Do I have ground for complaint (Cross Country Trains)

scubaangel

Surely the modern trains - which are the ones I generally end up travelling on shouldnt be suffering from problems with their reservation systems? And if as is the case on some they know there is no way on earth theyre going to get it working on a certain train then they shouldnt even offer it?

Im only too aware that there are alot of things they cant control and it is unreasonable to complain about but there are things they can do which dont cost anything to them like asking train managers (or whatever they call them these days) to remind people that if a seat is shown as reserved they shouldnt sit in it?

uktim29

scubaangel wrote: »

And if as is the case on some they know there is no way on earth theyre going to get it working on a certain train then they shouldnt even offer it?

But what if it only went wrong once or say once a year for a day? Should they still then not offer it?

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

Yeah, they'd have to put up prices.

A 100% faultless service would cost money. Most people prefer things to be right 99/98% of the time and pay much less. For things never to go wrong prices would probably have to double, because eveything would need to be done again. We'd need new railway lines everywhere that would have to be frequently replaced to guarantee they'd never go wrong. All equipment would have to go and be replaced with new to guarantee a faultless service. So on and so forth.

If reliability and quality of service is directly proportional to the price the passenger pays, how do you explain the German, French and Scandinavian public transport systems (to name just a few)?

They're vastly cheaper than ours and vastly better; they generally run like clockwork and are clean and civilised.

You have a very simplistic view of the world. You seem to think the amount of money pumped in at one end will directly affect what comes out at the other end.

Have you never heard of the word 'efficiency'? Give one man £50 and he will spent it very wisely; give another man £100 and he will squander it and turn it into thin air in a matter of minutes.

Our public transport is unreliable and overpriced because of bad management and terrible government regulation which takes a short-term approach and allows operators to put profit before service.

scubaangel

uktim29 wrote: »

But what if it only went wrong once or say once a year for a day? Should they still then not offer it?

Of course not but for example over a period of around 9 months I was travelling from Manchester to Edinburgh every sunday evening on the same train, of those journeys I remember one on which the onboard reservations system was working, in those circumstances if I as a regular traveller knew it was going to be a) a packed train and b) there would be no reserved seats surely the company knows this too - so why offer me the chance to reserve one (free or not) at the booking stage online or even on odd occasions when I had to buy a ticket at the station just before travelling?

Again up here in cloud cuckoo land I cant help but think on long distance train journeys it would be nice if they were treated more like plane journeys - only allow the same number of people on as there are seats with those who book ahead given precidence over those who just turn up - and I know its an impractical system without huge investments but in an ideal world it would be nice wouldnt it?

uktim29

taxiphil wrote: »

If reliability and quality of service is directly proportional to the price the passenger pays, how do you explain the German, French and Scandinavian public transport systems (to name just a few)?

Yes but you said similar about Motorway Service Station costs until I explained it to you.

taxiphil wrote: »

You have a very simplistic view of the world. You seem to think the amount of money pumped in at one end will directly affect what comes out at the other end.

I'm sure you said that on the Motorway Service Station thread as well. I'm not going to spend ages going through Google to prove I'm write but I bet somewhere or other it's down to money/funding, it always is Phil.

Brooker_Dave

taxiphil wrote: »

They're vastly cheaper than ours and vastly better; they generally run like clockwork and are clean and civilised.

Like their taxis?

uktim29

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Like their taxis?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

Yes but you said similar about Motorway Service Station costs until I explained it to you.

Err, you didn't "explain" anything to me. You came out with some half-baked speculative theory that Motorway Services in the UK might have higher land/rent costs. You also speculated that maybe European ones don't have to open 24 hours (which is actually incorrect in the case of most European countries).

You provided nothing to back up these theories - and even admitted yourself these were "guesses off the top of your head".

Even if your theory about motorway services was true, how is it analogous to the cost/reliability of trains?

Are you saying railways have higher land/rent costs in the UK than in Europe, and that's why our system is less reliable and more expensive? Do enlighten me with your knowledge! Because I was under the impression that our railways and stations were owned by Network Rail which is state owned.

Motorway services and rail systems are completely different economic models. The railway system is complex and political, and I really don't think you know the first thing about it.

uktim29 wrote: »

I'm not going to spend ages going through Google to prove I'm write

Once again we see how you routinely criticise others for failing to back up their allegations with hard evidence, but we're supposed to accept your wild, vague, sweeping, speculative theories as argument-winners.

If you knew you were "write" (right) you wouldn't have to spend "ages going through Google", would you? You'd have the knowledge to hand.

uktim29 wrote: »

I bet somewhere or other it's down to money/funding, it always is Phil.

Stop it! Your level of insight and business acumen is making me dizzy!

Go back and read my earlier post and give it some more thought. It's not about how much money goes in to a system, it's about how wisely that money is spent.

Billions have been pumped into the UK rail network in the form of massive government subsidies (our taxes) and spiralling ticket prices, but the system is so chaotic and badly managed that we never see improvements. Any economist will tell you how these billions have been p*ssed up the wall.

uktim29

taxiphil wrote: »

Once again we see how you routinely criticise others for failing to back up their allegations with hard evidence, but we're supposed to accept your wild, vague, sweeping, speculative theories as argument-winners.

I got what I wrote about MSA's from the BBC site & an old collegue confimred. Is the BBC wild, vague, sweeping & speculative?

sam93_2

I get the feeling this thread has come to an argument. With uktim29 at the heart of most of them. uktim29 do you spend all day on these boards, you seem to post hell of a lot of posts.

Thanks taxiphil and Scubaangel . I am glad some people see the complaint as worthwhile.

Those who say my argument is petty - why are you spending so long on here saying so, and starting your own petty arguments?

And whoever said I should stand the whole journey. Why should I??