"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[Bromley boy]

With regards to passing information, and the use of phrases like "operational incident", my personal opinion is that it is a bit of a cop out. Yes, as an industry we mustn't overwhelm passengers with jargon, but keeping them in the dark by being unnecessarily vague is just going to lead to frustration.

Railway staff are selected on their ability to communicate well, and so it isn't beyond their ability to relate that to the passengers in a way that accurately states what's up without losing them in the first sentence. Sometimes using a *bit* of jargon can actually help, as it instills a bit of confidence, reminds the passengers that the staff know what they're talking about and know what's going on.

"Due to a problem currently under investigation" in my opinion is fine to use as a holding message, but really ought to be updated to a meaningful reason as soon as possible. Information during disruption is something that comes up in passenger feedback time and time again so it really is only fair the industry tries to do something about it.

I agree with this.

I generally try and give as much information as reasonably possible and appropriate to a short PA announcement. "Being held at a red signal because of... train crossing our path ahead/awaiting free platform/awaiting path out of station etc."'

A lot of problems come from the fact that, for the worst delays, often no information will be made available to the driver for quite some time hence there is a temptation to say more than just blandly repeating an announcement about being held at a red signal. I suspect a lot of people use "operating incident" when they don't know what's going on as a cover all which doesn't really mean anything, therefore isn't incorrect or untruthful.

People have differing opinions about how much to say about fatalities and medical incidents. I can imagine that at this time of year with a lot of school age and younger children on the train an announcement that "the train ahead has struck a person" may put a few parents' backs up. However in this situation I think I'd still err on the side of being truthful if only to avoid accusations of fobbing people off.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Thats because MIDAS is only allowed to set the signals automatically as low as 40.

Are they able to set lower speeds manually? I'm pretty sure I've seen 30 on more than one occasion on the M25.

 

[DelW]

Are they able to set lower speeds manually? I'm pretty sure I've seen 30 on more than one occasion on the M25.

(O/T) AIUI the mandatory limits can only be 40 / 50 / 60 (or all clear = 70). Advisory signs can indicate any limit. (/O/T)

 

[Wookiee]

I think passengers should be thankful there is any sort of train service running at all

Seriously? That's what we pay for!

EDIT: Hmm, think my sarcasm sensor may have been a bit off...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

(O/T) AIUI the mandatory limits can only be 40 / 50 / 60 (or all clear = 70). Advisory signs can indicate any limit. (/O/T)

Ah, that makes sense now, thank you.

 

[LowLevel]

Having had to spend 15 minutes sitting with a hyperventilating teenager who started having a panic attack on being told over the PA that we were being delayed due to poor rail conditions caused by leaves on the line (I really had better things to do) I hate to think what she would have done if I'd told her the driver had driven past a red signal. Some people are nervous travellers as it is and don't cope well with the idea of cock ups, even mitigated safe ones after the event (minor TPWS overspeeds when the train is braking etc).

Consequently I'm very careful about what I say for general consumption and if you want to ask me more you're free to, I can then read your body language etc somewhat better and judge what to tell you.

 

[PHILIPE]

I'm wondering if any of the people who want to go digging for the actual facts and, it was in fact a possible disciplinary situation such as a SPAD, would to quote a saying like "Their dirty washing out in public" if it was them involved. I apologise if it may be rather a harsh way of putting it but is intended to make point re the the theme of the thread.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I'm wondering if any of the people who want to go digging for the actual facts and, it was in fact a possible disciplinary situation such as a SPAD, would to quote a saying like "Their dirty washing out in public" if it was them involved. I apologise if it may be rather a harsh way of putting it but is intended to make point re the the theme of the thread.

Well said. I doubt it very much.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm wondering if any of the people who want to go digging for the actual facts and, it was in fact a possible disciplinary situation such as a SPAD, would to quote a saying like "Their dirty washing out in public" if it was them involved. I apologise if it may be rather a harsh way of putting it but is intended to make point re the the theme of the thread.

Not harsh at all, and from past experience of some here, I doubt it very much.

 

[LAX54]

"Operating Incident" is good enough for rail staff, it should be good enough for everyone else, who really do not need to know .

As someone else said, those that are moaning about not being told, if they make a mistake at their work, and a person not connected with their employment demanded to know all the details of the 'error' they would be a bit miffed !

We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other, from not being told anything, to being told too much ! Everyone now seems to think they have a 'right' to know everything, right down to the Drivers breakfast !

Its time to reign in how much information is given out the the public, and not just railways.

 

[DarloRich]

All we are talking about is giving passengers a plain English reason for the delay. It is fine if this changes as more information becomes available. I've been there, within two minutes of a report of someone hit by a train, giving out that information to passengers. Then, later, it turns out the person wasn't hit by a train at all but had fallen and died from an overbridge at 2am.

But, again, you overlook what response this brings from some members of the travelling public and the hassle this brings for guards as the situation changes. Is it not better to say as little as possible until the reason is clear.

Passengers do have a wish to immediately know things. We know that it is often not possible to be specific with things like ETAs or even the nature of the incident. That is the nature of the beast - if you don't know an ETA, then say so - be honest!

The only thing I, and others, are arguing for is that where an incident occurs, it should be described in plain English, as accurately as reasonably possible in accordance with the information available at the time.

But that is the point. We are investigating an operational incident is the plain English way of expressing something, at least at the outset. OF COURSE as more details become available that statement should be altered to provide more information.

Even then I don't think a long technical explanation is a warranted. Beyond simple things like the signals are broken or the wires have fallen down or the train passed a signal when it shouldn't have done what more does the non spottery passenger actually need to know to manage their journey?

 

[AlterEgo]

Honestly, I cannot be bothered repeating myself in full again, Rich. But here I go again.

1) Passengers don't need the information to manage their journeys, they repeatedly (in referenced surveys I linked to!) say they WANT an explanation in language they understand.
2) Nobody is arguing for long winded technical explanations.
3) The railway agreed in 2012 to implement the measures I'm talking about - check the Transport Focus survey! However, they never did.
4) What hassle for guards? One person having a panic attack? Someone else being an arse? Also, what guard?
5) Passengers consistently rate, in the survey I've linked to before, digital media as the most accurate source of information.
6) Q: Why is the railway so special? A: It isn't. If the airlines (and most other industries) can manage to tell you about a mishap, then so can the railway.


Round and round in circles we go, trying to get the message through. I'm the only one who can approach this debate with anything more than anecdotes, and frankly I'm fed up explaining again and again to some of the diehards.

I hope, honestly, someone comes along with a sledgehammer and smashes the existing culture on the railway into smithereens.

 

[EM2]

We can't win. Let's take people hit by trains for an example.
If we say 'fatality', people say 'that's very callous, there's no need to be so frank'.
If we say 'a person hit by a train', people say 'why don't you just say 'fatality' or 'suicide'?'.
If we say 'trespassers', people say 'just run them over'.
If we say 'operational incident' (which it isn't really), people say 'yes, but what does that actually *mean*?'.

 

[LAX54]

Honestly, I cannot be bothered repeating myself in full again, Rich. But here I go again.

1) Passengers don't need the information to manage their journeys, they repeatedly (in referenced surveys I linked to!) say they WANT an explanation in language they understand.
2) Nobody is arguing for long winded technical explanations.
3) The railway agreed in 2012 to implement the measures I'm talking about - check the Transport Focus survey! However, they never did.
4) What hassle for guards? One person having a panic attack? Someone else being an arse? Also, what guard?
5) Passengers consistently rate, in the survey I've linked to before, digital media as the most accurate source of information.
6) Q: Why is the railway so special? A: It isn't. If the airlines (and most other industries) can manage to tell you about a mishap, then so can the railway.


Round and round in circles we go, trying to get the message through. I'm the only one who can approach this debate with anything more than anecdotes, and frankly I'm fed up explaining again and again to some of the diehards.

I hope, honestly, someone comes along with a sledgehammer and smashes the existing culture on the railway into smithereens.

Nope don't think so with Airlines, all I have ever had is 'Technical problem with Aircraft" (2 hour delay). "Aircraft had technical difficulties before departing UK " ( 7 hours delay.

B.T "sorry we are running late" waiting in an extra 4 hours.

Amazon Logistics...don't even tell you when they are due to call !

Buses: Can be cancelled and you don't even know except it never turns up

All we, the passenger NEEDS to know, is that they will be delayed, and if its known at the time, how long. I am not sure WHY we need to know the ins and outs and drivers inside leg measurement !

 

[Tetchytyke]

But, again, you overlook what response this brings from some members of the travelling public and the hassle this brings for guards as the situation changes. Is it not better to say as little as possible until the reason is clear.

I don't work on the railways, but my line of work involves a lot of disgruntled people who've paid a lot of money and are very disgruntled.

There is a tendency in my sector to try and sweep things under the carpet, to be as vague as possible thinking that it will defuse the situation. It doesn't. It makes people more angry. People can normally tolerate delays and mistakes but what they can't tolerate is being fobbed off or being lied to.

This works in two ways. If you don't know, say you don't know, but that you are trying to find out. Just hearing a voice is reassuring to most people, they know they've not been forgotten about.

When I was commuting out of Euston, it wasn't the delays that annoyed me. It was the fact that all the London Midland staff did a disappearing act and there were no announcements in the station. "Something has happened, we don't know why yet, but it's going to take half an hour to find out" is enough information; it tells me I may as well go and have a pint in the Bree Louise and wait for it all to blow over.

Yes, some people will be arseholes regardless of what you do or don't say. But saying nothing to avoid them just aggravates the people who aren't arseholes.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't work on the railways, but my line of work involves a lot of disgruntled people who've paid a lot of money and are very disgruntled.

There is a tendency in my sector to try and sweep things under the carpet, to be as vague as possible thinking that it will defuse the situation. It doesn't. It makes people more angry. People can normally tolerate delays and mistakes but what they can't tolerate is being fobbed off or being lied to.

This works in two ways. If you don't know, say you don't know, but that you are trying to find out. Just hearing a voice is reassuring to most people, they know they've not been forgotten about.

When I was commuting out of Euston, it wasn't the delays that annoyed me. It was the fact that all the London Midland staff did a disappearing act and there were no announcements in the station. "Something has happened, we don't know why yet, but it's going to take half an hour to find out" is enough information; it tells me I may as well go and have a pint in the Bree Louise and wait for it all to blow over.

Yes, some people will be arseholes regardless of what you do or don't say. But saying nothing to avoid them just aggravates the people who aren't arseholes.

I do agree but think that a time estimate simply creates a hostage to fortune. With many of these things it takes as long as it takes to work out what the problem is, especially when it is dark, cold and persisting it down and some bloke has to go crawling about in the clarts to find the fault!

Saying something is broken, but i don't know what and I don't know how long it will take to fix but I will let you know when I know doesn't go down well either. Many people will take that honesty as a lie or a fobbing off.

I just retreat to the pub at the first sign of trouble

 

[AlterEgo]

Nope don't think so with Airlines, all I have ever had is 'Technical problem with Aircraft" (2 hour delay). "Aircraft had technical difficulties before departing UK " ( 7 hours delay.

B.T "sorry we are running late" waiting in an extra 4 hours.

Amazon Logistics...don't even tell you when they are due to call !

Buses: Can be cancelled and you don't even know except it never turns up

All we, the passenger NEEDS to know, is that they will be delayed, and if its known at the time, how long. I am not sure WHY we need to know the ins and outs and drivers inside leg measurement !

Tiresome and misses the point entirely.

Do you fly very often? Read my earlier posts. Or go on FlyerTalk where you'll hear all the reasons aircraft get delayed and how they're communicated.

Nobody is arguing for detailed technical explanations, for the millionth time. It's like you are deliberately being obtuse! Maddening.

As I keep saying, it's not "need to know", it's "want to know". Yawn!

 

[LAX54]

Tiresome and misses the point entirely.

Do you fly very often? Read my earlier posts. Or go on FlyerTalk where you'll hear all the reasons aircraft get delayed and how they're communicated.

Nobody is arguing for detailed technical explanations, for the millionth time. It's like you are deliberately being obtuse! Maddening.

As I keep saying, it's not "need to know", it's "want to know". Yawn![/QUOTE]


Why ? just sticky beaking, there is NO reason to know the ins and outs of a ducks arse!

unless this would make it clearer ?

1Y12 reported coa CO:285 y-r-y.No spad. Driver ok to continue Burr on ibj caused 6810(a) to drop for 2 seconds causing co285 coa Cut back and filled.

or Operating Incident ?

 

[AlterEgo]

Tiresome and misses the point entirely.

Do you fly very often? Read my earlier posts. Or go on FlyerTalk where you'll hear all the reasons aircraft get delayed and how they're communicated.

Nobody is arguing for detailed technical explanations, for the millionth time. It's like you are deliberately being obtuse! Maddening.

As I keep saying, it's not "need to know", it's "want to know". Yawn!

Why ? just sticky beaking, there is NO reason to know the ins and outs of a ducks arse!

unless this would make it clearer ?

1Y12 reported coa CO:285 y-r-y.No spad. Driver ok to continue Burr on ibj caused 6810(a) to drop for 2 seconds causing co285 coa Cut back and filled.

or Operating Incident ?

Are you incapable of reading my earlier posts? Are you trolling or just hard of understanding?

 

[hounddog]

A question for all the "don't need to know" merchants. If one of your family came out of hospital in a worse state than when they went in would you accept "something happened but you don't need to know what it was" or would you want details? And if the latter why do you think the railway is different?

 

[DarloRich]

A question for all the "don't need to know" merchants. If one of your family came out of hospital in a worse state than when they went in would you accept "something happened but you don't need to know what it was" or would you want details? And if the latter why do you think the railway is different?

I might suggest that is slightly different due to the possibility of litigation.

 

[Deepgreen]

A question for all the "don't need to know" merchants. If one of your family came out of hospital in a worse state than when they went in would you accept "something happened but you don't need to know what it was" or would you want details? And if the latter why do you think the railway is different?

Yes, but the situations are somewhat different (and I am speaking as someone who would welcome more accurate and timely information) in that a relative's hospital visit is likely to be hugely more important than a train delay, plus the possibility of legal action in some instances. There is also a vast difference in the level of immediate information available to medical staff than usually-detached (from the incident) rail staff.

 

[rebmcr]

unless this would make it clearer ?

1Y12 reported coa CO:285 y-r-y.No spad. Driver ok to continue Burr on ibj caused 6810(a) to drop for 2 seconds causing co285 coa Cut back and filled.

Of course not, stop being silly.

or Operating Incident ?

This is also rubbish, though. It's not a choice between the two.

"An issue with the signalling system that has been investigated and resolved" would be the 'sweet spot'.

 

[Joe Paxton]

We can't win. Let's take people hit by trains for an example.
If we say 'fatality', people say 'that's very callous, there's no need to be so frank'.
If we say 'a person hit by a train', people say 'why don't you just say 'fatality' or 'suicide'?'.
If we say 'trespassers', people say 'just run them over'.
If we say 'operational incident' (which it isn't really), people say 'yes, but what does that actually *mean*?'.

No, you can't win. Just accept that. But really the railways are not so radically different from many other sectors where similar things to the above can be said. The railways can - and I think should - do better.

You're never going to please everyone, but the railways can do a better job of earning a greater degree of respect of their customers, even if at times that is grudging respect.

 

[LowLevel]

Tiresome and misses the point entirely.

Do you fly very often? Read my earlier posts. Or go on FlyerTalk where you'll hear all the reasons aircraft get delayed and how they're communicated.

Nobody is arguing for detailed technical explanations, for the millionth time. It's like you are deliberately being obtuse! Maddening.

As I keep saying, it's not "need to know", it's "want to know". Yawn!

I think the most important thing to note is that apart from this forum, in my years on the railway, I've never had it brought up as an issue. I've had complaints about too much information (some delicate flowers can't cope with people being killed by trains) but that's one instance we are told very specifically to say a person has been hit by a train to avoid people becoming concerned about terrorist incidents if we use the other industry standard (emergency services dealing with an incident).

Individuals who want to know more generally ask me (I always announce when I'm walking through the train and to feel free to ask me anything you want to) and I tell them whatever is appropriate. I don't make general broadcasts about 'the driver has gone by a red signal' because in some people's minds that immediately sets them thinking about things like Ladbroke Grove, especially if an emergency brake application has just dumped them in a heap, and can lead them to believe that they're in an unsafe position, which of course they aren't.

On the basis my customer compliments vs complaints file is very favourable, particularly when things have gone a bit wrong, I'm going to assume that using my judgment is helping me to get the right balance and if a tiny number of people sit there feeling grumpy and frustrated then such is life, it's not really a huge issue and I can't say I'm bothered. Or you can just ask me

 

[Llanigraham]

1) Passengers don't need the information to manage their journeys, they repeatedly (in referenced surveys I linked to!) say they WANT an explanation in language they understand.
2) Nobody is arguing for long winded technical explanations.
3) The railway agreed in 2012 to implement the measures I'm talking about - check the Transport Focus survey! However, they never did.
4) What hassle for guards? One person having a panic attack? Someone else being an arse? Also, what guard?
5) Passengers consistently rate, in the survey I've linked to before, digital media as the most accurate source of information.
6) Q: Why is the railway so special? A: It isn't. If the airlines (and most other industries) can manage to tell you about a mishap, then so can the railway.

1) SOME passengers!! Not all as you are implying.
2) Some members here certainly are and even demanding names.
3) It was not mandatory.
4) Read the responses from several guards here, and from comments by others. It happens, as has been shown numerous times.
5) One survey! Stop being so "South East Centric". There is a world outside your little sphere, you know!
6) Who said they are? There have been plenty of examples of where other industries use similar non-committal non-detailed terminology.

 

[Bellbell]

Maybe part of the problem here is that those of you asking for more information are from the reasonable end of the passenger spectrum and wouldn't blow up at reasons or delays changing so can't understand that other people do.

Without fail, every time I've been involved in any incident, at least one person has been utterly unreasonable when the information has changed. They have accused the railway of incompetence or me personally of incompetence. It's tiresome. It interferes with the other things I'm trying to do, like get a handle on where everyone is going in case we need rail replacement transport. Occasionally it riles some other passengers up so they start on the incompetence bandwagon. Please, those of you who don't work in public facing roles need to understand that sometimes there is nothing you can say or do that will satisfy some people. If there is a storm raging, or a suicidal person ahead, it is impossible for us to tell you how long it will take. We might get moving and then another tree might come down, or flooding be discovered. But if I've already told you that it was flooding, and then come back and say now a tree has come down, you might acknowledge that this is perfectly likely, however frustrating. The person next to you might go off on a rant about how the h£ll can we not know what the problem is, how difficult is it, why on earth are we allowed to run trains, this wouldn't happen if this was a virgin service, I need to arrange transport for him RIGHT THIS MINUTE because he has a very important meeting to get to.

And yes, AlterEgo, that's all anecdotal. Because you'll have to forgive the fact that I don't report every incident of verbal abuse I get during disruption. But I'll repeat at this stage that I do think the information is sometimes/often insufficient and that I personally favour honesty, where possible.

 

[LAX54]

Of course not, stop being silly.



This is also rubbish, though. It's not a choice between the two.

"An issue with the signalling system that has been investigated and resolved" would be the 'sweet spot'.

An issue with the Signalling System does not say anymore that Operating Incident, and in fact sounds a lot worse !

The we would get the questions Why was there an issue, What was the issue? we need to know !

As many have said, all that needs to be known is there an Operating Problem and that your train is 10 / 15 / 60 late or more

 

[Jonfun]

Tiresome and misses the point entirely.

Do you fly very often? Read my earlier posts. Or go on FlyerTalk where you'll hear all the reasons aircraft get delayed and how they're communicated.

Nobody is arguing for detailed technical explanations, for the millionth time. It's like you are deliberately being obtuse! Maddening.

As I keep saying, it's not "need to know", it's "want to know". Yawn!

Why ? just sticky beaking, there is NO reason to know the ins and outs of a ducks arse!

unless this would make it clearer ?

1Y12 reported coa CO:285 y-r-y.No spad. Driver ok to continue Burr on ibj caused 6810(a) to drop for 2 seconds causing co285 coa Cut back and filled.

or Operating Incident ?

Neither. If we were keeping it to the simplest possible reason it would be due to "signalling problems", which adequately describes that very situation. But a better announcement would be something along the lines of "Ladies and Gentlemen, we're currently stopped here at <vague location> due to a fault with the signal ahead of us. The driver is currently in contact with the signaller to report it and we will get back underway once he has given us permission to proceed. Once we are back on the move I will be able to provide information on our expected arrival times for the upcoming stations. On behalf of <TOC> I would like to thank you for your patience and apologise for any inconvenience the delay will cause to your journey."

It's important that detailed information reaches it to me, the rest of the train's crew, and the teams at the stations, customer information controllers etc so we know what is happening ("signalling problems" is as useless to me as having no information at all - that could mean a simple track circuit failure requiring us to pass one signal at danger, or a fault with a set of points which won't detect normal or reverse meaning no available route to continue until the maintenance staff arrive). We can then make the decision on how best to communicate that information to the passengers. I've never had a single passenger wanting to know the exact signal number that has failed or the component on the train which has gone pop, but I've had plenty of passengers who appreciate staff taking the time to explain in language that they understand what the general problem is, how the systems work, and what we have to do to solve the problem.

 

[455driver]

Of course not, stop being silly.



This is also rubbish, though. It's not a choice between the two.

"An issue with the signalling system that has been investigated and resolved" would be the 'sweet spot'.

Which would be a lie because its a track fault and the signal has reacted correctly.