ECML problems today (16/5/23)

[LCC106]

I wonder who made the decision to announce passengers should travel by EMR when it wasn’t stated under EMR acceptance. A train manager? Station staff? Someone higher up? Does anyone know for sure please?

Please can someone quote the legislation that says it is unlawful to refuse carriage by EMR?

I’m sure if some of the posters on here tried to get on at Chesterfield, Derby etc. with a booked ticket but couldn’t due to LNER passengers being on board they would be none too happy.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I worked in the nationalised railway industry for nearly 30 years. Providing the customer with the best service was viewed by the majority of railway staff as the purpose of the industry, particularly with the creation of the business sectors. The railway was a community and there was cooperation between departments to provide the best customer service. Privatisation and “competition“ appears to have largely destroyed the attitude that we are all here to provide a service to the passengers. It seems that profit has become more important than providing the customer with the service they expect and the industry is poorer for it. I agree with @yorkie that it is time customers took a stand and insisted that our railway gives them the service they (and all taxpayers) are paying over the odds for.
It is not acceptable that passengers who have bought a ticket to a destination are denied the best option for alternative travel arrangements when the original contracted journey is not available to them.

I too worked for BR and well remember both great customer service and absolutely awful customer service. I didn't (and still don't) like the break up of the industry but I sometimes had to remind some of my own colleagues on BR when they were trying to palm off a problem to another department that we all worked for the same organisation.
I'm afraid one of my trigger words is hearing that 'it's all done for profit these days' as my time with BR was one of generally relentless cutbacks and money saving. Neither LNER nor EMR keep the money they take in fares and indeed one of them is nationalised; the issue at hand is about managing capacity whilst giving passengers the right information, and I don't think anyone would deny that there is room for improvement, but it is not about ownership, it's about management structure and processes

 

[Jim the Jim]

EMR are entitled to refuse ticket acceptance if they consider that they cannot accommodate hoards of passengers from other TOCs. Note the overtime ban is affecting them too, and the fleet is thinly stretched. That isn’t a decision that can be overruled by passengers.

If people want to ask that’s up to them, but if the answer is no they need to respect it. Following your advice above is likely to lead to confrontations with staff, potentially the police being called, and possible prosecutions.

If all passengers are physically on the train and the guard is in a position to ask to see their tickets then the train is clearly able to carry them to at least the next station! At this point I'm not going to get off because somebody in a back office has wrongly decided the service can't cope.

 

[GC class B1]

I too worked for BR and well remember both great customer service and absolutely awful customer service. I didn't (and still don't) like the break up of the industry but I sometimes had to remind some of my own colleagues on BR when they were trying to palm off a problem to another department that we all worked for the same organisation.
I'm afraid one of my trigger words is hearing that 'it's all done for profit these days' as my time with BR was one of generally relentless cutbacks and money saving. Neither LNER nor EMR keep the money they take in fares and indeed one of them is nationalised; the issue at hand is about managing capacity whilst giving passengers the right information, and I don't think anyone would deny that there is room for improvement, but it is not about ownership, it's about management structure and processes

I take issue with your point about profit. EMR make a profit from operating trains for the DfT. I think it is wrong to penalise passengers who find they need to travel by a different operator through no fault of their own. Charging a penalty fare for them to get to their ticketed destination as expediently as possible in the circumstances is indicative of a profit motive. I agree BR was far from perfect but today’s railway is less well run overall and far more expensive. Surely wanting to charge passengers a penalty fare when they have a ticket and the journey time is significantly longer than advertised is going to put them off travelling by train.

 

[dk1]

Back to weekend engineering hopefully.

 

[greyman42]

Back to weekend engineering hopefully.

Why would the situation have been any better had it happened on a weekend?

 

[hexagon789]

Why would the situation have been any better had it happened on a weekend?

I'd have thought it would be worse, given LNER convey more passengers then, as do most (all?) TOCs now.

Plus those with staffing issues are usually worse affected on weekends AND there are usually less scheduled trains, especially on Sundays.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would expect it to have been worse on a weekend, especially now.

 

[dk1]

Why would the situation have been any better had it happened on a weekend?

Always seems less important than on a weekday & from a purely selfish point of view I rarely choose to travel long distance at the weekends always preferring the long standing relative safe chance of never having to suffer RR on Mondays to Fridays.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I take issue with your point about profit. EMR make a profit from operating trains for the DfT. I think it is wrong to penalise passengers who find they need to travel by a different operator through no fault of their own. Charging a penalty fare for them to get to their ticketed destination as expediently as possible in the circumstances is indicative of a profit motive. I agree BR was far from perfect but today’s railway is less well run overall and far more expensive. Surely wanting to charge passengers a penalty fare when they have a ticket and the journey time is significantly longer than advertised is going to put them off travelling by train.

Was anyone charged a Penalty Fare? In any case, they do not get the money from it. There is no financial benefit at all to them - the only motive is to try and minimise overcrowding on MML services. I agree that the whole thing is not good for passengers or the industry, just pointing out that the 'profit motive is a red herring, the real issue is the chaotic way TOCs are managed by DfT.

 

[Starmill]

Was anyone charged a Penalty Fare?

The answer is confidential so nobody will say, obviously.

But if you ask EMR if a customer used an LNER Only ticket on an EMR service, the answer would be that they could be charged for a new single ticket at full fare to the next stop, charged a Penalty Fare, or prosecuted for failing to show a valid ticket. This wouldn't be changed by the situation at hand with LNER, and that's what the post you're quoting seems to be objecting to.

Neither LNER nor EMR keep the money they take in fare

However, you don't deny that they're still subject to commercial imperatives to generate revenue, and each on their own individual account, not as a collective, at that. So does it actually matter what structure their contracts with the government take?

I don't think anyone would deny that there is room for improvement, but it is not about ownership, it's about management structure and processes

If this were true, there wouldn't be an automatic entitlement to travel on the next service by the same company. There very much is.

If staff choose to create confrontations, that would be a poor choice, however given the trains were clearly too busy for staff to actually go through checking tickets, it's probably a moot point!

The reality is that if disruption is large-scale, there's no choice but to agree ticket acceptance by the best-fit alternative route.

If this ticket acceptance isn't organised, people will simply travel on the alternative trains anyway in such numbers that revenue protection staff can't possibly charge anyone who's on the train. While hypothetically they could try to charge 350 people all leaving a train at a destination station, the reality is those people are going to end up being let out. Therefore not agreeing the ticket acceptance is only punishing the minority who ask and actually follow the instructions, while offering the diversionary route only to people willing to take the situation into their own hands. I can't possibly see how that's better.

 

[bramling]

Are you denying that when disruptive incidents occur, passengers should not be discriminated against on the basis of operator, and arguing that passengers on TOC specific tickets should be discriminated against?

Are you saying you don't care what the rules and guidelines in this situation are?

No-one is "advising" people to "get into confrontations"; indeed anyone simply following the advice would be very unlikely to have any interaction with EMR staff, at least not at Sheffield or on board the train (maybe, just maybe at St Pancras, but given the volumes involved even that is unlikely)

What's bang out of order is defending EMR acting in a manner that completely disregards the agreed industry policies and the National Rail Conditions of Travel.

Every area of law?

Yes it would.

I'd be interested to see that claim backed up!

A passenger following the advice given at Doncaster could simply board the train at Sheffield, there is no need to inform anyone you are boarding.

Based on what behaviour? A passenger who is simply travelling in accordance with the NRCoT is not behaving in a manner that would warrant ejecting from the train.

If you've seen unacceptable behaviour, that doesn't make it right. If the victims seek advice on here, we can do our best to get a good outcome for them.

Those who followed the advice to change at Doncaster for EMR were also acting correctly, and lawfully.

I can see why EMR would be reluctant to accept tickets, and to be fair I think most of us would be pretty irritated if unable to board a train at somewhere like Chesterfield or Derby, or worse a smaller station like Long Eaton.

It isn’t a good idea to be advising people to do a sit-in, though, no matter how frustrating the situation. As others have said this is quite likely to result in simply being instructed to leave, and with backup being sought if the person still refuses to comply.

The situation with the limited capacity on EMR is a problem which shouldn’t have happened.

 

[Starmill]

That EMR wouldn't necessarily have the capacity to accommodate all passengers on their trains is irrelevant; they must make their best efforts to accommodate as many as they can, and to provide alternatives for the rest.

Precisely. It's clear under the contract that LNER were obliged to provide whatever alternatives they could, such as road transport, and that EMR and any other operators in the area who, who are party to NRCoT, we're obliged to assist in whatever way they could. The fact that not everyone could physically fit onto EMR's train doesn't mean they can choose to do nothing!

 

[43066]

and that EMR and any other operators in the area who, who are party to NRCoT, we're obliged to assist in whatever way they could.

As per NRCoT the obligation is only to assist where [the train company] reasonably can. It not an absolute obligation. TOCs therefore have discretion to decline to assist, as is regularly seen around the network.

That is clearly not something certain posters on here agree with, but it is the reality of the situation, nonetheless.

The fact that not everyone could physically fit onto EMR's train doesn't mean they can choose to do nothing!

If EMR consider they can’t accommodate the passengers they can and will refuse ticket acceptance and instruct their staff to refuse travel to those with non EMR tickets. In EMR’s case this happens on a semi regular basis when the WCML or ECML is down.

The suggestion that doing this is somehow “unlawful” is completely baseless - it’s entirely in keeping with the (expressly limited) obligation to assist under the NRCoT.

I can see why EMR would be reluctant to accept tickets, and to be fair I think most of us would be pretty irritated if unable to board a train at somewhere like Chesterfield or Derby, or worse a smaller station like Long Eaton.

It isn’t a good idea to be advising people to do a sit-in, though, no matter how frustrating the situation. As others have said this is quite likely to result in simply being instructed to leave, and with backup being sought if the person still refuses to comply.

Long Eaton is a fairly common victim as trains will simply be issued not to call orders if crowding is too bad.

And yes - that’s the point I was making yesterday. Insisting you’re travelling and not moving isn’t likely to garner a favourable reaction. If the situation escalates staff can ask you to leave, whether you have a valid ticket or not.

The situation with the limited capacity on EMR is a problem which shouldn’t have happened.

It is, but we are where we are. The 810s will help but, as discussed on these pages, the fleet is likely too small for the medium/long term.

 

[thedbdiboy]

If this were true, there wouldn't be an automatic entitlement to travel on the next service by the same company. There very much is.

Your answer to my statement 'I don't think anyone would deny that there is room for improvement, but it is not about ownership, it's about management structure and processes' doesn't make sense. None of the train companies 'own' any right to do anything except what is provided for under their contract to the DfT. That is not opinion - it is fact. The reason that the NRCoT entitlement hasn't been altered is because DfT show no interest in changing it. That is a management/structure issue.
It suits the present government very much that so many people are willing to believe that these issues are the result of profit driven private companies, because it distracts from the truth, which is that the DfT is accountable for every aspect of how the English TOCs function.

 

[yorkie]

I wonder who made the decision to announce passengers should travel by EMR when it wasn’t stated under EMR acceptance. A train manager? Station staff? Someone higher up? Does anyone know for sure please?

Please can someone quote the legislation that says it is unlawful to refuse carriage by EMR?

Given the passengers are being conveyed in accordance with NRCoT 6.1.2 & 28, there is no provision to charge passengers and no grounds to refuse carriage based on any erroneous claim that their tickets are no longer valid via the alternative route.

I’m sure if some of the posters on here tried to get on at Chesterfield, Derby etc. with a booked ticket but couldn’t due to LNER passengers being on board they would be none too happy.

How would anyone know whether or not a customer held an "Any Permitted" or an "LNER Only" ticket anyway? The policies and procedures dictate that during disruptive incidents, passengers should not be discriminated against on the basis of operator, and rightly so. Sheffield to Chesterfield passengers have access to 5 or 6 trains per hour, most of which are not London-bound services.

Neither LNER nor EMR keep the money they take in fares and indeed one of them is nationalised; the issue at hand is about managing capacity whilst giving passengers the right information, and I don't think anyone would deny that there is room for improvement, but it is not about ownership, it's about management structure and processes

True; if only all staff accepted/admitted this is the reality! I've heard all sorts of bogus claims used to justify charging customers or refusing carriage, which are completely at odds with this. But it's a whole new topic, so I won't go into any more detail here; it's been debated in other threads anyway.

.... As others have said this is quite likely to result in simply being instructed to leave, and with backup being sought if the person still refuses to comply.

Just a reminder that staff need to comply with relevant procedures, policies, rules and - most importantly - the law, including contract and consumer laws. The contract allowed passengers to travel via EMR and therefore, passengers cannot be requested to pay an additional fare to do so; the idea that passengers could be told to pay an additional fare or leave the train is completely bogus; it's contrary to contract law.

As per NRCoT the obligation is only to assist where [the train company] reasonably can. It not an absolute obligation. TOCs therefore have discretion to decline to assist, as is regularly seen around the network.

That is clearly not something certain posters on here agree with, but it is the reality of the situation, nonetheless.



If EMR consider they can’t accommodate the passengers they can and will refuse ticket acceptance and instruct their staff to refuse travel to those with non EMR tickets. In EMR’s case this happens on a semi regular basis when the WCML or ECML is down.

The suggestion that doing this is somehow “unlawful” is completely baseless - it’s entirely in keeping with the (expressly limited) obligation to assist under the NRCoT.



Long Eaton is a fairly common victim as trains will simply be issued not to call orders if crowding is too bad.

And yes - that’s the point I was making yesterday. Insisting you’re travelling and not moving isn’t likely to garner a favourable reaction. If the situation escalates staff can ask you to leave, whether you have a valid ticket or not.



It is, but we are where we are. The 810s will help but, as discussed on these pages, the fleet is likely too small for the medium/long term.

This is just repeating what has been claimed before; I've already addressed it above. I can only repeat that if EMR attempted to charge passengers additional fares (whether that be a Penalty Fare, new ticket, or excess fare), there is no basis to do so as the passengers are already contractually valid, as per NRCoT Condition 6.1.2. That is clearly not something certain posters on here agree with, but it is the reality of the situation, nonetheless.

I don't see a need to repeat the same arguments, so if you won't accept NRCoT 6.1.2 then that's your prerogative, but it exists, and is there for all to see.

 

[43066]

contractually valid, as per NRCoT Condition 6.1.2. That is clearly not something certain posters on here agree with, but it is the reality of the situation, nonetheless.

The obligation in 6.1.2 isn’t an absolute obligation, and TOCs are entitled to decline ticket acceptance. The wording is there in black and white for anyone who wishes to read it.

Therefore “LNER tickets are not valid because the TOC has declined acceptance” is completely in accordance with the NRCoT. It’s a method of demand management.

You can get around it by simply buying an EMR ticket, of course, but not many will do this, hence it’s an effective method of demand management.

Note: I’m not here to defend any particular TOC, but that is how the (badly drafted) NRCoTs work, and it makes sense that they do, as sometimes TOCs cannot be expected to safely accommodate unlimited numbers of other operators’ passengers in addition to their own.

 

[yorkie]

The obligation in 6.1.2 isn’t an absolute obligation, and TOCs are entitled to decline ticket acceptance. The wording is there in black and white for anyone who wishes to read it.

Therefore “LNER tickets are not valid because the TOC has declined acceptance” is completely in accordance with the NRCoT. It’s a method of demand management.

You can get around it by simply buying an EMR ticket, of course, but not many will do this, hence it’s an effective method of demand management.

Note: I’m not here to defend any particular TOC, but that is how the (badly drafted) NRCoTs work, and it makes sense that they do, as sometimes TOCs cannot be expected to safely accommodate unlimited numbers of other operators’ passengers in addition to their own.

That's not correct; the terms contained within the NRCoT comprise the contract which is binding on all train companies which operate services on the National Rail Network; a ticket that is valid as per the terms of the NRCoT (including 6.1.2) cannot subsequently be deemed to be invalid mid-journey and no operator can unilaterally decide to charge an additional fare on the basis of reneging on the contract.

 

[Starmill]

Your answer to my statement 'I don't think anyone would deny that there is room for improvement, but it is not about ownership, it's about management structure and processes' doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can really make it, but I'll certainly do my best.

None of the train companies 'own' any right to do anything except what is provided for under their contract to the DfT. That is not opinion - it is fact.

I was talking about the right of the consumer not the operator of the train. Regardless I don't believe anyone has been suggesting they don't agree with this.

The reason that the NRCoT entitlement hasn't been altered is because DfT show no interest in changing it. That is a management/structure issue.

Are you sure? The entitlement in the Conditions hasn't been changed for this reason, of course, but why is the entitlement in this way in the first place? The answer is because the Department requires that all fourteen of their suppliers who are party to the Conditions operate independent business units, but, more importantly, those business units have made a choice not to cooperate with one another in implementating their own best practice code on Passenger Information During Disruption. To put it another way the right in the conditions is there because the operators have all individually been forced into providing it, but there's an unwillingness to offer anything beyond that because it would involve cooperation with the competition. You can't argue that groups with the same parent don't get cover from one another more readily! For example Northern would frequently arrange Arriva bus ticket acceptance when they were operated by Arriva, but strangely enough there's not one single recored case of this happening since OLR took over. Wonder why that is? When Avanti West Coast's predecessor was operated by Stagecoach, there wasn't a chance of them covering a cancelled TransPennine Express service's call at Lockerbie. As soon as Avanti West Coast began to be operated by First, what do you know they can make additional calls at Lockerbie after all! This behaviour is endemic, and totally goes against PIDD, surely you must recognise that?

It suits the present government very much that so many people are willing to believe that these issues are the result of profit driven private companies, because it distracts from the truth, which is that the DfT is accountable for every aspect of how the English TOCs function.

Again I don't think that this is something that anyone could argue with, but it doesn't negate the point that being a part of the same owning group still makes it much more likely that mutual ticket acceptance will be arranged.

I’m sure if some of the posters on here tried to get on at Chesterfield, Derby etc. with a booked ticket but couldn’t due to LNER passengers being on board they would be none too happy.

The issue at hand isn't whether that's "fair" or not though. I could say that I'm "none to happy" if I can't board a train I wanted to travel on due to overcrowding at any time for any reason, and so would nearly everyone.

All that's in question is whether the EMR trains in question were a form of assistance which their operator "reasonably could" provide. The fact that some people received this assistance puts it beyond all doubt that it "reasonably could" be provided. This really is incontrovertible.

That's not correct; the terms contained within the NRCoT comprise the contract which is binding on all train companies which operate services on the National Rail Network; a ticket that is valid as per the terms of the NRCoT (including 6.1.2) cannot subsequently be deemed to be invalid mid-journey and no operator can unilaterally decide to charge an additional fare on the basis of reneging on the contract.

The message could have simply said: "Although you may use East Midlands Railway services from Sheffield to London St Pancras, these services have no further available seating [until the xx:xx service / for the rest of the day]. Therefore, if you choose this option, you should be prepared to stand for a minimum of two hours.". I don't see how anyone worried about capacity could possibly have a genuine issue with that!

In any case, frankly demand manages itself on such occasions as this, because many people will choose to wait rather than board a train on which it is apparent there will be no vacant seats for them for a journey of two hours or longer. That applies to everyone equally, whether they've been diverted or are using the services which they originally nominated. Helpful messages about capacity should of course always be offered wherever possible. Overcrowding isn't considered to be a safety issue by the rail industry.

 

[yorkie]

The message could have simply said: "Although you may use East Midlands Railway services from Sheffield to London St Pancras, these services have no further available seating [until the xx:xx service / for the rest of the day]. Therefore, if you choose this option, you should be prepared to stand for a minimum of two hours.". I don't see how anyone worried about capacity could possibly have a genuine issue with that!

Exactly, and I'll also quote this post which i think is also absolutely spot on:

To be fair it is the case that once people have set sail in accordance with advice re ticket acceptance they shouldn't be charged for continuing in the manner they were originally directed to.

Attempting to redirect them further is potentially sensible given conditions in the moment (a 9 or 11 car 390 from Manchester will absorb far more passengers than a 222, and a 6 car 185 if present to get them there with 1/3 2/3 doors is a far better crush loader too) but if some people do end up doing as originally directed there should never be a penalty.

"Please make sure you allow any customers already en route to complete their journey" quite often appears in staff messaging at the closure of ticket acceptance.

There have always been reasons for failing to explicitly encourage people to use certain routes though. One regular example when the West Coast was shut was hundreds of people disembarking from an IC train ex London at Derby intent on going to Stoke or Crewe to be confronted with a single car 153 unit.

I don't see how anyone could argue against this.

 

[43066]

That's not correct; the terms contained within the NRCoT comprise the contract which is binding on all train companies which operate services on the National Rail Network; a ticket that is valid as per the terms of the NRCoT (including 6.1.2) cannot subsequently be deemed to be invalid mid-journey and no operator can unilaterally decide to charge an additional fare on the basis of reneging on the contract.

What’s not correct?

There are two separate issues:

1. Refusal of ticket acceptance in general.

28.2 states that operators will help where they reasonably can, clearly contemplating they there are circumstances where they reasonably cannot.

You appear to be reading that as “operators must always help and cannot refuse to do so under any circumstances”.

I disagree with your (and @Watershed ’s) interpretation, my employer also disagrees with you, and seemingly so does the entire railway industry!

2. The OPs situation:

I agree that, as per 6.1.2, if people are expressly told ticket acceptance is in place, even if this is done in error, then that should be honoured.

However the OPs situation wasn’t as clear cut as that: they were simply advised to “change at Sheffield”, and those same passengers were also expressly told that ticket acceptance wasn’t in place, and advised to continue on the same train to Manchester.

If some of them travelled on EMR anyway with no adverse consequences then there’s no issue and all’s well that ends well.

I don’t agree with your initial suggestion of a “sit in” for the reasons explained previously, as echoed by @bramling.

And that’s all there is to it!

 

[yorkie]

What’s not correct?

There are two separate issues:

1. Refusal of ticket acceptance in general.

28.2 states that operators will help where they reasonably can, clearly contemplating they there are circumstances where they reasonably cannot.

You appear to be reading that as “operators must always help and cannot refuse to do so under any circumstances”.

I disagree with your (and @Watershed ’s) interpretation, my employer also disagrees with you, and seemingly so does the entire railway industry!

2. The OPs situation:

I agree that, as per 6.1.2, if people are expressly told ticket acceptance is in place, even if this is done in error, then that should be honoured.

However the OPs situation wasn’t as clear cut as that: they were told “change at Sheffield”, and those same passengers were expressly told that ticket acceptance wasn’t in place, and advised to continue on the same train to Manchester.

If some of them travelled on EMR anyway with no adverse consequences then there’s no issue and all’s well that ends well.

I don’t agree with your initial suggestion of a “sit in” for the reasons explained previously, as echoed by @bramling.

And that’s all there is to it!

I refer you to this:

Announcements were made that passengers for London should take the 1742 to Sheffield and change there for St Pancras.

This is binding, and that's all there is to it!

 

[43066]

Overcrowding isn't considered to be a safety issue by the rail industry.

Beyond a certain point it is, hence the aforementioned not to call orders etc.

 

[johnnychips]

As nobody else who was on the train has posted, can I just make one or two observations?
- the train from Doncaster was a 3-car 185, not a 6-car
- the announcement at Doncaster that passengers should change at Sheffield for London St P was made over the tannoy, not by platform staff or the guard
- the train was full and standing, but from my experience on a ‘normal’ day, I expect a third of passengers alighted at Sheffield because they lived there
-at 1815, the 5-coach 222 forming the 1837 was in the platform, which was quiet. Some passengers originating from Sheffield may have already boarded
-there were no announcements at the station to say LNER tickets would not be accepted, though to be fair I was only there for five minutes
- as far as I know, the route is valid for holders of ‘any permitted’ non-advance tickets, though I stand to be corrected
- I think the 1837 might have been full had all London passengers got on, but certainly not bursting at the seams
- it arrived in London a few minutes late

What I suspect is that EMR had a lot of problems, well-documented above, and just imposed a blanket ban without considering individual trains’ capacity.

 

[yorkie]

As nobody else who was on the train has posted, can I just make one or two observations?
- the train from Doncaster was a 3-car 185, not a 6-car
- the announcement at Doncaster that passengers should change at Sheffield for London St P was made over the tannoy, not by platform staff or the guard
- the train was full and standing, but from my experience on a ‘normal’ day, I expect a third of passengers alighted at Sheffield because they lived there
-at 1815, the 5-coach 222 forming the 1837 was in the platform, which was quiet. Some passengers originating from Sheffield may have already boarded
-there were no announcements at the station to say LNER tickets would not be accepted, though to be fair I was only there for five minutes
- as far as I know, the route is valid for holders of ‘any permitted’ non-advance tickets, though I stand to be corrected
- I think the 1837 might have been full, but certainly not bursting at the seams

Yep that's consistent with my understanding.

What I suspect is that EMR had a lot of problems, well-documented above, and just imposed a blanket ban without considering individual trains’ capacity.

EMT's attitude and actions was appalling at both ends of the MML. But they won't be bothered; who is going to do anything about it? They just ignored tweets and buried their heads in the sand as people were mistreated and mislead. There isn't anyone who has the power and inclination to hold TOCs such as EMR to account.

 

[43066]

What I suspect is that EMR had a lot of problems, well-documented above, and just imposed a blanket ban without considering individual trains’ capacity.

Thanks for the additional background, yep they all makes sense. The blanket approach is often what happens on days when it’s expected to be bad (often for very good reason!)

There were a fair few cancellations due to the overtime ban yesterday, which coincided with the ECML issues.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That’s your view, but the reality is that they will likely be refused travel because there is no ticket acceptance in place and that’s the end of it.



Maybe if they had been told ticket acceptance was in place by an EMR member of staff that would have some weight, but it sounds like they were told to “change at Sheffield” by a person unknown. Ticket acceptance had been arranged further on, so the correct thing to do was to change at Stockport or Manchester as instructed.



I’m not going to argue about this. EMR have the legal right to decide who they let onto their trains, and their staff will be expected to follow instructions from management.

Putting the ticketing stuff aside, if you argue with staff, they ask you to leave and you refuse, you’re committing railway trespass. Arguing the toss might well result in them refusing to work the train forward with you on it, or radioing ahead to have police and revenue meet the train. This happens from time to time, and rest assured the police will take direction from the railway staff in this situation.



Yes they could and likely would. Especially as the vast majority of passengers would have done as instructed and used the correct ticket acceptance via Manchester.



No they don’t have capacity because of the stock situation (shortly to get worse with the removal of the 180s), and that’s exactly what they would have declined ticket acceptance. There has been severe overcrowding on some routes, and a fair few cancellations.



This is the approach people should take in this situation - that was clear to most people and was exactly what they did today.

People on this forum cannot override railway staff just because they don’t agree with a TOCs decision to refuse ticket acceptance.

I’ll leave it there!

Oh what a mess. If this is how things go when there is disruption then the advice I would give to passengers is don't use the railways, it is just too risky and you will potentially get caught up in a vaguely illegal confrontation. I would particularly recommend this to prospective passengers who are less familiar with railway use. Perhaps we should stop considering the railways as a service for people to use - the treasury could save a few bob then.

 

[TreacleMiller]

This is now well off topic.