Title: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: willc on March 04, 2008, 23:37:26 Columnist Philip Hensher in The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-a-train-company-that-turns-passengers-into-victims-790895.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-a-train-company-that-turns-passengers-into-victims-790895.html) Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: devon_metro on March 05, 2008, 17:42:14 I wouldn't really say Exeter-London was particularly bad, unless travelling on a train from Penzance which is likely to be packed.
Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Btline on March 06, 2008, 18:52:56 Once again, people are forgetting the Chiltern Railways success! Thanks to competition, 70% more people are now using rail- Virgin have not suffered.
I did not like his comment about the guard telling you off if you have not bought a ticket. Grrrrrr.... it is called fare dodging mate- and yes, it is illegal!!!! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Lee on March 06, 2008, 19:20:33 Its worth remembering that there is another side to the Chiltern story...........Certainly one for the many DfT fans among our forum membership ;D
The document reads (removed text in document is in red) Dear xxxx Request Made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act") ^ Reference P0002550 I am writing to confirm that the Department for Transport does hold the information you requested on 21 October 2006. You requested the following information: All correspondence and internal minutes dealing with Laing/Chiltern Railway's proposals for the December 2006 Timetable. The information that can be released is: ^ Copies of all correspondence (letters and emails) between the Department for Transport and Chiltern Railways concerning the December 2006 Timetable. A list of attached documents is attached to this letter as Appendix A ^ Extracts of minutes of monthly and quarterly review meetings between Chiltern and the Department for Transport, which include reference to the December 2006 timetable. These extracts are attached to this letter in Appendix B to this letter. Most documents supplied by the Department for Transport will have been produced bygovernment officials and will be Crown Copyright. You can find details on thearrangements for re-using Crown copyright on the Office of Public Sector Informationwebsite at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm). The documents set out in Appendix A and B to this letter have a number of redactionsmade. We have also decided that some of the documents you requested cannot bedisclosed for the reasons given below. The following documents have been withheld: ^ The draft December 2006 Timetable; ^ December 2006 Stopping Pattern Analysis;^ Passenger Count information and ^ Chiltern 4th Supplemental Track Access Agreement; (this can be obtain by accessing the following link: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/consoldtagreechiltern150306.pdf (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/consoldtagreechiltern150306.pdf). or, by making a request to: Office of Rail Regulation, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN). xxxx Contract Manager, Chiltern Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Direct Line: 0207 944 xxxx xxxx@dft.gsi.gov.uk ("xxxx@dft.gsi.gov.uk") The information being withheld falls under the exemption in Section 43(2) of the Act. The information is commercially sensitive as train operators are private companies whooperate in competition with coach and bus operators, airlines and sometimes each other. Disclosure of the information could adversely affect their competitive positions if detailedrevenue and passenger data at an individual flow level were made available to theircompetitors. You should also note that most of the information withheld is not relevant tothe December 2006 Timetable which is the subject of your request. The attachedAppendix C to this letter sets out the Section 43 exemption in full. Section 43 is a qualified exemption. This means that the Department for Transporthaving identified the exemptions has to consider in relation to each exemption whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and not disclosing the Information) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the Information. In determining the competing public interest exemptions, the Department for Transport has evaluated the nature of the prejudice that might result from disclosure against the need for public bodies to exercise their statutory functions in a visible way. Weighing the issues up, it is the opinion of the Department for Transport that the public interest in maintaining the exemption, and therefore not disclosing the information, is overriding. If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request, you may complain by writing to me at the above address. Please see attached details of Department for Transport^s complaints procedure and your right to complain to the Information Commissioner at Appendix D to this letter. If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. Yours sincerely xxxx Appendix A ^ Emails between DfT and Chiltern re February 2006 timetable bid conference dated 8 June 2006 ^ Chiltern's email to DfT re priority Date Notification dated 7 June 2006 ^ DfT's letter to Chiltern dated 7 June 2006 ^ DfT's letter to Chiltern re proposal timetable dated 22 June 2006 ^ DfT's letter to Chiltern re. consultation of timetable dated 28 June 2006 ^ Chiltern's reply to DfT's letter of 28 June 2006 re. consultation of timetable dated 12 July 2006 ^ DfT's letter to Chiltern re. timetable development dated 28 June 2006 ^ Chiltern's reply to DfT's letter of 28 June 2006 re. timetable development dated 12 July 2006. ^ Chiltern's letter to DfT dated 18 July 2006 ^ Chiltern's email to DfT dated 26 July 2006 ^ Chiltern's letter to DfT dated 23 August 2006 ^ DfT's letter to Chiltern dated 25 August 2006 ^ DfT's letter to Chiltern dated 22 September 2006 Appendix B Extract of Minutes of Monthly and Quarterly review meetings between DfT and Chiltern. Monthly Meeting of 13 April 2006 "GC provided an update on the Evergreen 2 timetable and said that measures were in place to avoid the recent events of the FGW timetable. GC said that services to Claverdon and Bearly would be significantly reduced and warned that this may stir public and stakeholder opinion. Pre-consultation with DfT and major stakeholders would take place shortly after Easter and general consultation on 25 April. GC said that elements of the timetable were non-compliant with the PSR and would also not meet the requirements of additional services in the Output Plan. Negotiations would have to take place. PG stated that he had briefed the Access and Operations team on this forthcoming piece of work". Monthly Meeting of 3 August 2006 "PG explained that DfT was analysing Chiltern^s derogation requests. A paper would be completed for discussion and a decision would be made by the end of next week. GC would like to see DfT^s conclusion earlier as the proposed response time would coincide with the absolute deadline for the implementation of any changes. PG to contact Guy Horstmann with any queries in GC^s absence. GC believed that Chiltern proposal was balanced and also had the support of the London TravelWatch. PG said that DfT would look at the effect of the changes on PSR and any cost saving would be the subject of further discussions". Chiltern presented the revised timetable and consultation matrix to the Passenger Board. Generally the meeting went well, however Warwickshire Council was opposed to the proposal". Chiltern Railways Monthly Meeting of 31 August 2006 "Now that the derogation discussions had come to a close GC said that the next step was to contractulise the derogations, which would need to include a table of the changes to the Output Plan. PG said that GC would also have to provide a breakdown of the cost savings for each service. PG requested that this was provided within the next month. GC said he was unclear whether the department had granted derogations to the Monday to Friday timetable for one or two timetables. PG said he would confirm. GC said that the process of communicating the confirmed timetable to stakeholders would now begin. Actions: (i) GC to provide costs savings data. (ii) GC to provide table ofrevised Output Plan for derogations. (iii) PG to confirm duration of M-F derogations." Monthly Meeting of 25 October 2006 ^ "Cost savings: PG confirmed that DfT had replied to Adrian Shooter's letter on cost savings. ^ PG confirmed receipt of Chiltern Christmas/New Year timetable: DfT will endeavour to approve the Train Plans by the end of November 2006. ^ PSR and ASC Consolidation: RH told the meeting that the purpose of the consolidation exercise was to bring together the PSR, ASC and the Output Plan into one document. The new PSR will need to be agreed in time for the December 2007 timetable. He suggested that an initial meeting should be held in November this year to agree the terms of reference and an indicative project plan. A discussion followed on what timetable should Chiltern bid for in January 2007. RH offered to give Chiltern guidance on timetable specifications. Action: AD to set up a DfT/Chiltern meeting RH to send Chiltern guidance on timetable specifications" Quarterly Review Meeting on 8 November 2005 " Timetable Review: CP said that Chiltern was planning a fundamental review of the timetable to match capacity to where there was demand from passengers, and leave sufficient margins for error to underpin robust performance. CP said that Evergreen 2 offered an opportunity to analyse Chiltern^s requirements and obligations, and design the timetable accordingly. PR advised Chiltern to involve DfT operations advisors at an early stage of the review. He asked how Chiltern was going to sell the changes to stakeholders and stressed the importance of getting their backing for such a fundamental review. Whilst DfT could accommodate minor PSR change derogations, a consultation exercise would be needed for major changes. PR cast his doubts over Chiltern^s ability to carry out the review before February 2006 timetable conference. GC said that Mark Beckett would lead on the consultation". Chiltern Railways Quarterly Review Meeting on 12 December 2005 " December 2006 Timetable: MB said that CR was reviewing its current timetable to drive improvement for the December 2006 timetable. The work would be led by MB and GC. PR invited CR to share the outcome with DfT". Quarterly Review Meeting on 28 March 2006 "December 2006 timetable progress: MB gave a presentation on Evergreen 2 timetable. A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. MB explained that the December timetable planning was well underway and that it offered a significant opportunity to critically review the efficiency and resource burden of the whole timetable. PR said that the DfT Access and Operations Team would need to be briefed on this piece of work and the schedule for their contribution negotiated so that resource could be allocated to it. Action 280306/05: PG to discuss resource planning with DfT team" Quarterly Review Meeting on 12 July 2006 "Recovery Project Update: (i) December 2006 Timetable Proposals MB confirmed that Chiltern would implement the Evergreen 2 timetable as advised by DfT. They would also request some derogations against it. PP urged Chiltern to send these requests to DfT urgently. MB said that Evergreen 2 timetable would be presented to stakeholders as a revised version of the Recovery timetable. He explained that it was important that Chiltern were seen to have listened to their concerns. Action (120706/05): Chiltern to provide DfT with a matrix of the stakeholders^ responses to the consultation exercise. PR asked whether Chiltern had shelved the Recovery Timetable or whether the issue would be reopened later. MB said that there was a link between the Recovery Timetable and the derogations that Chiltern would be seeking from DfT. He explained that Chiltern seeking the re-opening of the Recovery Timetable was a possibility particularly if Chiltern^s revenues did not improve with the implementation of the Evergreen 2 timetable. PR stressed the importance of introducing any future proposals for the Recovery timetable in a controlled fashion, and would allow full consultation. (ii) Capital Spend This was discussed under item 5 above. (iii) Fuel Levy on Fares Chiltern confirmed that they would submit a proposal to increase fares tocover the rise in fuel costs (see above)". Quarterly Review Meeting on 22 September 2006 "Recovery Project Update: (i) December 2006 Timetable Proposals: PG said that DfT was about to send to Chiltern a letter confirming DfT^s decision on the December 2006 timetable derogation requests. GC explained that Chiltern was in the process of seeking the relevant access agreement to coincide with the derogation and would start the complex task of aligning their access rights to the timetable. Because the DfT^s derogations last for one year, they would only make changes to the access agreement for one year, after which the originally granted suite of rights would again take effect unless extensions were agreed. Action (210906/05): DfT to inform Chiltern of their decision on the derogation requests". Appendix C Section 43 Commercial Interests 1 Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret 2 Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or wouldbe likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including thepublic authority holding it) 3 The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1 (1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests mentioned in subsection (2) Appendix D Your right to complain to DfT and the Information Commissioner You have the right to complain about the way in which your request for information washandled and/or about the decision not to disclose all or part of the information requested. In addition a complaint can be made that Department for Transport has not complied with its FOI publication scheme. Your complaint will be acknowledged and you will be advised of a target date by which to expect a response. Initially your complaint will be re-considered by the official who dealt with your request for information. If, after careful consideration, that official decides that her decision was correct, your complaint will automatically be referred to a senior independent official who will conduct a further review. You will be advised of the outcome of your complaint and if a decision is taken to disclose information originally withheld this will be done as soon as possible. If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner^s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF So... 1) the DfT are meddling in all TOCs, not just the new franchises where the DfT specify every detail 2) the DfT are incompetent 3) they do not want us to know about RECOVERY timetables (as it looks bad) 4) they do not want the people of Claverdon and Bearly to hear about their reduced service 5) They do not want the public to know they are cost-cutting 6) They do not want us to know that they plan to boost their income by raising fares based on rising fuel costs. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: 12hoursunday on March 07, 2008, 03:03:59 Quote The Transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, has imposed a ^29m package of improvements on the company. FGW is to double its miserly compensation rates and, after 2009, increase them by a further 50 per cent. sorry matey most of that money was earmarked before she stuck her nose in! Quote A year or so ago, the company effectively raised the basic cost of a London to Exeter return by around 15 per cent by the simple means of abolishing the cheapest ticket category. your on about supersavers eh! I am right in saying that all the train operators done away with these? Quote The only way of acquiring a ticket at a lower rate than the full ^59 was to book in advance for a specific train; the tickets go so quickly that, in my experience, you have to book a full six weeks in advance. Who, with a life, knows what train they will want to catch every single week, six weeks in advance? So you might as well turn up on the day. those who snap up all the cheap tickets your moaning about you fool! Quote If you try to buy a ticket on a train, you are quite likely to be told off in the most impertinent way by the ticket collector serves you right. Read the buy before you ride leaflet and once again you will see that this a railway by-law that goes right across the land. BTW I wonder have you met Bristol Train Manager who go'es by the nickname of Rockey? If not you don't know what a telling off is ;D Get a life and do some reporting on something intresting like watching grass grow. We've heard it all before and it's starting to get boring now! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Jim on March 07, 2008, 07:36:56 serves you right. Read the buy before you ride leaflet and once again you will see that this a railway by-law that goes right across the land. BTW I wonder have you met Bristol Train Manager who go'es by the nickname of Rockey? If not you don't know what a telling off is ;D I think there would be at least 3times the amount of moaning about it ;D Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Btline on March 07, 2008, 15:08:58 Quote If you try to buy a ticket on a train, you are quite likely to be told off in the most impertinent way by the ticket collector Serves you right. Read the buy before you ride leaflet and once again you will see that this a railway by-law that goes right across the land.Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: vacman on March 08, 2008, 09:57:12 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue!
Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: smokey on March 08, 2008, 11:21:47 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue! So NXEC should be, IIRC all stations served by NXEC are staffed, so anyone travelling without a Ticket is try to get away with a free ride. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: vacman on March 08, 2008, 12:17:46 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue! So NXEC should be, IIRC all stations served by NXEC are staffed, so anyone travelling without a Ticket is try to get away with a free ride. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Mookiemoo on March 08, 2008, 19:17:05 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue! So NXEC should be, IIRC all stations served by NXEC are staffed, so anyone travelling without a Ticket is try to get away with a free ride. This is where the reail companies and HONEST passengers differ - I can think of a number of reasons why you plan to arrive in plenty of time for the train you HAVE to catch i.e. Friday I left in plenty of time to catch the 0632 - a mysterious set of road works appeared which are not the councils website and which involve a diversion that added 15 minutes to my journey. I was coming down the wrong side of the severn when the 0632 went over the bridge heading into foregate street. I ran three red lights and made the station just as the 0632 was coming in. I have a season ticket - however if I had left the house with 20 minutes to spare (I usually aim to be there 5 minutes in advance bearing in mind I have a season) to buy a ticket - I would have not had time to buy said ticket and catch train. the next one is an hour later. Had I not had a ticket I would have had no choice but to board said train without a ticket . My intention would not, however, have been to fair dodge. In life s**t happens - the attitude displayed above does not allow for this! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: vacman on March 08, 2008, 19:23:50 Maybe not, but it's one of those things, if you go overdrawn when it's not your fault, you still get charged, at the end of the day, the passenger knows the risk before boarding the train, and they still take the chance, thats up to them!
Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Andy W on March 08, 2008, 20:45:12 Maybe not, but it's one of those things, if you go overdrawn when it's not your fault, you still get charged, at the end of the day, the passenger knows the risk before boarding the train, and they still take the chance, thats up to them! My daughter frequently travels from Pershore to Paddington and always buys a ticket on the train - you can't buy a ticket at the station because there is no ticket machine due to lack of investment by FGW. On the one occasion she returned from London without a return ticket she jumped on the train at platform 9 and expected to buy the ticket in exactly the same way she normally does. The ticket inspector charged her a penalty fare and treated her like a criminal. No she wasn't trying to cheat, she believed she was doing the right thing. FGW expect customers to cut them some slack with a timetable that should be filed under fiction, the very least they should do is allow a little leeway in the other direction. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a true understanding of customer service would have put her straight on that occasion but no - she now uses Chiltern and FGW have lost a customer for ever. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Btline on March 08, 2008, 20:46:09 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue! So NXEC should be, IIRC all stations served by NXEC are staffed, so anyone travelling without a Ticket is try to get away with a free ride. This is where the reail companies and HONEST passengers differ - I can think of a number of reasons why you plan to arrive in plenty of time for the train you HAVE to catch i.e. Friday I left in plenty of time to catch the 0632 - a mysterious set of road works appeared which are not the councils website and which involve a diversion that added 15 minutes to my journey. I was coming down the wrong side of the severn when the 0632 went over the bridge heading into foregate street. I ran three red lights and made the station just as the 0632 was coming in. I have a season ticket - however if I had left the house with 20 minutes to spare (I usually aim to be there 5 minutes in advance bearing in mind I have a season) to buy a ticket - I would have not had time to buy said ticket and catch train. the next one is an hour later. Had I not had a ticket I would have had no choice but to board said train without a ticket . My intention would not, however, have been to fair dodge. In life s**t happens - the attitude displayed above does not allow for this! I completely sympathise (I have had plenty of similar experiences- those bloo*y roadworks!), but you have to see it from the guard's perspective. As far as they are concerned, anyone who boards a train without a ticket where they could have should pay the penalty. It is just really tough luck! Luckily I also have a season! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Btline on March 08, 2008, 20:50:21 Maybe not, but it's one of those things, if you go overdrawn when it's not your fault, you still get charged, at the end of the day, the passenger knows the risk before boarding the train, and they still take the chance, thats up to them! My daughter frequently travels from Pershore to Paddington and always buys a ticket on the train - you can't buy a ticket at the station because there is no ticket machine due to lack of investment by FGW. On the one occasion she returned from London without a return ticket she jumped on the train at platform 9 and expected to buy the ticket in exactly the same way she normally does. The ticket inspector charged her a penalty fare and treated her like a criminal. No she wasn't trying to cheat, she believed she was doing the right thing. FGW expect customers to cut them some slack with a timetable that should be filed under fiction, the very least they should do is allow a little leeway in the other direction. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a true understanding of customer service would have put her straight on that occasion but no - she now uses Chiltern and FGW have lost a customer for ever. Hang on- she is in the wrong- she boarded a train at a station with ticket facilities (London for heavens sake). She did not buy a ticket- therefore the guard had to assume she was fare dodging. Why would someone not buy a ticket. If you are in a hurry- it is bad luck. But really you should! PS- don't moan at me- they are the rules! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Andy W on March 08, 2008, 21:09:59 Maybe not, but it's one of those things, if you go overdrawn when it's not your fault, you still get charged, at the end of the day, the passenger knows the risk before boarding the train, and they still take the chance, thats up to them! My daughter frequently travels from Pershore to Paddington and always buys a ticket on the train - you can't buy a ticket at the station because there is no ticket machine due to lack of investment by FGW. On the one occasion she returned from London without a return ticket she jumped on the train at platform 9 and expected to buy the ticket in exactly the same way she normally does. The ticket inspector charged her a penalty fare and treated her like a criminal. No she wasn't trying to cheat, she believed she was doing the right thing. FGW expect customers to cut them some slack with a timetable that should be filed under fiction, the very least they should do is allow a little leeway in the other direction. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a true understanding of customer service would have put her straight on that occasion but no - she now uses Chiltern and FGW have lost a customer for ever. Hang on- she is in the wrong- she boarded a train at a station with ticket facilities (London for heavens sake). She did not buy a ticket- therefore the guard had to assume she was fare dodging. Why would someone not buy a ticket. If you are in a hurry- it is bad luck. But really you should! PS- don't moan at me- they are the rules! I'm not saying she was in the right, she didn't know the rules, and no she doesn't read the buy before you ride leaflet like 99.9999% of the passengers. Why would someone would not buy a ticket? Easy, because in the past they always bought one on the train! She had never traveled from anywhere other than Pershore where you can't buy a ticket. I wasn't moaning at you, merely making an observation. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: devonian on March 08, 2008, 21:26:04 It of course doesn't help when TOC's act in different ways. Purely to the times I need to go to work/come home from work, I invariably end up on a XC service (still use FGW a lot though :) ) and they allow people to buy tickets on board, no questions asked. Never seen anyone given any penalty fare talk or anything.
Now, I know how long it takes me to get to the station from my house. Why would it be my fault if there were an accident and, on the rare occasion I didn't have a valid season, I needed to buy a ticket on the train? Why should I have to pay a penalty fair? Okay, I fully understand that some people use the whole "oh, I left in plenty of time but my cat died and then the dog ate my homework" story, but this goes down the line of punishing the majority for the sins of the minority. That said, I do travel regularly and I understand and accept the needs of TOCs and I fully accept and even support FGW in protecting their revenue (and all other TOCs that participate in the penalty fair scheme). BUT - if I were an infrequent traveller that normally got the 0803 XC from Newton Abbot to Exeter and needed to get to work slightly early one day and decided to get the 0730 FGW service and arrived late, I would thin "oh, it's ok, I'll get my ticket on the train, that way, I would be late" only to find, low and behold, it cost me a small fortune. Does that win an award for longest most convoluted sentence??? I blame cider :D So, I do understand both sides of the story here. I lived in Poland for a year. The system there is that if you don't buy before you board, you go to the front of the train to the guard and buy a ticket there. You pay a 50p supplement for buying on board (in Polish terms, that's a lot but better than the penalty for no ticket). They then have spot checks from inspectors (scarier than nightclub bouncers) and no valid ticket = on the spot fine with all details taken (one bonus of ID cards here) payable at Post Offices. If there were no self service machines late at night, no on-board excess was charged - likewise if many people were saying it was broken. Far better then the blanketing discriminatory penalty fares Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Ollie on March 09, 2008, 14:07:20 I think you can't really win if you try to use excuses when you have boarded a train at Paddington.
2 ticket offices, one of which is 24 hour, one of which is in front of Platform 9. And various machines round the station. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Btline on March 09, 2008, 15:01:28 I think you can't really win if you try to use excuses when you have boarded a train at Paddington. 2 ticket offices, one of which is 24 hour, one of which is in front of Platform 9. And various machines round the station. Exactly. I lived in Poland for a year. The system there is that if you don't buy before you board, you go to the front of the train to the guard and buy a ticket there. You pay a 50p supplement for buying on board (in Polish terms, that's a lot but better than the penalty for no ticket). They then have spot checks from inspectors (scarier than nightclub bouncers) and no valid ticket = on the spot fine with all details taken (one bonus of ID cards here) payable at Post Offices. If there were no self service machines late at night, no on-board excess was charged - likewise if many people were saying it was broken. Far better then the blanketing discriminatory penalty fares Very good system- differentiates between those who want to buy a ticket, and those who "will if the guard checks." Could be implemented at the buffet. ??? Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Andy W on March 09, 2008, 18:28:23 I think you can't really win if you try to use excuses when you have boarded a train at Paddington. 2 ticket offices, one of which is 24 hour, one of which is in front of Platform 9. And various machines round the station. Hi Ollie, My point was that she had no malicious intent, she merely didn't know the rules. If she had known she would have bought a ticket at the station she simply thought it was FGW policy to sell tickets on the train. Well it is, but only when it suits them! Anyway it worked out for the best, she now travels from Warwick and far prefers Chiltern, they are far more reliable, far more regular and significantly cheaper. Given that she travels 6 to 8 times a month and the incident happened a couple of years ago FGW have lost over ^4,000 of revenue. She has also recommended Chiltern to her friends who now also use it so you can easily double that number. I know you don't really give a damn about revenue? Various enforcement agencies use an amount of discretion, the Guard could have used a degree of tact rather than conflict but it's your business not mine. If FGW choose to antagonize customers so be it. If the objective was revenue retention it failed, if the objective was customer satisfaction it failed. Believe me FGW is the loser. There are reasons sites like thirdratewestern, I hate First Great Western etc exist. Treating customers as criminals is one good reason. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Ollie on March 09, 2008, 18:41:33 You will find that most of those sites focus on punctuality and not the issue of penalty fares.
Was your daughter penalty fare or asked to pay for a full price single? In all fairness Paddington's main screens which has a bit for notices state that a penalty fare scheme is in operation, and there are or were last time I checked notices about Penalty fares. FGW don't just enforce it when they feel like it. If there isn't a way of buying a ticket, you are not liable for penalty fare. At Paddington you don't come under this category. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: dog box on March 09, 2008, 18:52:21 I think you will find that most T/Ms will allow some degree of discretion but as Ollie rightly said at Paddington probably not as there are ample opportunities to purchase a ticket.
Not knowing the rules is not a defence in any situation, its all clearly written down in The National Conditions of Carriage. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: vacman on March 09, 2008, 21:20:46 In Germany you get prosecuted if you get on without a ticket! and everyone always says how wonderful Germanys railways are, as for charging up on the train, everyone should be treated the same, the guard cant rightly charge one person up for not buying a ticket at the station, and then let the next person off just because they have a different excuse! If it was me running late and I got to the station then I would go straight to the guard and explain my situation, or seek him/her out when I got on the train, if someone is late and they jump on at the last minute and they make the effort to come and find me then i'll issue the cheaper fare, if they just go and sit down then I charge them the appropriate full fare with no discounts.
Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: 12hoursunday on March 09, 2008, 21:34:39 she now uses Chiltern and FGW have lost a customer for ever. How long have they been calling at Pershore? ;D Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Tim on March 10, 2008, 12:20:42 I agree Vacman, everyone should be treated the same. But if the rules should be the same with every TOC and enforced the same (or else it can confuse people).
There are plenty of countries (Italy for example) where if you buy your ticket on the train rather than at the station ebfore boarding you pay a penalty. Except they don't call it a penalty. They call it a "commision". It is about ^15 and goes (I think) straight to the guard. This means that deliberate fraudsters end up paying more. People who make a genuine mistake also pay more don't get made to feel like they are criminals, which some people will take very personally and be so offended that they are put off using that TOC. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Btline on March 10, 2008, 18:52:46 she now uses Chiltern and FGW have lost a customer for ever. How long have they been calling at Pershore? ;D ;D ;D ;D It is interesting to note that Chiltern have more than doubled passenger numbers since they took over (some sources claim +70%!). How many of these, do you think, have come from FGW at Bicester or Banbury (for Thames Valley), and Warwick Parkway (for Cotswolds)? I would imagine a large proportion! But: if the proposals for the line from Princes Risborough to Oxford happen (or a chord at Bicester allowing ex London trains to run to Oxford via Islip), I expect a hell of a lot more will go! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: vacman on March 10, 2008, 22:31:10 I agree Vacman, everyone should be treated the same. But if the rules should be the same with every TOC and enforced the same (or else it can confuse people). Penalty fares are however intended as a deterrant, it cost's FGW about ^10 to process a penalty fare so in some cases they loose money, every country/TOC does things differently, technicly you are breaking the law if you board a train without a valid ticket from a station where ticket issuing facilities were availiable, according to Byelaw 18(1).There are plenty of countries (Italy for example) where if you buy your ticket on the train rather than at the station ebfore boarding you pay a penalty. Except they don't call it a penalty. They call it a "commision". It is about ^15 and goes (I think) straight to the guard. This means that deliberate fraudsters end up paying more. People who make a genuine mistake also pay more don't get made to feel like they are criminals, which some people will take very personally and be so offended that they are put off using that TOC. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: 12hoursunday on March 11, 2008, 02:29:27 ! But: if the proposals for the line from Princes Risborough to Oxford happen (or a chord at Bicester allowing ex London trains to run to Oxford via Islip), I expect a hell of a lot more will go! But surely they won't have too. Because if whats being said by MTLS and all the other Firstgroup bashers is as true as it's set in stone, after six months First Great Western will be no-more and everything will be hunky dorey. Trains will run and they will run to time, and anyone and his brother will be able to walk right up at whatever station they care to board a train without buying a ticket and be allowed to buy the cheapest available from the guard. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: gpn01 on March 11, 2008, 09:14:58 it cost's FGW about ^10 to process a penalty fare so in some cases they loose money So, why don't they outsource ticket inspection to another company that is paid on the basis of commission gained from penalty tickets ? There's probably a few wheel clamping firms or traffic wardens who would do it! It's a win-win....FGW doesn't lose money from collecting additional fares (and indeed publciitly ensures that more people actually buy a ticket), fare paying passengers get to watch fare dodgers being clamped :-) Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: smokey on March 11, 2008, 09:16:27 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue! So NXEC should be, IIRC all stations served by NXEC are staffed, so anyone travelling without a Ticket is try to get away with a free ride. i.e. Friday I left in plenty of time to catch the 0632 - a mysterious set of road works appeared which are not the councils website and which involve a diversion that added 15 minutes to my journey. I was coming down the wrong side of the severn when the 0632 went over the bridge heading into foregate street. I ran three red lights and made the station just as the 0632 was coming in. I have a season ticket - however if I had left the house with 20 minutes to spare (I usually aim to be there 5 minutes in advance bearing in mind I have a season) to buy a ticket - I would have not had time to buy said ticket and catch train. the next one is an hour later. Had I not had a ticket I would have had no choice but to board said train without a ticket . My intention would not, however, have been to fair dodge. In life s**t happens - the attitude displayed above does not allow for this! So because you were late (OK through no fault of your own) you went through 3 red lights, people die because car drivers run red lights. Was it so important that you were prepared to kill to make a train, you need to leave earlier of learn to chill out more. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Mookiemoo on March 11, 2008, 10:44:46 And it applies on all TOC's! NXEC are the probably the most strict on this issue! So NXEC should be, IIRC all stations served by NXEC are staffed, so anyone travelling without a Ticket is try to get away with a free ride. i.e. Friday I left in plenty of time to catch the 0632 - a mysterious set of road works appeared which are not the councils website and which involve a diversion that added 15 minutes to my journey. I was coming down the wrong side of the severn when the 0632 went over the bridge heading into foregate street. I ran three red lights and made the station just as the 0632 was coming in. I have a season ticket - however if I had left the house with 20 minutes to spare (I usually aim to be there 5 minutes in advance bearing in mind I have a season) to buy a ticket - I would have not had time to buy said ticket and catch train. the next one is an hour later. Had I not had a ticket I would have had no choice but to board said train without a ticket . My intention would not, however, have been to fair dodge. In life s**t happens - the attitude displayed above does not allow for this! So because you were late (OK through no fault of your own) you went through 3 red lights, people die because car drivers run red lights. Was it so important that you were prepared to kill to make a train, you need to leave earlier of learn to chill out more. Firstly - worcester town centre at 615am is dead - whilst I dont condone running red lights - the three I ran you could see if anything was coming first. i.e. I pulled up - noting coming - went through - I did not blindly go through them. What was so important? Rather important meeting in only my first full week at a new client which if I pull it off will open doors. I left in plenty of time - maybe if the next train was not over an hour later I wouldnt have felt so inclined Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: zebedee on March 11, 2008, 12:02:41 "That's alright officer, I know you've just caught me doing 140mph in my new Porsche but it's four in the morning and I thought as no-one was on the roads, it would be okay to see how fast it would go."
Sorry, your argument does not stand up in any shape or form. Unless you happen to be a member of the emergency services, on an emergency call, you have broken the law and the police won't give a damn about what meeting you had to attend. You might have deemed it safe, but your not the one making the laws in this country are you? Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Doctor Gideon Ceefax on March 11, 2008, 12:22:47 it cost's FGW about ^10 to process a penalty fare so in some cases they loose money So, why don't they outsource ticket inspection to another company that is paid on the basis of commission gained from penalty tickets ? There's probably a few wheel clamping firms or traffic wardens who would do it! It's a win-win....FGW doesn't lose money from collecting additional fares (and indeed publciitly ensures that more people actually buy a ticket), fare paying passengers get to watch fare dodgers being clamped :-) Train companies have involved private security or similar with ticket inspections. It doesn't work. These firms generally employ largely unskilled people on low wages, who have less reason to use discretion or customer service. They also have little or no railway knowledge, and generally end up antagonising railway staff. Plenty of occasions involving them where staff themselves, let alone passengers have ended up being done, as they don't recognise the diagrams / passes. Plus it's a pain for the passenger to report issues with them, should they not follow correct procedure, as the train company would merely say, not our employees and pass you on. A classic example of this was the use of Securicor employees on Manchester Piccadilly. Utter nightmare. I believe all ticketing is dealt with by employees of the train operating companies at this station now. Plus like all contractors they are unlikely to have any real loyalty to the company or those who work in it, as they will receive no travel allowances or railway pensions. Cleaning standards improved greatly under SWT when all cleaning was taken in house. Contracting out to the lowest bidder might improve company profits, but passengers won't see that in the form of ticket prices lowering, and certainly won't see any sort of improvement in customer service. Most of the trains have guards anyway, if you take the ticket aspect away from them, they will still be needed for the trains to run, and instead of having knowledgable railway people being visible, they'll just be in the brake van dossing, whilst the security staff roam the trains, penalty faring everyone. Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: Mookiemoo on March 11, 2008, 12:42:23 "That's alright officer, I know you've just caught me doing 140mph in my new Porsche but it's four in the morning and I thought as no-one was on the roads, it would be okay to see how fast it would go." Sorry, your argument does not stand up in any shape or form. Unless you happen to be a member of the emergency services, on an emergency call, you have broken the law and the police won't give a damn about what meeting you had to attend. You might have deemed it safe, but your not the one making the laws in this country are you? True - but at the end of the day I didnt get caught, no one got hurt, I caught my train and its not something I do regularly (in fact I believe that was the first time!) Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: dog box on March 11, 2008, 17:43:20 Mookiemoo...Triple SPAD Driver eh..... i reckon you would be looking for a new job if you were a Train Driver.
Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: devon_metro on March 11, 2008, 17:52:53 "That's alright officer, I know you've just caught me doing 140mph in my new Porsche but it's four in the morning and I thought as no-one was on the roads, it would be okay to see how fast it would go." Sorry, your argument does not stand up in any shape or form. Unless you happen to be a member of the emergency services, on an emergency call, you have broken the law and the police won't give a damn about what meeting you had to attend. You might have deemed it safe, but your not the one making the laws in this country are you? True - but at the end of the day I didnt get caught, no one got hurt, I caught my train and its not something I do regularly (in fact I believe that was the first time!) The rules are there whether or not you didn't hurt anybody!! Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: vacman on March 11, 2008, 19:02:12 it cost's FGW about ^10 to process a penalty fare so in some cases they loose money So, why don't they outsource ticket inspection to another company that is paid on the basis of commission gained from penalty tickets ? There's probably a few wheel clamping firms or traffic wardens who would do it! It's a win-win....FGW doesn't lose money from collecting additional fares (and indeed publciitly ensures that more people actually buy a ticket), fare paying passengers get to watch fare dodgers being clamped :-) Title: Re: Another unhappy FGW customer... Post by: smokey on March 12, 2008, 09:48:35 Vacman I 100% agree Contractors are a pain in the backside for Non-customer service jobs.
From what I've seen they (contractors), well at least some of them are more dishonest than Harmless fare dodgers!! ;D This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |