Transport: Plan for rail league tables flawed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The rail regulator's plan to introduce league tables which would rate operators on the accuracy and impartiality of their customer information has floundered because of "flaws" in the investigation.
Earlier this year John Swift QC, the rail regulator sent hundreds of researchers out to pose as passengers and identify the apparent failure of train operators to furnish travellers with "correct" train information.
More than 5,000 inquiries at booking offices and via passengers' phone lines were made by investigators to check how far sales staff provided information about alternative routes and ticket prices. By June, Mr Swift was confidently predicting that the results would be released in "a few weeks".
Three months later and there is little sign of his office producing any tables. In fact, officials cannot promise the results will be out by November adding that "it takes time to validate the methodology".
The problem for Mr Swift is that his investigators have unwittingly asked the wrong questions. Train operators, who feared that the study may uncover serious irregularities, have had a field day overturning the regulator's results.
First, there was the use of English. Train firms pointed out that when a "customer" asked for the "fastest train to London", booking clerks were entitled to offer the next available ride to London - which would arrive before the quickest service. Mr Swift backed down.
Another problem arose when researchers asked for the cheapest fare - they marked down companies who did not offer Apex tickets. But operators pointed out that when these advance fares are sold out clerks have no option but to offer Supersaver tickets.
Mr Swift has also been forced to concede that many of the investigators were inadequately informed and were unaware that on certain days where because of high demand there are restrictions placed on tickets by operators. With the results now likely to be released more than 10 months after the first investigation, train companies will argue that Mr Swift's study does not reflect today's privatised network.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments