Car on the track at Cheshunt 15/07

[talltim]

Saying that a car has been driven into the track isn’t ‘intricate detail’, and in fact is more likely to deflect blame from the railway.
Also, if they said ‘fallen’ it’s not even true.

 

[zwk500]

Saying that a car has been driven into the track isn’t ‘intricate detail’, and in fact is more likely to deflect blame from the railway.

Only a small part of the blame. People expect to be kept moving, and once the trains are stopped the reason why isn't as relevant as what plan B is.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why? And for what purpose?

Um, for the reasons I stated in the post you have quoted !!

 

[flitwickbeds]

Um, for the reasons I stated in the post you have quoted !!

The only reason - other than you wish to see the railway/TOCs "man up" - that I can see is "giving the full story will take some pressure off those railway staff who have to deal with the many passengers affected"

I fail to see how ordinary passengers would change their attitude to staff whether they're told "a large object has fallen on the track" or "a car has driven on the track". All they care about is how long away their train is, whether they should use an alternative route, whether there are any replacement buses being planned, etc. The only reason to give more detail is to satisfy curiosities.

Do you think "a person on the track" following a suicide is too generic as well, or do you want detail of that to the nth degree too? And what do you think passengers waiting for their train gain by also being told more information about the incident and recovery?

TOC - "No trains currently moving in either direction due to a person on the track"

Passengers - "How dare you fob us off with a generic excuse! We want all the details, we deserve them as paying customers! We don't want to know when our train will be here or what the alternatives are, we want to know all the details of what's happening!"

TOC - "OK, you asked for it. Ladies and gentlemen, can I have your full and undivided attention please. Trains are currently unable to move in either direction as a 27 year old white male named Bob..."

Is that really better? Does that really take the pressure off staff?

 

[Watershed]

It hit the national news pretty quickly so I see no reason why station announcements had to be so vague. It's no surprise that public distrust in the railways is so high. It really wouldn't hurt the TOCs to stop being imprecise, or less than forthcoming, about the reasons for disruption.

 

[zwk500]

It hit the national news pretty quickly so I see no reason why station announcements had to be so vague. It's no surprise that public distrust in the railways is so high. It really wouldn't hurt the TOCs to stop being imprecise, or less than forthcoming, about the reasons for disruption.

Perhaps because the staff were busy answering questions and organising onwards travel, and so hadn't manually overrode the system which was playing the allocated message for that Trust Code?

 

[alistairlees]

The railways simply need to be customer focused. Saying that a "large object has fallen onto the track" simply sounds like another railway cock up / couldn't care less. Explaining to customers what has happened - treating them like adults - is a small step towards restoring trust. If systems need to accommodate more reasons / bespoke descriptions, then they should be amended; saying "the system doesn't contain any description other than 'a large object fell onto the track'", and that this can't be changed, is not really customer-focused.

 

[PHILIPE]

The railways simply need to be customer focused. Saying that a "large object has fallen onto the track" simply sounds like another railway cock up / couldn't care less. Explaining to customers what has happened - treating them like adults - is a small step towards restoring trust. If systems need to accommodate more reasons / bespoke descriptions, then they should be amended; saying "the system doesn't contain any description other than 'a large object fell onto the track'", and that this can't be changed, is not really customer-focused.

Regular ones I come across are "Obstruction on the track". which going to extremes that I have come across, could be a small box or half a house in a storm. Another one being animals on the line which could vary from some tiny protected species or a herd of cattle escaping.

 

[Meerkat]

The railways simply need to be customer focused. Saying that a "large object has fallen onto the track" simply sounds like another railway cock up / couldn't care less. Explaining to customers what has happened - treating them like adults - is a small step towards restoring trust. If systems need to accommodate more reasons / bespoke descriptions, then they should be amended; saying "the system doesn't contain any description other than 'a large object fell onto the track'", and that this can't be changed, is not really customer-focused.

Who would know definitively what had happened? You don’t want hearsay going up on screens etc, so if the system doesnt state the detail then it shouldn’t go up.
The only gain might be ‘it wasn’t our fault’, but that just raises thoughts of ‘you can’t stop stop dangerous things getting on the track….that’s a bit scary’
The signs on motorways are equally vague and then it actually matters (as your reaction would differ depending on if the object is a soft 12 inch object or a hard 12 foot one!).

 

[baz962]

Even knowing that it was specifically a car on the track , wouldn't stop the customer moaning and blame game. When I couldn't drive my train any further , due to a tree on the line and told the passengers exactly that , did that placate them. Heck no . Thought I would add the time I was a passenger on Thameslink and was stopped outside of st Alban's , due to en EMR service having hit a person. We got turned back to radlett and you could see the deceased being picked up. Still copious amounts of moaning and blame.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure several sources did kick in, but would the crossing cameras only activate manually - are they not on for every use?

I don’t know about the situation at Cheshunt or the current rules, but it used to be that the camera was switched on when it was time to lower barriers and off when they were proved down. Normally the signalman would only switch it on again if there was a problem, such as indicator lights going on and off, or for some other special reason. In general, signallers control several CCTV crossings or have other duties and cannot spend their time continuously watching one crossing. There was, although technology has probably solved it, the problem of ‘screen-burn‘ if the monitor was constantly focused on one image.

Windmill Lane at Cheshunt is controlled from one of the two Level Crossing workstations in the ‘West Anglia’ side of Liverpool St.

The signallers screens activate when the sequence starts - which in some cases can be automatically (I don’t know what’s the situation is here). The screens switch off when the ‘crossing on is pressed by the signaller, although they can be switched on at any time.

It is possible that the signaller had been warned about - or even seen through the cameras - the police activity in the area and kept the cameras on. Nevertheless, the act of the vehicle crashing through the barrier would have been enough to break the detection circuit on the crossing, which would have caused a loss of proving in the interlocking, which would have caused the protecting signals to revert to danger. So, if the signaller didn’t see it happen, he/she would have known something was amiss at the crossing as soon as it happened.

What they might not have been able to see is the car travelling towards London. However with the barriers ‘broken’ the signaller would have advised the signaller controlling the signals for that area (who sits about 5 metres away) to bring all trains on approach to the crossing to a halt through an emergency stop call.

 

[Shwam3]

In addition to that, the crossing keeper at Trinity Lane LC activated their emergency signal replacement control, presumably as the car drove past them down the track.

 

[Bald Rick]

In addition to that, the crossing keeper at Trinity Lane LC activated their emergency signal replacement control, presumably as the car drove past them down the track.

Must have been the first thing he’d done all week!

 

[Falcon1200]

The only reason - other than you wish to see the railway/TOCs "man up" - that I can see is "giving the full story will take some pressure off those railway staff who have to deal with the many passengers affected"

I fail to see how ordinary passengers would change their attitude to staff whether they're told "a large object has fallen on the track" or "a car has driven on the track". All they care about is how long away their train is, whether they should use an alternative route, whether there are any replacement buses being planned, etc. The only reason to give more detail is to satisfy curiosities.

Do you think "a person on the track" following a suicide is too generic as well, or do you want detail of that to the nth degree too? And what do you think passengers waiting for their train gain by also being told more information about the incident and recovery?

TOC - "No trains currently moving in either direction due to a person on the track"

Passengers - "How dare you fob us off with a generic excuse! We want all the details, we deserve them as paying customers! We don't want to know when our train will be here or what the alternatives are, we want to know all the details of what's happening!"

TOC - "OK, you asked for it. Ladies and gentlemen, can I have your full and undivided attention please. Trains are currently unable to move in either direction as a 27 year old white male named Bob..."

Is that really better? Does that really take the pressure off staff?

I'll make my reply concise; I really do not see any reason why the railway (or any other body) should adopt a policy of 'we do know what has happened but aren't going to let you lot know'. Apart from anything else giving more detail allows people, including (but not just) railway staff to have a better idea of the scale of the likely disruption.

Regarding fatalities, at one time the standard message was ' a person struck by a train at x', the only problem being that ghouls then headed to x to have a look. So it was altered to 'Emergency Services dealing with an incident at y', however this was regarded as being too vague and it was changed again, sensibly IMHO, to 'a person struck by a train between x and z', the two locations being sufficiently far apart that the actual site could not be identified. I can assure you from personal experience that when passengers become aware that such an incident is delaying their train they become much more sympathetic and understanding. And no, I do not (of course) agree with your facetious suggestion of naming the unfortunate person involved.

 

[baz962]

I'll make my reply concise; I really do not see any reason why the railway (or any other body) should adopt a policy of 'we do know what has happened but aren't going to let you lot know'. Apart from anything else giving more detail allows people, including (but not just) railway staff to have a better idea of the scale of the likely disruption.

Regarding fatalities, at one time the standard message was ' a person struck by a train at x', the only problem being that ghouls then headed to x to have a look. So it was altered to 'Emergency Services dealing with an incident at y', however this was regarded as being too vague and it was changed again, sensibly IMHO, to 'a person struck by a train between x and z', the two locations being sufficiently far apart that the actual site could not be identified. I can assure you from personal experience that when passengers become aware that such an incident is delaying their train they become much more sympathetic and understanding. And no, I do not (of course) agree with your facetious suggestion of naming the unfortunate person involved.

Read my above post. One or two become more sympathetic and understanding. In my experience as both a driver and passenger , most are still not either.

 

[mmh]

I'll make my reply concise; I really do not see any reason why the railway (or any other body) should adopt a policy of 'we do know what has happened but aren't going to let you lot know'. Apart from anything else giving more detail allows people, including (but not just) railway staff to have a better idea of the scale of the likely disruption.

No public body explicitly has such a policy, indeed preventing them from doing so was a driver behind the Freedom Of Information Act.

Regarding fatalities, at one time the standard message was ' a person struck by a train at x', the only problem being that ghouls then headed to x to have a look. So it was altered to 'Emergency Services dealing with an incident at y', however this was regarded as being too vague and it was changed again, sensibly IMHO, to 'a person struck by a train between x and z', the two locations being sufficiently far apart that the actual site could not be identified. I can assure you from personal experience that when passengers become aware that such an incident is delaying their train they become much more sympathetic and understanding. And no, I do not (of course) agree with your facetious suggestion of naming the unfortunate person involved.

Not my experience, I'm afraid. For every person whose reaction is sympathy and understanding, there will be one or more whose reaction is "For expletive's sake, selfish expletive, just scrape them up and get the trains moving."

Public organisations also have an implied obligation, if not a legal one, to follow various guidelines on the reporting and detail given of fatalities produced by people such as Public Health England and the Samaritans.

 

[Falcon1200]

Read my above post. One or two become more sympathetic and understanding. In my experience as both a driver and passenger , most are still not either.

Not my experience, I'm afraid. For every person whose reaction is sympathy and understanding, there will be one or more whose reaction is "For expletive's sake, selfish expletive, just scrape them up and get the trains moving."

My most recent experience was last month on an LNER service delayed 150 minutes, including a stand of 120 minutes at Alnmouth, because a train ahead had been involved in a fatality. No-one in my coach displayed anger and impatience towards the railway in general or the on-train staff in particular, very much the opposite. But clearly there are different experiences and viewpoints.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes.



Yes, not least because giving the full story will take some pressure off those railway staff who have to deal with the many passengers affected. And TBH, in this day and age many people will know from the likes of Facebook what has happened as soon as, if not before, some staff.

Why? An obstruction on the line is a perfectly reason way of describing the situation at hand.

 

[skyhigh]

I'll make my reply concise; I really do not see any reason why the railway (or any other body) should adopt a policy of 'we do know what has happened but aren't going to let you lot know'. Apart from anything else giving more detail allows people, including (but not just) railway staff to have a better idea of the scale of the likely disruption.

Assuming it's an unmanned station, the CIS will have a set number of pre-programmed disruption reasons - I don't know of any systems that allow free text entry. A manual PA announcement could be recorded and programmed to play, but depending on the setup that can be quite fiddly to do and controllers have other more pressing things to deal with (i.e. it's better for them to deal with managing the disruption than provide granular information). Train crew do get more detailed information through the likes of Tyrell, and will pass this on where possible. I honestly don't think the thought process is ever 'we don't want to tell you what's happened', unless there's a good reason for that.

 

[Highlandspring]

Assuming it's an unmanned station, the CIS will have a set number of pre-programmed disruption reasons - I don't know of any systems that allow free text entry.

The Network Rail Scala system allows free text (and user uploaded photos/videos) but it only covers the big TV style screens at the NR managed stations.

 

[Horizon22]

The Network Rail Scala system allows free text (and user uploaded photos/videos) but it only covers the big TV style screens at the NR managed stations.

Yes but that always takes a considerable amount of time and as you say, somewhere like Cheshunt wouldn't be able to although Liverpool St might have done but it would take at least 15-30 mins. Normally the screens with the red background and "!" and relevant text on them to alert people. The CIS will probably be incorporated centrally by the relevant control centre (Romford?) and at first details might be sketchy ("a WHAT on the track?!"). Obstruction on the line is likely what would end up being used.

TOCs are in a no win with some here: "too much info" and for many it becomes jargon, complex and doesn't get to the core details and too little and it isn't actually meaninful, or is vague to the actual problem. Those who work in customer comms know that the aim is to be concise, clear and correct.

 

[Highlandspring]

Yes but that always takes a considerable amount of time and as you say, somewhere like Cheshunt wouldn't be able to although Liverpool St might have done but it would take at least 15-30 mins. Normally the screens with the red background and "!" and relevant text on them to alert people. The CIS will probably be incorporated centrally by the relevant control centre (Romford?) and at first details might be sketchy ("a WHAT on the track?!"). Obstruction on the line is likely what would end up being used.

TOCs are in a no win with some here: "too much info" and for many it becomes jargon, complex and doesn't get to the core details and too little and it isn't actually meaninful, or is vague to the actual problem. Those who work in customer comms know that the aim is to be concise, clear and correct.

The usual problem with Scala is it not accepting your password and having to wait for it to eventually send the reset email. But yes I totally agree, keeping communications simple yet accurate is exactly what‘s required in line with the PIDD principles.

 

[Bill57p9]

Obviously every experience will be different, however I have been a passenger where the driver has announced a delay due to a passenger being taken ill, and having to wait for an ambulance. Nobody moaned. (Though it galvanised my view that having a member of staff on board dedicated to the safety of the passengers is a valuable safeguard)

Thinking of the aviation equivalent, airports don't tend to give out much however pilots tend to be very forthcoming with reasons for delay, warts and all. Presumably this is also to keep passengers (couped up in a small metal tube) calm and understanding. Though I was on a flight once where the delay was blamed on air traffic control, followed by a passenger who was a passenger storming up to the cockpit for a word.

 

[jon0844]

I'll make my reply concise; I really do not see any reason why the railway (or any other body) should adopt a policy of 'we do know what has happened but aren't going to let you lot know'. Apart from anything else giving more detail allows people, including (but not just) railway staff to have a better idea of the scale of the likely disruption.

Regarding fatalities, at one time the standard message was ' a person struck by a train at x', the only problem being that ghouls then headed to x to have a look. So it was altered to 'Emergency Services dealing with an incident at y', however this was regarded as being too vague and it was changed again, sensibly IMHO, to 'a person struck by a train between x and z', the two locations being sufficiently far apart that the actual site could not be identified. I can assure you from personal experience that when passengers become aware that such an incident is delaying their train they become much more sympathetic and understanding. And no, I do not (of course) agree with your facetious suggestion of naming the unfortunate person involved.

I think you've perhaps explained why it might not be a great idea to mention a car being driven along the track, after having crashed through barriers, for the same reason that it might well encourage people to rush down to take a look and get in the way of the authorities dealing with a crime scene.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think you've perhaps explained why it might not be a great idea to mention a car being driven along the track, after having crashed through barriers, for the same reason that it might well encourage people to rush down to take a look and get in the way of the authorities dealing with a crime scene.

The only problem being, as I mentioned earlier, that this particular incident was very quickly all over Facebook, no doubt other social media, and various news outlets including the BBC, therefore the railway keeping to its vague 'object on the line' message served no purpose. I firmly believe that passengers appreciate being given as much of the reason for disruption as possible, however I appear to be in a minority in my view.

 

[jon0844]

The only problem being, as I mentioned earlier, that this particular incident was very quickly all over Facebook, no doubt other social media, and various news outlets including the BBC, therefore the railway keeping to its vague 'object on the line' message served no purpose. I firmly believe that passengers appreciate being given as much of the reason for disruption as possible, however I appear to be in a minority in my view.

I'm sure staff were able to give more detail to those who asked.

While it was indeed on social media very quickly, not everyone would be jumping to Twitter etc to look.

As has been mentioned, there are reason codes for all manner of crazy things - but a car on the line appears to be not one of them. Plus even if they did say 'due to a car being driven on the railway', there would still be people who demanded to know the ins and outs, what car it was, the licence plate and details of the driver.

 

[Grumpy Git]

In my personal experience, Airlines are just as "bad" as the railway's when it comes to justifying a delay.

 

[Horizon22]

I'm sure staff were able to give more detail to those who asked.

While it was indeed on social media very quickly, not everyone would be jumping to Twitter etc to look.

As has been mentioned, there are reason codes for all manner of crazy things - but a car on the line appears to be not one of them. Plus even if they did say 'due to a car being driven on the railway', there would still be people who demanded to know the ins and outs, what car it was, the licence plate and details of the driver.

And indeed how it happened. Some people would be rather unnerved by hearing that.

 

[jon0844]

And indeed how it happened. Some people would be rather unnerved by hearing that.

Quite. Very much a 'seconds from disaster' incident where it was just pure luck that there wasn't a tragic outcome that involved the car, train and onlookers from the platform (and by the look of it, rubberneckers on the crossing).

 

[skyhigh]

The only problem being, as I mentioned earlier, that this particular incident was very quickly all over Facebook, no doubt other social media, and various news outlets including the BBC, therefore the railway keeping to its vague 'object on the line' message served no purpose. I firmly believe that passengers appreciate being given as much of the reason for disruption as possible, however I appear to be in a minority in my view.

How do you know this information wasn't given to affected passengers?