Can platform staff hold a train (within reason)?

[Shrop]

Many of the responders on these pages don’t seem to realise that I do understand a lot more than I sometimes let on, I’m just interested to see how people respond.

But I’m not provocative just for fun. If people pick on some of the things I say without any acknowledgement of some of the genuine concerns, then my tendency is to respond in kind rather than simply bow to comments which don’t recognise situations that passengers actually face, and which undoubtedly lead to some of them being deterred from future rail travel.

So let me clarify. I don’t advocate that every train is held at New Street for every conceivable connection, why on earth would I? I do, however, suggest that when passengers are physically trying to board a train then in some circumstances they should be permitted to do so and yet they’re not. My example on another thread was when 40 of the passengers arriving into Eastleigh at 11pm after a 3 hour delay to their ex London train due to trespass, were trying to board the Portsmouth train which had its doors locked, then they should have been permitted to do so.

Holding a train for one minute at 11pm which is heading on to a relatively quiet line late at night is a lot different to holding a train a New Street during the working day, it’s not rocket science to work that out. My contention all along has been that sometimes discretion ought to be used, and that there are examples when there is no reasonable explanation about why a train is permitted to depart whilst people are physically trying to board.

So yes, I do understand the New Street situation, but I do feel inclined to defend my comments which are singled out for criticism, when my other points of concern go unrecognised. I am happy to compromise but I don’t accept that more couldn’t be done in the interests of passengers, and whilst I fully recognise that most rail staff do an excellent job in difficult circumstances, I also think there are far too many situations where insufficient is done to protect passenger interests.

 

[AlterEgo]

Many of the responders on these pages don’t seem to realise that I do understand a lot more than I sometimes let on

That's because your posts - supposedly deliberately - haven't shown a great deal of understanding or acknowledgement of the issues, so that's why you've had people try to explain them to you multiple times. If you don't engage in good faith and are deliberately provocative then I don't see why anyone should take your posts at face value, to be quite honest.

 

[skyhigh]

My contention all along has been that sometimes discretion ought to be used

It is - where possible.

The thing is people mostly post on here when it doesn't go their way. You never hear 'my inward train was late but the guard waited for me' or 'the guard reopened the doors for me because I was late' but I promise you it does happen.

I also think there are far too many situations where insufficient is done to protect passenger interests.

And as previously mentioned that cuts both ways. Delaying an 11pm train to allow a late passenger on might mean that a passenger misses their last bus home. I'm not saying trains should never be held, I'm just saying there needs to be consideration of the wider consequences for passengers on the platform and those on the train.

 

[Shrop]

That's because your posts - supposedly deliberately - haven't shown a great deal of understanding or acknowledgement of the issues, so that's why you've had people try to explain them to you multiple times. If you don't engage in good faith and are deliberately provocative then I don't see why anyone should take your posts at face value, to be quite honest.

I do engage in good faith, be assured of that

It is - where possible.

The thing is people mostly post on here when it doesn't go their way. You never hear 'my inward train was late but the guard waited for me' or 'the guard reopened the doors for me because I was late' but I promise you it does happen.


And as previously mentioned that cuts both ways. Delaying an 11pm train to allow a late passenger on might mean that a passenger misses their last bus home. I'm not saying trains should never be held, I'm just saying there needs to be consideration of the wider consequences for passengers on the platform and those on the train.

So why try to invalidate what I say, are we not in agreement? I've said many times that most rail staff work well, and I spend a lot of time advocating the virtues of rail travel to many people, I just get a little saddened when people come back to me with stories that are hard to defend from a rail perspective. Asking my questions on here often provides answers which I can then use to make it easier to defend rail operations to people who I talk to, and I regularly tell people the good things about rail travel, like your mention of the guard who did wait for the approaching passenger. Is that not reasonable?

 

[O L Leigh]

Many of the responders on these pages don’t seem to realise that I do understand a lot more than I sometimes let on, I’m just interested to see how people respond.

But I’m not provocative just for fun. If people pick on some of the things I say without any acknowledgement of some of the genuine concerns, then my tendency is to respond in kind rather than simply bow to comments which don’t recognise situations that passengers actually face, and which undoubtedly lead to some of them being deterred from future rail travel.

The problem with that approach is that we don't know anything about who or what you are. All we know of you is what you post and how you post it. Your posting record so far does not show the level of sophistication that you now claim, and so we do feel it behoves us to have to explain things at the level of an ABC book. Would it not have been better simply to have been open and honest with us so that we could engage with your enquiries on an appropriate level?