Delays at Alnmouth and how NOT to handle it!

[ralphchadkirk]

The "purpose" is to share my experience of my journey; it's clear from the title that it wasn't a brilliant .

So you admit there is no purpose to naming the guards? As knowing the guards name does not change your experience of the journey, or the account of the journey.

However I'd agree with you if passengers didn't have to give their details to TMs! In fact it's worse than that as we have to give confidential stuff like our address. To a police officer, fine. But to a TM that's a bit much, especially when you are valid and they refuse to believe it

I'm sure any TM would act professionally and responsibly with any confidential information they receive. The same cannot be said for passengers who are under no contract of employment, responsibility, or legal power to ask for names and addresses.

Why not? Would you also be very angry to discover that your booked train for arrival at a specific time is very late, that other Tocs are not accepting tickets via a different route, to then find that you are being forced to cram into a very short train, which is being further delayed because of this? I know I would...

That has nothing to do with the names issue, and it is nothing more than a poor attempt at a smokescreen.

It does make me laugh when the pro-staff members of the forum close ranks and get all uppity over such a small thing. Messrs Newcastle and Chadkirk's replies in particular have been extremely amusing.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, then it'll be an easy day. 'Closing ranks' could quite easily be applied to both sides of any debate ever.

Why did you think it was relevent to include his name in your original post? Why couldn't you have simply refered to him as "the guard..."?

Exactly. It adds nothing to the post whatsoever. If you remove the names, the original meaning is not affected in any way. Therefore they are superfluous.

 

[thefab444]

If that's the best argument you can come up with, then it'll be an easy day. 'Closing ranks' could quite easily be applied to both sides of any debate ever.

I'm not arguing for either side on this particular issue as I personally don't see that there is anything to be arguing about. I'm more of an amused observer.

 

[Mojo]

That has nothing to do with the names issue, and it is nothing more than a poor attempt at a smokescreen.

Puzzled as to how you can see that from my post?

The Train Manager said that the decision to declassify First class and not the decision of someone else. I don't see what the problem is with broadcasting someone's name if you feel they have made a poor decision.

The full name (not just first name) and job title of a colleague of mine who the RMT allege has breached safety is published for all to see on the RMT London website, even though the post admits the story is merely heresy! If someone were to search for his name and the company or division the company he works in on Google, it would be one of the top results; not the same likelihood of linking this Paul at XC with another Paul!

Another colleague has his full name and job title published on a different post but on the same website and has his actions referred to as "shameful." Similarly this appears as a top result on Google. In the latter case the reason for calling his actions "shameful" could probably be backed up with fact like it was in this case (ie. failing to declassify First class and not providing the right information).

As for name badges, when out and about on the network during the day when visiting colleagues and stations, or when on my way home I always wear my name badge when in smart dress (but not when in my casual wear), which contains my full name. This allows customers to identify me incase they need any help and when I approach them when I see they appear to be in difficulty they don't think I'm an absolute loon or about to steal their ticket as I'm not in uniform.

 

[Anon Mouse]

No offence but if you do your job to a good standard then why should this be an issue?

No offence taken mate, just a difference in opinion!

It makes it easier for people to complain who may not have a valid reason for complaint, it can be used for personal stuff against you, example is Yorkies post, he may not have understood the TM's decision but has named his name on a public board, as he has mentioned the time train he was on so people could identify the TM including Management.

I do not think the Guards name is important to a passenger, as the train time, origin, destination and headcode can all be given to identify the Guard, so if somebody wishes to make a complaint or compliment Customer Relations and Management can easily locate the Guard.

The way I see it, Name Badges are a tool to beat staff with.

 

[asylumxl]

If Yorkie wanted to make a formal complaint he would. Do you honestly think somebody at XC is going to trawl through forums looking for complaints regarding their staff, then take action? If you do, you are well and truely paranoid and deluded. The employees of the company have much better things to do.

Also, Paul isn't exactly the rarest, most unique name in the world is it? I'm quite sure that he offered Weekend First upgrades to those who wanted them! That's exploitation of the situation, pure profitering.

Why shouldn't staff wear name tags? If you do wrong, you will be held accountable. That's how the world of employment works outside the militant rail unions. But according to them, Rail staff can do no wrong.

 

[MikeWh]

The way I see it, there are two distinct themes running here. There are those who seem to disagree with the requirement of their employers to wear name badges. That really has nothing to do with this thread. Personally I think having first names on a badge is good CR. If you do a good job then what's the problem? Indeed, if you do a good job you can be identified and the good news shared. If using people's names was such a bad thing then Ed and Keith wouldn't be getting the praise they have on here. You can't have it both ways.

And looking at the specific issue at stake here, I think it's far from obvious what the response of management would be were they to learn of the decision, either on here or via normal complaint channels. In view of the money-grabbing nature of several of our TOCs I can believe a pat on the back would be entirely plausible given that the company didn't have to process refunds of first class supplements to all those who no longer had the premium facility available. The management wouldn't need to be told the name on here to decide who it was, so anonimity is not going to protect them should any action be deemed necessary.

 

[Anon Mouse]

TOC's have and do 'monitor' message boards and Facebook, Twitter etc etc and staff have been disciplined across the industry with stuff found online being used.

If Yorkie wanted to complain about the TM then thats for him to do with XC's Customer Relations, not to broadcast across the WWW. The TM's name has no relevence to his post. A passenger with a grudge against one of my TOC's Guards has been banned from the network due to harrasing the Guard with hate stuff put on the WWW and prodcing T shirts with the Guards photograph on. He has been done with harrasment.

If somebody does something wrong I agree, he or she is accountable but not by judge and jury on the Internet. The Guard, in my eyes has not done any wrong yet as his name has been mentioned and the train has been mentioned he is being identified, judged and critisized, hardly fair don't you think?

 

[asylumxl]

He has done what XCs accountants will believe is right. Not what is in my opinion operationally right.

 

[MikeWh]

TOC's have and do 'monitor' message boards and Facebook, Twitter etc etc and staff have been disciplined across the industry with stuff found online being used.

Tell me, would XC need to be told the TMs name on here to do something about the matter should they choose to do so? Has including his name made action more likely? I don't think so really. They're still going to need to look up the rosters to find his full name and staff records.

If Yorkie wanted to complain about the TM then thats for him to do with XC's Customer Relations, not to broadcast across the WWW. The TM's name has no relevence to his post. A passenger with a grudge against one of my TOC's Guards has been banned from the network due to harrasing the Guard with hate stuff put on the WWW and prodcing T shirts with the Guards photograph on. He has been done with harrasment.

Let's be clear, all yorkie has done is say what happened. That is a million miles away from harrassing the guard. I would have a big problem with anyone taking such action and they deserve whatever they get coming to them.

If somebody does something wrong I agree, he or she is accountable but not by judge and jury on the Internet. The Guard, in my eyes has not done any wrong yet as his name has been mentioned and the train has been mentioned he is being identified, judged and critisized, hardly fair don't you think?

But would you object to a TM who goes beyond the call of duty being praised on an internet forum? And is the guard really being identified? To management, yes, but as I suggest above it's not the use of his name that does that. To anyone else? Not really. They know he's Paul, but how many Pauls are employed as guards on XC? He's being criticised, yes, that's the whole point. Judged, not really, unless by management (who don't need his name to do so, and may very well be praising him following their direction).

 

[Anon Mouse]

I respect your opinion and indeed on this reply you have made some pretty decent points. However the Guards name does not have any relevence to Yorkies post and I cannot see why he mentioned his name.

I do accept that I may have opened one hell of a big can of worms!

 

[yorkie]

TOC's have and do 'monitor' message boards and Facebook, Twitter etc etc and staff have been disciplined across the industry with stuff found online being used.

It sounds like you think the guard acted incorrectly?

Irrespective of that, can TOCs not identify the guard by simply naming the service? If not, then this contradicts with what others on your 'side' have said!

If Yorkie wanted to complain about the TM then thats for him to do with XC's Customer Relations, not to broadcast across the WWW.

So you don't mind XC management knowing about it?
I thought you did mind earlier?

The TM's name has no relevence to his post. A passenger with a grudge against one of my TOC's Guards has been banned from the network due to harrasing the Guard with hate stuff put on the WWW and prodcing T shirts with the Guards photograph on. He has been done with harrasment.

And what relevance does that have here? I am entitled to my opinion and if XC objected to what I wrote I'd be pretty shocked!

If somebody does something wrong I agree, he or she is accountable but not by judge and jury on the Internet. The Guard, in my eyes has not done any wrong yet as his name has been mentioned and the train has been mentioned he is being identified, judged and critisized, hardly fair don't you think?

The RMT disagree with you, as they name people (and by surname too, which I would never do as that information is not in the public domain!) and criticise them (with far worse accusations than I did!) but I don't think you will be complaining to the RMT, will you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I respect your opinion and indeed on this reply you have made some pretty decent points. However the Guards name does not have any relevence to Yorkies post and I cannot see why he mentioned his name.

I do accept that I may have opened one hell of a big can of worms!

Does the TOC name have any relevance?
Does the time of travel have any relevance?
Does the journey I made have any relevance?

Perhaps I should have wrote:

I went from a station in a city to a station in a metropolis on a mode of transport that was delayed and the company that runs the station wouldn't let me travel on their company's train so I had to wait for the other company's train and....
​

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tell me, would XC need to be told the TMs name on here to do something about the matter should they choose to do so? Has including his name made action more likely? I don't think so really. They're still going to need to look up the rosters to find his full name and staff records.

Only XC can identify the guard, no-one else, and they could do that with just knowing the service. But if you note in another post, Anon Mouse does not even want the service mentioned. There's no way I am going to be censored by such people!!

Anyway I've not complained to XC and have no wish to, but if someone wants to convince me otherwise (e.g. if I think there's some sort of huge deal among some staff to keep things secret from management) then I might reconsider...

I had thought management would be pleased with the guard, but Anon Mouse makes me think perhaps not, and given the fact that some staff think TMs should be totally immune from making mistakes (and yet managers should have their first AND surnames published with serious allegations made against them on the RMT site) they are making me think whether or not it might be worth me complaining after all....

 

[Anon Mouse]

The use of someones name makes it more personal. Companies have been known to discipline staff when the staff member has done nothing wrong and/or followed the rules and regulations which the company sets down.

I am a member of the RMT and always will be. I however do not agree with everything they do do or everything Bob Crow says. Likewise I vote Labour but do not agree with every policy or decision, the war in Iraq as an example.

My original point about the use of the Guards name stays and also my opinion of name badges. As a side matter I find it really uncomftable when a creepy passenger uses my name, which happens every now and again. The Guards name on display also can encourage people to make false allegations, something that also happens from time to time.

I belive everybody has their own opinion and even if I don't agree I still respect that person using their right of speech and expressing their opinion.

ps I never said you should not have mentioned the train, as I said before the time of train can allow the company to trace the Guard therefore name badges not necisarry

 

[Mojo]

What about station staff and trains which have multiple members of staff on board?

I am not sure how having the name of a member of staff makes the chance of a false allegation any more likely than just a customer providing the details of the train on which they travelled. In any case, a fair investigation should be carried out with only the punishment being dished out afterwards if the complaint is upheld. If that is not the case and staff are being penalised and put through fear before the complaint is investigated, then that could easily just have happened without the staff member's name being mentioned in the complaint and is a fault with the procedure, not the nature of wearing name badges.

 

[yorkie]

The use of someones name makes it more personal. Companies have been known to discipline staff when the staff member has done nothing wrong and/or followed the rules and regulations which the company sets down.

When this occurs, the RMT tends to threaten a strike.

I am a member of the RMT and always will be. I however do not agree with everything they do do or everything Bob Crow says. Likewise I vote Labour but do not agree with every policy or decision, the war in Iraq as an example.

Your disagreement with RMT policy is noted, and welcomed!

My original point about the use of the Guards name stays and also my opinion of name badges. As a side matter I find it really uncomftable when a creepy passenger uses my name, which happens every now and again. The Guards name on display also can encourage people to make false allegations, something that also happens from time to time.

I suggest you take that matter up with your employer, and offer to be named by an alias (or perhaps a middle name?) from what I understand it is not that uncommon for names on display to not be 'real' names.

I belive everybody has their own opinion and even if I don't agree I still respect that person using their right of speech and expressing their opinion.

Thanks

ps I never said you should not have mentioned the train, as I said before the time of train can allow the company to trace the Guard therefore name badges not necessary

Well no, you didn't say that, but you don't appear to like the train being mentioned. Also the argument that naming is not necessary for XC to identify is contrary to your earlier argument that you do not like naming as it allows managers to identify.

 

[Anon Mouse]

My real point was about the Guards name being in the public domain, not his employers investigating a complaint. Two different things. I admit I might not have explained my point fully. My point about namebadges however remains

 

[GB]

Hold on a minute, have we even established if the guard acted incorrectly according to applicable rules and regs that guards work to rather than Yorkies opinion on the matter??

Do we know if said guard was working to prior instructions?

Has it yet been established how many people were already in 1st class?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Hold on a minute, have we even established if the guard acted incorrectly according to applicable rules and regs that guards work to rather than Yorkies opinion on the matter??

No.

Do we know if said guard was working to prior instructions?

No.

Has it yet been established how many people were already in 1st class?

No.

Says it all, really.

 

[yorkie]

My real point was about the Guards name being in the public domain, not his employers investigating a complaint. Two different things. I admit I might not have explained my point fully. My point about namebadges however remains

You'd have to take up the issue with XC, as it is they who put the guards name on display and broadcast to hundreds of people daily (thousands in the case of guards who take trains at peak times).

Hold on a minute, have we even established if the guard acted incorrectly according to applicable rules and regs that guards work to rather than Yorkies opinion on the matter??

I have stated my opinion, you are entitled to yours. If your opinion is that the guard acted correctly, you are entitled to it.

My opinion does not state that I believe he broke any rules and regs.

I am not aware of any rule that states that First Class must be declassified when people are queuing at doorways and struggling to board the train so I very much doubt the guard broke any rules and regs, and am not in any way suggesting that he did.

Do we know if said guard was working to prior instructions?

My assumption is that he was, it is only staff who are suggesting he may be in trouble with XC. I made no such suggestion or assumption!

I would be very surprised if that was the case and would think XC management probably prefer passengers to be left behind and First Class not be declassified, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong

Has it yet been established how many people were already in 1st class?

I couldn't put numbers to it, but if the guard had said FC was declassified, I would have stood there knowing that I would at least be able to physically board the train and be able to stand up and would then consider my options at Doncaster whether or not to remain on board or wait there.

However as FC was not declassified and the Standard coaches were loaded to such an extent that people were unable to board, I obviously chose not to travel on that train and take my chances with the severely delayed 'earlier' service behind, expecting that to also be packed and 4 coaches, it was of course an extremely welcome sight that an 8 car train rolled in, but no-one advised us to wait for it. Had they done so I am sure many people would have waited (by choice).

 

[Anon Mouse]

To be fair my point was about the naming of the guard. I feel the guard had done no wrong and I felt he was being judged and critizied unjustly. I opened a big can of worms as its a topic which I feel strongly about.

 

[yorkie]

Do we know if said guard was working to prior instructions?

Just to add my assumption is that by "prior" you mean what they are trained to do, and that you are asking if they are instructed not to declassify FC in the event of trains being packed? I make no suggestion that the TM was acting contrary to any instructions and I assume that XC management instruct TMs not to declassify in such situations. However your post makes me wonder if perhaps he was acting contrary to instructions (I made no suggestion he was) and I will now attempt to find out...

 

[Anon Mouse]

on my TOC we have the authority to make a judgement about declassing 1st class depending on how busy we deem it, how long it will be F&S for and how many 1st class passengers we have. Some regular passengers think we MUST declassify it when there are people standing or if its a busy train which at the end of the day is the Guards discretion. I have no idea how XC deal with the same situation.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I am not aware of any rule that states that First Class must be declassified when people are queuing at doorways and struggling to board the train so I very much doubt the guard broke any rules and regs, and am not in any way suggesting that he did.

So the TM acted correctly then. To act incorrectly would be to disobey rules and regulations. As you have said you don't think the TM broke any rules or regulations, then logic dictates he's acting correctly. Other than that, it's a judgement thing and it is entirely up to him. If he doesn't declassify - fine. If he does - fine.

 

[GB]

By prior I ment had he received instructions from someone else (such as a line manager) to specifically not declassify 1st class in this instance?

However your post makes me wonder if perhaps he was acting contrary to instructions (I made no suggestion he was) and I will now attempt to find out...

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion tbh.

 

[yorkie]

So the TM acted correctly then. To act incorrectly would be to disobey rules and regulations.

Really? I made no suggestion that he acted "incorrectly" in respect of the rules, but to suggest that had FC be declassified he would have disobeyed rules and regulations, where do you come up with that idea?!

As you have said you don't think the TM broke any rules or regulations, then logic dictates he's acting correctly.

In terms of the rules, I never suggested otherwise.

Other than that, it's a judgement thing and it is entirely up to him. If he doesn't declassify - fine. If he does - fine.

I disagree with his judgement (from a customer point of view), as I am perfectly entitled to. Deal with it! I make no suggestion that any rules were broken.

By prior I ment had he received instructions from someone else (such as a line manager) to specifically not declassify 1st class in this instance?

Ah, no, it was his decision.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion tbh.

The thought had not crossed my mind until you mentioned the possibility. I am making some enquiries on the matter.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ah, no, it was his decision.

How do you know that?

 

[Fred26]

The use of someones name makes it more personal. Companies have been known to discipline staff when the staff member has done nothing wrong and/or followed the rules and regulations which the company sets down.

I'd be more concerned that people on here could identify me, than I would be about management reading it. I'd rather not have people making judgements based on an internet post made by a passenger, which may not even be accurate.
There's absolutely no need to name the guard. The time of the train will do. If a complaint is made, the TOC can quite easily find out who worked said train and then investigate, if they feel a need to.

As a side matter I find it really uncomftable when a creepy passenger uses my name, which happens every now and again. The Guards name on display also can encourage people to make false allegations, something that also happens from time to time.

I agree, it's very creepy. Unnerving.