Passengers sick of TOC excuses

[northwichcat]

Commuters want ‘more honesty and fewer excuses’ as they increasingly rely on radio and TV information rather than the botched ‘real-time’ announcements from the rail companies, the watchdog has said.
The accepted good practice of confirming a delay within two minutes of an unscheduled stop is no longer being delivered, according to a Passenger Focus report.

And it’s not enough for announcements to be humorous, nor for the notices be filled with ‘over-the-top empathy’. What they wanted was ‘genuine’, ‘engaged’, ‘alive’ and ‘caring’ rail announcements.
Passenger Focus chief executive Anthony Smith said travellers understood things sometimes went wrong
‘The railway needs to explain the causes of delay in language people trust, and more needs to be done to warn people of problems, so they have a chance to change their plans and avoid them,’ he said.
A spokesman for the Association of Train Operating Companies replied: ‘Improving information during disruption is now a priority and we recognise we needs to get consistently better at it.’

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/876206-...-more-honesty-and-fewer-excuses#ixzz1YgJbxVzT

 

[IanPooleTrains]

Damn right we are sick of it!

 

[tbtc]

When i see things like this in the press my initial reaction is always "dur...".

"Do you want more honesty, or more excuses"? Well, I wonder how most people would answer such a loaded question... same with "do you want genuine human empathy, or do you want an automated recording"? Its so obvious that its almost insulting to ask the question (though I note that there is no mention of how many people were asked in this "survey"...).

More importantly, I'd imagine that passengers want fewer delays (so less need for any such announcements). That said, its interesting to see something criticising TOCs for making too few announcements (after all the ones on here criticising them for making too many).

 

[mallard]

Can we at least get rid of automated computer voices that say "I am sorry...". A computer cannot give a meaningful apology. It's meaningless and tends to have the opposite of the desired effect on those who hear it.

Say "TOCNAME apologises for..." instead, it's much better.

 

[Greenback]

I think there's a bit of a difference between announcements telling you what's going on when there are delays and disruptions, and automated drivel telling you not to smoke and to take care in the rain (especialyl when it's as dry as a bone!).

Of course, tbtc is correct to say that ideally passengers want less disruption, and to question the data behind the PF report. I'm not actually sure what PF want - how can the announcements be alive, engaged, caring and genuine without being accused of being over empathic?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can we at least get rid of automated computer voices that say "I am sorry...". A computer cannot give a meaningful apology. It's meaningless and tends to have the opposite of the desired effect on those who hear it.

Say "TOCNAME apologies for..." instead, it's much better.

Agreed, perhaps that's what they mean by alive!

 

[northwichcat]

That said, its interesting to see something criticising TOCs for making too few announcements (after all the ones on here criticising them for making too many).

Less announcements repeating what has already been said relating to security messages and more announcements keeping passengers informed of disruption.

 

[swt_passenger]

Say "TOCNAME apologises for..." instead, it's much better.

Always best to use the right word though...

 

[Chapeltom]

Less announcements repeating what has already been said relating to security messages and more announcements keeping passengers informed of disruption.

I can't be the only one who finds the constant bombardment of security messages annoying. When there's a delay I'd rather the TOCs be more honest and say "We don't know how long we will be delayed for..." I'd rather that than nothing at all. I was once on a Voyager from Leeds to Sheffield and we were stood still for quite a while in the Wakefield area, the train manager was quite honest saying something along the lines of "We are struck behind a broken down local train and unfortunately we don't know how long we'll be waiting".

I was scheduled to have a 44 minute wait in Sheffield, in the end I had 5 minutes to run otherwise it would have been a 2 hour wait. I was rather happy I knew something rather than nothing at all.

 

[455driver]

Just another case of "ask the question in the way to get the answer you want" survey.

Remember XC asking passengers if they would prefer a fixed buffet or an at seat service, no surprises on the answer really, now if the passengers had been given the whole story about the available food choices would the answer have been the same? I dont think so!

Why can "they" just do an honest survey any more?

 

[northwichcat]

I can't be the only one who finds the constant bombardment of security messages annoying. When there's a delay I'd rather the TOCs be more honest and say "We don't know how long we will be delayed for..." I'd rather that than nothing at all.

At Stockport station you sometimes gets announcements like that. One day the 16:58 Stockport to Chester service was delayed, at about 16:53 there was an announcement informing passengers that the unit to run this service is still at at the Newton Heath depot so the service will be delayed, we will give you a further announcement when the unit leaves Newton Heath. However, with automated announcements there isn't an option for saying something like that so it finishes up with someone guessing how many minutes it'll be delayed, then guessing again when it doesn't arrive at the time they originally guessed.

 

[Schnellzug]

Can we at least get rid of automated computer voices that say "I am sorry...". A computer cannot give a meaningful apology. It's meaningless and tends to have the opposite of the desired effect on those who hear it.

Say "TOCNAME apologises for..." instead, it's much better.

"I'm", as they say round these parts, "very sorry" (with emphasis) "for the delay." No you're not, you're a computer, you have no feelings, unless your name is HAL.

Anyway, one thing that is definitely counterproductive is the phrase "due to an Incident". It's used to cover such a vast range of occurences from a trespasser on the line to a major collision, it does more harm than it's worth, particularly since people, knowing the ways of euphemisms, will tend naturally to assume that they're covering something up.

 

[Harlesden]

In the days when off-peak London Overground trains from Clapham Junction terminated at Willesden Junction, the automated announcement (at Willesden Junction) "The Next train on Platform - will be the --:-- from Clapham Junction and will terminate here" would always come after said train had already arrived terminated and gone. A couple of minutes later and the announcement "The train at platform - is the --:-- from Clapham Junction which terminates here" would be very confusing for passengers just coming onto the platform

 

[RPM]

Commuters want ‘more honesty and fewer excuses’

‘The railway needs to explain the causes of delay in language people trust, and more needs to be done to warn people of problems, so they have a chance to change their plans and avoid them,’http://www.metro.co.uk/news/876206-...-more-honesty-and-fewer-excuses#ixzz1YgJbxVzT

The trouble is they can't handle the truth because the truth is complex and long winded and requires familiarity with railway technology and operating practices to be understood. Thus railway staff have to simplify and paraphrase; thus it comes over sounding like rather pathetic, unhelpful excuses. Perhaps we should just stick to 'delayed due to circumstances beyond our control' and have done.

The question people want answering more than any other is 'how long will the delay go on for' or some similar 'how long is a piece of string' type of question. The fact that we often can't give more than a very wide/vague estimate in answer to that is often percieved as unhelpfullness. In reality it is quite the opposite - an honest attempt at a truthful answer to an impossible question.

When passengers complain of 'lack of information' or 'unhelpful staff' what they often actually mean is they don't like what they are being told.

 

[DarloRich]

Announcement - the train is delayed as we have run someone over. It will take some time to scrape their remains of the front/side/wheels/equipment. It appears that most of the internal organs are attached to the coupler. At present the delay is caused by the search for the deceased’s head. I can’t tell you how long it will take to find the head but we are looking and I will inform you of progress.

Honest enough?

Or would you prefer an apology for the delay because of an “operational incident”?

(With the greatest of apologies to those who ACTUALLY have to do this job!)

What passengers want is to be told EXACTLY how long their journey will be delayed:

Yes sir 1x cable theft, consulting page 5478 section B appendix U of the Haynes Railway Operating Manual I see that this delay is a two spanner severity delay and therefore you will be stationary for exactly 76 minutes and 39 seconds.

 

[mallard]

The trouble is they can't handle the truth because the truth is complex and long winded and requires familiarity with railway technology and operating practices to be understood. Thus railway staff have to simplify and paraphrase; thus it comes over sounding like rather pathetic, unhelpful excuses. Perhaps we should just stick to 'delayed due to circumstances beyond our control' and have done.

People like to know that the situation is understood and under control. Even if they don't understand what's wrong, it's reassuring to know that somebody does.

To this extent, an overly-technical description of the problem is much better than a dumbed-down to useless explanation.

I often hear terms such as "track circuit failure" in announcements and while I may know what that means, most of the passengers obviously don't, but it still reassures them much more than a generic "circumstances beyond our control" message would. That just gives the impression that you don't know what's going on and don't want to admit it. Even if you don't know, saying "I'm not sure why we're being held here, but I will endeavour to find out and will make further achievements as I receive more information" is more helpful.

Railway staff seem to think no information is better than information that passengers might not understand. That's not true. Even though the passengers might not understand the issue, they are reassured by the fact that somebody clearly does and they aren't being kept "in the dark".

 

[Mojo]

Yesterday we had a story that Tocs are sick of passenger's excuses and today it's passengers are sick of the Tocs' excuses

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I must confess that when I was on Hereford station on 8th September, waiting for the 1508 service to Wilmslow, which had been delayed in the South Wales area, the announcements made were made in a manner that conveyed their regret and gave awaiting passengers the knowledge that they were doing everything possible to remedy matters.

 

[northwichcat]

Yesterday we had a story that Tocs are sick of passenger's excuses and today it's passengers are sick of the Tocs' excuses

Tomorrow it'll be TOCs sick of DfT excuses.

 

[The North Briton]

The accepted good practice of confirming a delay within two minutes of an unscheduled stop is no longer being delivered, according to a Passenger Focus report.

Crikey! What do they expect to be told after TWO minutes? "Err.. this train has been brought to a stop by the signaller and the driver is just getting out of the cab, hopefully to be told what's going on". Doesn't really add much to anyone's understanding of the situation.

 

[Minilad]

I often find that if you give out the reason for a delay you often get told that it is "just another excuse" There often is no pleasing a minority of travellers.

 

[Schnellzug]

this vogue for Automated announcements to say "We are very sorry, but the 14:24 to Tidmouth is approximately... <dramatic pause> three minutes late. we're... very sorry for the delay to this train" can add a little frisson of excitement to one's day. To be fair, back in the old days they didn't usually think it worthwhile to switch on the mike if it was any less than 10 minutes late.

 

[WestCoast]

Some people always need something to complain about. Doesn't it make people happier?

Complaining each day keeps the doctor away!

 

[SS4]

Passengers will only listen to what they want to hear.

It does not matter how accurate your explanation is, if it doesn't suit the passenger it will be ignored.

 

[paul1609]

At Stockport station you sometimes gets announcements like that. One day the 16:58 Stockport to Chester service was delayed, at about 16:53 there was an announcement informing passengers that the unit to run this service is still at at the Newton Heath depot so the service will be delayed, we will give you a further announcement when the unit leaves Newton Heath. However, with automated announcements there isn't an option for saying something like that so it finishes up with someone guessing how many minutes it'll be delayed, then guessing again when it doesn't arrive at the time they originally guessed.

The Southern automated system is actually very good even when the delay has been caused off patch.
I remember once hearing an automated announcement at Barnham that a FGW service to Brighton was delayed by 38 minutes due to police attending the service at Bristol Temple Meads. I suspect the lack of information during heavy delays is just because nobody has input the information to the system rather than short comings in the system itself.

 

[northwichcat]

Crikey! What do they expect to be told after TWO minutes? "Err.. this train has been brought to a stop by the signaller and the driver is just getting out of the cab, hopefully to be told what's going on". Doesn't really add much to anyone's understanding of the situation.

To be honest as a passenger when on board I'd rather hear an announcement telling me the train is being held for a late running Virgin service than to hear nothing as the announcement then reassures me that the train has broken down or that there isn't a signalling problem causing 20 minute delays.

 

[dcd]

BBC has an item as well What do rail delay excuses really mean?

 

[sheff1]

Announcement - the train is delayed as we have run someone over. It will take some time to scrape their remains of the front/side/wheels/equipment. It appears that most of the internal organs are attached to the coupler. At present the delay is caused by the search for the deceased’s head. I can’t tell you how long it will take to find the head but we are looking and I will inform you of progress.

Honest enough?

Or would you prefer an apology for the delay because of an “operational incident”? .

Something like 'The train has hit a person/trespasser on the line. We are waiting for the police to attend. I will let you know when they arrive'.

Then 'The police have arrived, I do not know at this stage how long their work will take'

and so on.

'Operational incident' is totally meaningless.

 

[4SRKT]

I wrote something about this only yesterday, using a particularly bad example of drivel being spouted by EC as an example.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40484&page=11

 

[Flamingo]

Something like 'The train has hit a person/trespasser on the line. We are waiting for the police to attend. I will let you know when they arrive'.

Then 'The police have arrived, I do not know at this stage how long their work will take'

and so on.

'Operational incident' is totally meaningless.

I prefer Darlo's version.

I do agree that operational incident is meaningless, though.

 

[michael769]

Announcement - the train is delayed as we have run someone over. It will take some time to scrape their remains of the front/side/wheels/equipment. It appears that most of the internal organs are attached to the coupler. At present the delay is caused by the search for the deceased’s head. I can’t tell you how long it will take to find the head but we are looking and I will inform you of progress.

Honest enough?

Or would you prefer an apology for the delay because of an “operational incident”?

What you describe are the two extremes though. One one side over complex detail on the other a vague and insulting "we cannot be bothered to tell you anything" response. There are plenty of other options available, many of which actually meet the needs of passengers (to be kept informed about what is happening).

How about "We regret to inform you that this train has been involved in a collision involving a pedestrian on the line. We are currently trying to find out how long it will be before the emergency services have done and we can get the train and line into a fit state to continue. Work is already underway and we will get back to you as soon as we have an estimate available"?

As for track circuit failure how about:

"We regret to inform you that this train is being delayed by a fault in the signalling system. Engineers are onsite and working on the problem and have advised that they expect that it will take between 15 and 30 minutes. We will get back to you once we have better information".

Most importantly all such announcements should be made by real people. Making automated announcements in such circumstances just tells passengers that the rail industry don't care about them, and are just going through the motions.