weeks.. it doesnt happen, unless your in a refused political admissive state… even the icelandic volcano event didnt leave people sleeping on floors for weeks.

Longest delay I had was 5 days, in Seattle during Sept 11th. I survived to tell the tale and had a 1000 mile driving adventure to San Francisco…didnt have to sleep on the floor either.
Longest train delay was 3 days, this was in Tucson, Arizona, when the service derailed, and thats how long it took to replace the train, you assume so very very wrong, but i’m not debating further with you.

if I eat in a restaurant, there is an obligation to produce food that is safe to eat. If you ride on public transport, there is an obligation to get you there, or make you comfortable until they do.

If you think a transport operator is permitted to put lives in peril, and absolve itself entirely, then you need to sit and have a think about yourself.

End of.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This ultimately sounds like a good way to save a tiny amount on hotel stays and buses and simultaneously convince very large numbers of people that they cannot rely on the railway.

This does not sound like a good way to improve the railway's financial opsition.

We are no longer in some halcyon era of railways where the public have no choice but to pay up and travel on the railway.
The railway has to be attractive, and abandoning people sounds like a great way to do the opposite.

The trouble is that in many situations there just aren't large numbers of hotel rooms or buses available handy to stations. Money (in tiny or even large amounts) isn't going to solve that. By their very nature airports often have hotels nearby and these often have spare space on the 'if-noone's-arriving-there's-room-for-those-who-aren't-departing' basis. [Sure that might be put more elegantly.]

The 70 or so passengers stranded on a train at Huntly for 17 hours last night being a case in point. Kudos to crew and and local staff for doing their best to keep them warm and fed but alternatives just don't seem to have been available. (Or do you have evidence that ScotRail deliberately made no effort to book local accommodation and/or alternative transport on financial grounds?)

 

[43066]

Longest delay I had was 5 days, in Seattle during Sept 11th. I survived to tell the tale and had a 1000 mile driving adventure to San Francisco…didnt have to sleep on the floor either.

So you were Sleepless in Seattle?!

 

[LampPete]

Ive just attempted a trip from Buxton to Aberdeen, It didn't go well. Taxi picked me up at 5AM and drove in a blizzard to get me to the airport. I made sure I had food and water in my bag knowing we may get stuck and I had a change of socks incase I needed to get out and push! If we did get stuck I wouldn't have blamed the taxi company, I wouldn't be chasing them for the cost of the flight that ive missed and I wouldn't expect them to put me up in a hotel or find other alternatives. As it was they got me there safely.
Then at the airport my flight was delayed, which was to be expected, then delayed again, and again. Then I was given a food voucher which was nice. I then had a chat with one of the staff and asked how likely the plane was going to depart (by this point the estimate was 5 hours after the scheduled departure). They informed me that it wasn't the wind and it was damage to equipment at ABZ.
I had already re arranged what i was going to Aberdeen for to the afternoon but by now its clear im not going to get there for that.
I asked to be taken off the flight which they did for me, and arranged for my hold bag to be removed.
I then called the airline and they transferred my flight to tomorrow, Or i could have had a full refund. Then I got the train home, which took 3 hours.
The airline are paying for my train home, my taxi back in the morning and my lunch! that comes to £110. the flight costs £40... I have however had to pay myself and claim it back so having credit available meant that im not stranded at the airport whilst the stretched staff sort me out. I think im also due some compensation even tho it wasn't the airlines fault.
Im all up for passengers being supported but I think some people have very unrealistic expectations of what can be done. Airports are also easy as they are full of food outlets and places to sit that are warm and dry. I can see how delays on trains cause a lot more misery!

 

[py_megapixel]

My gut feeling is as follows:

The passenger has paid to be taken to their destination, so I think it is reasonable to expect that if the railway can't do that, they are responsible for making alternative arrangements - whether that be putting on specific replacement transport, authorising them to travel on another operator's train, buying them a bus/coach ticket or even putting them in a taxi. I also think if the delay is long enough that one would need to eat beyond what you would reasonably expect during the originally planned journey, suitable catering should be provided, though it doesn't need to be free, just at-cost.

Free drinking water and access to toilet facilities are absolutely non-negotiable, but I'm not sure a hotel room falls into that same category for most people. Certain people with specific illnesses or neurodiversity conditions etc. may not be capable of spending a night in a station waiting room, those will be in a minority which of course needs to be treated differently - but for the majority, it will be unpleasant but manageable.

 

[Ken H]

My gut feeling is as follows:

The passenger has paid to be taken to their destination, so I think it is reasonable to expect that if the railway can't do that, they are responsible for making alternative arrangements - whether that be putting on specific replacement transport, authorising them to travel on another operator's train, buying them a bus/coach ticket or even putting them in a taxi. I also think if the delay is long enough that one would need to eat beyond what you would reasonably expect during the originally planned journey, suitable catering should be provided, though it doesn't need to be free, just at-cost.

Free drinking water and access to toilet facilities are absolutely non-negotiable, but I'm not sure a hotel room falls into that same category for most people. Certain people with specific illnesses or neurodiversity conditions etc. may not be capable of spending a night in a station waiting room, those will be in a minority which of course needs to be treated differently - but for the majority, it will be unpleasant but manageable.

but if it like last night and the next train is mid morning next day, and no hotels, what do you do? the railway will chuck you out of he station. Then what? Freeze?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I am privileged to have enough money in my bank account to be able to afford a hotel in an emergency, it’s because I have earned that money. Yes, earned it, by getting up in the morning and going to work. I’m absolutely not going to be made to feel guilty about that.

No, but you (and @47066) absolutely should feel guilty about the outrageously self-entitled statements along the lines that people who don't have the money to pay for hotels and taxis should not be travelling.

The privilege you are showing stinks. And that's from someone who can afford such things.

The component of your fare funding such things, as they are so rare, must surely be under 5p per journey. Why begrudge it? If you are that privileged, 5p is nothing.

Privilege? Or making sensible decisions and working hard to ensure one isn’t in that position? I’m staggered by this sudden enthusiasm for the railway funding hotels for passengers given the amount of energy expended on this forum bemoaning the cost of rail tickets.

The only privilege I detect on this thread is in the self entitled assumption that someone who has paid a pittance for an advanced train fare (whose travel is therefore already being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer and full fare payers) should expect the full five star treatment, magic carpet home or a suite at the Ritz if there is major disruption.

The Ritz? Behave. A safe bed for the night, e.g. a Travelodge or even a YHA, is all that is being asked.

 

[bramling]

No, but you (and @47066) absolutely should feel guilty about the outrageously self-entitled statements along the lines that people who don't have the money to pay for hotels and taxis should not be travelling.

Er, I didn't say people in this position shouldn't be travelling, though it is by any definition rather irresponsible. My issue is more to do with the *expectation* of being put up in a hotel at the drop of a hat, at the expense of others. I find that extremely self-entitled, as well as unrealistic.

The component of your fare funding such things, as they are so rare, must surely be under 5p per journey. Why begrudge it? If you are that privileged, 5p is nothing.

Any basis for the 5p figure, or plucked from thin air?

 

[ashkeba]

My issue is more to do with the *expectation* of being put up in a hotel at the drop of a hat, at the expense of others. I find that extremely self-entitled, as well as unrealistic.

I would settle for not being thrown out of the station overnight during disruption! If something soft to recline on could be provided, so much the better!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Er, I didn't say people in this position shouldn't be travelling, though it is by any definition rather irresponsible.

So you are saying that. Good it is clear. But grossly self entitled.

My issue is more to do with the *expectation* of being put up in a hotel at the drop of a hat, at the expense of others. I find that extremely self-entitled, as well as unrealistic.

Nothing unrealistic about it, it does happen. Why do people on here like saying things are unrealistic that do happen?

Any basis for the 5p figure, or plucked from thin air?

Random figure, but based on how rarely it happens divided by all tickets sold in that year (say) it will be tiny.

I would settle for not being thrown out of the station overnight during disruption! If something soft to recline on could be provided, so much the better!

Preston have put people up in the ticket office when the hotels were full.

 

[Wolfie]

My gut feeling is as follows:

The passenger has paid to be taken to their destination, so I think it is reasonable to expect that if the railway can't do that, they are responsible for making alternative arrangements - whether that be putting on specific replacement transport, authorising them to travel on another operator's train, buying them a bus/coach ticket or even putting them in a taxi. I also think if the delay is long enough that one would need to eat beyond what you would reasonably expect during the originally planned journey, suitable catering should be provided, though it doesn't need to be free, just at-cost.

Free drinking water and access to toilet facilities are absolutely non-negotiable, but I'm not sure a hotel room falls into that same category for most people. Certain people with specific illnesses or neurodiversity conditions etc. may not be capable of spending a night in a station waiting room, those will be in a minority which of course needs to be treated differently - but for the majority, it will be unpleasant but manageable.

My feeling is that the consequences of what you propose would be the railway even more operating for its own convenience and sod the passenger as there would be no come back. I would actually like to see something much more akin to the airline system. That would concentrate minds.

 

[43066]

No, but you (and @47066) absolutely should feel guilty about the outrageously self-entitled statements along the lines that people who don't have the money to pay for hotels and taxis should not be travelling.

I don’t see what’s “self entitled” about expressing the view that functional adults should behave responsibly, and realise things can go wrong. No different to any other situation in life: if you went out in your car and it broke down, and you had absolutely no money or means or payment, what would you expect to happen?! The self entitlement is in a failure to appreciate things can go wrong (which in the case of weather events are nobody’s fault) and plan accordingly, and expecting to be bailed out by someone else.

The railway is damned either way with this kind of thing. I remember on the morning of the Lewisham train stranding incident a couple of years ago, Southeastern advised: DO NOT TRAVEL, to much derision on this forum. Low and behold passengers who chose to ignore the advice (and train crew who had no choice but to be there) were stuck for many hours in freezing cold conditions later that day on pitch dark trains which were unable to draw power.