Customer information during person under train incidents

[eldomtom2]

So you just don’t believe any of the research done by professionals about contagion then?

This sort of research can never be very ironclad for obvious reasons.

 

[AlterEgo]

This sort of research can never be very ironclad for obvious reasons.

Probably more ironclad than an anonymous internet poster’s “I reckon”.

 

[greyman42]

Is that because you claim to know better, or because you just don’t care about what doesn’t affect you personally?

Neither, just lack of evidence.

 

[LowLevel]

LNER have a really, really condescending and nasty way of trying to make people feel guilty in these circumstances. It goes without saying that the family of the deceased, and the deceased themselves, have lost far more than someone made late by the situation. BUT: that does not take away the right of someone (particularly someone who may not know the reason for the delays and indeed as we’re discussing TOCs don’t always make it clear) to be frustrated by the situation, and ask the Twitter things like how they can get home, can they go this way, why are trains late, etc.

Well, the amount of pious responses I’ve seen to perfectly reasonable tweets - particularly by a user named “Cameron” who from what I’ve seen who likes to be particularly vocal - things like “Well, we’re hoping to have the disruption cleared and you on your way home by 18:30 Luke, but just remember someone won’t be going home today.” Or “I appreciate your frustration, but someone has died and you asking when the line will open is not respectful.” No. This, in response to perfectly reasonable (if slightly irritated but not rude or disrespectful) tweets is very unnecessarily patronising and guilting, and I’ve only ever seen this from LNER’s Twitter. People should NOT feel guilted out of making the enquiries that the service is there for.

GWR, Avanti, SWR, SE and GTR seem swift and helpful. In my experience, GA, EMR and WMT just don’t bother responding either in these types of situations or normal day. Scotrail were just as bad a few years ago. Perhaps it’s an Abellio thing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==



Couldn’t agree more. People are likely to be far more sympathetic too. To me, operational incident sounds like someone at planning or control getting their sums wrong, if you get what I mean. A mix up in the operations rooms.

I agree that trying to help the passengers is my raison d'etre at work.

However, some people do react to any kind of incident with an immediate panicked "what about me" response to the exclusion of all else and while I do gently try and bring them round in the first instance sometimes being a bit firm is the only way to reintroduce a bit of perspective.

Classic example I found myself on the receiving end of was that one day my train hit a person on the track, leaving them injured but alive on the line. One moment I was halfway through sorting an excess fare, the next I was making a brief explanation on the PA before heading off down the track with the first aid box. Once the emergency services had arrived I set off back to the train to talk to the passengers, my rather shocked driver having made admirable attempts to keep them advised on the PA.

I had nearly 70 people on the train, many with flights, ferry sailings etc. All of them took the news as it was, some of them were quite shocked and upset. Only one was telling me in a rather forthright manner that he had a flight to catch and didn't believe we would get him there. I asked when his flight was - mid morning tomorrow! I assured him that if need be a taxi would be provided and worked him out an itenary and set off back down the track to see the police and rail incident officer.

In the end I agreed to work the train forward with a relief driver so the passengers weren't stuck (I was happy I was fit to do so) and went back off down the train to deal with any remaining queries.

All good except for Mr Flight Tomorrow man who rather abruptly told me that he doubted the truth of what I was saying about onward transport (which I had already put into place) and that he wanted my full name and details and it wasn't good enough.

I firmly but still politely told him that between talking to him I had dealt with all of the other passengers on the train, some of whom had pressing commitments that evening and none of whom had responded in such a way, and that between talking to him I'd been trying to look after an injured person on the track and I had my hands full with what was occurring.

At that point I declared I'd had my fill of him and walked off.

 

[43066]

Neither, just lack of evidence.

So you are claiming to know more than the various charities and professionals working in the field. I’d be interested to know what qualifies you to hold that view.

I suspect absolutely nothing at all. Am I right?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==

I agree that trying to help the passengers is my raison d'etre at work.

However, some people do react to any kind of incident with an immediate panicked "what about me" response to the exclusion of all else and while I do gently try and bring them round in the first instance sometimes being a bit firm is the only way to reintroduce a bit of perspective.

Classic example I found myself on the receiving end of was that one day my train hit a person on the track, leaving them injured but alive on the line. One moment I was halfway through sorting an excess fare, the next I was making a brief explanation on the PA before heading off down the track with the first aid box. Once the emergency services had arrived I set off back to the train to talk to the passengers, my rather shocked driver having made admirable attempts to keep them advised on the PA.

I had nearly 70 people on the train, many with flights, ferry sailings etc. All of them took the news as it was, some of them were quite shocked and upset. Only one was telling me in a rather forthright manner that he had a flight to catch and didn't believe we would get him there. I asked when his flight was - mid morning tomorrow! I assured him that if need be a taxi would be provided and worked him out an itenary and set off back down the track to see the police and rail incident officer.

In the end I agreed to work the train forward with a relief driver so the passengers weren't stuck (I was happy I was fit to do so) and went back off down the train to deal with any remaining queries.

All good except for Mr Flight Tomorrow man who rather abruptly told me that he doubted the truth of what I was saying about onward transport (which I had already put into place) and that he wanted my full name and details and it wasn't good enough.

I firmly but still politely told him that between talking to him I had dealt with all of the other passengers on the train, some of whom had pressing commitments that evening and none of whom had responded in such a way, and that between talking to him I'd been trying to look after an injured person on the track and I had my hands full with what was occurring.

At that point I declared I'd had my fill of him and walked off.

Reading that, I’m reminded how I could never do your job in a million years, and I suspect very few could! You must truly have the patience of a saint to deal with ignorant provocation like that.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I agree that trying to help the passengers is my raison d'etre at work.

However, some people do react to any kind of incident with an immediate panicked "what about me" response to the exclusion of all else and while I do gently try and bring them round in the first instance sometimes being a bit firm is the only way to reintroduce a bit of perspective.

Classic example I found myself on the receiving end of was that one day my train hit a person on the track, leaving them injured but alive on the line. One moment I was halfway through sorting an excess fare, the next I was making a brief explanation on the PA before heading off down the track with the first aid box. Once the emergency services had arrived I set off back to the train to talk to the passengers, my rather shocked driver having made admirable attempts to keep them advised on the PA.

I had nearly 70 people on the train, many with flights, ferry sailings etc. All of them took the news as it was, some of them were quite shocked and upset. Only one was telling me in a rather forthright manner that he had a flight to catch and didn't believe we would get him there. I asked when his flight was - mid morning tomorrow! I assured him that if need be a taxi would be provided and worked him out an itenary and set off back down the track to see the police and rail incident officer.

In the end I agreed to work the train forward with a relief driver so the passengers weren't stuck (I was happy I was fit to do so) and went back off down the train to deal with any remaining queries.

All good except for Mr Flight Tomorrow man who rather abruptly told me that he doubted the truth of what I was saying about onward transport (which I had already put into place) and that he wanted my full name and details and it wasn't good enough.

I firmly but still politely told him that between talking to him I had dealt with all of the other passengers on the train, some of whom had pressing commitments that evening and none of whom had responded in such a way, and that between talking to him I'd been trying to look after an injured person on the track and I had my hands full with what was occurring.

At that point I declared I'd had my fill of him and walked off.

Of course, and you have my great admiration for that, but that is a very very different situation to what I mentioned. Nothing of what you’ve said there is pious, and that guy was clearly a knob too! On Twitter I’m talking about condescending responses to those rightfully concerned about their journey yet still being reasonable.

 

[bramling]

So you are claiming to know more than the various charities and professionals working in the field. I’d be interested to know what qualifies you to hold that view.

I suspect absolutely nothing at all. Am I right?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==



Reading that, I’m reminded how I could never do your job in a million years, and I suspect very few could! You must truly have the patience of a saint to deal with ignorant provocation like that.

I don’t mind dealing with such people on an occasional basis. I got told recently that train drivers should “use their initiative”. When I pointed out to the gentleman that a signal changing from red to green was a reliable way of deducing which train is going to be first to depart, he responded with “how am I supposed to know that?. He was rather unimpressed when I pointed out that he might have used *his* initiative.

Would lose patience dealing with this stuff all the time though.

On the subject of fatalities, in my view it’s entirely reasonable to construct an argument to say that passenger information trumps preventing hypothetical copycat incidents. Some may disagree, however the viewpoint is entirely rational as ultimately it’s a value judgement.

 

[Lockwood]

Is part of the problem that some people want more or less information than others?

Some don't want to know that some bloke got hit by a train, it is icky and taboo and scary.

Others want to know that Fred Smith, 34, of High Street, some town, decided to throw himself in front of the 1834 There to Somewhere Else service due to his argument with Jane Smith (his wife of 36 months) and his recent redundancy from his job as a middle manager at MegaCorp PLC. And may not find that satisfactory, as I didn't include his shoe size.


It is interesting the discussion about contagion - one of the schools of thought is that talking to a person about suicide does not increase risk. Though this is in an individual setting. (ie asking "have you ever thought about hurting yourself or ending your own life" doesn't prompt a "No, but now you mention it, I might try that" response)

 

[Archvile]

So you just don’t believe any of the research done by professionals about contagion then?

Oh I believe it. I just think the benefits of providing 'no nonsense' passenger information outweighs the unquantifiable risk of copycat suicides. It's subjective, and that's the side I fall on.

 

[XAM2175]

However, some people do react to any kind of incident with an immediate panicked "what about me" response to the exclusion of all else and while I do gently try and bring them round in the first instance sometimes being a bit firm is the only way to reintroduce a bit of perspective.

Ah, I see you've experience from posting here before, then.

 

[Falcon1200]

It is interesting the discussion about contagion - one of the schools of thought is that talking to a person about suicide does not increase risk.

I just think the benefits of providing 'no nonsense' passenger information outweighs the unquantifiable risk of copycat suicides.

I would agree with that, but admit I was not aware of the contagion risk until it was discussed here; The only similar issue I have known was what could be termed suicide hotspots, one such sad location being at Woodilee Psychiatric Hospital (long since closed) near Lenzie, Glasgow, which was next to the Edinburgh/Glasgow Queen Street main line.

Regarding contagion, IMHO the information given to passengers should be 'person hit by train' with no further detail; ie no mention of the incident being a suicide, or even that it was fatal. And after all, the only people needing, and receiving, that information, will be those on or waiting for the trains affected.

 

[43066]

Regarding contagion, IMHO the information given to passengers should be 'person hit by train' with no further detail; ie no mention of the incident being a suicide, or even that it was fatal. And after all, the only people needing, and receiving, that information, will be those on or waiting for the trains affected.

Agreed - albeit these days the information will be circulated on social media, so there’s even more reason to be mindful of what is said.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 May 2023 ==

I don’t mind dealing with such people on an occasional basis. I got told recently that train drivers should “use their initiative”. When I pointed out to the gentleman that a signal changing from red to green was a reliable way of deducing which train is going to be first to depart, he responded with “how am I supposed to know that?. He was rather unimpressed when I pointed out that he might have used *his* initiative.

Would lose patience dealing with this stuff all the time though.

The issue for me is the horrendous sense of entitlement some seem to display (seems worse since Covid), with a complete lack of basic manners or even an ability to articulate themselves properly. I was brought up to communicate using full sentences, and to say please and thank-you rather than grunting, but clearly experiences (and upbringings) differ!

If people ask politely then of course I will try and help, but if I’m grunted at the best solution is often to close the cab door, or simply walk away and avoid engaging in the first place.

On the subject of fatalities, in my view it’s entirely reasonable to construct an argument to say that passenger information trumps preventing hypothetical copycat incidents. Some may disagree, however the viewpoint is entirely rational as ultimately it’s a value judgement.

I think there is a middle ground, around saying what has happened but not specifying too much detail as to where. We’re closer to that now than we were during the era where TOCs didn’t call a spade a spade.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is why the other extreme of LNER going "it is with greatest sadness" etc on their tweets is also unhelpful. It clearly communicates that a death has happened and magnifies the event from a simple incident to something very significant.

And yes, the person who died was still a person and deserves dignity and respect in the act of death, but making out that suicide is a monumental event - inconceivable, romantic, simple - which garners sympathy and attention is also not likely to be helpful.

The parties who are there to deliver sensitivity and dignity to those known to the victim are the police, who will liaise directly with people affected.

Language is really important and many of the people who do choose the railway as a suicide method have very specific reasons for doing so - usually perceptions of immediate lethality, monumentality, and finality, and will not consider an alternative method. Every person prevented from walking in front of a train is often not just a problem deflected but actually a life saved.

A lot of rail suicide attempts are made by ambivalent people with no general or fixed suicidal ideation but by people with intrusive thoughts of self-harm susceptible to triggers. Consider how at every station there are relentless reminders of how lethal the railways are ("you will die if you touch this", "don't stand near the edge", "never cross the tracks, you will die"). That is why station environments, communications, and the general cultural impact of suicide are all things which probably should be considered in reducing suicide attempts, which is in everyone's interest.

Those who find the manufactured vagueness of rail communications frustrating might consider that it would be better for the railway to have to do this in response to incidents less often in the first place.

 

[Krokodil]

Those who find the manufactured vagueness of rail communications frustrating might consider that it would be better for the railway to have to do this in response to incidents less often in the first place.

And I think that "due to a person hit by a train, lines between A and B are blocked..." strikes the right balance. It doesn't mention whether it was fatal (it isn't always), nor does it mention why someone was hit (it could have been murder/crossing misuse/trespass/signaller error/whatever). Therefore it's unlikely to plant an idea in someone's mind.

 

[43066]

This is why the other extreme of LNER going "it is with greatest sadness" etc on their tweets is also unhelpful. It clearly communicates that a death has happened and magnifies the event from a simple incident to something very significant.

And yes, the person who died was still a person and deserves dignity and respect in the act of death, but making out that suicide is a monumental event - inconceivable, romantic, simple - which garners sympathy and attention is also not likely to be helpful.

The parties who are there to deliver sensitivity and dignity to those known to the victim are the police, who will liaise directly with people affected.

Language is really important and many of the people who do choose the railway as a suicide method have very specific reasons for doing so - usually perceptions of immediate lethality, monumentality, and finality, and will not consider an alternative method. Every person prevented from walking in front of a train is often not just a problem deflected but actually a life saved.

A lot of rail suicide attempts are made by ambivalent people with no general or fixed suicidal ideation but by people with intrusive thoughts of self-harm susceptible to triggers. Consider how at every station there are relentless reminders of how lethal the railways are ("you will die if you touch this", "don't stand near the edge", "never cross the tracks, you will die"). That is why station environments, communications, and the general cultural impact of suicide are all things which probably should be considered in reducing suicide attempts, which is in everyone's interest.

Those who find the manufactured vagueness of rail communications frustrating might consider that it would be better for the railway to have to do this in response to incidents less often in the first place.

I’d say that’s a very fair summary.

 

[STINT47]

I think a person has been hit by a train is about right. Any more details is to graphic and risks sounding insensitive. Any less such as saying g it's due to an emergency or operational incident sounds like BS

 

[ComUtoR]

Oh I believe it. I just think the benefits of providing 'no nonsense' passenger information outweighs the unquantifiable risk of copycat suicides.

Could you quantify that for me please ?

 

[bramling]

Could you quantify that for me please ?

Not sure anyone is going to be able to quantify it, but it’s a valid viewpoint.

Indeed it’s also a reasonable question as to whether seeing the green Samaritans signs all over the place outweighs both the visual clutter and rather depressing atmosphere they create.

I tend to take the view a lot of these measures are sticking plaster for the fact that mental health provision in this country is absolutely dire. Much easier to change an announcement or stick a sign up than actually address that shortcoming, especially when as a country there seems to be this worship of the NHS. Mental health care provision from the NHS certainly isn’t amazing.

 

[Archvile]

Could you quantify that for me please ?

Can't be quantified - it's subjective.