"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[QJ]

I remember discussions about the use of phrases such as technical difficulties, operational incidents and similar taking place back in the early 1980s.The use of such bland excuses on BR became a political issue (all part of the demonization of BR along with pork pies and curly sandwiches which has brought us where we are today with Britain's railways) and were discouraged to the point of having a "please explain" if reported.

However, this discouragement was only enforced up to a point. Being too forthcoming with the reason for the travelling public being inconvenienced was also frowned upon. "Train cancelled owing to a brake failure" was a bit too much for the powers that be. It was deemed too open to being misconstrued by the inconvenienced travellers.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Would you like detailed information if your train is involved in a fatality?

I can imagine some people might get a tad up tight if they were told that there was a body or body parts a foot or two under their feet or not to look out due to body parts that are now trackside.

The panic that might ensue if you tell them that they train has just passed a signal at danger. Although that can be done quite legally under selected degraded working scenarios.

 

[AlterEgo]

But I thought we all wanted facts, not assumptions?
Why did the train not make the booked call? Maybe the driver get a laser pen shone in their eyes and was distracted? Maybe the signaller routed it wrongly?
And that missed stop may not be the cause of the operational incident at all.
Doors opened wrong side on a different service? Service stopped short? Train too long for the platform it was signalled into?

Nobody is arguing for forensic detail.

If the train failed to call, say so. Doesn't matter at the outset why. Nobody expects to know whose fault it is.

Sometimes "a person hit by a train" turns out not to be the case, despite reasonable assumptions made at the outset of the incident. That's happened more than once to me: dead body in the cess, stop the job, person hit by a train, investigate FFCCTV of all the possible trains, then realise actually the person fell off the bridge drunk. That's not an argument to withhold all information until all the investigations have been concluded.

As has been explained many many times, and evidenced, passengers don't accept "operational incident" as a reason for their delay.

You can either accept that it needs to change, and for there to be more empowerment, or you can believe the current way is the best way in the face of the evidence contrary to that. Ultimately, your argument is that passengers are not entitled to even a basic cause of the delay, and that as station staff you don't really want to be more empowered to match the information sources available to the majority of customers via their smartphone. All you are posting is barriers and objections as to why this isn't possible, and you don't address the general principle or even acknowledge it to be sound.

 

[EM2]

Ultimately, your argument is that passengers are not entitled to even a basic cause of the delay, and that as station staff you don't really want to be more empowered to match the information sources available to the majority of customers via their smartphone. All you are posting is barriers and objections as to why this isn't possible, and you don't address the general principle or even acknowledge it to be sound.

My argument is that I cannot give you information that I do not have, and as I am unlikely to be given that information, my hands are tied.
If all I know is that the delay is caused by an operational incident, whatever it may be, then that is all that I can tell you.
And I am unwilling to give information that I do not know to be 100% correct.

 

[AlterEgo]

My argument is that I cannot give you information that I do not have, and as I am unlikely to be given that information, my hands are tied.
If all I know is that the delay is caused by an operational incident, whatever it may be, then that is all that I can tell you.
And I am unwilling to give information that I do not know to be 100% correct.

In principle, do you think fare-paying passengers are entitled to know the basic cause of the operational incident or not, as long as no confidentiality is broken? Yes or no?

 

[EM2]

In principle, do you think fare-paying passengers are entitled to know the basic cause of the operational incident or not, as long as no confidentiality is broken? Yes or no?

No, because it is impossible to do so without breaking confidentiality.

 

[Llanigraham]

But enthusiasts posting on here isn't what you're trying to prevent.

You're trying to give good and honest information to the general public. They've said they want more honest information. They've said they don't like generic delay reasons.

It's not about what happens on RailUK.

Do they?
I've still seen no proof to support your statement.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, because it is impossible to do so without breaking confidentiality.

Absolute nonsense.

What confidentiality is broken when you say a train overran a red signal? Whose details are being publicised?

 

[AlterEgo]

Do they?
I've still seen no proof to support your statement.

Try reading the national survey which you clearly didn't read and suggested it was oriented around the south east.

Try putting into Twitter search "what is operational incident" and see how many times it gets asked to train companies, and see how many times another member of the public comes in and explains it means a cock up (and often the reasons given by the member of the public sat at home are wrong and reflect worse on the railway than if a basic reason had been given at the start!).

 

[dviner]

I'm amused by the seemingly serious suggestion that "Something has gone wrong" or "We don't know why the train is delayed" would be acceptable things to announce. We'd then have the same thread, with the same posts by the same people, presumably.

If announcements of "Something has gone wrong" and "We don't know..." were made, it would just lead to accusations on incompetence.

 

[EM2]

Absolute nonsense.

What confidentiality is broken when you say a train overran a red signal? Whose details are being publicised?

So if that announcement is made, what is to stop someone who gets off at the next stop running up the front and berating the driver? What is to stop a colleague who has a beef with that driver publishing their details on social media?

 

[AlterEgo]

So if that announcement is made, what is to stop someone who gets off at the next stop running up the front and berating the driver? What is to stop a colleague who has a beef with that driver publishing their details on social media?

Hahahahaha! Oh please.

 

[Llanigraham]

Try reading the national survey which you clearly didn't read and suggested it was oriented around the south east.

Try putting into Twitter search "what is operational incident" and see how many times it gets asked to train companies, and see how many times another member of the public comes in and explains it means a cock up (and often the reasons given by the member of the public sat at home are wrong and reflect worse on the railway than if a basic reason had been given at the start!).

The only survey I have seen WAS centred on the South East.

Don't do ****ter!:roll:

 

[Llanigraham]

Hahahahaha! Oh please.

It happens!!

 

[AlterEgo]

The only survey I have seen WAS centred on the South East.

Don't do ****ter!:roll:

You don't have to "do" Twitter to do a search but I'm sorry if you don't want to find it for yourself.

So you didn't read the survey then before dismissing it. As I suspected.

Some of you guys are hilarious!

 

[Minilad]

Hahahahaha! Oh please.

You think that doesn't happen?

Sorry, but it does.

Both scenarios

 

[AlterEgo]

You think that doesn't happen?

Sorry, but it does.

Both scenarios

Right, so it happens because passengers are told the driver made a mistake? But that isn't what happens at present.

Passengers assault staff because they've had a bad day or their train is cancelled due to a power supply problem or they've been waiting for cows to move off the line or whatever.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest withholding information from passengers will lead to fewer staff getting assaulted. Absolutely ridiculous.

Btw, I assume in the case of the vexatious staff member you propose limiting the information that a train had a SPAR to only the controller taking the phone call? And not put it on Tyrell or anything, god forbid.

 

[EM2]

Hahahahaha! Oh please.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...aulted_as_passengers_experience_travel_chaos/

A FEMALE train driver was allegedly assaulted by a passenger because the service had to be terminated causing chaos for waiting rail passengers.

The driver was forced to stop the service because another passenger became ill on the train, making her working conditions unbearable, just after 11pm at Upminster train station on Wednesday.

She was then allegedly assaulted by another female passenger and train staff called the British Transport Police to the station.

 

[AlterEgo]

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...aulted_as_passengers_experience_travel_chaos/

Thanks for the link. What's that got to do with "operational incident" please?

A passenger was ill on a train. That's in itself a delay reason.

Next objection please.

Oh PS: quote from the article itself, a witness saying "the staff didn't tell us anything"...

 

[EM2]

Oh PS: quote from the article itself, a witness saying "the staff didn't tell us anything"...

'Unfortunately we were unable to keep our passengers fully updated on developments, as platform staff were required to deal with the alleged assault'

 

[Minilad]

Right, so it happens because passengers are told the driver made a mistake? But that isn't what happens at present.

Passengers assault staff because they've had a bad day or their train is cancelled due to a power supply problem or they've been waiting for cows to move off the line or whatever.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest withholding information from passengers will lead to staff getting assaulted. Absolutely ridiculous.

Btw, I assume in the case of the vexatious staff member you propose limiting the information that a train had a SPAR to only the controller taking the phone call? And not put it on Tyrell or anything, god forbid.

Just yesterday I had someone berate me for not stopping at the station they wanted to alight at. A non call would be described as an "operational incident". The fact is many announcements were made about a diversion because of a failed freight train but the said person had headphones in and didn't hear the announcements.
So it doesn't matter how much info you give someone will nearly always either not hear, not want to hear, misinterpret what is said and want to blame someone. And of course the guy at the front with the uniform and the name badge is as good a target as any.
Personally I am happy to give out information as to what is happening but sometimes I can't help but wonder if some just want info so they have someone to blame.
The more information is made available the more people will want. And at some point a line has to be drawn. I have seen it on here with regards to open access info. RTT and such like show more info now than ever before but there are still calls to have more info on there, unit allox, for example
Yes, I agree, accurate timely information should be given out. But on the other hand I think there is a limit on what your average Joe will really understand or be able to work out how such a problem can cause such delays. See the misunderstanding about leaf fall and it's impact on the railway.
The main thing I hear on here is that people want to know how long they will be delayed over anything. As long as you keep them informed of the likely delay I would imagine the vast majority of people will be happy. I get the feeling with some people that it doesn't matter what you say they will always feel they have the right to know everything.

 

[EM2]

Thanks for the link. What's that got to do with "operational incident" please?

So because the phrase isn't used in that report (and may have been in internal messaging) it doesn't count?

 

[AlterEgo]

Just yesterday I had someone berate me for not stopping at the station they wanted to alight at. A non call would be described as an "operational incident". The fact is many announcements were made about a diversion because of a failed freight train but the said person had headphones in and didn't hear the announcements.
So it doesn't matter how much info you give someone will nearly always either not hear, not want to hear, misinterpret what is said and want to blame someone. And of course the guy at the front with the uniform and the name badge is as good a target as any.
Personally I am happy to give out information as to what is happening but sometimes I can't help but wonder if some just want info so they have someone to blame.
The more information is made available the more people will want. And at some point a line has to be drawn. I have seen it on here with regards to open access info. RTT and such like show more info now than ever before but there are still calls to have more info on there, unit allox, for example
Yes, I agree, accurate timely information should be given out. But on the other hand I think there is a limit on what your average Joe will really understand or be able to work out how such a problem can cause such delays. See the misunderstanding about leaf fall and it's impact on the railway.
The main thing I hear on here is that people want to know how long they will be delayed over anything. As long as you keep them informed of the likely delay I would imagine the vast majority of people will be happy. I get the feeling with some people that it doesn't matter what you say they will always feel they have the right to know everything.

But that wasn't an operational incident in your anecdote! What's it supposed to prove in relation to replacing "operational incident" with something less vague?

And whether you say "operational incident" or "train did not call at the booked station due to reasons we are investigating" doesn't change the fact a guy with his earphones in on your train who wanted to alight at X wants to have a go at you, does it?

 

[AlterEgo]

So because the phrase isn't used in that report (and may have been in internal messaging) it doesn't count?

It was not an operational incident. A staff assault is usually "disruptive psssngers" or a train or station requiring police attendance.

How does your news story support your point of view that there is no justification for changing "operational incident" to something just a little less vague and a little more honest?

What was your point? Staff get assaulted? Yes, I know! You wouldn't have to go back five years to find news stories about staff assaults. There are loads.

Your story actually explicitly states that no information was given to passengers. Do you think that helped passengers or hindered them? Do you think the lack of information made a staff assault, on balance, more or less likely?

 

[Minilad]

But that wasn't an operational incident in your anecdote! What's it supposed to prove in relation to replacing "operational incident" with something less vague?

And whether you say "operational incident" or "train did not call at the booked station due to reasons we are investigating" doesn't change the fact a guy with his earphones in on your train who wanted to alight at X wants to have a go at you, does it?

It's not proving anything other than you can have the will to give as much info as you can. Some just won't listen, won't hear, misinterpret, not understand.

 

[EM2]

What was your point? Staff get assaulted? Yes, I know! You wouldn't have to go back five years to find news stories about staff assaults. There are loads.

Your story actually explicitly states that no information was given to passengers. Do you think that helped passengers or hindered them? Do you think the lack of information made a staff assault, on balance, more or less likely?

Staff got assaulted because the service was curtailed. Someone felt that they had the right to go up to the driver and attack them. That could easily happen if you put out a message that that staff member has made a mistake.
Information wasn't given to passengers as, as stated in the article, the staff on site were dealing with the assault.
The assault occurred before the lack of information.

 

[dviner]

Let's put aside the "operational incident" discussions for a moment, and go back to the earlier parts of this thread, with the "I know what happened, but won't/can't tell you" comments.

I have a feeling that staff shouldn't be disseminating information from the various systems - CCIL, Control Logs, FMS, etc. - without authorisation (hence "can't tell you"). Information from Tyrell is bit more of a grey area.

Details obtained through a FOI request should have been checked to ensure that the information provided adheres to the Data Protection principles.

 

[AlterEgo]

Staff got assaulted because the service was curtailed. Someone felt that they had the right to go up to the driver and attack them. That could easily happen if you put out a message that that staff member has made a mistake.
Information wasn't given to passengers as, as stated in the article, the staff on site were dealing with the assault.
The assault occurred before the lack of information.

How do you know the reason the assault happened? The article does not say.

The article says that station staff could not assist with giving info because they were dealing with the sick passenger - which would have happened right away - and that c2c won't give tannoy announcement s because of the time of night.

Anyway, let's say the assault was because of their train being cancelled because of an "operational incident". Your assertion is the service was curtailed and that was the reason for the assault - ergo, the given reason by staff/PIS etc is irrelevant and it will happen because the assailant has been made late.

Nothing to do with the suggestion "operational incident" be replaced with something else. Your article doesn't evidence anything in relation to the question at hand, does it?

 

[EM2]

Anyway, let's say the assault was because of their train being cancelled because of an "operational incident". Your assertion is the service was curtailed and that was the reason for the assault - ergo, the given reason by staff/PIS etc is irrelevant and it will happen because the assailant has been made late.

No. My assertion is that 'operational incident' does not apportion blame. Saying 'the train passed a red signal' does apportion blame. That means that it breaches confidentiality, which is what you asked me an hour ago.

 

[AlterEgo]

No. My assertion is that 'operational incident' does not apportion blame. Saying 'the train passed a red signal' does apportion blame. That means that it breaches confidentiality, which is what you asked me an hour ago.

No, it does not apportion blame in the slightest. A train can pass a signal because of a driver error, a signaller error or a problem with the train or infrastructure.

No confidentiality has been breached - whose name and details have been made public?