"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[Tetchytyke]

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

To my layperson ears, they are subtly different. Operational incident is hiding behind vagueness. Railway staff know it is really a euphemism for a SPAD or SPAR, but passengers probably won't. As I said, it's very close to the excuses London Midland use when they've screwed up.

I get why it is deliberately vague, so as not to implicate a driver or signaller in something, but it is deliberately vague.

And if a driver misinterprets a danger signal, or a signaller flips a green to red accidentally, that is an issue with the signalling system. People are part of the system.

As Chris M says, it comes across as "we have to tell you something, not that you deserve to know why you're delayed yet again, this is something, sod off and leave us alone".

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

Of course it won't change anything. As for complaining to the TOC...

 

[Joe Paxton]

"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.

It's a discussion forum about railways, and this is a discussion about an aspect of the railway.

 

[bnm]

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.

In which case the information should not be put onto systems accessible to hundreds, if not thousands, of staff across multiple TOCs. Those systems are not wholly secure internally. The policies on what staff can and can't divulge to the public from them are rather lax too.

I'm not beholden to any TOC. Someone on thIs thread wanted to know what the "operational incident" was. I was able to find out and inform. I made no comment on the specifics beyond it being reported internally as a Category A SPAD. Neither did I apportion or imply any blame.

Where I did express my opinion was in my belief that TOCs should refrain from telling the public something that tells them nothing, then later telling them something incorrect through social media.

 

[DelW]

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

But I would suggest that it is different to passengers. For most passengers, even those interested in railway working (including me before I read this thread) "operational incident" conveys nothing - it might mean train fault, signalling fault, track fault, crew illness, crew absence, passenger taken ill, passengers being removed by BTP, suicide, or almost anything else.

And because it means nothing to passengers, it can sound like "we're not going to tell you what really happened", even when that isn't the case.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Arrrgh! "Operating Incident" is one of the most annoying things to see a delay attributed to. It's condescending and deliberately obscure. It means nothing. It means "we're not telling you". I understand that might not be what it means internally, but that's what it means to the passenger.


"This train is delayed due to an operating incident"
"This train is delayed because something happened"

You wouldn't accept the latter, why should we accept the former? The two are the same to me.

And no, of course us passengers don't need and shouldn't be expected to understand every minute detail of rail operations. We don't need to know if the driver f***ed up, or the signaller, or if something just broke. BUT a little single line of explanation as to why we're being delayed sure can help calm us - or tell us where to direct our frustrations.

Where to direct our frustations? I feel like I should explain that one. I've seen numerous times people ranting and raving at TOCs on Twitter about their delay only to be told that the problem is with the infrastructure, which is not our responsibility, it's NR's. The enlightened traveller will understand the difference. The "operating incident" hides even this level of attribution.

As noted upthread, they can also be weasel words, used by TOCs when they have massively fouled up operationally (LM staff shortages).

What am I putting into room 101? Not Train Operating Companies. Not signallers. Not drivers or guards. Not even Network Rail. "Operating Incidents".

I may have had a bad day... can you tell? But this really is a pet hate...

 

[CC 72100]

To my layperson ears, they are subtly different. Operational incident is hiding behind vagueness. Railway staff know it is really a euphemism for a SPAD or SPAR, but passengers probably won't.

Only it's not...

Fail to Call, TPWS Activation, TPWS intervention, station overshoot, incorrect door release and about 5-10 other 'activities' come under the umbrella term Operating Incident.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I should add that just recently I've heard from some automated systems "Due to a problem under investigation". That's an improvement over "Operating Incident".

"Problem Under Investigation" =
"Something went wrong and we don't know what yet, but we're investigating it" - OK. Fair enough. Stuff happens. Complicated business, running a railway. I get it.

"Operating Incident" =
"Something went wrong. We're not telling you what!" - not OK.

 

[GW43125]

I should add that just recently I've heard from some automated systems "Due to a problem under investigation". That's an improvement over "Operating Incident".

"Problem Under Investigation" =
"Something went wrong and we don't know what yet, but we're investigating it" - OK. Fair enough.

"Operating Incident" =
"Something went wrong. We're not telling you what!" - not OK.

Problem is, even many hours after the incident, it doesn't get changed frpm "a problem under investigation"

 

[Darandio]

Problem is, even many hours after the incident, it doesn't get changed frpm "a problem under investigation"

See, this is where i'm becoming more confused.

Many hours after the incident, when everyone is probably safely home, why does it matter?

If it's just curiosity and not a need to know, then just say so.

 

[sarahj]

I was working trains yesterday where the trains around it were affected by the incident under discussion. I said to passengers that the issue was due to 'signalling issues between Chichester and Havant'. Since most people that were affected were only delayed by about 10 mins, no one said anything to me.

Another poster mentioned about point problems being mentioned. That was another problem at Barnham where the points to the branch failed and access could only be made from one platform.

There was also an issue on another train up in London that started as 'train fault', but then led to 'disruptive passengers' and then 'police called'. This was at Selhurst.

 

[PHILIPE]

There has been an "operational incident" affecting Valley trains in the Cardiff area this afternoon and Tweeters are asking for more information as to what the problem is. ATW replied "Under investigation" so the curious ones are still none the wiser.

 

[Joe Paxton]

See, this is where i'm becoming more confused.

Many hours after the incident, when everyone is probably safely home, why does it matter?

If it's just curiosity and not a need to know, then just say so.

One can turn this on its head and ask you why you and others are so defensive and unwilling about giving out a more meaningful reason for a delay? That's what confuses me.

Also, incidents on the railway can have knock on implications to services that last for many hours.

 

[Joe Paxton]

...
There was also an issue on another train up in London that started as 'train fault', but then led to 'disruptive passengers' and then 'police called'. This was at Selhurst.

Do you know if the 'train fault' was a real (and seperate) issue? Or was it an early mis-reporting of the 'disruptive passengers'?

 

[sarahj]

Do you know if the 'train fault' was a real (and seperate) issue? Or was it an early mis-reporting of the 'disruptive passengers'?

I don't know, but the train did end up terminating at Selhurst and headed straight into the depot.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

There was also an issue on another train up in London that started as 'train fault', but then led to 'disruptive passengers' and then 'police called'. This was at Selhurst.

I had one of these recently, when I was turfed off a full train at New Street. We were told over the PA system that the train was cancelled due to a fault. Very shortly later, the train company tweeted that it was due to disruptive passengers. I asked them to clarify, and was told that it was due to vandalism. It took a further tweet to discover that a passenger had become violent and damaged a train door, so it had to be taken out of service.

If we were told that in the first instance, I'm sure most of the people on the train would have understood.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Joe Paxton]

I don't know, but the train did end up terminating at Selhurst and headed straight into the depot.

OK, I appreciate the reply anyway.

(And sorry you have to deal with disruptive passengers... I dare say it was something to do with the sun coming out, people drinking too much and being incapable of behaving... which is a shame.)

 

[Darandio]

One can turn this on its head and ask you why you and others are so defensive and unwilling about giving out a more meaningful reason for a delay? That's what confuses me.

I'm neither defensive or unwilling, I don't work directly on the railway although I work with TOC's.

Certain posts in the thread have not really helped, ranging from having a 'right' to know exactly what has happened with the reasoning being no more than having paid a fare. Then we've had claims that even if it was a SPAD, the driver should have no data protection and comparisons with cases of criminal prosecution.

And yet I still think that the average passenger neither wants to know what has happened, or really cares, they just want to get to/from home/work. Forum users and enthusiasts on the other hand......

 

[Chris M]

Do you know if the 'train fault' was a real (and seperate) issue? Or was it an early mis-reporting of the 'disruptive passengers'?

On seeing the sequence of events, my guess is that the (delay caused by the) train fault was the cause of the passengers becoming disruptive.

 

[sarahj]

OK, I appreciate the reply anyway.

(And sorry you have to deal with disruptive passengers... I dare say it was something to do with the sun coming out, people drinking too much and being incapable of behaving... which is a shame.)

Can be annoying, plus seems to be loads of kids hanging about on bikes as well. We had to slow some services passing Horley yesterday when a group of them were biking and sakteboarding on the island platform. I had a bunch on my train and they pushed the alarm. When I went to re-set it i said if they pushed it again, they would be removed from the train. Alas, I had set them a challenge, and as soon as the next call was their station, they pushed it. Cue them getting off at the station they wanted and a load of mouth. I then went into a siding and came back out, there they were again at the station they had left not 20 mins ago. This time tho' they were as good as gold, except for more 'mouth' as they got off and cycled down the platform and I asked them no to. :roll::roll:

Alarm, in this case being a button that makes the PA goes. 'Conductor, call for assistance activated'. It's right at kiddie height and toddlers love to push it. You would think a special button would turn it off, but no, you have to fiddle with the PA handsets. There has never been any official word how to turn it off, and you have to get the right side, so it's a 50/50 chance.

 

[alxndr]

Passengers don't need to know the specific details, other than estimates on when they might get to where ever they're heading, but letting them know a bit—where appropriate to do so—can help improve their opinion of the railway. It is probably partly just curiosity, but it's also part of this current culture of transparency, and by not going along with that it looks like there's something to hide. It's not just about the words "operating incident" it's about the whole package, and public perception.

Some people already expect to be lied to because they don't trust the railways to be honest. It's not helped by instances where one source reports one thing, and another does so in a slightly different way, which looks to the lay person as something entirely different. For example "signalling failure" and "points/track circuit failure" could well be the same thing, but it doesn't look like it to someone not in the know. Example here: https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/799546217898409984 Of course that's not helped by reporting often turning into a game of chinese whispers, where the people distributing the information don't really understand what's actually going on because they haven't got the technical knowledge.

So Joe Bloggs doesn't need to know what exactly is going on, but he doesn't want to be lied to, or fobbed off, and expects that he might be. Then he hears something about an "operating incident" which he sees as being absolutely meaningless, and gets annoyed. It looks to him that the railway doesn't value his custom enough to grant him an answer about why it's not delivering as promised.

I don't know what the answer is here, but I can see why some people get frustrated. Perhaps a little more openness is needed if only to improve public image. Of course, it won't always be possible, but a little bit could go a long way, and then people might be more tolerant about the few occasions where "operating incident" or "incident under investigation" really are the only details that can be released.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Can be annoying, plus seems to be loads of kids hanging about on bikes as well. We had to slow some services passing Horley yesterday when a group of them were biking and sakteboarding on the island platform. I had a bunch on my train and they pushed the alarm. When I went to re-set it i said if they pushed it again, they would be removed from the train. Alas, I had set them a challenge, and as soon as the next call was their station, they pushed it. Cue them getting off and a load of mouth. I then went into a siding and came back out, there they were again at the station they had left not 20 mins ago. This time tho' they were as good as gold, except for more 'mouth' as they got off and cycled down the platform and I asked them no to. :roll::roll:

Are traincrew able to issue the "penalty for misuse" displayed next to the Passcom or is it an empty threat?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

So Joe Bloggs doesn't need to know what exactly is going on, but he doesn't want to be lied to, or fobbed off, and expects that he might be. Then he hears something about an "operating incident" which he sees as being absolutely meaningless, and gets annoyed. It looks to him that the railway doesn't value his custom enough to grant him an answer about why it's not delivering as promised.

This.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Joe Paxton]

This.

Yes. It affords passengers a degree of respect, which in turn may well be reflected back onto the railway.

 

[Joe Paxton]

On seeing the sequence of events, my guess is that the (delay caused by the) train fault was the cause of the passengers becoming disruptive.

Yes, that seems a likely sequence of events.

I'm tempted to suggest that such people shouldn't be given the respect of being referred to as passengers...

 

[sarahj]

Are traincrew able to issue the "penalty for misuse" displayed next to the Passcom or is it an empty threat?

Well it depends on what you would call a 'penalty'. Are you talking cash sums, being removed from the train, or just being told off?

 

[father_jack]

There has been an "operational incident" affecting Valley trains in the Cardiff area this afternoon and Tweeters are asking for more information as to what the problem is. ATW replied "Under investigation" so the curious ones are still none the wiser.

Not the drama you are all thinking at all.....

 

[noddingdonkey]

Well it depends on what you would call a 'penalty'. Are you talking cash sums, being removed from the train, or just being told off?

Is there not normally a fine (but they can't use the word fine so they call it a penalty) displayed?

 

[PHILIPE]

I should add that just recently I've heard from some automated systems "Due to a problem under investigation". That's an improvement over "Operating Incident".

"Problem Under Investigation" =
"Something went wrong and we don't know what yet, but we're investigating it" - OK. Fair enough. Stuff happens. Complicated business, running a railway. I get it.

"Operating Incident" =
"Something went wrong. We're not telling you what!" - not OK.

TOCs know what has happened when saying "under investigation". It means that they are still investigating the circumstances as to probable cause.

 

[Deepgreen]

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.

Exactly - no aggression necessary and a completely understandable position to adopt.

 

[455driver]

Deleted.