On Apr 5, 12:52*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

It's an interesting area of discussion where the moral responsibility of
the railway lies in a situation where control has been wrested from it
by some external contingency. Clearly enough, when the railway itself
goes pear-shaped, that's where responsibility lies, but otherwise?

I'd say it was morally the responsibility of a company to assist its
customers as far as is reasonably feasible in the event of being
unable, for whatever reason, to deliver the advertised service. At
the very least this would extend to a refund for services not rendered
and information on where else those services may be obtained, and
would also extend to the provision of adequate information.

To use another example, if a hotel was closed due to being subject to
an arson attack, it might be reasonable for the hotel to have a member
of staff on hand (or at least a notice saying how to contact one there
and then, perhaps at a nearby hotel of the same chain) who could give
out information on where else they might be able to stay, as such
information is often hard to come by late at night.

In situations where a civil emergency is going on (say an earthquake)
what can be done is rather limited, of course. But we aren't talking
about that, we're talking about the closure of part (not all) of the
railway system.

Neil