Southern's Timetable Reduction

[cromptonnut]

Quite. A union should be there to serve the needs of its members, not its own (barely) hidden agenda. Pathetic really. As always, just my humble opinion...

 

It wasn't until a year ago that being in a union was ever really an option for me, and I must admit I do wonder what I am actually getting for my money out of it.

 

Of course, unions are political tools (of the left) v the corporate tools (of the right) and there will always be conflict but I have no interest in the political side (both sides) of the argument, I just want to be able to do my job to the best of my ability and do whatever I can to help people travel to wherever they are going.

 

Unfortunately it's the political interference that's causing all of this mess in the first place.

[cromptonnut]

I think I have made this point before - its all very easy as a frustrated traveller to relieve your anger by blaming the staff you encounter on your journey, yet they too are human beings. If they have been shouted at, hassled, verbally abused by other travellers - or as in the case at Southern - feel as though management is being nasty, vindictive, ignoring their opinions, ram roading things through without decent consultation, while at the same time being in a union that seems to be positively loving being as obstructive and militant as possible, is it that much of a surprise that the staff are not at their best

 

Of course, we are the first people they see when they enter the station, look at the board to see their train is cancelled - again - and we're the target of their frustration.  I usually let them rant and wait for the inevitable "no you can't possibly know what it's like" when I say I understand their frustration, then tell them that my wife still commutes, and gets caught up in all the disruption as well so yes I do know, and not only do I hear about it all day here I get it all evening when I'm not at work and come to pick her up from another delayed train - that little bit of humour usually breaks the rant as people begin to realise that we also travel by train to and from work here and on days off for pleasure and can't even claim for the disruption as we're using our free staff passes (not for commuting of course, we still pay £3500 a year for my wife's season ticket).  Then I finally get out of them where they're trying to get to and using my knowledge work out alternatives for them and upgrade their ticket to a different route if that's an option for them so they then leave on their way still frustrated but at least I've helped and they will get to their destination even if not quite when they were planning to.

 

Only to then be moaned at by my colleagues for being "too helpful" (I think partly because it shows their lack of care up) and taking too long to do what I'm supposed to be there to do... I can't win.

[roundhouse]

Our late running short formation service is now sitting at East Croydon awaiting a driver.

Train still rammed even after many got off people still can't get on. A great start to a week that's going to have two days of very few rush hour trains!

[The Stationmaster]

Quite. A union should be there to serve the needs of its members, not its own (barely) hidden agenda. Pathetic really. As always, just my humble opinion...

 

When I was a TSSA member I paid the political levy and didn't mind doing so as it was a small amount and it meant I had a vote.  But if they had tried to tell me who to vote for there would have been major ructions on my part and letters to the Journal (the union's rag masquerading as a newspaper).  Their job is representing their members not playing cheapskate politics and stealing our votes - when I voted in the union's ballot for Labour Party leader and deputy both of my candidates came second but the block vote they cast was equal to 100% of the membership who paid the political levy, so my vote was misused.  Sorry but cheapo tricks like that put me right off them and one 'battle' they had been fighting for nearly 3 years was solved for me by my (Tory) MP in a matter of weeks - to my advantage (a saving in Income Tax)  - while everybody else whose cases the union was 'fighting' got nowhere.

 

Don't get me wrong because I'm strongly in favour of unions to help their members but they should not be playing politics and when they did I was quite happy to do a bit of strike breaking (not that I'd recommend a 12 hour day passenger shunting and hanging engines on and off trains).

[jjb1970]

Unions have their place, for people in safety critical roles and/or where there are serious potential personal liabilities then union membership is useful insurance but I get fed up of the political games of some unions. If there is a genuine safety issue then not only has a union got the right to raise it, they'd be failing in their duty if they didn't. Ditto acting for their members in the event of them suffering stress or losing their jobs as a result of bullying, failure by management to observe company procedures or failure by a company to exercise it's duty of care towards staff. However when they dream of toppling governments and pursue dreams of their own version of utopia and seem more concerned with these dreams than the day to day job of protecting members interests (which may well mean securing the best transition terms when new technology means fewer staff are needed) then something has gone wrong. I was a union when I was in the merchant navy and in electricity generation as the potential legal consequences if I made an error were rather serious but I basically treated my membership as nothing more than legal insurance. Which in a sense is part of the problem as in companies I worked for most people had a similar attitude which meant the union agenda could easily be hijacked by a vocal minority of political barracks room lawyers.

[Coryton]

Unions have their place, for people in safety critical roles and/or where there are serious potential personal liabilities then union membership is useful insurance but I get fed up of the political games of some unions. If there is a genuine safety issue then not only has a union got the right to raise it, they'd be failing in their duty if they didn't. Ditto acting for their members in the event of them suffering stress or losing their jobs as a result of bullying, failure by management to observe company procedures or failure by a company to exercise it's duty of care towards staff. However when they dream of toppling governments and pursue dreams of their own version of utopia and seem more concerned with these dreams than the day to day job of protecting members interests (which may well mean securing the best transition terms when new technology means fewer staff are needed) then something has gone wrong. I was a union when I was in the merchant navy and in electricity generation as the potential legal consequences if I made an error were rather serious but I basically treated my membership as nothing more than legal insurance. Which in a sense is part of the problem as in companies I worked for most people had a similar attitude which meant the union agenda could easily be hijacked by a vocal minority of political barracks room lawyers.

 

It would be more simple if the TOCs/government were actually saying that the dispute was about reducing jobs no longer needed due to new technology, but officially it's all about providing better service to passengers with exactly the same number of staff on the same pay.

 

Even if the most recent 3-point summary I saw from Southern said in one point that all trains would run with two members of staff exactly as before and in another point that the changes would reduce disruption because trains could run without a guard if one wasn't available...

[jjb1970]

 

 

Even if the most recent 3-point summary I saw from Southern said in one point that all trains would run with two members of staff exactly as before and in another point that the changes would reduce disruption because trains could run without a guard if one wasn't available...

 

Those two points are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Southern may well intend to retain the same number of staff but have the capability to avoid cancelling or delaying trains if there a member of staff is absent.

[John M Upton]

The biggest issue for me is that Union's seem to think they are in charge of and run the railways, they don't and they don't like it when someone tells them this either!!!  At the end of the day an employee takes his orders from his employer but unfortunately there is a die hard group around who seem to think that the Union (of whatever flavour) are the ones running the company.

 

Whilst on a local level Union's do have some advantages and do some good work, nationally where the big ego's thrive, they are becoming an ever increasing power crazed disaster doing more harm to their members in the long term than good.

 

Personally I have always seen Union membership as the old adage of the world's most expensive diary and I am no longer a member of the RMT and refuse to have anything to do with them or any other Union.

[The Stationmaster]

It would be more simple if the TOCs/government were actually saying that the dispute was about reducing jobs no longer needed due to new technology, but officially it's all about providing better service to passengers with exactly the same number of staff on the same pay.

 

Even if the most recent 3-point summary I saw from Southern said in one point that all trains would run with two members of staff exactly as before and in another point that the changes would reduce disruption because trains could run without a guard if one wasn't available...

 

Of course the daft thing is that in reality it has little or nothing to do with new technology beyond CCTV systems and possibly some mirrors although they might be using GPS controlled selective door opening (I wonder who safety validated that?).  DOO(P) working has been around for a long time and 'the Southern' was always seen as a tough nut to crack from a consultation and IR viewpoint (just read Alan Williams' column in some past issues of 'Modern Railways').  The problem now is that some clown at DafT has got hold of some badly informed report about rail industry costs and thinks he's being very clever by cracking the whip and telling franchisees etc to get on with something which is well beyond his area of responsibility and a long way outside whatever competence he might have.

 

We then get some other idiot rabbiting on about 'new technology' because the words sound good and it makes it look as if they are moving with the times and even one of this past weekend's 'papers picked up the new technology theme and ascribed all sorts of nonsense to it.  There has always been technological change on the railway and there probably always will be (if the Govt can afford it) but to dress up this dispute in that cloak is misleading to say the least - it is no more than a change in operational working practices which happens to avoid the need to provide a Guard on a passenger train.

[Fay Singpoint]

 And those who do let you in to the window when asked but make it clear that you're unwelcome, tut etc. 

 

The best reason I was given by someone when I asked them if they minded moving to the window seat to save the fuss of them getting up to let me sit down, was..... " I don't want to site next to the window just in case we have a crash and I can' t get out" !!!! 

[Gwiwer]

I know it's irritating and annoying ..... But really - "a victim"?

 

 

In this context

 

 

a person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune or ill-treatment.

 

 

stiff upper lip

This becomes harder to maintain the longer the problems persist.  It is rather hard to maintain when attempting to get home one night and being faced with the prospect instead of arriving next morning having paid rather a lot to a taxi driver along the way.

[phil-b259]

[/size]

This becomes harder to maintain the longer the problems persist. It is rather hard to maintain when attempting to get home one night and being faced with the prospect instead of arriving next morning having paid rather a lot to a taxi driver along the way.

As I understand things if you are left stranded by the failure of a TOC to run any particular service then they have an obligation to pay for a taxi to get you there. Recent examples I recall reading about in the control logs included a lady who due to a cancelled train would miss the last train of the day to Barnstable (a taxi would be ordered for the lady when she got to Exeter by FGW with the bill to be charged to Southern) and another person who missed the last train to Manchester (again taxi arranged from Wolverhampton IIRC).

 

Also if Southerns cancellation means you miss your pre booked super advance ticket on Virgin then Virgin must let you travel on the next available service at no extra charge.

[caradoc]

I joined the TSSA when I started on BR in 1978. Towards the end of my career I seriously considered leaving the Union, because of their political posturing and their belief that they have the right to instruct me how to vote, both in General Elections and Labour Party leadership elections. I belonged to the Union to negotiate my pay and conditions, and to assist me in the event of any disciplinary issues, and for nothing else.   

[Coryton]

Those two points are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Southern may well intend to retain the same number of staff but have the capability to avoid cancelling or delaying trains if there a member of staff is absent.

 

Perhaps I'm being pedantic here but as I wrote them the two points are incompatible because you if you run trains in emergencies without a guard then you're not running all trains with a guard. It would be consistent to say that the current staff numbers would be maintained and all trains would be intended to run with a guard.

 

Of course the daft thing is that in reality it has little or nothing to do with new technology beyond CCTV systems and possibly some mirrors although they might be using GPS controlled selective door opening (I wonder who safety validated that?). 

 

There has always been technological change on the railway and there probably always will be (if the Govt can afford it) but to dress up this dispute in that cloak is misleading to say the least - it is no more than a change in operational working practices which happens to avoid the need to provide a Guard on a passenger train.

 

Quite. And the story from Southern doesn't seem terribly consistent. On the one hand the unions are blocking the introduction of new technology which is essential to the smooth and efficient running of the railway, and on the other it's a petty squabble about who gets to press the button to shut the doors. You can't have it both ways.

 

As I understand things if you are left stranded by the failure of a TOC to run any particular service then they have an obligation to pay for a taxi to get you there. Recent examples I recall reading about in the control logs included a lady who due to a cancelled train would miss the last train of the day to Barnstable (a taxi would be ordered for the lady when she got to Exeter by FGW with the bill to be charged to Southern) and another person who missed the last train to Manchester (again taxi arranged from Wolverhampton IIRC).

 

Always assuming when you get to the station you need the taxi from you can find someone to arrange it, and they can get through to the offending TOC to get permission to charge the taxi to them.

 

It's also never been clear to me if this only applies to circumstances within the TOC's control, or even if the delays/cancellations were due to trespassers, bad weather etc.

 

Or whether it applies if you split ticket. My understanding is that you're covered for missing the booked train on advance tickets even if you hold separate tickets for the train that was delayed/cancelled and for the connection, but I don't know if that also applies to a taxi home if you miss a connection onto the last train of the day on separate tickets - though when I have needed a taxi home I don't think I've ever been asked to show that I had a ticket at all.

[Gwiwer]

As I understand things if you are left stranded by the failure of a TOC to run any particular service then they have an obligation to pay for a taxi to get you there. Recent examples I recall reading about in the control logs included a lady who due to a cancelled train would miss the last train of the day to Barnstable (a taxi would be ordered for the lady when she got to Exeter by FGW with the bill to be charged to Southern) and another person who missed the last train to Manchester (again taxi arranged from Wolverhampton IIRC).

 

Also if Southerns cancellation means you miss your pre booked super advance ticket on Virgin then Virgin must let you travel on the next available service at no extra charge.

 

 

Correct.  But not all stations are staffed especially late at night.  Try finding staff at Worthing for example when you are turfed off the final train of the evening (which terminates there) but had hoped to reach Littlehampton on a train which failed to run.  You can get a taxi but you will be significantly out of pocket unless and until Southern reimburse you.  

 

My understanding of the ticketing conditions is that if you hold a train-specific or operator-specific ticket and your train does not run / your TOC cannot provide the service then it is required of any other TOC operating the same route to accept your ticket for travel.  If your original TOC offers a later service which does not suit your needs you can ask another TOC if they will accept you but they are not obliged to.  In my particular case I held train-specific tickets for Southern services which were cancelled, all the reasonable alternatives on the Victoria - Brighton line were also cancelled and I therefore asked the GatEx staff, as GatEx is equally a part of the GTR business, to allow me to use a Victoria - Brighton train which they now operate but which used to be part of the Southern timetable.  I was not only told rudely and very firmly that I had to wait for a Southern train but was threatened with police being summoned to remove me if I failed to walk away from their barrier.  I felt both were entirely inappropriate responses.  With many people milling around waiting for anything towards Sussex to actually run the GatEx trains were leaving almost empty.  Instead of reaching Brighton in just under an hour I was stuck at Victoria for well over two hours until something painted green finally ran.  By which time I had well and truly missed the last connection along the coast out of Brighton ..... 

[cromptonnut]

Unfortunately by reducing the argument to "who presses a button" they are promoting the idea that it's petty and it's about much more than that, it's safety.  The theory is that without waiting for the guard to ding-ding and the driver to ding-ding back you can save maybe 10 seconds which over a long journey can retrieve several minutes and make theoretically faster journeys.  Unfortunately as anyone who travels by train knows there are places like East Croydon and Victoria/London Bridge approaches where you are in stop-start signal to signal journeys wasting minutes that are actually just padded minutes in the timetable so less trains appear to be running late.

 

There is no "new technology" - driver only is not new, it's also not appropriate for many of the longer Southern journeys although the new 700's are DOO and many stations are not DOO equipped.  If this entire argument with the guards (who are fighting for their jobs and your safety) was solved tomorrow, there still wouldn't be DOO because the equipment isn't there at the smaller stations and neither is the budget or manpower from Network Rail to implement it.

 

It's the same as this 'station host' concept - it's not new technology, it's just using an ipad or similar to sell tickets rather than a computer, with reduced service and facilities, handling potentially large amounts of cash in an insecure environement with a lot of potential lone working particularly late at night, and not being able to do as much as we can now from the safety and security of the ticket office.  I see benefit in the "host" concept at busy stations, as someone that can help customers with simple tickets or show you how to use the ticket machine, but only in addition to a manned ticket office. 

 

Whenever people moan about the strikes 'taking us back to the 1970s' I remind them that most trains, and a lot of buses, had a second member of staff on board.

[Coryton]

I was not only told rudely and very firmly that I had to wait for a Southern train but was threatened with police being summoned to remove me if I failed to walk away from their barrier.  I felt both were entirely inappropriate responses.  With many people milling around waiting for anything towards Sussex to actually run the GatEx trains were leaving almost empty.  Instead of reaching Brighton in just under an hour I was stuck at Victoria for well over two hours until something painted green finally ran.  By which time I had well and truly missed the last connection along the coast out of Brighton ..... 

 

I have no personal experience with Transport Focus, but from what I've seen on their web site they would be very interested to hear of your experiences, particularly the threat of summoning the police.

 

I was once physically assaulted by a member of barrier staff because I eventually walked past him onto the platform after he refused to listen to my explanation of why I felt entitled to use a peak train with an off-peak ticket and just kept telling me I had no choice but to pay lots more money. He grabbed me and marched me back behind the barrier line, where I was then told to go to the enquiry kiosk where they agreed with my point of view and endorsed my ticket straight away to use the train I wanted to.

 

It would have been a bit easier if the person on the gateline had sent me there in the first place rather than insisting that I had no choice but to pay up, and I do not think that physically assaulting passengers is legal or appropriate behaviour.

[Coryton]

There is no "new technology" - driver only is not new, it's also not appropriate for many of the longer Southern journeys although the new 700's are DOO and many stations are not DOO equipped.  

 

What equipment do stations need for DOO with a train that is equipped with cameras to monitor the doors?

 

It's the same as this 'station host' concept - it's not new technology, it's just using an ipad or similar to sell tickets rather than a computer, with reduced service and facilities, handling potentially large amounts of cash in an insecure environement with a lot of potential lone working particularly late at night, and not being able to do as much as we can now from the safety and security of the ticket office.  I see benefit in the "host" concept at busy stations, as someone that can help customers with simple tickets or show you how to use the ticket machine, but only in addition to a manned ticket office. 

 

 

I recently experienced a hotel that had done away with the check-in desk in favour of people wandering around the lobby with tablets.

 

It was NOT an improvement.

There is no "new technology" - driver only is not new, it's also not appropriate for many of the longer Southern journeys although the new 700's are DOO and many stations are not DOO equipped.  If this entire argument with the guards (who are fighting for their jobs and your safety) was solved tomorrow, there still wouldn't be DOO because the equipment isn't there at the smaller stations and neither is the budget or manpower from Network Rail to implement it.

 

It's the same as this 'station host' concept - it's not new technology, it's just using an ipad or similar to sell tickets rather than a computer, with reduced service and facilities, handling potentially large amounts of cash in an insecure environement with a lot of potential lone working particularly late at night, and not being able to do as much as we can now from the safety and security of the ticket office.  I see benefit in the "host" concept at busy stations, as someone that can help customers with simple tickets or show you how to use the ticket machine, but only in addition to a manned ticket office. 

 

Whenever people moan about the strikes 'taking us back to the 1970s' I remind them that most trains, and a lot of buses, had a second member of staff on board.

 

[The Stationmaster]

As I understand things if you are left stranded by the failure of a TOC to run any particular service then they have an obligation to pay for a taxi to get you there. Recent examples I recall reading about in the control logs included a lady who due to a cancelled train would miss the last train of the day to Barnstable (a taxi would be ordered for the lady when she got to Exeter by FGW with the bill to be charged to Southern) and another person who missed the last train to Manchester (again taxi arranged from Wolverhampton IIRC).

 

Also if Southerns cancellation means you miss your pre booked super advance ticket on Virgin then Virgin must let you travel on the next available service at no extra charge't 

 

There are a  number of complaints locally about GWR doing this - or rather not doing things in a sensible way.  However my son (and several other people) was left at our junction a few Saturdays ago when the last branch train didn't wait for the 2 minute late train from Padd - that in my view is a major disciplinary for the Driver involved (but I bet it won't be).

[cromptonnut]

Coryton, on 06 Sept 2016 - 10:26, said:

I was once physically assaulted by a member of barrier staff because I eventually walked past him onto the platform after he refused to listen to my explanation of why I felt entitled to use a peak train with an off-peak ticket and just kept telling me I had no choice but to pay lots more money. He grabbed me and marched me back behind the barrier line, where I was then told to go to the enquiry kiosk where they agreed with my point of view and endorsed my ticket straight away to use the train I wanted to

 

There are some "off peak" tickets available for longer journeys during what is normally considered a peak time.  Whenever I sell these I make sure the customer has the printout from the journey planner of the connections, which clearly states that off peak tickets may be used on this journey.  Not excusing the barrier guy's behaviour at all but they can't be expected to know every possible journey combination and that your ticket was indeed valid, but it sounds like he didn't handle the situation very well.    However I know a lot of people do buy off-peak tickets and use them on services they know they can't use them on, so either way it's a tough job.

There are a  number of complaints locally about GWR doing this - or rather not doing things in a sensible way.  However my son (and several other people) was left at our junction a few Saturdays ago when the last branch train didn't wait for the 2 minute late train from Padd - that in my view is a major disciplinary for the Driver involved (but I bet it won't be).

 

Goes back to "right time railway" - the company is fined if their train runs late (even if it doesn't impact any other services) so it probably worked out cheaper to pay for a couple of taxis than the fine for running late.

 

I don't like it much either.

[The Stationmaster]

What equipment do stations need for DOO with a train that is equipped with cameras to monitor the doors?

 

 

I recently experienced a hotel that had done away with the check-in desk in favour of people wandering around the lobby with tablets.

 

It was NOT an improvement.

First of all it isn't necessarily just something related to stations - there are other factors as well so, for example, a route might need resignalling and radio provision (to the correct standard) to make it DOO(P) compliant so it can possibly involve the infrastructure owner in big money, for little or no tangible return as I doubt they can increase the access charge fora DOO(P) train.  So makinga  route DOO(P) compliant could actually cost DafT a lot more than paying the wages of a few Guards as part of a franchise cost, and DafT definitely aren't competent to rewrite the conditions and I doubt if RSSB are either.  So all just the sort of things the incompetents at DafT don't know about.  

And are door cameras properly safely validated for DOO(P) operation?  - I don't know so it's just a question on my part.  (same applies to GPS involved with SDO - it would require a much higher level of accuracy than 'standard' GPS so has that been properly safety validated?

 

The simple fact is that, as far as I'm aware, there have been no operational safety incidents where DOO(P) has been a contributory factor to a more serious outcome than would have been the case if there had been a Guard on the train (although obviously I'm always ready to take note of any evidence to the contrary).

[roundhouse]

Connections are coincidents these days.

 

I have had similar experiences around the country where a late train is pulling into the platform with a cross platform change yet the platform staff will signal the connecting train off and the doors shut as you are crossing the platform. One particular case was at Warrington Bank Quay a few years go and the next North Wales coast train was well over an hour later.

 

I can understand why connections are not held on a dense service such as on the Brighton mainline but normally you miss a connection and the next one is often cancelled these days.

[The Stationmaster]

Connections are coincidents these days.

 

I have had similar experiences around the country where a late train is pulling into the platform with a cross platform change yet the platform staff will signal the connecting train off and the doors shut as you are crossing the platform. One particular case was at Warrington Bank Quay a few years go and the next North Wales coast train was well over an hour later.

 

I can understand why connections are not held on a dense service such as on the Brighton mainline but normally you miss a connection and the next one is often cancelled these days.

 

The situation always used to be that with service frequency of 30 minutes or better connections would not be maintained - however that is a rather blunt instrument as it doesn't take any account of connections out of connections (but of course that one can go on forever).  With longer frequency than 30 minutes there should be a 'Maintenance of connections' policy statement although I don't know if they're still produced and they basically specify how long connections may be held (and usually it isn't very long except for 'last' trains or where services are very infrequent and there are no other factors such as pathing and stock turnrounds.

 

Our branch seems likely to move to a 30 minute frequency next and the commuter group is at last waking up to the warning i sounded months ago - that connections will not be held (because it would delay back workings and cause them to miss connections). 

[Gwiwer]

Anyone bothered about connections in the current environment should attempt to reach St. Ives by train ..... 

[Coryton]

There are some "off peak" tickets available for longer journeys during what is normally considered a peak time.  Whenever I sell these I make sure the customer has the printout from the journey planner of the connections, which clearly states that off peak tickets may be used on this journey.  Not excusing the barrier guy's behaviour at all but they can't be expected to know every possible journey combination and that your ticket was indeed valid, but it sounds like he didn't handle the situation very well.    However I know a lot of people do buy off-peak tickets and use them on services they know they can't use them on, so either way it's a tough job.

 

The ticket wasn't actually valid, but I had a reason that I felt I should have been let on the train anyway (and which the person on the enquiry desk agreed with straight away).

 

I completely understand that the person on the barrier might not have had the authority to let me through, but he could have said so and directed me to the enquiries kiosk straight away where they did have the authority.

 

Or he could have (incorrectly, as it turned out) told me that my reason wasn't valid.

 

But instead he refused to acknowledge that I was even trying to give an explanation and just kept telling me to pay up.

 

Even if all this was by the book, are barrier staff authorised to physically assault passengers who cross the barrier without permission, rather than calling the police?

 

So while I'm sure working on the barriers isn't a terribly pleasant job, I'm afraid that I have neither understanding nor sympathy for his position.

 

Also, while I'm sure you're right to arm passengers with evidence that their valid ticket actually is valid, it's unfortunate that it's necessary. I've thought for a while that it's a bit odd (to say the least) that passengers can be penalised for making an honest mistake with tickets but we can't expect staff to understand ticket validity fully because it's so complicated, and there seems to be no penalty for train companies who don't train their staff properly even on non obscure tickets.

 

I've had a guard attempt to excess a perfectly valid (and non obscure) ticket because they misinterpreted a change in the rules - and they managed to incorrectly excess several other passengers. You might be able to guess how interested the train company was when I attempted to report this. It all seems a bit one-sided.