• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

TFL and TOC dual stations and COVID rules?

infobleep

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
10,615
Sadiq Kahn is not a national politician and is not in government despite the fact that he would like to believe he is.
Surely you can see that mandating that people wear masks on empty open platforms is absurd and is in no way about health but control.
I am in agreement with @3rd rail land that no one is going to enforce this even if the byelaws are changed as someone only has to say I'm exempt and the enforcer then has to lose all interest.

Why does Sadiq make up rules that are contrary to Government policy? Because he can!
Why do some people claim to be exempt to bypass those rules? Because they can!
I do agree masks on open platforms with no one around is absurd but then one might say so is banning smoking on open platforms with no one else around.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
737
I do agree masks on open platforms with no one around is absurd but then one might say so is banning smoking on open platforms with no one else around.
Smokers will deposit their butts which is messy and could cause a fire unless the operator pays for cleaning.
Not wearing a mask leaves no detritus, cannot cause a fire and costs the operator nothing.
 

BJames

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
813
Another similar stupid example. On the platform at Seven Sisters today, first train that comes in was Greater Anglia via Edmonton Green & Cheshunt. So I can take this to Edmonton maskless, but have to wear it on the next train that comes in. How this makes any sense whatsoever is beyond me.

Also, they really do need a bit of common sense here. Why do we really need to wear masks at the extreme ends of completely open and empty platforms, e.g. Hackney Downs and most others on the line to be honest? It's mandating it for the sake of it, but no staff member is ever going to come up to you at the end of the platform and say you need to put one on. But again, stupid because you need a mask out there but if the Hertford East train comes in you can get on and immediately take it off.

A rethink needed. Consistency is important and I disagree with TfL deviating from the government line.
 

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,494
Also, they really do need a bit of common sense here. Why do we really need to wear masks at the extreme ends of completely open and empty platforms, e.g. Hackney Downs and most others on the line to be honest? It's mandating it for the sake of it, but no staff member is ever going to come up to you at the end of the platform and say you need to put one on. But again, stupid because you need a mask out there but if the Hertford East train comes in you can get on and immediately take it off.

Lol you remind me of what happend last year. I was waiting at Coombe Junction Halt and a police car came up to tell me to wear a mask! At one of the UK's least used station no less!
 

778

Member
Joined
4 May 2020
Messages
41
Location
Hemel Hempstead
On another thread, it was mentioned that Khan was going to try to mandate masks on all national rail trains (as soon as they enter the London area) and stations in Greater London, regardless of wether they are TFL managed or not. Would he be able to do this with a bylaw? Has anyone heard any rumours about this?
 

Watershed

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
2,671
Location
UK
On another thread, it was mentioned that Khan was going to try to mandate masks on all national rail trains (as soon as they enter the London area) and stations in Greater London, regardless of wether they are TFL managed or not. Would he be able to do this with a bylaw? Has anyone heard any rumours about this?
He doesn't have the required authority over non-TfL stations or services.

That comment was just part of his drum-beating bluff and bluster.
 

Hadders

Established Member
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
8,934
I suspect the Government will make dropping mandatory face masks a condition of any future TfL bailout. There is already a precedent for this when Khan had to drop the 'essential travel only' message last summer as a condition of a TfL bail out
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
18,665
Location
0035
I assume if it was made a by-law then the Met Police could get involved, whereas at the moment they can't.

If it was made a by-law would that affect other operators?
The only byelaws that TfL have apply to rail based transports (including the Cablecar), all of which are policed by the BTP, as well as at bus depots and stations, which comes under the Met.

If it were in the byelaws, then it would apply at stations, even if you were travelling with a non TfL operator.
 

infobleep

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
10,615
Smokers will deposit their butts which is messy and could cause a fire unless the operator pays for cleaning.
Not wearing a mask leaves no detritus, cannot cause a fire and costs the operator nothing.
When I walk down the street I see masks on the ground. Same could happen at stations or on trains.
 

Cdd89

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
705
On another thread, it was mentioned that Khan was going to try to mandate masks on all national rail trains (as soon as they enter the London area) and stations in Greater London, regardless of wether they are TFL managed or not. Would he be able to do this with a bylaw?
I wonder if TfL could seek to do this by additionally adding it to the Oyster+Contactless T&C’s (eg “you must wear a face covering at all times whilst touched in to the network or travelling using an Oyster zonal product”).

It would be well beyond their remit and almost impossible to enforce, but I wouldn’t put it past Khan who has previously made “our city our rules”-type statements.
 

3rd rail land

Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
369
Location
Where the 3rd rail powers the trains
I wonder if TfL could seek to do this by additionally adding it to the Oyster+Contactless T&C’s (eg “you must wear a face covering at all times whilst touched in to the network or travelling using an Oyster zonal product”).

It would be well beyond their remit and almost impossible to enforce, but I wouldn’t put it past Khan who has previously made “our city our rules”-type statements.
Surely he knows that would be totally unenforceable and a complete waste of time?
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,228
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
I wonder if TfL could seek to do this by additionally adding it to the Oyster+Contactless T&C’s (eg “you must wear a face covering at all times whilst touched in to the network or travelling using an Oyster zonal product”).

It would be well beyond their remit and almost impossible to enforce, but I wouldn’t put it past Khan who has previously made “our city our rules”-type statements.
I'm sure sales of Epsom - Z1-6 travelcards would rocket if he did so...
 

778

Member
Joined
4 May 2020
Messages
41
Location
Hemel Hempstead
The only byelaws that TfL have apply to rail based transports (including the Cablecar), all of which are policed by the BTP, as well as at bus depots and stations, which comes under the Met.

If it were in the byelaws, then it would apply at stations, even if you were travelling with a non TfL operator.
Not non TFL managed stations though?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,123
Location
Yorkshire
Not non TFL managed stations though?
It's a moot point as there is no enforcement by TfL but I do not think TfL could enforce (if they wanted to) mandatory masks when a passenger is not using their services.

Surely he knows that would be totally unenforceable and a complete waste of time?
He lacks the knowledge and intelligence to be able to realise this. There is no enforcement on TfL services anyway. The whole thing is huge virtue signalling exercise.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,156
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
He doesn't have the required authority over non-TfL stations or services.

That comment was just part of his drum-beating bluff and bluster.

Someone needs to make it very clear to Khan that whilst he has certain functions devolved to him, this doesn’t make London some kind of enclave.

As a non-Londoner, I do not recognise Khan, nor view him with any legitimacy at all. All he’s ever wanted to do is attempt to drive a wedge between London and the rest of the UK.

I suspect the Government will make dropping mandatory face masks a condition of any future TfL bailout. There is already a precedent for this when Khan had to drop the 'essential travel only' message last summer as a condition of a TfL bail out

I hope so. I’d rather Boris does worthwhile stuff like this, rather than trying to play the “let’s try and screw Khan over” political game, which has come with previous TfL funding packages.
 

infobleep

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
10,615
I'm sure sales of Epsom - Z1-6 travelcards would rocket if he did so...
I doubt it as most would think to do such a thing.

It's a moot point as there is no enforcement by TfL but I do not think TfL could enforce (if they wanted to) mandatory masks when a passenger is not using their services.


He lacks the knowledge and intelligence to be able to realise this. There is no enforcement on TfL services anyway. The whole thing is huge virtue signalling exercise.
Khan quoted some stats the other day, on LBC, on enforcement and fines but I didn't catch them.

However, with I think, only 400 enforcement officers, it wouldn't be easy to enforce, as others have said. The previous stats covered a period when the BTP and Met Police could also help with enforcement.
 
Last edited:

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,494

We rely on customers doing the right thing to keep themselves and others safe by using face coverings, unless exempt.

Our enforcement officers continue to ensure customers wear face coverings on the network and can refuse entry or ask someone to leave services if they are not exempt and do not comply.

The majority of customers are in favour of face coverings being required on public transport, taxis and private hire vehicles. Exemptions
A small number of customers are not required by law to wear face coverings. Exemptions apply for age, health and disability reasons.

Those who are exempt from wearing a face covering have the option to order a free card or badge.

Enforcement​

The face covering requirement remained as a condition of travel on all TfL services after 19 July when the existing national legal requirement finished.

Enforcement officers may refuse entry or ask someone to leave services if they do not comply, and in this initial phase are educating and encouraging customers to comply and handing out face coverings across the network.

Our team of more than 400 enforcement officers patrol the transport network to ensure customers and colleagues remain safe and run targeted operations. The team, which includes Revenue Control Inspectors, ensures compliance of coronavirus safety regulations, as well as tackling aggression, fare evasion and providing greater visibility and reassurance.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,149
West Ealing is a TfL Rail managed station, so if you are boarding a TfL Rail service and are travelling under the TfL CoC, you would need to wear a face covering once you pass the entrance to the station building. However, if you are using a paper ticket on your journey, I would say that is a journey made purely under the NRCoT, so TfL's "mandate" doesn't apply to you.
Setting aside unenforceability, what's the contractual position if someone using TfL to transfer between say Liverpool Street and Paddington on a through ticket?
My thought would be that my journey is covered by the NRCoT and that therefore TfLs mandate does not apply?
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,499
Location
Bedford
Setting aside unenforceability, what's the contractual position if someone using TfL to transfer between say Liverpool Street and Paddington on a through ticket?
My thought would be that my journey is covered by the NRCoT and that therefore TfLs mandate does not apply?
The NRCoT explicitly does not cover journeys made on London Underground (regardless of whether issued as part of a National Rail ticket). Interestingly though it does cover London Overground and TfL Rail, so that could be more of a grey area.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
737
As @yorkie says in practice the enforcement officers appear not to have understood what Mr Kahn wants them to do.
However there was again a very high level of compliance (85% plus) yesterday and today on the tube so perhaps Mr Kahn is not quite so stupid
 

Watershed

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
2,671
Location
UK
Setting aside unenforceability, what's the contractual position if someone using TfL to transfer between say Liverpool Street and Paddington on a through ticket?
My thought would be that my journey is covered by the NRCoT and that therefore TfLs mandate does not apply?
If travelling by Tube or DLR, then unfortunately not. NRCoT 4.1 says:
4.1. Your Ticket is evidence of your entitlement to travel on the National Rail Network

"National Rail Network" is defined in Appendix B as:
the network of railway lines over which Train Companies operate scheduled passenger railway services

"Train Companies" is defined in Appendix B as:
a company operating passenger railway services which is required to apply these Conditions to persons purchasing Tickets, under a condition of the passenger licence granted to the company by the Office of Rail and Road ... A list of these train companies can be found in Appendix A ...

Appendix A gives a list of train companies to which the NRCoT apply (as of the date of publication). Neither London Underground Ltd. nor KeolisAmey Docklands Ltd. (i.e. the DLR) feature on that list.

Therefore travel on the Tube or DLR is on the basis of NRCoT 4.4:
Some Tickets entitle you to goods or services from another party (for instance the right to travel on bus services). Where this is the case your Ticket is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party, whose own conditions will apply when using their services.

And accordingly TfL's Conditions of Carriage, which mandate face coverings, apply when using LU or DLR services on a 'National Rail' ticket.

However, if you're using Thameslink or (as will soon be possible) Crossrail to cross London, or in fact TfL services other from LU/DLR more generally, then the normal NRCoT provisions apply. Hence face coverings are not mandatory unless using Oyster or contactless PAYG.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,593
Location
0036
To give TfL the (very limited) credit they are due, their publicity accurately reflects that the consequences of failing to wear a face covering in places where they purport to require one are limited to being refused entry to, or asked to leave, the network, rather than being issued a “fine” (in the common, non-technical, and non-Railforums sense of the word).
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,149
As @yorkie says in practice the enforcement officers appear not to have understood what Mr Kahn wants them to do.
However there was again a very high level of compliance (85% plus) yesterday and today on the tube so perhaps Mr Kahn is not quite so stupid
Even the people who promote use of masks in public settings and believe in their efficacy concede that the effect is so slight that itrequires basically 100% compliance to make any difference. 85% achieves nothing in any practical sense.
 

Top