West Midlands Trains duty of care: LNR passengers abandoned on platform

[CHAPS2034]

Commercial or operational information won't be shared - nor should it be. The high level answer will simply be along the lines of 'we will ensure lessons are learned and there is not a recurrence' - it won't go into detail of training, briefings or any other such details.

BIB - sorry, but that is none of your business and I believe LNW will be quite right to ignore such demands.

Operational decisions are those made by any company (not just rail operators) on a day to day basis - they are under no obligation to provide that kind of detail publicly and nor should they (and I say this having worked for 20 + years in commercial and retail companies).

So go on then, give an example of a major company giving such operational or commercial information out in response to a complaint (I'll wait).

Well just fancy that. Got it wrong there didn't you. Breathtakingly arrogant without a care for the consumer.

That's a pretty good letter from the TOC explaining some of the operational circumstances rather than some standard flannel. Still leaves a few things unanswered, but they have held their hands up and said it was a cock-up.

Typed from my armchair after a lifetime working in aviation where service recovery for both the operation and customer was an important part of day to day life.

 

[TUC]

Depends what you're trying to get.

If it's a detailed reason as to why other trains weren't stopped etc, that's unlikely to be forthcoming as those are operational decisions which don't have to be made public.

If you're expecting an apology, you'll probably get that.

If you're looking for compensation, it would appear you'd get something under delay / repay and maybe a goodwill gesture on top. If you're expecting hundreds of pounds for "inconvenience" then you're going to be out of luck.

My question would be why people didn't just make their own arrangements after 30 mins or so. I would have.

They may not have to be made public but any TOC in this day and age which hides behind 'operational reasons' is frankly a bit clueless about the basics of communication and customer care that many succesful businesses operate.

As for whether customers would have made their own arrangements after 30 minutes, surely the real question is ehy they should need to?

First and foremost, train control wants to recover the service, they don't care about passengers, nor are they paid to. It's the communication between control and the ToC staff at stations that must work to find a solution when these things happen. In this case, passengers normally call taxis after half an hour to an hour if the ToC hasn't done so (and they only need to do that when the last train has already been and gone).

In the absence of station or other TOC staff, the moral if not legal duty of care surely defaults to train control as who else is going to resolve the issue?

 

[allotments]

I was there that night, and there was a very helpfull (however with little information) member of staff on his own down stairs in the ticket office.

I felt abit sorry for the guy with everyone bombarding him with questions, and how little information he had available, he made several calls in front of us and clearly gave us the advise he was given.

He advised us to travel via private means either - taxi, Uber or local bus 320 if I recall to Watford junction statoon to connect to a last running overground service. He also said to reclaim this via delay repay.

I guess because the railwayman was overwhelmed he was unable to advise everyone who remained on the platform

Hope u got to your destination earlier than me (03.15).

I'm often on the 18:33 CRE-EUS. Normally punctual into London as it was thus week

 

[Merle Haggard]

I'm puzzled by one statement in LNwR's reply - but my experience is from the last century so probably out of date.

There's a reference to the 'legal limit on drivers' hours' but I'm not sure about this. Presumably, it's to explain why trains could not make additional stops, because that would delay the driver and push his hours over the limit.

In my day, there was an agreement that drivers could decline work that would result in overtime. That was, I always understood, a union agreement not legislation.

In my neck of the woods, it was used in an interesting way. Trains ran from A via B (where the drivers were based) to C, where exchanged wagons, then returned to B. If a train arrived late at B on the outward journey the driver would claim that this meant that his return would also be late, resulting in overtime. The result often was that the driver would decline to continue (as it would eventually incur overtime) and would bale out at B. The train crew supervisor would then allow the driver to go home straight away, meaning he finished about 2 hours early. So the balance was between a few minutes' overtime pay vs getting home 2 hours earlier- which would probably influence the decision. I think I have experienced the same thing in times of disruption on LM/LNwR, where down Northampton trains are terminated short at Milton Keynes with Bletchley drivers, presumably booked to work to Northampton and back to Bletchley and declining overtime.

Can anyone point to a legal requirement rather than a union one? How is this applied when a train is delayed by hours at a remote signal (due to the usual reasons...)? I've been on trains in that situation, and there's never been any question of the driver not being legally permitted to continue, and a new driver being provided

 

[vdriud]

I have plenty of real world experience of looking after those with learning difficulties. Enough to know that anyone who isn’t able to replan their journey shouldn’t be travelling unsupervised by public transport, end of.

I have type 1 diabetes and lack of access to food or insulin for that period of time could have caused all sorts of issues.

 

[A0wen]

Well just fancy that. Got it wrong there didn't you. Breathtakingly arrogant without a care for the consumer.

That's a pretty good letter from the TOC explaining some of the operational circumstances rather than some standard flannel. Still leaves a few things unanswered, but they have held their hands up and said it was a cock-up.

Typed from my armchair after a lifetime working in aviation where service recovery for both the operation and customer was an important part of day to day life.

Not at all. All they've done is restate the events as the OP relayed them on the first post and apologised.

The OP was stating they wanted to know details of the decisions taken etc -

"I want LNWR to explain why this happened understand any errors and for the railway to make improvements so that passengers are cared for appropriately at all times." [post #9]

"but I still think it's appropriate to ask why things went wrong and try to prevent in future because of the number of passengers affected and the risks" [post #41]

"The loss of trust can only be addressed by a full explanation of what went wrong and what has been done to prevent recurrence." [post #82]

"I'm complaining directly to LNWR.

Looking for a full and honest explanation and evidence that systems will be put in place to prevent recurrence so that the railway can learn from this incident." [post #104]

"I'd like equivalent honesty in the awaited response from LNWR

...and want to know what training and procedural changes have been put in place to prevent recurrence" [post #225]

Do you think that's what they've received ?

 

[mmh]

Right - so you have no experience beyond being a customer, correct ? Try a bit harder, what is your "day job" that equips you to pontificate on this (and other threads) with such experience ?

So go on then, give an example of a major company giving such operational or commercial information out in response to a complaint (I'll wait).

The power supply industry does continually. They volunteer information and don't wait for a complaint.

 

[A0wen]

The power supply industry does continually. They volunteer information and don't wait for a complaint.

No more so than the rail network when they publish delays or cancellations - the power industry basically say "there are problems in location 'x' affecting 'y' area" - they don't say "person x was working on "x", "y" happened and shouldn't have, we'll change process "z" to ensure it doesn't happen again and team "n" have been briefed on this" which is the level of detail the OP intimated they were looking for in the response from LNWR.

 

[etr221]

My thought is that, while not actually a safety failure, this incident did have much in common with such - it did result from a signicant failure on the part of WMT/LNWR - as they have acknowledged - severely impacting passengers.

And perhaps a similar sort of investigation - whether external or internal - leading to the same sort of report as an RAIB Safety Digest, setting out what happpened, what mistakes were made and what the learning points are. And it should not just for WMT/LNWR internal use, but circulated certainly within the industry, if not actually published.

And reading other (current or previous) threads, about other failures, reporting to shine a light and prompt thinking about best and worst practices would perhaps improve matters and prevent recurrences.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have type 1 diabetes and lack of access to food or insulin for that period of time could have caused all sorts of issues.

I know a type 1 diabetic and he always - always - carries insulin with him, and sufficient to last for any likely situation like that. If you have a medical condition like that it is incredibly foolish not to carry spare medication when travelling.

 

[vdriud]

I know a type 1 diabetic and he always - always - carries insulin with him, and sufficient to last for any likely situation like that. If you have a medical condition like that it is incredibly foolish not to carry spare medication when travelling.

I have 2 types of insulin, one day and one night time. I would not expect to take my nighttime insulin if I'm on a day trip as would have been the case with the OP. Your comment is ignorant in many ways.

Once I was stuck on a crowded voyager where there were 9 people crushed in the vestibule and due to delays and a diversion we were stuck like that for 2.5 hrs. I hypoed twice and ran out of glucose and was very close to being hospitalised. I was unable to go to the buffet trolley as the train was dangerously full. The railway is a joke when it comes to looking after people with disabilities.

With the sort of comments made by some railway people the industry has a long way to go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have 2 types of insulin, one day and one night time. I would not expect to take my nighttime insulin if I'm on a day trip as would have been the case with the OP. Your comment is ignorant in many ways.

On a long rail trip it is not impossible that you might be stranded overnight. Thus carrying it would make sense, or at least accepting that you might need to wake periodically and use the day version through the night (it's how long acting it is, right?)

Once I was stuck on a crowded voyager where there were 9 people crushed in the vestibule and due to delays and a diversion we were stuck like that for 2.5 hrs. I hypoed twice and ran out of glucose and was very close to being hospitalised. I was unable to go to the buffet trolley as the train was dangerously full. The railway is a joke when it comes to looking after people with disabilities.

As that is a likely occurrence on a rail journey, were you not carrying emergency sugar tablets?

With the sort of comments made by some railway people the industry has a long way to go.

I am not staff. It is just seriously foolish not to carry backup medical equipment if your condition could cause death or serious illness in short order without it.

Indeed it's nothing to do with trains - the same would be true of road travel.