"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[EM2]

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

They don't *need* to be made public. People are more likely to take matters into their own hands if they have a target. And the average punter, who has no idea about how the railway works, is likely to associate 'passed a red' with 'driver cock-up'.

 

[AlterEgo]

They don't *need* to be made public. People are more likely to take matters into their own hands if they have a target. And the average punter, who has no idea about how the railway works, is likely to associate 'passed a red' with 'driver cock-up'.

So, no, it's not a breach of confidentiality then, is it? And no, it doesn't apportion blame, then.

And how are passengers at Station X where this is announced going to get their hands on a person driving a train 20 miles away? Because if you're on a train that has had a SPAD, or overrun, or a fail to call - I've been on all of them - you'll know what happened. It's not about the passengers behind the driver, who invariably know he or she missed a stop (happened to me at MKC once, very late brake application meant an overrun!). The passengers on a SPAD train will see the driver get relieved quite possibly - no hiding it from them.

It's about disseminating information to people on apps, at stations, on other trains, on social media.

Your contributions to this thread have been to think, at every turn, of why the railway must be doing it right, with no acceptance that it might need tweaking, with no acceptance that passengers should be as informed as possible. Despite I, many other passenger posters, several rail staff, data from Twitter (go on, have a look, search "what is operational incident") and a national passenger survey saying change is needed. Incidentally, I'll repeat that the survey made a specific recommendation for more descriptive delay reasons which the railway *accepted* but never implemented.

 

[EM2]

So, no, it's not a breach of confidentiality then, is it? And no, it doesn't apportion blame, then.

Anything that can lead to a person being identified can be a breach of confidentiality.
How many times do we read on this forum that full details should not be supplied in regard to an incident, because staff could be identified?

And how are passengers at Station X where this is announced going to get their hands on a person driving a train 20 miles away? Because if you're on a train that has had a SPAD, or overrun, or a fail to call - I've been on all of them - you'll know what happened. It's not about the passengers behind the driver, who invariably know he or she missed a stop (happened to me at MKC once, very late brake application meant an overrun!). The passengers on a SPAD train will see the driver get relieved quite possibly - no hiding it from them.

And that can stop customers at Station X berating the staff there? I've had people spit at me, because I've told them it's likely to be two hours before they get a train, because a person was hit by a train a hundred miles away.
I've been sworn at over a Help Point because a train was three minutes late.

It's about disseminating information to people on apps, at stations, on other trains, on social media.

Your contributions to this thread have been to think, at every turn, of why the railway must be doing it right, with no acceptance that it might need tweaking, with no acceptance that passengers should be as informed as possible.

Again, if I know what the problem is, I will tell you. I will give full and frank descriptions, if I have them.

Despite I, many other passenger posters, several rail staff, data from Twitter (go on, have a look, search "what is operational incident") and a national passenger survey saying change is needed. Incidentally, I'll repeat that the survey made a specific recommendation for more descriptive delay reasons which the railway *accepted* but never implemented.

What difference does it make, if I tell you you'll be half-an-hour late because of an operational incident, or because a driver overshot a station? You're still half-an-hour late, and now you have a hate figure.
You keep describing this survey. Can you link to it?

 

[Llanigraham]

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!

I don't "do" ****ter therefore I wouldn't even know how to do a search on it. :roll:

What "national survey"? I can't find one. As said the only one I can find is for the South East. Perhaps, instead of being insulting, you could provide a link.

 

[Wombat]

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.

Is there really no happy medium between "the train is delayed due to an operational incident" and "the train is delayed because John Smith of 42b Acacia Gardens, Bromsgrove, B60 8QP ran a red signal. Please visit www.southwesttrains.co.uk/lynch-the-sinner to vote upon the manner of his execution"?

This still looks like a problem of terminology to me. I realise that those of you who work on the railway will know what sort of thing 'operational incident' is likely to cover. To those of us who don't, it looks like a vague, hand-waving attempt to avoid providing information. Some contributors here apparently think that passenger perception doesn't matter, which I find a bit strange in an industry that exists to provide services to passengers.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't "do" ****ter therefore I wouldn't even know how to do a search on it. :roll:

What "national survey"? I can't find one. As said the only one I can find is for the South East. Perhaps, instead of being insulting, you could provide a link.

Well how about going to Twitter.com and putting it in the search bar?

I did link to the survey in this thread via another post is made on the very same subject a few months ago, but here it is again: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2748330&postcount=138

The post linked to summarises the findings and why they're relevant to the argument at hand.

I'd be interested in reading the South East one if you have that to hand.

 

[EM2]

Well how about going to Twitter.com and putting it in the search bar?

I just did that for 'operational incident'. Two people asking so far this month, in relation to UK rail. Hardly a clamour, is it?

 

[EM2]

The post linked to summarises the findings and why they're relevant to the argument at hand.

A report that does not mention the phrase 'operational incident'

 

[AlterEgo]

Anything that can lead to a person being identified can be a breach of confidentiality.
How many times do we read on this forum that full details should not be supplied in regard to an incident, because staff could be identified?

Madness.

Nobody is being identified by saying the train overran the station. I assume staff name badges exist nowhere on the network then too? And I guess I never signed letters with my full name either when I worked for a TOC.

And that can stop customers at Station X berating the staff there? I've had people spit at me, because I've told them it's likely to be two hours before they get a train, because a person was hit by a train a hundred miles away.
I've been sworn at over a Help Point because a train was three minutes late.

YES, staff get assaulted! As you correctly identify, for a whole range of reasons! What's that got to do with the argument?

Again, if I know what the problem is, I will tell you. I will give full and frank descriptions, if I have them.

I'm arguing you should have them. I'm arguing control tell you the general nature of the operational incident. I've been saying this all along. I want your grade to be more empowered and more able to satisfy the wishes of passengers. It's like Groundhog Day!

What difference does it make, if I tell you you'll be half-an-hour late because of an operational incident, or because a driver overshot a station? You're still half-an-hour late, and now you have a hate figure.
You keep describing this survey. Can you link to it?

What a dreadful attitude to have - "what difference does it make?" Can you really tell me that it doesn't make a difference to a passenger whether they receive a non-reason or a more honest and transparent explanation? Do you not see the value at all in communicating to customers?

See my previous post for the link and my summary of the findings relevant to the discussion. I must say I'm not looking forward to you reading it, because you'll find a reason why it's not relevant and you're right and the survey is wrong. But I wait with bated breath.

 

[AlterEgo]

I just did that for 'operational incident'. Two people asking so far this month, in relation to UK rail. Hardly a clamour, is it?

No, there are four in the past month (30 days), and that's only where they've specifically asked "what is an operational incident?" (One says "it's your staff being incompetent"). Search doesn't include all the replies to TOCs where people have replied "whats that?" or "tell me more" in response to a TOC or in fact any tweet where the member of the public doesn't parrot the reason back to them. But if you're interested, please dig further.

 

[AlterEgo]

A report that does not mention the phrase 'operational incident'

A report which looks at passenger information, what passengers value, what the prioritise (guess what? Prior to journey and on train it's 1) impact 2) problem 3) advice - yep, advice ranked less of a priority than the description of the problem!).

The report shows people turning away from you, the rail staffer, towards apps and digital and social solutions. Staffless solutions! It shows that on trains, passengers are now as likely to ask another passenger than the guard.

It's a compelling report about disruption information.

That you choose to dismiss it with a wink because you searched "operational incident" and found no mentions speaks volumes.

 

[EM2]

Madness.

Nobody is being identified by saying the train overran the station. I assume staff name badges exist nowhere on the network then too? And I guess I never signed letters with my full name either when I worked for a TOC.

They COULD be.

YES, staff get assaulted! As you correctly identify, for a whole range of reasons! What's that got to do with the argument?

Because they have a target

I'm arguing you should have them. I'm arguing control tell you the general nature of the operational incident. I've been saying this all along. I want your grade to be more empowered and more able to satisfy the wishes of passengers. It's like Groundhog Day!

I still don't see why it's so important. I'm half-an-hour late. I don't CARE why.

What a dreadful attitude to have - "what difference does it make?" Can you really tell me that it doesn't make a difference to a passenger whether they receive a non-reason or a more honest and transparent explanation? Do you not see the value at all in communicating to customers?

I honestly can't see that it makes a difference. How does it alter your mindset when you know the precise reason for a delay?

 

[EM2]

That you choose to dismiss it with a wink because you searched "operational incident" and found no mentions speaks volumes.

I haven't read it in full because I'm about to go to bed.

 

[Bromley boy]

What a dreadful attitude to have - "what difference does it make?" Can you really tell me that it doesn't make a difference to a passenger whether they receive a non-reason or a more honest and transparent explanation? Do you not see the value at all in communicating to customers?

See my previous post for the link and my summary of the findings relevant to the discussion. I must say I'm not looking forward to you reading it, because you'll find a reason why it's not relevant and you're right and the survey is wrong. But I wait with bated breath.

I agree with your general point that information dissemination to platform staff is pretty poor, passengers at stations will often have more information than platform staff from twitter etc.

One problem that is probably insoluble is that on a DOO train, stuck in the middle of nowhere, the sum-total of information available to the driver will usually be only what can be seen out of the front windscreen. A red signal and perhaps the tail lights of the train ahead.

No electronic devices permitted in the cab, the driver could call the box to find out the problem, but what happens when the drivers of the dozens of other trains all affected by the same incident have the same idea? The signaller's energies are probably better spent working to resolve the matter, rather than fielding the same query over and over again.

What do you suggest the driver does then, other than repeatedly inform the passengers that the train has been delayed due to an operational incident of some sort, and that he has no further information to offer?

 

[AlterEgo]

I honestly can't see that it makes a difference. How does it alter your mindset when you know the precise reason for a delay?

I can't believe you work in a customer facing role giving information.

The whole point of PIDD is that when customers feel informed they feel cared about, and on the whole less frustrated.

We aren't on about precise reasons. We're on about telling people the general nature of a problem and using less defensive and less opaque language.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree with your general point that information dissemination to platform staff is pretty poor, passengers at stations will often have more information than platform staff from twitter etc.

One problem that is probably insoluble is that on a DOO train, stuck in the middle of nowhere, the sum-total of information available to the driver will usually be only what can be seen out of the front windscreen. A red signal and perhaps the tail lights of the train ahead.

No electronic devices permitted in the cab, the driver could call the box to find out the problem, but what happens when the drivers of the dozens of other trains all affected by the same incident have the same idea? The signaller's energies are probably better spent working to resolve the matter, rather than fielding the same query over and over again.

What do you suggest the driver does then, other than repeatedly inform the passengers that the train has been delayed due to an operational incident of some sort, and that he has no further information to offer?

The driver should give as much information as they can. The railway should be as transparent as possible - it's a goal not a panacea.

If the driver cannot find out any information then, unfortunately, they will have to tell the passengers that - but apologise of course, and seem sincere in tone of voice. I don't think we could blame them for doing anything else.

I'd probably say "This is your driver. We've come to a stop here because there's a red signal. I'm not sure of the nature of the incident at the moment but I'm sure it's being worked as I speak. [I can see all the signals in the area are red / I can see a couple of other trains stopped as well - add that in if that's true] I'm sorry about the delay, I know it can be frustrating and I want to get on my way as much as you do."

That's how I'd deal with it, just off the top of my head.

 

[Jonfun]

Nobody's suggested that train crews should have crystal balls. But in many cases the information *is* readily available, and if it is, I think it is important that this is disseminated from the control rooms to the passengers via the front line staff, who are trained and selected on their ability to communicate.

With regard to the DOO driver not being able to access the emails/tyrell/genius to get information to the passengers - unfortunately that is one of the downsides of DOO.

 

[PHILIPE]

The driver should give as much information as they can. The railway should be as transparent as possible - it's a goal not a panacea.

If the driver cannot find out any information then, unfortunately, they will have to tell the passengers that - but apologise of course, and seem sincere in tone of voice. I don't think we could blame them for doing anything else.

I'd probably say "This is your driver. We've come to a stop here because there's a red signal. I'm not sure of the nature of the incident at the moment but I'm sure it's being worked as I speak. [I can see all the signals in the area are red / I can see a couple of other trains stopped as well - add that in if that's true] I'm sorry about the delay, I know it can be frustrating and I want to get on my way as much as you do."

That's how I'd deal with it, just off the top of my head.

Do you live in DOO land ? That's the only area where a driver would normally make announcements.

 

[Bromley boy]

The driver should give as much information as they can. The railway should be as transparent as possible - it's a goal not a panacea.

If the driver cannot find out any information then, unfortunately, they will have to tell the passengers that - but apologise of course, and seem sincere in tone of voice. I don't think we could blame them for doing anything else.

I'd probably say "This is your driver. We've come to a stop here because there's a red signal. I'm not sure of the nature of the incident at the moment but I'm sure it's being worked as I speak. [I can see all the signals in the area are red / I can see a couple of other trains stopped as well - add that in if that's true] I'm sorry about the delay, I know it can be frustrating and I want to get on my way as much as you do."

That's how I'd deal with it, just off the top of my head.

Which is exactly how it's dealt with currently by DOO drivers - myself included.

It's very rare that any more information will be available at the sharp-end, in a form where it can usefully be relayed to passengers.

 

[Jonfun]

Do you live in DOO land ? That's the only area where a driver would normally make announcements.

The question AlterEgo was answering was specifically about DOO.

 

[Bromley boy]

I can't believe you work in a customer facing role giving information.

The whole point of PIDD is that when customers feel informed they feel cared about, and on the whole less frustrated.

We aren't on about precise reasons. We're on about telling people the general nature of a problem and using less defensive and less opaque language.

So you presumably agree that a SPAD, the cause of which won't be known until the relevant investigation has taken place, can be explained as a signalling problem? Lighting affecting DOO monitors can be explained as a "technical problem" etc. Giving any more information than these bland descriptions is unlikely to be understood or cared about by most passengers.

I'm really unsure as to why this thread has degenerated into the usual railforums bunfight.

Where I do agree with you is that it's extremely poor that front line staff are frequently in a position of having less knowledge than passengers due to a lack of access to modern information sources such as twitter etc. This is the area where things could be much improved - although DOO makes that extremely difficult in my neck of the woods.

 

[PHILIPE]

The question AlterEgo was answering was specifically about DOO.

Sorry, misunderstood.

 

[AlterEgo]

So you presumably agree that a SPAD, the cause of which won't be known until the relevant investigation has taken place, can be explained as a signalling problem? Lighting affecting DOO monitors can be explained as a "technical problem" etc. Giving any more information than these bland descriptions is unlikely to be understood or cared about by most passengers.

I'm really unsure as to why this thread has degenerated into the usual railforums bunfight.

Where I do agree with you is that it's extremely poor that front line staff are frequently in a position of having less knowledge than passengers due to a lack of access to modern information sources such as twitter etc. This is the area where things could be much improved - although DOO makes that extremely difficult in my neck of the woods.

Yes, the fluid nature of incidents like this is only too familiar. My argument is once the information is gained, it should be shared. I know that on the control desk it can take a few phone calls for the penny to drop (and I shared an example where the "true cause" wasn't revealed for a dhole day). I know this because I've worked in Control and I've been the first customer facing person breaking the incident.

DOO does make things much more difficult on this front, I agree.

 

[tony_mac]

Giving any more information than these bland descriptions is unlikely to be understood or cared about by most passengers.

I think it's obvious, listening the passengers here, and in other places, that many do actually want more information.

Not so long ago, it was common for doctors and surgeons to not bother telling the patient any details of what was wrong with them - after all it doesn't make any difference to the treatment, they can't do anything about it, and the patient won't really understand it anyway.

However, it is known that giving people more (accurate) information reduces their anxiety levels, even if it achieves nothing else.
You may think that it's irrational, but there are many reasons for this, a number have already been mentioned on this thread.

I agree that, often, the problem is that the information isn't getting to the right people on the ground - quite possibly for exactly the same reasons as people have given here for not passing the information onto passengers.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, the fluid nature of incidents like this is only too familiar. My argument is once the information is gained, it should be shared. I know that on the control desk it can take a few phone calls for the penny to drop (and I shared an example where the "true cause" wasn't revealed for a dhole day). I know this because I've worked in Control and I've been the first customer facing person breaking the incident.

DOO does make things much more difficult on this front, I agree.

In my experience it usually is eventually shared, but a long time after the event has happened. Probably long after the passengers affected will have chalked it up as another bad commute home/to work and forgotten about it.

Certainly it's not a great position to be in, as a driver, to have a trainload of angry punters behind you with no information to give, although I feel far more for guards and platform staff in the same position, who really should be given at least as much information as is available to passengers.

The other problem, of course, is service recovery. A train may be terminated and turned back early to benefit the greater number of passengers and, let's face it, the TOC's PPM figures, but that's of little comfort to the punters who have been turfed off and instructed to wait for a following service.

Information dissemination could be improved, DOO excepted. I'm not sure that giving much more specific information than the relatively bland "technical problem, signalling problem" etc. would be useful in many circumstances.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think it's obvious, listening the passengers here, and in other places, that many do actually want more information.

Not so long ago, it was common for doctors and surgeons to not bother telling the patient any details of what was wrong with them - after all it doesn't make any difference to the treatment, they can't do anything about it, and the patient won't really understand it anyway.

However, it is known that giving people more (accurate) information reduces their anxiety levels, even if it achieves nothing else.
You may think that it's irrational, but there are many reasons for this, a number have already been mentioned on this thread.

I agree that, often, the problem is that the information isn't getting to the right people on the ground - quite possibly for exactly the same reasons as people have given here for not passing the information onto passengers.

I agree that information should be given, where available. The question then is how much factual and technical detail it is appropriate to give.

Two recent instances that spring to mind in my area:

A guard informing a train load of passengers that the delays were due to a pregnant lady having unfortunately suffered a miscarriage on a preceding train. This picked up a mention in the press. It was, no doubt, a sincere attempt to assuage the anger felt at delays, but was clearly a case of "TMI", to coin a phrase!

An ill-advised tweet from a TOC social media team about sunlight affecting DOO monitors which resulted in headlines slating delays being blamed on "the wrong type of sunlight".

On both these occasions, a sincere apology and explanation for the delay was rightly proffered, but in terms of details, less is frequently more!

 

[EM2]

I can't believe you work in a customer facing role giving information.

The whole point of PIDD is that when customers feel informed they feel cared about, and on the whole less frustrated.

If I have information, I will give it. If I don't have it, I will try and find it. If I can't find it, I will tell you.
No-one has ever got annoyed or upset with me because I've said 'We've been told it's because of an operational incident. We're not exactly sure what that means. I'm sorry that I don't have any more info just now'.
Give me more information and I will gladly disseminate it. Tell me absolutely everything and I will happily pass it on.
But I still cannot understand why you think it's necessary.

We aren't on about precise reasons. We're on about telling people the general nature of a problem and using less defensive and less opaque language.

But how does it change things for you?
When the boot is on the other foot and I am travelling, if I find a train is delayed or cancelled, I don't care why.
Me knowing which of the thousand and one things that can affect the railway has caused the issue will not assist me one iota. The train will still be delayed or cancelled. It will not make the issue get resolved quicker, and it won't get me home any quicker.
So I call wherever I'm going and say that I may be late, and then I generally go for a coffee or a pint or something to eat. And I don't suffer any stress or aggravation even though my journey might take a bit longer.
It's the same as when I'm in traffic, or if my plane takes off half-an-hour late (like it did on Sunday, with not a single word of explanation by the way). I'll get where I'm going eventually.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I have information, I will give it. If I don't have it, I will try and find it. If I can't find it, I will tell you.
No-one has ever got annoyed or upset with me because I've said 'We've been told it's because of an operational incident. We're not exactly sure what that means. I'm sorry that I don't have any more info just now'.

But how does it change things for you?
When the boot is on the other foot and I am travelling, if I find a train is delayed or cancelled, I don't care why.
Me knowing which of the thousand and one things that can affect the railway has caused the issue will not assist me one iota. The train will still be delayed or cancelled. It will not make the issue get resolved quicker, and it won't get me home any quicker.
So I call wherever I'm going and say that I may be late, and then I generally go for a coffee or a pint or something to eat. And I don't suffer any stress or aggravation even though my journey might take a bit longer.
It's the same as when I'm in traffic, or if my plane takes off half-an-hour late (like it did on Sunday, with not a single word of explanation by the way). I'll get where I'm going eventually.

Oh mate, please.

I keep saying I'm not on about what *you* do right now under the current regime. I'm arguing that *your grade* - station staff - is more empowered and enabled to meet customer wishes by changing current policy.

And it's not about how *you* feel about being delayed! It's about how the general public feel, not *you*. Your own personal experience of delays as a customer is not relevant in the slightest. Human beings are all different. When you have your paying customers saying they want to be kept informed and have a more honest reason, then that's the feedback you have to act on - even if YOU have never had someone come up to you yourself.

It's incredible that you can read all the opinions on this thread, including the many from the travelling public, and read a survey which tells you what paying customers want most during disruption - and then just dismiss it by saying "oh well but when I travel I don't care what the delay cause is as long as I know when I'm getting there in the end".

Personally I am not that bothered about the delay cause when I travel - but it's evidentially shown that passengers on the whole rate having the information highly - in most cases they rate it a greater priority than getting advice on what to do! Seems illogical, but that's what they say!

This isn't about you!

 

[Chrisgr31]

I think more information should be provided, although I accept that at present that information will be used against the TOC. Does it really matter that people were informed a lady was having a miscarriage? Yes maybe it is TMI but she wasn't named, those around her would already know, but no one hearing the information would know who she was.

The sunshine on the mirrors was a real reason for delay, yes it might lead to people taking the mickey, but hopefully that means someone will do something about it. It also shows the problem of DOO working.

If TOCs start announcing delays are caused by a signal being passed they might initially cause concern. But of course the fact the train has come to a halt shows the safety systems work but of course the cause has to be investigated. Does it matter if a signal is passed? Yes but probably not as much as we all think, and there is no confidentiality at stake as we don't know who is driving. They aren't going to say driver x has passed a signal.

In the shorter term greater information will cakuse more issues of bad press etc, but in the longer term I believe it will actually enhance the network and improve understanding of why these things happen and why they cause delays. Yes some critic will never be satisfied but that's life.

 

[EM2]

Personally I am not that bothered about the delay cause when I travel - but it's evidentially shown that passengers on the whole rate having the information highly - in most cases they rate it a greater priority than getting advice on what to do! Seems illogical, but that's what they say!

No-one has answered the question as to *why* they want this information.
How does it help you?
Why is it important to you?
What can you improve about the situation if you know?