At the VERY LEAST - as I have already said - the automated announcements about cancellations should have been supplemented with proactive advice about alternatives - a single and simple example of this being the option to change trains at Chesterfield for the (diverted) EMT Liverpool <> Norwich route. It is substantially unhelpful to simply report these services as "cancelled" - with apologies. And many hours after the incident had occurred, and with the 142 still languishing on the ground obstructing south access to platforms 1 & 2, the station displays were still "offering" southbound departures and arrivals from platform 2. I could go on, but to do so would only give further rise to exactly what I predicted in post 77.
The P1 screens seem like an oversight when people are focusing their time elsewhere. They should have been shut off. Although I doubt it in this case there could have been an instruction from RAIB to preserve the scene until they inspected. That might have included the screens and announcements. However I suspect busy people simply forgot to turn them off!
Going back to the original matter, a couple of observations:
Having seen the derailed train (I was there at about 2pm when it was still languishing in place), I can see why platform 1 and 2 were inacessible from the south. By this time, platform 2c (the bay typically used by Hope Valley stoppers) was used, as was 5 and up. I can see why EMT were skipping Sheffield with the Liverpool - Norwich (etc) services - makes perfect sense - especially if they were standing for time out of the way at Chesterfield.
But I simply don't get how an incident at the south end of the station caused such stupid congestion with services coming and going exclusively at the north - like Adwick (Doncaster) <> Sheffield turnarounds; Hull (etc) <> Sheffield turnarounds; Leeds <> Lincoln (acknowledging there were issues elsewhere with these, still doesn't explain why those that did run were queueing way back along the line towards Meadowhall). I mean - for all it matters, the blocked south end of Platforms 1 & 2 effectively could have given Sheffield two additional north facing bays.
Nor why greater use wasn't made, for services going via Chesterfield, of the "back road" from Sheffield south (via Woodhouse) as it has been when the line via Dronfield is blockaded - if necessary to relieve the three usable through platforms.
The alternative route seems straight forward on first inspection but may not be in practice. No point sending everyone to Chesterfeild for them to be left behind because the 2 car train is wedged. No point stranding people at a smaller station with fewer facilites if the trains cant cope. No point sending them to Chesterfield if there isnt ticket acceptance in place. No point diverting your train via an alternative route if your driver doesn't sign it. No point diverting your train if the relief driver cant get to the change over point. The train here ( suggested above) damaged signalling cables which may have "knocked out" more than the directly affected platforms. That is why it is so complicated in reality than it may appear to the lay man in theory.
Further I notice you continually refer to the trains in question languishing on the ground. I assume you feel this wasn't removed quickly enough. Do you have any idea of the mechanics involved in making that happen?
I hesitate to post anything critical of The Railway nowadays because there will inevitably be a barrage of defense and claims of lack of insider knowledge and understanding - all of which may be true. But that is EXACTLY the point. The superficial evidence here is that The Railway (collectively) did a dismal job of (a) working around the situation and (b) communicating with its users about what it was (or weas not) doing. Yet again.
I will again make the point that posters here want information that passengers don't need. That isnt to suggest the information flow was adequate just that passengers need a very simple message:
There is disruption, trains are delayed, these are the alternatives. Posters here want complexity and superfluous information.
I will also point out that the trains were safely recovered and services restored. To suggest a dismal job was done is, like your posts above, silly. Your complaint is that the communication wasn't good enough. That is a small part of the bigger picture. The focus of the collectively useless railway is to restore services ASAP.
I also note you seem to be another poster who simply expects people to agree with the essential rightness of your posts even when they make silly, easily disprovable statements. You have made some valid points about communications but many of your points are not valid.
Passengers generally want someone who has an understanding (updated as necessary) of what alternatives exist. In my experience that's sadly lacking on most occasions. It's usually a gap in communication between whoever is 'in charge' and the staff on the platforms. I guess whoever is in charge concentrates on just putting the key issues right - and doesn't delegate the key communication issues for others to handle.
they do - I suspect it is more to do with communication between the nice warm office and people on the ground and the need, often, for multiple communications to multiple teams in multiple companies. There also aren't many information controllers who are worth their weight in gold at these times. A few more staff generally would also really help!
Nevertheless, as somebody who was caught up in the disruption at Sheffield (and as a very regular user of the station including during other incidents) I have to say that use of the public address system really is inadequate. Endless automatic announcements about delays and cancellations are no substitute for ‘helpful advice’. A simple explanation that damage to signal cables was causing many trains to queue south of the station was lacking. What is then needed is further explanation: “The first train in the queue is local stopping service from Manchester that we expect to turn round as soon as possible. The second train is a Northern service for Leeds via Barnsley and Wakefield Kirkgate. The third train is a CrossCountry service for Newcastle via Doncaster and York. We will make further announcements as trains move forward...”
I agree entirely - i don't know why someone isnt delegated to man the PA and pump out the same simple message every couple of minutes. At Milton Keynes they turn off the automated PA and screens when there is disruption and use human announcements with screens only showing trains that will actually turn up.
Linking into the above post by
@Dr Hoo I would make the PA announcer the main point of contact for information between the control office and the ground.
