My local station has had signs up on the touch in points saying something along the lines of "please check trains before buying ticket due to cancellations and delays" for weeks (on the Thameslink line as well as it has coincidentally been an even greater piece of shite than usual during the Southern strikes). I'm guessing they wouldn't refund in those circumstances?

Eventually (2020s) TfL will be taking over all the London and home counties non-express rail franchises - well they will be tendered out to a company by TfL like the London Overground and London buses are, but TfL will call the shots and enforce standards or the route will be retendered - even the Tories admit this is better than the current system.

This is partly why buses in London work so much better than even those immediately beyond the boundary - yes it's still nominally private but a public body controls the funds, so a more profitable route with tons of commuters can to an extent subsidise one that is perhaps used less and more by people with free passes, etc., whereas all-private bus companies are always cutting routes on a whim when they aren't meeting profit targets.

Edit to the above:

Apparently that **** Chris Grayling has put the 'brakes' on that plan:

https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2016...paign-for.html

My station has both Southern and Thameslink, no signs at my station. I did a claim the other day. It will be interesting to see if they pay up.

Or with a Labour government for that matter IMO. But, it's more to do with investment, rather than privatization/nationalization.

UK governments, over the last few decades, have taken a minimalist approach to railway investment long before privatization. That's why we are decades behind countries like France, Germany, Italy and Spain in terms of investment, not to mention Japan.

The problem we have got here is a union issue. IMO, that won't be solved by awarding the franchise to another TOC or by re-nationalization.

Southern have been appalling for a long time - way before the current strikes, as are Thameslink, and First Capital Connect before them.

It's no coincidence that TfL raised customer satisfaction from below 50% to above 90%, virtually eliminated delays and raised passenger numbers exponentially when they took over and turned 'Silverlink Metro' into London Overground. That line used to be like a ghost train running once an hour with deserted, poorly maintained stations - it's unrecognisable.

Why? Because they have a model that works, whereas private-only operators are all about the cost-cutting and the profit margins, to the detriment of passengers' journeys and indeed their lives.

I'd say it was in this case, but I made the decision around about in 1990/1991 never to have to commute into London with the past, present and continuing situation. It's just not worth the hassle, strikes or not. With the going rates, I might consider it for say £75k/year.

That's because there has been huge investment in that part of the network, partly due to the 2012 Olympics.

Nothing to do with 'union issues' AFAIK.

My company has warned that anyone who misses work during the drivers' strike risks being disciplined and possibly losing their job. The company allows remote working but hate it, as having people in the office "to answer the phones" is deemed more important than employees' safety or comfort. Yes, I'm looking for another job.

Disgusted with the way staff seem to prioritise packing the train as full as possible over customer safety - encouraging passengers to "squeeze" onto obviously overcrowded trains and on more than one occasion I've seen them tell off people who obviously needed a seat (elderly or pregnant) for sitting on the floor and taking up "too much" room! Yet they don't enforce bans on bikes during "peak time" nor do they stop you taking on enormous wheeled suitcases that can take up as much space as 1-2 people ...

No, it's to do with a succesful running model - TfL collects fares and is in charge overall, tendering out the running of services to a company that can be fired if they don't meet standards.

London Overground now comprises many lines, some of which go nowhere near Stratford - they pretty much all have a better service that nearby routes run by private companies, but then you wouldn't know this if you don't use public transport.

This franchise has FAILED and is not delivering what the customers and the government has paid for. The franchise needs to be taken from them (legally of course or they will sue) and anyone else could do a better job than the current incompetent money grabbing shower that is southern rail.

The southeastern train service is criminal as well. They call it a train service but I spend more time on a bus at extortionate prices.

The DfT (formerly the Strategic Rail Authority) can suspend/re-award a TOC franchise, not just TfL and they have done so on more than one occasion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southe..._the_franchise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...t_Coast#Demise

BIB. Bit of a generalization there. I do use public transport in London from time to time, I don't live far away. I don't even have a car. The investment regarding the 2012 Olympics wasn't all aimed at lines going nearby or directly to Stratford. It was about increasing throughput in and out of London due to the increased numbers of passengers. The Thameslink Programme being an example and why the re-modelling of London Bridge was delayed until after the Olympics were over.

ETA. Last time I used Silverlink Metro, they were running 3 trains/hour each way on the North London Line (Richmond to Stratford IIRC), before London Overground took over.

It's similarly as bad in the US too, their train network is many years behind the countries you mentioned too.

12 car DOO trains with no other staff on board is a huge safety risk.

It will be even worse still if there are driverless trains with no staff on the train at all in the future.

I must have missed the news reports of all the safety incidents from DOO trains. If it was as bad as the unions claim - we'd know about all the incidents that have happened. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.

Sooner they get rid of the drivers the better.

That is why the whole franchise system is deeply flawed and doesn't operate in the public interest. The TOCs have no incentive to improve services or increase capacity. They get rewarded for failure.


The dispute is about passenger safety on trains longer than two carriages. The point being that if there is an incident on such a train there would be no member of staff on board to assist.

Which bit if I may ask, as there are quite a few different types of rolling stock in use on the network. Most of the older stock is going to be replaced by 2018, except on the Moorgate route, which is in progress.

If they replace all our jobs with robots and computers there won't be anyone left who could afford to use public transport.

The irony from passengers complaining about these strikes and the bad service generally do not realise that in all likelihood not having these staff aboard trains would cause even greater delays when the driver is not confident to depart the station.

The Guards are STAYING on the train and the number of staff will INCREASE, so what is the problem?

And what if any incident incapacitated the guard? How many incidents have there been where the guard was essential?

At present the guard has responsibility for operating the doors, so if the guard is not present the train has to be cancelled.

Under the new system the driver would operate the doors meaning that if the on-board staff do not turn up the service can still be run.

Our service improvements and what we are doing to solve them


That means there is no guarantee of an "on board supervisor" on the train at all and no guarantee of an increase in staff on the train and in your quote any such increase in on board staff is "claimed" rather than a statement of fact.

What part of that do you not understand?