"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[GB]

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.

Line delay amounts and service specific delay amounts are already communicated to the public.

As incidents of the same nature can vary wildly with regards to normal resumption of service, how can a passenger make an educated guess when its difficult for the railways to make an accurate prediction?

If I'm at an airport and my plane has been delayed by 30 minutes I don't need to know the specific reason....it makes no difference to me. It doesn't get me on the plane any quicker and I don't get home any quicker. All I wan't to know is when the plane will be there, when I can board and what time I will be getting home.

If some of you people think its management trying to hide information from you might I suggest using stronger tin foil for that hat of yours.

 

[EM2]

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.

OK.
Let's go back to your 'Woking fail to call'. And let's assume that you're told that that is the reason your service is delayed.
Do you now feel confident about the train you're about to travel on, the company that you're about to entrust your safety to, and the driver and guard who are going to be responsible?
You wouldn't have the slightest doubt in your mind that any of those factors could lead to another delay, or worse?
You're happy that that information makes you feel less worried and more valued?

 

[Mintona]

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?

Exactly. If operational incident is all it's referred to internally I don't see what's wrong with using the same phrase externally. 'There's been an incident of an operational nature'. Only the driver involved, signaller and controller need to know any more. Most people couldn't care less what type of operating incident has occurred.

 

[AlterEgo]

Exactly. If operational incident is all it's referred to internally I don't see what's wrong with using the same phrase externally. 'There's been an incident of an operational nature'. Only the driver involved, signaller and controller need to know any more. Most people couldn't care less what type of operating incident has occurred.

Untrue, as referenced not only by my own experiences, but also by an in depth passenger survey which I've left upthread, but I admire your confidence in your position in the face of that data.

Also, your argument is that if the language used internally is okay for an internal audience then by default it's going to be okay for the layperson externally. It's just mind-boggling logic.

OK.
Let's go back to your 'Woking fail to call'. And let's assume that you're told that that is the reason your service is delayed.
Do you now feel confident about the train you're about to travel on, the company that you're about to entrust your safety to, and the driver and guard who are going to be responsible?
You wouldn't have the slightest doubt in your mind that any of those factors could lead to another delay, or worse?
You're happy that that information makes you feel less worried and more valued?

This isn't about me. Or you.

It's about passengers in general, whose responses and attitudes I've evidenced. Repeated for the nth time - passengers want a more honest reason. Passengers often find out about the "real reason", either through chatter between staff, social media, online discussions. Passengers are already finding out more information than you are able to give out because they are digitally and socially connected, able to read reports from the scene, see pictures that other people have taken of the cock up. In the report I cited, there's statistical evidence of that. I don't have to fall back on anecdotes, but in any case, I've stated (long ago it seems now!) in this thread about how there's definitely appetite in the airline industry - an industry much more fraught with nervous passengers - to describe things honestly which could worry a minority of people.

I think you're really grasping at straws trying to justify your position - it really is only a very small change, a tweak on current policy that I, and many others advocate.

Since the discussion has been circular for quite some time, and because my position has been laid out over many detailed posts, I'm going to stop contributing to the thread, and won't respond to any further posts.

 

[EM2]

It's about passengers in general, whose responses and attitudes I've evidenced. Repeated for the nth time - passengers want a more honest reason.

Then you're right. I don't get it.
I don't get why anyone would want to know more information about something that has happened that could be a threat to their safety.
I don't get how anyone knowing that information would make them feel cared about and *less* anxious.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I get the feeling the railway might have a particularly active branch of the Flat Earth Society.

 

[SPADTrap]

This isn't about me. Or you.

It's about passengers in general, whose responses and attitudes I've evidenced. Repeated for the nth time - passengers want a more honest reason.

That doesn't make it right, though.

 

[Mintona]

Operating incident covers a multitude of diffferent occurrences. I don't know why anybody needs to know the difference between a Cat A SPAD, Cat B SPAD, Cat C SPAD, Cat D SPAD, fail to call, station overrun, stop short, stop short door release, wrong side door release, tpws activation approaching a red, tpws activation approaching a psr, tpws activation approaching buffer stops, wrong route offered, wrong route accepted, electric train routed via non electrified line, guard left at station, slow to cancel AWS, slow to cancel DVD and the many other different incidents that get lumped together under 'operating incident'. They're all different but trying to come up with friendly terms for each is a waste of time and entirely pointless.

 

[PHILIPE]

Has anybody passed the contents of this thread to the powers to be who say terms such as "Operational Incident" should be explained in a clearer manner than something vague and not meaningful to many passengers ? This thread looks to be going on ad finitum.

 

[Chris M]

Exactly. If operational incident is all it's referred to internally I don't see what's wrong with using the same phrase externally. 'There's been an incident of an operational nature'. Only the driver involved, signaller and controller need to know any more. Most people couldn't care less what type of operating incident has occurred.

You have bought tickets to the theatre, and arrive at the venue to be told there will be a delay. You enquire what's happening.
The first person representing the venue simply says "There has been an operational incident." and walks away.
You ask a second person, "Gobo error in the follow-synch." You enquire what that means and they just say "There has been a gobo error in the follow-synch." When you still look confused they add "That's what it's referred to internally, I don't see what's wrong with using the same phrase externally."
Finally you ask a third person, who replies "There was a problem with the stage lighting. We're currently investigating the cause so we can make sure everything is safe."

Which of the three people has actually helped you understand why the service you have paid for is being delayed?

 

[Mintona]

You have bought tickets to the theatre, and arrive at the venue to be told there will be a delay. You enquire what's happening.
The first person representing the venue simply says "There has been an operational incident." and walks away.
You ask a second person, "Gobo error in the follow-synch." You enquire what that means and they just say "There has been a gobo error in the follow-synch." When you still look confused they add "That's what it's referred to internally, I don't see what's wrong with using the same phrase externally."
Finally you ask a third person, who replies "There was a problem with the stage lighting. We're currently investigating the cause so we can make sure everything is safe."

Which of the three people has actually helped you understand why the service you have paid for is being delayed?

If I arrived at the theatre and was told there was a delay, I'd ask how long the delay was likely to be and if the play was likely to be shown. If not I'd get off home and write to ask for a refund.

Knowing that there is a problem with the stage lights hasn't improved my evening at all, I'm still faced with the same delay. I just now have somebody to blame.

 

[EM2]

Which of the three people has actually helped you understand why the service you have paid for is being delayed?

I don't need to understand. There is a delay. They must have a good reason for delaying the performance, and I trust them that it's better for the performance to be delayed than to go ahead at the scheduled time.

 

[Llanigraham]

Exactly. If operational incident is all it's referred to internally I don't see what's wrong with using the same phrase externally. 'There's been an incident of an operational nature'. Only the driver involved, signaller and controller need to know any more. Most people couldn't care less what type of operating incident has occurred.

Quite, but according to certain members of this forum the last sentence is totally incorrect and passengers are demanding more info. Certainly is not what I hear from my friends, they are quite happy with "Operational incident"!

 

[Chris M]

I didn't ask whether you needed to understand the problem. I didn't ask whether know the reason would improve your evening.
I asked which of the three responses has helped you understand the problem.

Would you now please answer the question I actually asked.

 

[EM2]

Would you now please answer the question I actually asked.

Why? I wouldn't ask three people. In fact, I probably wouldn't even ask one!

 

[Darandio]

This is very tiresome now, i'm not even sure why it's still going, I nailed it yesterday following most of the comments in the first 20 pages or so.

People want to know what is going on and get very emotive when they don't know what is going on. But......if the railway don't know what is going on either, yet convey to people that they don't know what is going on, people don't mind not knowing what is going on because at least they know for sure that nobody knows what is going on.

 

[GB]

I didn't ask whether you needed to understand the problem. I didn't ask whether know the reason would improve your evening.
I asked which of the three responses has helped you understand the problem.

Would you now please answer the question I actually asked.

The first and third one. Has either one had an effect, no not really.

 

[hounddog]

Then you're right. I don't get it.
I don't get why anyone would want to know more information about something that has happened that could be a threat to their safety.
I don't get how anyone knowing that information would make them feel cared about and *less* anxious.

So you cover it up to "protect" them, it later leaks out and next time the passenger worries far more about what else you might be covering up. That'll really help.

 

[asylumxl]

I feel that some members of this forum would be perfectly suited to working for GTR, if they don't already. They too don't like giving any more than the most basic of information, if they provide any at all :P.

 

[EM2]

So you cover it up to "protect" them, it later leaks out and next time the passenger worries far more about what else you might be covering up. That'll really help.

Or the passenger realises that whatever the problem was, it was dealt with in a safe manner and can be confident that if it were to happen again, it would be dealt with in the same way.

 

[Chris M]

Or the passenger realises that whatever the problem was, it was dealt with in a safe manner and can be confident that if it were to happen again, it would be dealt with in the same way.

If it was dealt with in a safe manner there would be no need to cover it up.

 

[EM2]

If it was dealt with in a safe manner there would be no need to cover it up.

Nothing is being covered up.

 

[Chris M]

That's not what the lay passenger understands when they are told something vague like "operational incident" (evidence presented countless times on this thread alone).

 

[EM2]

That's not what the lay passenger understands when they are told something vague like "operational incident" (evidence presented countless times on this thread alone).

Fine.
We'll just say 'we don't know' and see how well that goes down with people.

 

[bnm]

Fine.
We'll just say 'we don't know' and see how well that goes down with people.

It's honest.

 

[Jonfun]

There's nothing wrong in admitting you don't know. If anything from experience it's likely to reduce the grief you'll personally get as angst from passengers is more likely to be directed at the 'train bosses' who in the eyes of the public are the ones who aren't giving the staff the information to give out. Some staff think that saying you don't know something is a sign of weakness - it isn't. It's this reason that during disruption you see so many "nobody's made any announcements or been through the train" posts on twitter. Even an announcement saying "I'm sorry, I don't know what's happening at the moment but I'm currently trying to find out - thank you for your patience" is better than nothing.

 

[EM2]

There's nothing wrong in admitting you don't know. If anything from experience it's likely to reduce the grief you'll personally get as angst from passengers is more likely to be directed at the 'train bosses' who in the eyes of the public are the ones who aren't giving the staff the information to give out.

Certainly not in my experience.

 

[Mintona]

I'll enjoy the announcements of 'I'm afraid I don't know the cause of the delay. I know what the umbrella cause is but some people on the internet said you'd prefer it if we say we don't know rather than give you a vaguer reason.'

 

[rebmcr]

This is very tiresome now, i'm not even sure why it's still going.

It seems that RailUK has a Defensive Drivers Policy.

 

[Wookiee]

I get the feeling the railway might have a particularly active branch of the Flat Earth Society.

Actually laughed out loud at this.

Seriously though, it seems to me that "operational incident" is effectively industry jargon. If people from within the industry can't see that and agree that plainer and more meaningful English could or should be used then I despair. It probably says more about them than the people who want a fuller explanation. Virtually every other industry is committed to reducing jargon in its external communications, but the railway is so special that it can carry on like some sort of dinosaur.

The OP was about me wondering what kind of impact the incident was going to have on my journey home later that day. If services had still been stuffed, I would have been less annoyed about it if I'd had a reasonable idea of what had happened. I don't consider there to be anything voyeuristic about that and it certainly isn't because I wanted to place a driver in stocks outside a local station.

Passengers pay thousands for the privilege of using the railway. I know some of us are a bit of an inconvenience but it would be nice if we could be treated in an adult manner when things go tits up, given that we won't be getting the service we've paid for.