"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[AlterEgo]

No-one has answered the question as to *why* they want this information.
How does it help you?
Why is it important to you?
What can you improve about the situation if you know?

This is like a comedy.

Passengers - not I - say they would find an honest, plain English delay reason valuable. When passengers feel informed they feel cared about, and less anxious. That's why you give them information in the first place, and that's why when a train has been cancelled due to a signalling problem, you tell them that instead of just "Sorry, your train is cancelled. Next one is in half an hour". You give passengers all the information you have, because it's courteous, and because it helps passengers feel less irritated and less negative about your company's service. I want YOU to have the power to tell people the basic nature of an incident to assist with that, and that's power you don't currently have.

It is literally unbelievable I have to explain this principle to someone who says they're front line station staff.

 

[EM2]

This is like a comedy.

Passengers - not I - say they would find an honest, plain English delay reason valuable.

The 'you' in my previous post was a general 'you' aimed at those that want this information, not a specific 'you'.

When passengers feel informed they feel cared about, and less anxious. That's why you give them information in the first place, and that's why when a train has been cancelled due to a signalling problem, you tell them that instead of just "Sorry, your train is cancelled. Next one is in half an hour". You give passengers all the information you have, because it's courteous, and because it helps passengers feel less irritated and less negative about your company's service. I want YOU to have the power to tell people the basic nature of an incident to assist with that, and that's power you don't currently have.

There's no need for any more 'power'. You *have* the basic explanation, it is an operational incident. How is that any different to 'signalling problem' or 'electrical supply problem' or 'train fault' or 'member of train crew being unavailable'?
No-one seems to be arguing for the specific issue to be supplied in these instances, so why in the case of 'operational incident'?
Again, this is not a specific 'you'.

 

[J-2739]

How the f*ck has this thread lasted nearly 30 pages?

 

[313103]

How the f*ck has this thread lasted nearly 30 pages?

Because like you they need the information so they can get on with there lives.

 

[QueensCurve]

An actual explanation could be breaching confidentiality if something has happened that could be subject to a breach of discipline.

Nobody is askling that a driver whose conduct my be under investigation be named - least of all me.

It is possible to identify the nature of the incident without identifying the individual involved. In the spirit of Glasnost, that is what should happen.

 

[QueensCurve]

If it was a "police incident" either on the railway or public streets would you be badgering the police for a reason on whats going on?

Yes. While details of investigations are not going to be disclosed I have found the Police quite open to explaining what is going on if approached without putting pressure on them.

 

[QueensCurve]

Corrected that for you.

They generally want that information to sput uninformed wibble.

Which is precisely what they will get if nobody explains what is going on.

 

[Joe Paxton]

No-one has answered the question as to *why* they want this information.
How does it help you?
Why is it important to you?
What can you improve about the situation if you know?

I'm afraid you are a good example of someone who just doesn't get it.

 

[EM2]

I'm afraid you are a good example of someone who just doesn't get it.

What, because no-one can explain?

 

[Joe Paxton]

What, because no-one can explain?

It's been explained over and over, and you don't get it.

Thankfully not all customer facing rail staff are of the same mindset.

 

[DelW]

There's no need for any more 'power'. You *have* the basic explanation, it is an operational incident. How is that any different to 'signalling problem' or 'electrical supply problem' or 'train fault' or 'member of train crew being unavailable'?
No-one seems to be arguing for the specific issue to be supplied in these instances, so why in the case of 'operational incident'?
Again, this is not a specific 'you'.

Because to passengers, this sounds like a meaningless management-speak cop-out. The railway has never told its passengers that the phrase has a specific meaning, so it's hardly surprising we don't understand it!

 

[455driver]

I notice very few railstaff are still posting in this thread now, do you think it might he because the information isn't available?

What some people are refusing to 'get' is that at the start of an incident very little factual information will be available, it is only later on that some information will be available, sometimes the actual cause won't be known about until much later and a long time after the incident is cleared.

 

[rebmcr]

No-one has answered the question as to *why* they want this information.
How does it help you?
Why is it important to you?
What can you improve about the situation if you know?

It shouldn't be dependent on whether you get a satisfactory answer to those questions. If someone wants it then they're allowed to feel that way, and witholding it for no other reason than that is just being an a**e.

 

[rebmcr]

You *have* the basic explanation, it is an operational incident. How is that any different to 'signalling problem' or 'electrical supply problem' or 'train fault' or 'member of train crew being unavailable'?
No-one seems to be arguing for the specific issue to be supplied in these instances, so why in the case of 'operational incident'?
Again, this is not a specific 'you'.

Because those other phrases are not jargon, they have meaning in plain english. "Operational Incident" is another "wrong type of snow" nail in the coffin of "the railways are incompetent" every time it gets used.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's been explained over and over, and you don't get it.

Thankfully not all customer facing rail staff are of the same mindset.

Agreed entirely.

Another illuminating thread.

 

[AlterEgo]

The 'you' in my previous post was a general 'you' aimed at those that want this information, not a specific 'you'.

There's no need for any more 'power'. You *have* the basic explanation, it is an operational incident. How is that any different to 'signalling problem' or 'electrical supply problem' or 'train fault' or 'member of train crew being unavailable'?
No-one seems to be arguing for the specific issue to be supplied in these instances, so why in the case of 'operational incident'?
Again, this is not a specific 'you'.

Why don't you read the report about PIDD and see how they actually collect information and make conclusions exactly the opposite to what you claim?

Obstruction on the line? No, it's a tree on the line. The report recommends better and more honest explanations.

You don't get the fundamental principle, and you don't accept evidence in the face of your own prejudices. It's worrying and very sad.

 

[dviner]

I notice very few railstaff are still posting in this thread now, do you think it might he because the information isn't available?

What some people are refusing to 'get' is that at the start of an incident very little factual information will be available, it is only later on that some information will be available, sometimes the actual cause won't be known about until much later and a long time after the incident is cleared.

A very good point - the "Passengers don't wont to be fobbed off" argument runs up against a bit of a wall in that when most of them are getting grumpy about what they think is just wibble, wibble is all that's available. By the time that more accurate information is available most of those passengers have got on with their journeys/lives, and the "operating incident" is just something aggravating that happened in the past.

 

[Wombat]

What some people are refusing to 'get' is that at the start of an incident very little factual information will be available, it is only later on that some information will be available, sometimes the actual cause won't be known about until much later and a long time after the incident is cleared.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I haven't seen anybody in this thread arguing that passengers should be provided with information that doesn't exist.

What some people are refusing to 'get' is that some passengers (including but not confined to myself) like to have information, even if we can't do anything productive with it. It provides a mild but welcome reduction in the frustration that we experience when our travel is delayed.

I can't provide a thoroughly researched justification for why the provision of information reduces frustration. I expect that you'd need some sort of team of behavioural and clinical scientists to get you an answer that you'd be happy with.

But ultimately it doesn't matter. You and others are genuinely welcome to think that I'm mad for having a brain that responds positively to "useless" information, but since there appear to be plenty of others like me (and, frankly, I suspect that most of the naysayers are less sanguine about understanding frustrations in other aspects of their lives) it's appropriate for staff to provide it, whether or not you instinctively understand the benefit.

 

[Bromley boy]

I notice very few railstaff are still posting in this thread now, do you think it might he because the information isn't available?

What some people are refusing to 'get' is that at the start of an incident very little factual information will be available, it is only later on that some information will be available, sometimes the actual cause won't be known about until much later and a long time after the incident is cleared.

Precisely!

 

[EM2]

Why don't you read the report about PIDD and see how they actually collect information and make conclusions exactly the opposite to what you claim?

Because you posted it as a link to a PDF which I can't read on this computer.
I wrote the PIDD protocol for my station, which has been accepted by senior management, praised by TOC stakeholders and has been used a number of times with thanks from customers regarding the information they have received during disruption.

 

[EM2]

If someone wants it then they're allowed to feel that way, and witholding it for no other reason than that is just being an a**e.

No-one is withholding anything, not in a customer-facing role anyway.
But would you honestly want to hear that a driver has passed a red signal, or a signaller has mis-signalled a train into a possession, or a guard has opened the doors on the wrong side, or a driver has overshot or stopped short?
That would honestly make you feel better about the situation? That would do the exact opposite for me.

 

[Jonfun]

I notice very few railstaff are still posting in this thread now, do you think it might he because the information isn't available?

What some people are refusing to 'get' is that at the start of an incident very little factual information will be available, it is only later on that some information will be available, sometimes the actual cause won't be known about until much later and a long time after the incident is cleared.

I don't think anybody has criticised staff for not giving out information which they themselves do not know.

But information dissemination comes from the top down, and in a day and age where the majority of staff have access to a PC, or are issued with a smartphone/tablet, there is no excuse for somebody in control not being given the task of paging out this information to the front line. We're incredibly lucky at our place - most of the controllers are quick to page out details of disruption, even if intially it's something vague like "2X99 standing at AB101 near <location>, 1Z95 and 1Z97 at stand behind. More details when known". This'll get updated as the incident progresses. It isn't a lot of information, but it's enough to pass on to the passengers to keep them in the loop. ("Ladies and Gentlemen, we're currently being held here near <location> as a local train is currently stopped ahead of us on the line. We're currently waiting for further information but as soon as I hear anything I'll pass this on. On behalf of <TOC> I'm sorry for the delay to your journey.")

There are two main issues being discussed in the thread; the first is provision of information from control to staff, which from the sounds of things needs to be generally improved. The second is the provision of information from staff to the passengers, which seems to vary depending on the opinion of the staff member you happen to encounter.

 

[455driver]

I don't think anybody has criticised staff for not giving out information which they themselves do not know.

But information dissemination comes from the top down, and in a day and age where the majority of staff have access to a PC, or are issued with a smartphone/tablet, there is no excuse for somebody in control not being given the task of paging out this information to the front line. We're incredibly lucky at our place - most of the controllers are quick to page out details of disruption, even if intially it's something vague like "2X99 standing at AB101 near <location>, 1Z95 and 1Z97 at stand behind. More details when known". This'll get updated as the incident progresses. It isn't a lot of information, but it's enough to pass on to the passengers to keep them in the loop. ("Ladies and Gentlemen, we're currently being held here near <location> as a local train is currently stopped ahead of us on the line. We're currently waiting for further information but as soon as I hear anything I'll pass this on. On behalf of <TOC> I'm sorry for the delay to your journey.")

There are two main issues being discussed in the thread; the first is provision of information from control to staff, which from the sounds of things needs to be generally improved. The second is the provision of information from staff to the passengers, which seems to vary depending on the opinion of the staff member you happen to encounter.

So you want the staff to lock themselves in the office to wake through the 50 or more emails totally irrelevant to their area in the hope that there might be one relevant to their area, in the meantime you will no doubt be moaning about the staff locking themselves away!

I used to be a London suburban guard and 99% of the pager messages I received were absolutely no use to me whatsoever, why would I care about the ticket machine at Pokesdown nor working

 

[Chrisgr31]

If regular customers know what the incident is they can make an educated guess as to how long the disruption is going to last and therefore what alternative arrangements to make, that's why most want to know has happened.

 

[AlterEgo]

So you want the staff to lock themselves in the office to wake through the 50 or more emails totally irrelevant to their area in the hope that there might be one relevant to their area, in the meantime you will no doubt be moaning about the staff locking themselves away!

I used to be a London suburban guard and 99% of the pager messages I received were absolutely no use to me whatsoever, why would I care about the ticket machine at Pokesdown nor working

That's not an argument for passengers not getting accurate information, is it?

It's an argument about your ops/control teams having better and smarter methods of communication with front line staff, so the most urgent information is surfaced first.

 

[AlterEgo]

If regular customers know what the incident is they can make an educated guess as to how long the disruption is going to last and therefore what alternative arrangements to make, that's why most want to know has happened.

And people will find out anyway, from social or digital media. It just makes front line staff redundant in terms of giving information.

 

[Jonfun]

So you want the staff to lock themselves in the office to wake through the 50 or more emails totally irrelevant to their area in the hope that there might be one relevant to their area, in the meantime you will no doubt be moaning about the staff locking themselves away!

I used to be a London suburban guard and 99% of the pager messages I received were absolutely no use to me whatsoever, why would I care about the ticket machine at Pokesdown nor working

What would you rather they do, walk through the train telling each and every passenger that they don't know why the train's stopped because they can't be bothered looking on their phone?

 

[Mintona]

On my driving licence I have a section entitled 'Operational Incidents'. That's just what it's called. No need to change it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because you posted it as a link to a PDF which I can't read on this computer.
I wrote the PIDD protocol for my station, which has been accepted by senior management, praised by TOC stakeholders and has been used a number of times with thanks from customers regarding the information they have received during disruption.

Sorry for posting a PDF, the only file type available. :roll:

Guess what? I also wrote a social media PIDD strategy, which was accepted by management, praised by TOC stakeholders, and got loads of thanks for my hard work. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.

Most people do not always ask staff for more information because they assume (rightly, in most cases) that no more information is available. Most people are understanding, and nice, and some will even thank you when it's clear you've been doing your best. I've experienced that lots of times.

It doesn't mean that when passengers are dispassionately canvassed, they don't tell the industry there's big room for improvement.

It is quite simple - you do not get it. You don't get why passengers, by and large, wish to feel informed, and wish for more descriptive (but not technical) reasons for disruption.

You can be defensive all you like, but it doesn't change facts.

 

[AlterEgo]

On my driving licence I have a section entitled 'Operational Incidents'. That's just what it's called. No need to change it.

Who sees the licence? What's the audience? You and your manager plus other ops staff.

What is it was called a "P50 discrepancy" or something else equally vague? Would that be okay as a delay cause to give passengers?

Do I need to expand further?