Great Western Coffee Shop

I traveled from Theale (to avoid the rail relief bus service) to Burgess Hill via Reading/Clapham Junction today for an appointment at 14.00hrs.  Unfortunately, someone was hit by a train (not sure whether suicide or accident) and the train I was traveling on between Clapham Junction and Burgess Hill sat in East Croydon for nearly two hours before being canceled and all the passengers being crammed into a very full Brighton service.

Net result - rather than arrive at 13.00 with an hour to spare I arrived over an hour late and missed the appointment and had to turn round and come straight back. Having spent five hours traveling there I then spent a further three hours coming back and need to travel back in the future for a new appointment with the purchase of a new ticket.

I feel somewhat bad asking this bearing in mind the nature of the delay but should I request a refund ???  Against this I got there (eventually) however I need to buy another ticket and travel again because I could not get there in time due to the delay.

What do people think and where do i stand???

Firstly, sorry to hear about the incident and the knock-on effect you experienced with missing your meeting.

I believe this falls into "factors outside the control of the Railway" and therefore I do not believe you are entitled to a refund.  At the end of the day it is FGW's responsibility to get you to your destination (which they did).

I understand you are inconvenienced having to pay out twice, but the flip side also is, why should FGW lose revenue because someone (assuming it was suicide) decided to get hit by a train?

If you had driven and missed the meeting due to a hold-up from an accident, you would not be able to claim petrol expenses of having to drive twice would you?

Put that way - one can't argue. Yes if I had driven I wouldn't have claimed petrol back if there had been an accident.

It does show how (again presuming that it was suicide) apart from the very unpleasant impact on train crews and staff, the knock effect can affect many in many different ways.

That is why I think the railways should have first call on the estate of anyone killed on the railway by suicide or trespass.

1. They get compensation

2. Since most survived suicides say they were only thinking of their family then it may make them think twice if they know their loved ones would be left on the breadline (remember its the suicidee that is at fault here not the train company)

Very callous view, the family have lost a loved one perhaps the bread winner and then they a penalised for an action they had not control of and I suspect if the railways had such powers I doubt they would ever exercise them

Possibly callus but realistic.  Suicide is the cowards way out and it may make them think twice or at least choose a means that does not inconvenience thousands of others in the process.

But then I do think people who cause road accident should be sued by the hospitals for their treatment, people caught up in the tail back for their inconvenience.  They may learn to be responsible

Yes you can.

If the train that was delayed was a southern service they now operate delay repay which gives some refund for any journey delayed for any reason :-

http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/delay-repay/

This is a scheme which will come into effect for all franchises as they are renewed.

I will stick my neck out and say I dont agree with giving a refund in the case of a suicide.  I mean how can the railway do anything about that.  Also as the railways are subsidised then effectively it is taxpayers who are paying for the refund.  People dont get a refund from the government when there has been a road accident and they are delayed so I dont see why the government should give out money when there is a suicide on the railway.  People may not agree but that is my point of view.

Not wishing to start an argument on what can be a distressing subject, but even if the estate were to pas to the railways then paasengers would not see any of it. The driver affected would need to be consolled and lost wages accounted for to due the event, then you have the trauma of people who have to clean the track and the train, and finally you have the TOC who have a train that they need to repair.

In my personal opinion, apart from those directly affected by the accident, no third party should have any claim to the estate which means sadly passangers lose out, but want do you really expect railway companies to do?

My personal view, not an admin intervention:

To follow that line of reasoning: Anyone who may have been delayed on a motorway because someone chose to end their life by deliberately driving into a concrete bridge support should have a financial claim on the deceased's estate?

yes - there are many ways to kill yourself that do not involve inconveniencing thousands.

It won't stop them but they may think twice about their means of doing so

Hmm.  The closing of the motorway while the emergency services scrape body parts off the concrete doesn't involve any inconvenience to anyone?  I'm not convinced - I'd sue their estate, in such a case.

You misunderstood I THINK

WHOEVER caused the incident should be liable for their estate or insurance to be sued. Mainly in the cases of suicide or DUI IMHO but that suits my politics.

If you deliberately cause a problem - your estate THEN insurance should pay

It gets very grey into non causative accidents and then  I'll plead two faced argument as unless there is intent (and suicide and DUI both show intent) I cant make a case for it

Why should an insurer pay out if an individual has made a conscious decision to drive into a concrete bridge support on a motorway as a means of ending their own life?

That completely negates your argument that an individual would think twice before doing so if they thought their dependants would suffer financially from their action.

I broadly share FA's sentiments.

A call on the estate of a a suicide, or a financial penalty on a failed suicide may act as a deterrent to someone wishing to end their life.

However, part of the problem is that suicides who go for the spectactular are often sitcking up a final two fingers to the world. They have little care for the consequences of their action and putting a punitive punishment of their immediately family by sequestering the estate would be a double punishment for the relatives of someone who goes to thier grave in bits.

What we are almost ultimately dealing with here is people who are suffering mental health problems. And this is a very difficult group to legislate against. Just look at the statistics for people suffering at least one mental health problem in their lifetime. Mental health problems are no respecter of class or status. High-flyer, middle class family man with 2.4 children, single mum - all can reach that breaking point, when they feel that the world would be better without them.

I'm kinda shooting down my own arguement here. Essentially what I'm saying is the I agree with FA's point, but I see little headway in making it a law.

Already happens - traffic accident treatment can be chargeable
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/travel/traffic_accidents.htm#payment_for_hospital_treatment  (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/travel/traffic_accidents.htm#payment_for_hospital_treatment)

Possibly callus but realistic.  Suicide is the cowards way out and it may make them think twice or at least choose a means that does not inconvenience thousands of others in the process.

I'm sure just before a suicidal person is about to jump off a bridge in front of a train they're thinking about the possible compensatory repurcussions on their estate!?!? Or if such a measure were to be introduced that would ensure they wouldn't do it!!!






[/quote]

Two suicides affecting two busy mainlines on Saturday lunchtime. That's not good! (second being Ealing Bway)

Or for the six hours whilst they are debating whether to jump from the Avonmouth Bridge. Think of the misery (and in many cases financial loss where people missed planes or ferries as a result) that caused many thousands of people.

Japan appears to have been known to send a bill to the family in the event of suicides:
Link: http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2002/08/18/paying-for-suic.html

"Trains don't usually stop too long after a suicide, there's rarely much damage to carriages and we rarely have to send anyone off to catch trains on different lines. In that regard, train suicides probably don't cost too much," says an employee of a commuter line. "But to make sure we can cover the costs incurred when a suicide leads to a derailment, we have to ask the bereaved families of suicide victims to compensate us. The costs are usually in the range of 100 million yen, but I've heard of a case where a family was billed 140 million yen after someone killed themselves by jumping in front of a train."

"As soon as the news hits that someone's committed suicide in one of our apartments, rents have to drop by about half or we can't get anyone else to live there," laments a Tokyo real estate agent. "In one case a few years ago, an agent sued the father of a man who slaughtered his girlfriend then killed himself in one of the agent's apartments. The agent won the case and the father ended up having to fork out a few million yen."

"We can get a room back into shape in a couple of days (after a suicide), at a cost of only a few million yen in even the worst cases," says a hotel employee. "We don't usually charge renovation costs, but if the suicide is of a famous person and the hotel's reputation is damaged, the hotel'll sue the bereaved family for whatever they're worth."

Leaving aside the issue of whether the victim's estate should compensate (and on to a less contravertial subject I hope) , I think that the TOC should pay compensation to passengers regardless of the cause of delay. 

I dislike their being able to wriggle out of payment due to "circumstances beyond the control of the railway" whether that be suicide or extreme weather or a passenger assaulting on-train staff.

Whilst it is true that the railway doesn't have complete control over these causes of delay it does have some control (witness NR's plan to cut suicides by 10% or whatever it was, or action by some TOCs to reduce the number of staff-assults) and it does have some control over the length of the incident (ie how fast the clear-up is).

The TOCs are profit-making companies and therefore respond to financial incentives.  It would be good to further incentivise the rail industry to reduce the number of suicides and their impact, to be better prepared for extreme weather and to take stronger action against the scrotes who abuse staff would it not?

As for the cry "it wouldn't be fair on the TOCs".  It would be if they knew before their franchise bid and factored it in accordingly.

Some nice ideas Tim, and we are already headed there in respect of delay refunds for any cause. All recent franchise changes have seen the introduction of "Delay/Repay" schemes, and all other franchises will migrate to the scheme when they are up for re-tendering. Delay/Repay offers compensation whatever the cause.

So with FGW, we have to wait until 2016 before we get delay compensation for any cause.

Incentivising the rail industry to reduce the incidences of "circumstances beyond the control of the railway" may work, and Delay/Repay goes some way towards that incentive. However if too much emphasis on preventing "circumstances beyond the control of the railway" is put in to future franchise specifications, TOCs will recover the costs involved in the only way they can - through the fare-box.

Don't I know it - I was on the HST ditrectly behind the one at Ealing Broadway....I really don't need to spend that long at Slough.....

But please consider that those committing suicide have mental health issues at that time - no one in their right mind would throw themselves under a train, would they?....and you can't legislate against illness.

Try somer compassion instead - especially if it were your relative - Mum, Dad, brother, sister - would you still think that way? I'm not sure I really want to know you if you do still think that....

I think current franchise will end in 2013.  There is a three year extension available but i dont know what the criteria are for that to come into effect.

Ok... Here's my two pence worth

Person A - Highflying Career - Owns Large Estate
Person B - Homeless - No Fixed Abode

So if person A commits suicide and inconviences others, your saying that there estate should be taken up by the railways as compensation. Now if Person B commits suicide and has no assests... who should pay then???

Why should the family of Person A have no entitlement over an estate whereas there is little that can be claimed off of someone who has no assests whatsoever.

I don't see how that could ever be realistic... I'm not saying I agree, nor disagree... But I am just thinking what is right for the family of the deceased as losing a loved one is hard enough surely...?!

FGW may not want it after 2013 as thats when the largest premiums are payed. I would suspect a new much longer franchise would be offered that would supersede the current one that would be too good an opportunity to miss for First to put a good bid in.

That is true Timmer, however if FirstGroup say no to the extension to wriggle out of the premiums, I would have thought the Government would be as willing to give them a new franchise as much as they would NX!

Though they would be running out of alternatives if First and NatEx were both discounted. Remember you need a decent competition to get the best price.

It would be a rather different position though, as FGW would be perfectly entitled to decline the offer, and chance their luck in a new round of bidding. Not the same as a default at all.

Only three years to go. On the initial term the franchise has passed its half way mark. Wonder whether Melksham will see an improved service before the end date. Who knows, we could end up with the Stagecoach Coffee Shop.

     

You are correct - I believe the 2013 break date is possible on either side...

Precedent would suggest Great Western Trains.  'Stagecoach' isn't used as part of the trading name in the rail franchises...

Paul

i wouldn't discount new entrants (or joint ventures involing foreign railways).

Not forgetting the possibility of Arriva GreatWestern. Travelling Chef service from a trolley, anyone? God forbid!

Arriva/Keolis perhaps, or even Transdev/Veolia? There are going to be some big changes as transport operators merge to create larger companies so it may very well be different by next round of bidding with a whole new different perspective from operators.

How about they call it A bit further west than South West Trains; or
they call it South West Trains and rename the current SWT Not quite as far West as South West Trains?