Ambulance Services dealing with an incident

[Bertie the bus]

I encountered a new excuse for delays yesterday – ambulance services dealing with an incident near the line. The use of “near the line” is interesting.

My thoughts were it is either a new version of emergency services dealing with an incident or a passenger being taken ill on a train.

I find it difficult to believe it is the former as one train was stuck at a station but trains were running per schedule in the other direction and if it is the latter why not just say a passenger has been taken ill?

The train was showing on screens as cancelled but in the end continued on its journey so there is no cancellation code on RTT I can check so could anybody please shed some light on what it does mean?

 

[Adam Williams]

Was this in the Didcot area?

 

[Bertie the bus]

No. Prescot on the Liverpool - Wigan line. This was the service affected - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W48201/2025-08-19/detailed#allox_id=0

 

[The exile]

I encountered a new excuse for delays yesterday – ambulance services dealing with an incident near the line. The use of “near the line” is interesting.

My thoughts were it is either a new version of emergency services dealing with an incident or a passenger being taken ill on a train.

I find it difficult to believe it is the former as one train was stuck at a station but trains were running per schedule in the other direction and if it is the latter why not just say a passenger has been taken ill?

The train was showing on screens as cancelled but in the end continued on its journey so there is no cancellation code on RTT I can check so could anybody please shed some light on what it does mean?

Someone fallen down the stairs which form the only access to the required platform, perhaps? With ambulance staff needing to work rather too close for comfort to one running line.

 

[Edsmith]

I've heard an announcement about 'an incident near the railway line', or something similar, at Ashford International and even Southeastern staff were baffled by it.

 

[Horizon22]

I've heard an announcement about 'an incident near the railway line', or something similar, at Ashford International and even Southeastern staff were baffled by it.

There's quite a lot of them set up - just search "near the railway" here - https://wiki.openraildata.com/index.php/Darwin:Late_Running_reason_codes_and_text

This could be a fire, burst water main, gas leak or other emergency services required. Sometimes exclusion zones are needed, as one example

On this occasion, it could have just been a manual error and the "near the railway" bit was just incorrectly selected as the delay/cancellation reason by the controller.

 

[greaterwest]

On this occasion, it could have just been a manual error and the "near the railway" bit was just incorrectly selected as the delay/cancellation reason by the controller.

I seem to recall that entering "bridge" into the search box of a certain Customer Information System software will bring up the first result of: a boat colliding with a bridge (amongst other bridge related disruption reasons).

 

[800001]

I encountered a new excuse for delays yesterday – ambulance services dealing with an incident near the line. The use of “near the line” is interesting.

My thoughts were it is either a new version of emergency services dealing with an incident or a passenger being taken ill on a train.

I find it difficult to believe it is the former as one train was stuck at a station but trains were running per schedule in the other direction and if it is the latter why not just say a passenger has been taken ill?

The train was showing on screens as cancelled but in the end continued on its journey so there is no cancellation code on RTT I can check so could anybody please shed some light on what it does mean?

Near the line could be as simple as on a station platform.
So no, it's not an excuse it's a genuine reason.

 

[skyhigh]

Ambulance required for a passenger on 2F68. There is no option for "Ambulance service dealing with an incident on this/a train" so the reason given is probably a reasonable choice.

 

[Horizon22]

Ambulance required for a passenger on 2F68. There is no option for "Ambulance service dealing with an incident on this/a train" so the reason given is probably a reasonable choice.

There is in Darwin (774) albeit not "on this train". Not sure that adds a lot neccesarily though. Not all operators have all options selected, however "emergency services dealing with an incident" would also be reasonable although some operators prefer only to utilise this when there has been a person struck by train.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Ambulance required for a passenger on 2F68. There is no option for "Ambulance service dealing with an incident on this/a train" so the reason given is probably a reasonable choice.

So why not just announce a passenger taken ill on the train? There are announcements for that. I understand, but don't agree with, the reasons given for emergency services dealing with an incident but surely nobody is going to hear a passenger has been taken ill and try to follow suit.

 

[800001]

So why not just announce a passenger taken ill on the train? There are announcements for that. I understand, but don't agree with, the reasons given for emergency services dealing with an incident but surely nobody is going to hear a passenger has been taken ill and try to follow suit.

I think this thread is really making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The ambulance service we're dealing with an incident, it was announced as such, so what is the issue?

 

[Lewisham2221]

So why not just announce a passenger taken ill on the train? There are announcements for that. I understand, but don't agree with, the reasons given for emergency services dealing with an incident but surely nobody is going to hear a passenger has been taken ill and try to follow suit.

Whichever reason/announcement they use isn't going to alter how much the trains are delayed by...

 

[DarloRich]

I think this thread is really making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The ambulance service we're dealing with an incident, it was announced as such, so what is the issue?

Are you new to RUK?

 

[800001]

Are you new to RUK?

No, but it still Amazes me that threads like this appear.

To 99.9% of people who would have seen the delay reason. It makes perfect sense what the delay is, it's not an excuse as the the OP writes, but a genuine reason for a delay. And yet here we are, again.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Whichever reason/announcement they use isn't going to alter how much the trains are delayed by...

The point is if a proper understandable reason is given then people can make a reasonable judgement about how long the delay might be but that seems to be way over the head of many people associated with the railway.

I asked this question because I hadn't encountered that excuse before but the information provided was absolutely appalling. 2F68 forms 2C32 21:21 Wigan - Liverpool and that was variously shown as "on time", cancelled, "on time" again, then 1 minute late, 2 minutes late, 3 minutes late and then delayed.

As I was looking at Traksy I could see there was no unit at Wigan to form the service and told a passenger who arrived they were likely to be in for a long wait but it really isn't my responsibility to provide information to passengers, it is the railway's.

 

[800001]

The point is if a proper understandable reason is given then people can make a reasonable judgement about how long the delay might be but that seems to be way over the head of many people associated with the railway.

I asked this question because I hadn't encountered that excuse before but the information provided was absolutely appalling. 2F68 forms 2C32 21:21 Wigan - Liverpool and that was variously shown as "on time", cancelled, "on time" again, then 1 minute late, 2 minutes late, 3 minutes late and then delayed.

As I was looking at Traksy I could see there was no unit at Wigan to form the service and told a passenger who arrived they were likely to be in for a long wait but it really isn't my responsibility to provide information to passengers, it is the railway's.

It's not an excuse.

Maybe it was cancelled then reinstated, maybe they did not know how long the ambulance service would be assisting the ill passenger? Just a thought

 

[DarloRich]

I asked this question because I hadn't encountered that excuse before but the information provided was absolutely appalling. 2F68 forms 2C32 21:21 Wigan - Liverpool and that was variously shown as "on time", cancelled, "on time" again, then 1 minute late, 2 minutes late, 3 minutes late and then delayed.

The information system isn't sentient. It doesn't know what you know or think like you can!

 

[Horizon22]

The point is if a proper understandable reason is given then people can make a reasonable judgement about how long the delay might be but that seems to be way over the head of many people associated with the railway.

Really? Because even those on scene and within control don't know how long it might be once the emergency services are on scene - whether that's due to paramedics attending to an unconscious passenger potentially not breathing with a serious injury or the police attending a scene and then potentially searching for evidence. There are such a range of outcomes and possible impacts to the train service, that rail staff often struggle to make "reasonable judgments", ("it will take as long as it takes") so it would be pretty impressive for a passenger to do so! Sometimes you get an idea based on previous experience, but not always.

The best thing you can do is a very rough estimate or just proactively cancel services and hope it can be reinstated if it is not as bad as feared.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

I asked this question because I hadn't encountered that excuse before but the information provided was absolutely appalling. 2F68 forms 2C32 21:21 Wigan - Liverpool and that was variously shown as "on time", cancelled, "on time" again, then 1 minute late, 2 minutes late, 3 minutes late and then delayed.

It is a live situation; circumstances can change.

 

[DarloRich]

There isn't a Haynes big book of railway operations that tells you exactly how long each possible iteration of an incident will take to resolve.

The answer is: as long as it takes.

BTW: how good is information when you are stuck in a stationary queue on the M1?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Really?

Yes, really.

The best thing you can do is a very rough estimate or just proactively cancel services and hope it can be reinstated if it is not as bad as feared.

Which never happens.

 

[BG2024]

2F68 forms 2C32 21:21 Wigan - Liverpool and that was variously shown as "on time", cancelled, "on time" again, then 1 minute late, 2 minutes late, 3 minutes late and then delayed.

This is a fundamental problem with how some TOCs treat delays to departures at terminal stations: they simply don't take account of delays to inbound services whatsoever.

In this specific circumstance, I'd expect Northern to always report the 2121 as "On Time" until the clock ticks past 2122, even if the inbound service is still stuck 20 miles away.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Yes, really.

Okay, so for future reference could you please tell me:

How long a delay will be if it's due to "a passenger being taken ill onboard a/this train"?

How long a delay will be if it's due to "the ambulance service dealing with an incident near the line"?

Considering that, to my knowledge, the former of those reasons could apply to both a passenger who is only mildly unwell and essentially just needs a quick assessment and some assistance to leave the train to be further dealt with by staff/ambulance staff off the train, or equally to a passenger in cardiac arrest - which is clearly going to take considerably longer to deal with - and just about anything in between, I'm really not sure how much of an informed decision you could make without more information, which obviously won't be forthcoming.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes, really.

Good luck with that.

Which never happens.

I mean stating "never" is just categorically untrue.

 

[muz379]

It is a live situation; circumstances can change.

Exactly , happens all the time with all sorts of differen incidents particularly when outside agencies are involved that work to different rules and priorities .

Ambulance service : That wont be a prioirty call it could be 2 hrs - TOC control : Cancel return working and drivers next trip
Ambulance service : A crew cleared quicker than we expected theyll be there in 15 minutes - TOC control : Reinstate drivers next trip and put delay on return working
Paramedics : The patient is worse than we thought we need another crew to assist - TOC control : Back to plan A .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

This is a fundamental problem with how some TOCs treat delays to departures at terminal stations: they simply don't take account of delays to inbound services whatsoever.

In this specific circumstance, I'd expect Northern to always report the 2121 as "On Time" until the clock ticks past 2122, even if the inbound service is still stuck 20 miles away.

Of course the problem if you automatically link them , and then control step a unit up to work a service it leaves on time and catches people out .

The other thing is with how complex some TOC's make their crew diagrams linking the services is one thing but the crew to work them could come from elsewhere on different services as well . Becomes a mess then which requires manual intervention more often than not .

 

[DerekC]

I think the general point that information to passengers should be as helpful as possible in making any decisions is right, and let's be honest, it often isn't. However this seems like a very bad example to complain about because we all know that anything of this kind just takes as long as it takes, and trains aren't delayed for fun.

Sometimes people want to know more to fuel their curiosity, which is a very human thing and we all do it - am I justified in getting annoyed (the train broke down, there isn't a conductor available) or not (someone has been taken ill). I think the OP's question is driven by this - if it's an emergency services call to an incident on the train, fair enough. If it's on the station - why did the train need to be delayed? And that's a level of information that it just isn't practical to relay to passengers on a train or another station.

 

[styles]

I appreciate that information from the TOCs regarding delays can sometimes be lacking.

But a slight rephrasing of the reason for the delay here isn't going to help any passenger plans their onward journey any better.

Somebody taken ill on a train, and emergency services dealing with an incident near the line, can both take anywhere between a minute and several hours to resolve. Often the emergency workers themselves won't even be able to give an accurate estimate, let alone somebody who can't even see it.

I'd bundle this up with the thread about whether you need to say, "See it. Say it. Sorted.", after 61016 - it doesn't really matter.

 

[mikeb42]

I appreciate that information from the TOCs regarding delays can sometimes be lacking.

A masterpiece of understatement.

So often the knowledgeable passenger will be better off drawing their own conclusions than relying on what they're being told via obvious routes.

Exhibit 1 for the prosecution:

Yesterday there was a sad incident at Didcot at about 15:15 which caused massive disruption for many hours. Obviously a difficult business for everyone directly involved to deal with.

At 16:00 journeycheck said lines expected to reopen at 17:15. At 17:00, it said 18:15 and so on. I appreciate that this goes with the territory. This one took much longer than the usual 2 hours to deal with, no doubt for good reasons.

By 16:00 ish, on traksy the berths in Didcot station all had SHUT in them, along with TIL 2000.

Lines reopened at about 20:00. It appears the signallers knew, but this was not what was communicated to the public.

Was this a fluke, and the signallers just happened to guess correctly but could just as well have been hours too pessimistic?

Had I not thought to look at traksy to try to get a better idea what was going on, I'd not have bailed into the car and driven to London from Chippenham, arriving earlier than I would have even if the trains were running normally. Relying on what we were being told would have resulted in hours and hours of delay. How many other passengers would have done that? Zero? Five? Certainly not the thousands caught up in it.

I appreciate that class of incident is among the worst to deal with but it still reflects a pattern. Don't believe anything you're told, draw your own conclusions from the information you can now get in the public domain and on average you'll be better off.

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

By 16:00 ish, on traksy the berths in Didcot station all had SHUT in them, along with TIL 2000.

I saw that too but I thought it was talking about the sidings

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

It still says that in the sidings now

 

[800001]

A masterpiece of understatement.

So often the knowledgeable passenger will be better off drawing their own conclusions than relying on what they're being told via obvious routes.

Exhibit 1 for the prosecution:

Yesterday there was a sad incident at Didcot at about 15:15 which caused massive disruption for many hours. Obviously a difficult business for everyone directly involved to deal with.

At 16:00 journeycheck said lines expected to reopen at 17:15. At 17:00, it said 18:15 and so on. I appreciate that this goes with the territory. This one took much longer than the usual 2 hours to deal with, no doubt for good reasons.

By 16:00 ish, on traksy the berths in Didcot station all had SHUT in them, along with TIL 2000.

Lines reopened at about 20:00. It appears the signallers knew, but this was not what was communicated to the public.

Was this a fluke, and the signallers just happened to guess correctly but could just as well have been hours too pessimistic?

Had I not thought to look at traksy to try to get a better idea what was going on, I'd not have bailed into the car and driven to London from Chippenham, arriving earlier than I would have even if the trains were running normally. Relying on what we were being told would have resulted in hours and hours of delay. How many other passengers would have done that? Zero? Five? Certainly not the thousands caught up in it.

I appreciate that class of incident is among the worst to deal with but it still reflects a pattern. Don't believe anything you're told, draw your own conclusions from the information you can now get in the public domain and on average you'll be better off.

It could have meant the station could have been closed until 20:00 if the station needed a clean after the incident , however trains may of been allowed to pass without stopping.