"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[Llanigraham]

Within the railway, such an incident is always dealt with and called by the term 'Operating Incident' its good enough for railstaff. then it should be good enough for those who have no real reason to know.

Quite, but it appears that there are the usual "so-called" experts who cannot accept that.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Actually that's complete and utter rubbish. An operational incident could be a Cat B or C SPAD, a near miss where the driver is unfit to continue, or a whole host of other reasons by which a member of rail staff has not ballsed up.

I agree, but a lot of the time it is because someone has ballsed up. If the railway was open and honest, people would know what the real reason was. If someone hasn't ballsed up, then the real reason is generally more forthcoming.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Which IS one and the same thing, next thing they will asking what was wrong with the signal / set of points / track circuit, why did it fail, who should lose their job over it, as it made them an hour late, what colour was the wire that came adrift / broke, or what specific relay failed "I need to know for my delay and repay " !

Its not the same thing. If a signal won't clear due to a points failure, then the signal is working as designed and hasn't failed. Unless its a wrong side failure.

 

[Llanigraham]

I stand by what I said. No apology will be forthcoming. If people cannot accept that there are f*** sometimes and that people are not infallible, then there will continue to be 'operational incidents'. I'm not saying that some are not preventable, but a lot of them are.

And more rubbish!
You do not have a clue but think you are an expert because you are a passenger.:roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[Surreytraveller]

But its actually quite normal.
Control will be dealing with the incident and are unable to answer the phone, the social media team will be informed* about it and be able to get it posted for everyone else.

Some guards are now asking if anyone gets any information can they let the guard know, I kid you not!

*informed as it being shouted across from one desk to another.

Can't the guards use Twitter? Do they all expect a personal phone call when the information is already out there?

 

[Bellbell]

May I give an example I always give in these situations to illustrate the point? You may recall several years ago a lady immolated herself in a train toilet causing all manner of unpleasantness for the people involved and those caught up in the incident.

I was on a train I think 3 behind the affected train. We left MK on time heading south but did not go far before we were brought to a stand. Immediately the guard announced we would be delayed as there was a failed train ahead blocking the line. He soon returned to inform us the OHLE was off because of the failed train and all lines were blocked.

Within a a few minutes he was announcing that medical assistance had been summoned to the train ahead, followed by the emergency services were dealing with an incident followed about an hour later by the fire brigade were dealing with a train fire followed another hour later by confirmation there had been a suicide.

By this time people were openly calling the guard a liar and challenging him, aggressively, to tell the truth. It got so bad several of us had to step in an point out to one particular chap that having a go at the guard meant having a go at all of us!

The poor guard was simply informing passengers, openly, about a developing situation with the information he was given yet was criticised for doing so. If he had stuck to "operating incident" until it was clear exactly what was happening he would have saved himself a lot of bother!

This. I actually agree that operating incident is often too woolly, and I'd rather be upfront, particularly because in an incident such as a suicide, people tend to be a bit more understanding than in other situations. However, some of the general public appear to consider everything the railway does a conspiracy, and if information or the situation changes once you've made one announcement the hounds of hell are unleashed upon you.

Where possible I prefer to give the true reason, if I know it, but I simply will not be drawn on timescales now because it's come back to bite me before, so many times. I also am resolutely neutral when you get the inevitable passengers asking whether they should risk going via an alternative (longer) route, or stick with the train in the hopes things will get moving.

 

[AlterEgo]

And more rubbish!
You do not have a clue but think you are an expert because you are a passenger.:roll::roll::roll::roll:

Is it really necessary to be so rude and dismissive all the time?

It is a fact that most operational incidents are preventable and many of them come down to a simple human error.

Lots of rail staff (and I, as former rail staff) think "operational incident" is not sufficient.

I outlined elsewhere how you could communicate various operational incidents in plain English without selling a member of staff down the river.

 

[BestWestern]

"We are sorry that your flight has been cancelled due to the Pilot nearly crashing the plane."

Would we expect an airline to announce that to a terminal full of intending passengers? Would it not be deemed entirely inappropriate, and probably end up splashed across the tabloids somewhere? There is absolutely no difference between that and announcing that a train is cancelled due to a SPAD. Whilst enthusiasts and those who are well informed might not be unduly concerned by that sort of information, there are others for whom it may well be an issue. Nervous passengers can be found across all modes of transport. And yes, there is also the reputational damage issue, few business volunteer excessively negative information when they don't need to.

 

[Deepgreen]

Is it really necessary to be so rude and dismissive all the time?

It is a fact that most operational incidents are preventable and many of them come down to a simple human error.

Lots of rail staff (and I, as former rail staff) think "operational incident" is not sufficient.

I outlined elsewhere how you could communicate various operational incidents in plain English without selling a member of staff down the river.

No - it isn't, and the perpetrator has a long record of such unhelpful behaviour on this forum. Short fuse doesn't start to cover it! The classic stance of the 'I've worked on the front line and everyone who hasn't doesn't deserve forum space' breed. It's a discussion forum, rather than a panel of arrogant, rude co-called experts.

 

[ComUtoR]

No - it isn't, and the perpetrator has a long record of such unhelpful behaviour on this forum. Short fuse doesn't start to cover it! The classic stance of the 'I've worked on the front line and everyone who hasn't doesn't deserve forum space' breed. It's a discussion forum, rather than a panel of arrogant, rude co-called experts.

Pot, Kettle, Green

Mr 'I've worked 37 years on the railway so I know what I'm talking about' :roll:

 

[RichardN]

Technology companies have become fairly open when they have 'operational incidents' (The first one below took out a reasonably sized chunk of the internet..) What they all have in common is human error causing very big, expensive outages. None of them outwardly blame the person who made the error, but they were all caused by operator error.

https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/
https://www.joyent.com/blog/postmortem-for-outage-of-us-east-1-may-27-2014
https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/10/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/

The one thing different to the railways is that I'd hope nobody would build safety critical things that only functioned while the things above were operating...

 

[AlterEgo]

"We are sorry that your flight has been cancelled due to the Pilot nearly crashing the plane."

Do you fly often?

You'll definitely be told that the plane is delayed while they fix the engine (and you can usually watch them work), or the autopilot went kaput, or that you've had a go-around because of an aircraft on the runway, etc, etc. I once flew on a flight in the USA where the APU wasn't working but they flew anyway (this is within the rules but still).

Nobody has ever announced "we nearly crashed, so we are delayed" but is it really beyond the wit of people here to accept there's a middle ground between "operational incident, no more info, just shut up" and "you all nearly DIED"?

 

[SPADTrap]

I suppose it is the same mentality that caused an accident in front of me on the motorway last week where the driver of the vehicle ahead was distracted while taking a photo of an accident on the opposite side of the carriage way they rear-ended a car which had stopped ahead of theirs for no other reason I could see other than to have a good look at whatever was occurring on the opposite carriageway as well. The real irony was the front and rear-facing dash cameras fitted to the private hire vehicle he was driving.

I have tried to estimate the delay length without giving incident details (which you only really learn after anyway) and ironically it is the 'this is quick to be solved in my experience' situations where you're still sat there 2 hours later. Moral of the story? My experience is that I don't have any because each incident is different, that is just life, better stay at home to avoid those situations.

 

[Joe Paxton]

As a passenger can I just say that yes I have no right or need to know what has caused a delay, in fact it is downright impertinent to ask and I think passengers should be thankful there is any sort of train service running at all, let alone the luxuries we get nowadays such as live train running information, and if told there is an 'operating incident' I am thankful for the explanation even though it means nothing to me and I dutifully and gratefully wait for however long it takes in the knowledge that powers greater than I can possibly comprehend are at work, taking care of matters in ways I couldn't possibly understand.

 

[ExRes]

Can't the guards use Twitter? Do they all expect a personal phone call when the information is already out there?

Unless TOCs specifically authorise them to do so and issue them with a phone for that purpose, then no

If I were a Guard/TM then you'd get no twitter info from me, for the simple reason that I don't use it or facebook or any other social media platform

 

[AlterEgo]

Unless TOCs specifically authorise them to do so and issue them with a phone for that purpose, then no

If I were a Guard/TM then you'd get no twitter info from me, for the simple reason that I don't use it or facebook or any other social media platform

Never heard of a guard using Twitter but on SWT I've heard guards say "there are two trains in front of us" or likewise. Wonder if they use OpenTrainTimes data or the maps, or if this info comes from the driver/signaller.

 

[bb21]

Can I just ask that we all take a deep breath and a step back, as this is obviously getting very heated. I don't want to see this being spoilt because of degeneration into snide remarks and bickering due to tempers flying around.

 

[SPADTrap]

Nobody has ever announced "we nearly crashed, so we are delayed" but is it really beyond the wit of people here to accept there's a middle ground between "operational incident, no more info, just shut up" and "you all nearly DIED"?

What would that middle ground be? How about an example that would satisfy in the example of a SPAD?

 

[ComUtoR]

Never heard of a guard using Twitter but on SWT I've heard guards say "there are two trains in front of us" or likewise. Wonder if they use OpenTrainTimes data or the maps, or if this info comes from the driver/signaller.

I've often said stuff like that. I find that looking out the window tends to help. You also get used to the service after a while and can almost predict what service gets put in front.

 

[RichardN]

"We are sorry that your flight has been cancelled due to the Pilot nearly crashing the plane."

That reminds me of this http://oopslist.com/Don'tLook.jpg

 

[GW43125]

That reminds me of this http://oopslist.com/Don'tLook.jpg

What, an error 404?

 

[physics34]

Being a driver myself and a member of this forum, id be pretty peeved if the confidential details of an incident i was involved in were posted on here

 

[DelW]

One aspect that comes out of this debate is that the phrase "operational incident" has a particular meaning for rail staff, who therefore understand what has happened, and who regard the phrase as a full enough explanation.

However, to most passengers, the phrase means nothing, and just sounds like the sort of mealy mouthed term that many industries use to fob off their customers when they have failed to deliver their promised product or service.

For what it's worth, when I heard of this delay yesterday, I assumed (wrongly, obviously) that it was probably a person hit by a train, another situation that is often described by an official euphemism.

 

[RichardN]

What, an error 404?

Weird. Works fine here. Might be the single quote not working in your browser. Try http://oopslist.com/Don'tLook.jpg

 

[Joe Paxton]

Weird. Works fine here. Might be the single quote not working in your browser. Try http://oopslist.com/Don'tLook.jpg

The site is configured to prevent hotlinking, though the 'no hotlinking' page is itself missing (404).

i.e. it's an "operational incident"...

 

[BestWestern]

Do you fly often?

You'll definitely be told that the plane is delayed while they fix the engine (and you can usually watch them work)....

I guess when the plane is parked the other side of the terminal windows, there isn't a great deal of point in being coy about it!

But none of the reasons you give are down to the bloke in charge cocking it up. The railway will happily tell you that it's emergency engineering works, signalling problems, emergency speed restrictions and so on. Those reasons are perhaps broadly similar to technical failure of an aircraft safety system, but how often does an airline publically announce that a pilot has made a major error and cannot be allowed to carry on flying for the time being?

 

[AlterEgo]

What would that middle ground be? How about an example that would satisfy in the example of a SPAD?

The train has passed a red signal, and triggered a safety system, which needs to be investigated. I gave this example here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2946022&highlight=signal#post2946022

This doesn't blame any members of staff, breach any confidentiality, or give any information which isn't going to be discoverable on Twitter or on forums anyway.

As I keep saying, flying is the most worrisome form of transport for many people and there's appetite for telling you that the pilot aborted the landing because of an aircraft on the runway, so I don't see why the railway thinks it should be different.

Companies - and particularly publicly-subsidised ones - should be as open as possible. Information should be witheld only when there is a compelling reason to do so.

 

[Chris M]

That's a very good point. Using such vague descriptors is definitely not helping with confidence in the industry at the moment. I feel there is a need for the industry to spend some real effort learning how to be more open and informative using the most appropriate language without letting off too much unnecessary detail about an incident. It is also not just about what you say, but doing it consistently and making information available as soon as is practicable (which applies equally to internal communication such as Tyrell).

People appreciate some context of the situation they find themselves in so a little detail goes a long way (even if sometimes such detail provide no additional useful information to an industry outsider, eg. "a fault with the doors" as opposed to "a train fault", not necessarily technical jargon). It can be as simple as one or two sentences. It projects the image of a company being frank, and leaves a much better impression. In some cases it may not be possible to do so, but if the industry can start doing this where possible then I am sure most of the customers would not mind the small number of occasions when no further details can be provided, if informed as such.

This is exactly my view. I'm just a passenger, but "operating incident" sounds like it is trying to hide information. I don't want excessive detail, I want a reason - "problem with the doors" - simple and factual. "Signal failure" - simple and factual". "Train has passed a signal at danger - the reason is being investigated" - simple and factual, "Problem with a passenger on a train ahead" - simple and factual. "There has been a safety system activation. It might be a false alarm, but obviously we have to be certain before we can proceed." - simple an factual. "There is a bit of metal making a lot of noise underneath Coach C. We're waiting for a fitter to come from Swindon to investigate." (I heard this one years ago on a Paddington-bound HST that had stopped at West Drayton) - simple and factual.

If you don't know the reason, be honest and say that. If your company just tells you that the delay is due to an operating incident, say something like "All I'm being told is that it's an operating incident, unfortunately I don't have more detail." If the information you are told changes, be honest and say that - "I apologise for the continuing delay to this service. I'm now told that this is due to a passenger requiring medical attention on a train ahead, rather than a problem with the train itself. I'm sorry for any confusion, but I can only pass on what control are telling me".
If someone complains about the reason changing, then just reiterate that last bit and make it clear you are just passing on information rather than making it up. If someone asks what safety system was involved then you can say to them it's the "train protection warning system" and leave it up to them to google that if they want. If the problem isn't on your train you could just say that control didn't specify.
Basically, if you sound like you're being honest and not trying to hide something then you'll get a much better reaction than if you don't, and to many people "operation incident" sounds like you are tying to hide something - even if you're not.

That reminds me of this http://oopslist.com/Don'tLook.jpg

That link isn't working

 

[BestWestern]

The train has passed a red signal, and triggered a safety system, which needs to be investigated. I gave this example here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2946022&highlight=signal#post2946022

This doesn't blame any members of staff, breach any confidentiality, or give any information which isn't going to be discoverable on Twitter or on forums anyway.

As I keep saying, flying is the most worrisome form of transport for many people and there's appetite for telling you that the pilot aborted the landing because of an aircraft on the runway, so I don't see why the railway thinks it should be different.

The issue is the suggestion that the person who has passengers' safety in his hands has made a serious mistake. Yes it happens, we all know that, but that doesn't make it good practice to advertise it. A pilot avoiding disaster is exactly what people expect them to do, and is good PR. A train driver failing to stop at a red signal is not good PR, and comes with the suggestion that passengers may have been put in danger. There is no value whatsoever in giving that information.

The example you offer above still makes it pretty clear the driver has cocked up.

 

[Chris M]

I guess when the plane is parked the other side of the terminal windows, there isn't a great deal of point in being coy about it!

But none of the reasons you give are down to the bloke in charge cocking it up. The railway will happily tell you that it's emergency engineering works, signalling problems, emergency speed restrictions and so on. Those reasons are perhaps broadly similar to technical failure of an aircraft safety system, but how often does an airline publically announce that a pilot has made a major error and cannot be allowed to carry on flying for the time being?

Well, there are not many instances of that happening where the result of the error doesn't also mean the aircraft needs to be checked/repaired (in the latter case most airlines will simply state what happened without saying what the cause was). When it does I expect that the passengers will be told either what has happened (iirc there was a news story a few months back of a pilot being arrested on the flight deck for being drunk in charge, and passengers were told this and that they were waiting for a standby pilot to arrive.) or simply that the pilot is "unable" to continue.
In the railway scenario, you could do the same thing - say what happened (the train passed a signal at danger) and what is happening (the driver isn't able to continue, so we will remain here until the relief driver arrives) without going into the why. It's the what happened which passengers are most interested in.