"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[Deepgreen]

Pot, Kettle, Green

Mr 'I've worked 37 years on the railway so I know what I'm talking about' :roll:

Point me, please, to where I have been rude, arrogant or dismissive of others. I make a point of welcoming all views, and only refer to my past to demonstrate that I do have some experience, BUT admit that I am always learning.

 

[AlterEgo]

The issue is the suggestion that the person who has passengers' safety in his hands has made a serious mistake. Yes it happens, we all know that, but that doesn't make it good practice to advertise it. A pilot avoiding disaster is exactly what people expect them to do, and is good PR. A train driver failing to stop at a red signal is not good PR, and comes with the suggestion that passengers may have been put in danger. There is no value whatsoever in giving that information.

The example you offer above still makes it pretty clear the driver has cocked up.

No, it doesn't make it clear the driver cocked up at all. It says the train passed a red signal.

Likewise, a go around may be experienced on an aircraft because the aircraft was not stable on approach. That's often due to pilot error - too high, misjudged, not on glideslope. It is about how you say things - that could be explained as "we weren't happy with the approach so, safety first, we will rejoin the queue and have a second go".

 

[Deepgreen]

No, it doesn't make it clear the driver cocked up at all. It says the train passed a red signal.

Likewise, a go around may be experienced on an aircraft because the aircraft was not stable on approach. That's often due to pilot error - too high, misjudged, not on glideslope. It is about how you say things - that could be explained as "we weren't happy with the approach so, safety first, we will rejoin the queue and have a second go".

Quite - a SPAD is not necessarily a result of driver error. Local and unforeseen low adhesion, for example, can be a factor.

 

[Chris M]

The issue is the suggestion that the person who has passengers' safety in his hands has made a serious mistake. Yes it happens, we all know that, but that doesn't make it good practice to advertise it. A pilot avoiding disaster is exactly what people expect them to do, and is good PR. A train driver failing to stop at a red signal is not good PR, and comes with the suggestion that passengers may have been put in danger. There is no value whatsoever in giving that information.

The example you offer above still makes it pretty clear the driver has cocked up.

Not to me it doesn't. "It is being investigated" to me means the cause is not certain - it could be the fault of the driver (e.g. going too fast), the signaller (e..g put the signal back in front of the driver), the signals (e.g. changing without signaller's input), the track (e.g. inadequate friction), the train (e.g. brake failure), another driver (e.g. they passed a conflicting signal at danger). or maybe something I've not thought of.
You could make this clearer by noting the driver is unable to continue "as a precaution" or something if you want.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, it doesn't make it clear the driver cocked up at all. It says the train passed a red signal

Precisely.

It might be a Cat A SPAD, or it might not. It doesn't imply the driver is to blame, it implies that there is an investigation. And regardless of what category a SPAD is, the general starting point is to take the driver off duty whilst the investigation starts.

"Operational incident" just sounds like the TOC is trying to cover something up.

 

[6Gman]

One aspect that comes out of this debate is that the phrase "operational incident" has a particular meaning for rail staff, who therefore understand what has happened, and who regard the phrase as a full enough explanation.

However, to most passengers, the phrase means nothing, and just sounds like the sort of mealy mouthed term that many industries use to fob off their customers when they have failed to deliver their promised product or service.

For what it's worth, when I heard of this delay yesterday, I assumed (wrongly, obviously) that it was probably a person hit by a train, another situation that is often described by an official euphemism.

I think this hits the nail on the head. "Operational incident" sounds to many passengers as an empty non-reason. Equally, I can appreciate (ex-railway myself and son to a driver) that you can't go into detail where an incident may be a disciplinary matter.

But I can't help feeling that something like "a signalling issue which is under investigation" would be a better phrase. It would also allow front-line staff to say something along the lines of "I don't know the details, but you'll understand that safety is the first priority so we can't proceed until it's been checked and resolved".

 

[GW43125]

I think this hits the nail on the head. "Operational incident" sounds to many passengers as an empty non-reason. Equally, I can appreciate (ex-railway myself and son to a driver) that you can't go into detail where an incident may be a disciplinary matter.

But I can't help feeling that something like "a signalling issue which is under investigation" would be a better phrase. It would also allow front-line staff to say something along the lines of "I don't know the details, but you'll understand that safety is the first priority so we can't proceed until it's been checked and resolved".

Reminds me of an incident I heard of a few months back. Train stopped in the middle of nowhere with suspected dragging brake, irate passenger after an hour gives the guard an earful, to which they reply "we think there may be an issue with the brakes which we need to investigate, would you rather we stop here using our brakes or in a few miles' time using the back of the train in front?" That shut them up.

 

[ComUtoR]

When a train passes a signal at danger it is deemed an 'Operating Incident' That is the correct term and correct classification of what happened. One thing the TOC's aren't doing by announcing this is lying or trying to hide anything or covering anything up. They are stating exactly what happened, using the correct industry term.

 

[edwin_m]

So whenever we hear "operating incident" in the future we can assume the driver has cocked up and passed a signal at danger? When in fact it could be a huge number of other possibilities.

Being so vague helps nobody.

 

[Darandio]

So whenever we hear "operating incident" in the future we can assume the driver has cocked up and passed a signal at danger? When in fact it could be a huge number of other possibilities.

Being so vague helps nobody.

So tell me again, why does the average passenger need to know? Will it get them home any quicker? Or is it just to satisfy curiosity?

Remember, it's you that can assume the driver has cocked up, the other 1.1 million making journeys today have not been privy to this thread and are none the wiser.

 

[AlterEgo]

When a train passes a signal at danger it is deemed an 'Operating Incident' That is the correct term and correct classification of what happened. One thing the TOC's aren't doing by announcing this is lying or trying to hide anything or covering anything up. They are stating exactly what happened, using the correct industry term.

Undoubtedly true.

The issue is the pre-approved industry delay reasons.

 

[theironroad]

Point me, please, to where I have been rude, arrogant or dismissive of others. I make a point of welcoming all views, and only refer to my past to demonstrate that I do have some experience, BUT admit that I am always learning.

You and a minority of other contributors seem to take daily pleasure in denigrating, criticising and being generally dismissive of front line rail staff.

It is tedious and makes these fora very unattractive at times, which is one reason i rarely bother contributing.

 

[Surreytraveller]

There is a minority of contributors seem to take daily pleasure in denigrating, criticising and being generally dismissive of fare paying passengers.

It is tedious and makes these fora very unattractive at times, which is one reason i rarely bother contributing.[/QUOTE]

 

[Joe Paxton]

When a train passes a signal at danger it is deemed an 'Operating Incident' That is the correct term and correct classification of what happened. One thing the TOC's aren't doing by announcing this is lying or trying to hide anything or covering anything up. They are stating exactly what happened, using the correct industry term.

They are using the correct industry term, yes, but that does not state "exactly what happened".

Passengers are not versed in railway industry terms, and "operating incident" means very little. DelW's earlier post (#147) I think hits the nail on the head, and is worth reading if you haven't - to the 'man in the street' the phrase comes across as a fob off or a euphemism (and in a sense it is a euphemism).

So tell me again, why does the average passenger need to know? Will it get them home any quicker? Or is it just to satisfy curiosity?

Yes, people want to satisfy their curiosity as to what has caused the delay. Like many others I have a spectrum of acceptance to annoyance at what has caused a delay, and it depends on how much 'the railway' (as a whole) has caused it or could have avoided it. For instance, train cannot run because of a staff shortage suggests a failing of the railway, whilst disruption because of a one-under is a sad event that the railway cannot be blamed for. Then there's a whole load of things in the middle. I'd far prefer to know why my train is late arriving, or delayed en route. It makes passengers feel a little less helpless and a little more respected.

As to how to describe an 'operating incident' (possible SPAD or other occurence) in passenger freindly plain English, then previous posters have offered a number of possibilities.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Well if you lot make yourselves valid targets by throwing your toys out of your prams all of the time and keep spitting vitriol toward front line staff, then you can only expect it back.

You wouldn't like it (and it's quite clear that you don't) when the proverbial tables are turned and front line staff have to put up with it every day from people like you who think that they're God, you're not.

And if you don't like the service that is provided, I will strongly suggest that you find an alternative mode of transport more to your liking.

Abuse of rail staff doing their job is not acceptable, although you seem to think it is, I can assure you that it's not and will not be tolerated and you try such antics with me, you'll find yourself having a chat with the BTP and the train going nowhere.

 

[BestWestern]

Not to me it doesn't. "It is being investigated" to me means the cause is not certain - it could be the fault of the driver (e.g. going too fast), the signaller (e..g put the signal back in front of the driver), the signals (e.g. changing without signaller's input), the track (e.g. inadequate friction), the train (e.g. brake failure), another driver (e.g. they passed a conflicting signal at danger). or maybe something I've not thought of.
You could make this clearer by noting the driver is unable to continue "as a precaution" or something if you want.

To you, yes. And the average passenger is of course also fully versed in all the possible scenarios for a train passing a signal at danger? Or is the average passenger far more likely to reach the conclusion that a train passing a red signal is because the driver didn't stop?!

 

[LordCreed]

In my experience of working on platforms and dealing with disruption, the vast majority (if not all) people care more about when their train will turn up than the exact reason why it's delayed.

I've never had anyone press for more information when told that it's due to a train fault / operational incident / points failure. The fact that point 632B has no detection in reverse is absolutely no interest to the general public.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Gawd knows what they'd make of it if they see us working under ESW or TBW conditions.

 

[AlterEgo]

In my experience of working on platforms and dealing with disruption, the vast majority (if not all) people care more about when their train will turn up than the exact reason why it's delayed.

I've never had anyone press for more information when told that it's due to a train fault / operational incident / points failure. The fact that point 632B has no detection in reverse is absolutely no interest to the general public.

My reply to people who say this:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2748330&postcount=138

 

[bnm]

Well if you lot make yourselves valid targets by throwing your toys out of your prams all of the time and keep spitting vitriol toward front line staff, then you can only expect it back.

Where in this thread has vitriol been spat at front line staff? If you're talking about the wider world then that's not really relevant to this discussion.

What is under discussion is whether rail users should be given more information than "operating/operational incident" following a SPAD. I'm firmly of the opinion that that phrase is far too woolly. It says something but says nothing. There are plenty of ways of conveying the truth of a situation without identifying the why, or identifying any individual.

 

[Temple Meads]

Well if you lot make yourselves valid targets by throwing your toys out of your prams all of the time and keep spitting vitriol toward front line staff, then you can only expect it back.

You wouldn't like it (and it's quite clear that you don't) when the proverbial tables are turned and front line staff have to put up with it every day from people like you who think that they're God, you're not.

And if you don't like the service that is provided, I will strongly suggest that you find an alternative mode of transport more to your liking.

Abuse of rail staff doing their job is not acceptable, although you seem to think it is, I can assure you that it's not and will not be tolerated and you try such antics with me, you'll find yourself having a chat with the BTP and the train going nowhere.

I have seen no 'abuse of rail staff' in this thread just a fair few said staff becoming aggressively defensive

I don't have an issue with staff who have access to internal systems not giving out info on a public forum, in fact it would seem foolish where the person can be identified, though equally I don't blame the OP for asking for it.

 

[Deepgreen]

I have seen no 'abuse of rail staff' in this thread just a fair few said staff becoming aggressively defensive

I don't have an issue with staff who have access to internal systems not giving out info on a public forum, in fact it would seem foolish where the person can be identified, though equally I don't blame the OP for asking for it.

Yes - unfortunately, the usual suspects always come to the fore.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I have seen no 'abuse of rail staff' in this thread just a fair few said staff becoming aggressively defensive

I don't have an issue with staff who have access to internal systems not giving out info on a public forum, in fact it would seem foolish where the person can be identified, though equally I don't blame the OP for asking for it.

Like bnm did. I knew what the issue was, I most certainly wasn't going to publicise it as its a private/confidential matter and an issue for the TOC and its management teams to deal with.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've not seen any railway staff on here get "abused". I've no idea where that came from.

People don't like being fobbed off with a euphemism. "Operational incident" is fobbing off people with a euphemism.

The term is vague and mealy-mouthed, like so many official railway industry terms. It is designed to be vague and mealy-mouthed. That is the precise purpose of the term.

It doesn't need to be "Driver Bloggs ran a red light". A "signalling issue under investigation" would hide a multitude of sins, especially as SPARs have nothing to do with the driver, and some SPADs don't either.

"Operational incident" just sounds like the sort of nonsense London Midland use when they can't be chewed to hire enough drivers.

 

[rebmcr]

Edit: mistaken link.

 

[Temple Meads]

Like bnm did. I knew what the issue was, I most certainly wasn't going to publicise it as its a private/confidential matter and an issue for the TOC and its management teams to deal with.

And I don't see how anyone could have any issues with that stance. Not personal like some earlier posts in this thread and explains why you (and other rail staff) couldn't give any further information.

 

[AlterEgo]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/search.php?searchid=11119569

"Sorry, no matches - please try some different terms"

 

[Chris M]

I don't have an issue with staff who have access to internal systems not giving out info on a public forum, in fact it would seem foolish where the person can be identified, though equally I don't blame the OP for asking for it.

By reading the first post as:
"I'm curious about what has happened here, is there any more information anyone can share publicly?".

And giving an answer along the lines of:
"Not really. I can say that it happened at <location> and is being described internally as an 'operational incident', but there is nothing more I can share publicly [at the moment]."

The OP's query will have been answered as much as possible without revealing any non-public information, nobody getting aggressive or defensive and with no name-calling or accusations of whatever.

Posts like "I know but I'm not going to tell you" (whatever the reason for the not telling), and "I don't know but I wouldn't tell you even if I did" add absolutely nothing of value and (sometimes) just make the poster look childish.
If you don't know the answer, simply don't say anything.
If you know the answer but can't share it, and nobody else has communicated this already, just say that there is nothing you can say publicly. If someone has already said that, and there is nothing else you can add, simply don't say anything.

 

[GB]

I've not seen any railway staff on here get "abused". I've no idea where that came from.

People don't like being fobbed off with a euphemism. "Operational incident" is fobbing off people with a euphemism.

The term is vague and mealy-mouthed, like so many official railway industry terms. It is designed to be vague and mealy-mouthed. That is the precise purpose of the term.

It doesn't need to be "Driver Bloggs ran a red light". A "signalling issue under investigation" would hide a multitude of sins, especially as SPARs have nothing to do with the driver, and some SPADs don't either.

"Operational incident" just sounds like the sort of nonsense London Midland use when they can't be chewed to hire enough drivers.

"Signalling issue under investigation" is no different to "operational incident" other than it incorrectly confers some kind of negative connotation with the signalling system.

In any case, no amount of moaning or bickering on here will change anything. Either get over it or lobby your mp/local toc.

 

[Chris M]

Like bnm did. I knew what the issue was, I most certainly wasn't going to publicise it as its a private/confidential matter and an issue for the TOC and its management teams to deal with.

That's fine. There is a big difference between "I can't tell you, this is why I can't tell you." and "I won't tell you, go away.". People understand the difference and react very differently to them. To the ears of people outside the railway industry (and based on this thread) at least some people in the industry, "Operational incident" sounds very much like the latter.