"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[EM2]

Any ideas what's going on? The 1N65 from Brighton to Southampton is currently 92L at Emsworth...

The OP was about me wondering what kind of impact the incident was going to have on my journey home later that day.

But then all you really need is a fairly good idea of when things are likely to be back to normal. What the cause is, or the details of it, aren't necessary.

 

[rebmcr]

But then all you really need is a fairly good idea of when things are likely to be back to normal. What the cause is, or the details of it, aren't necessary.

There is nothing wrong with simply wanting to know why, when one has been affected by something. 'Need to know' is something from spy fiction, not customer service.

 

[Mag_seven]

London Underground are very obtuse when it comes to explanations for delays - the Piccadilly line was severely disrupted for most of yesterday due to "a passenger incident". In terms of explanations "a passenger incident" was all you got.

 

[EM2]

There is nothing wrong with simply wanting to know why, when one has been affected by something. 'Need to know' is something from spy fiction, not customer service.

The OP has said that they posted because they were 'wondering what kind of impact the incident was going to have'. That suggests they are not overly concerned with what the incident is, but with the delay that they are likely to incur.

 

[GW43125]

London Underground are very obtuse when it comes to explanations for delays - the Piccadilly line was severely disrupted for most of yesterday due to "a passenger incident". In terms of explanations "a passenger incident" was all you got.

We've learned by now that's often their code for a one under, whereas with op incident we haven't.

 

[GB]

deleted

 

[rebmcr]

The OP has said that they posted because they were 'wondering what kind of impact the incident was going to have'. That suggests they are not overly concerned with what the incident is, but with the delay that they are likely to incur.

But this is a discussion about wider usage of the phrase, not that specific post. I suspect you know that full well.

 

[EM2]

But this is a discussion about wider usage of the phrase, not that specific post. I suspect you know that full well.

That discussion has grown out of the original post.

 

[Wookiee]

The OP has said that they posted because they were 'wondering what kind of impact the incident was going to have'. That suggests they are not overly concerned with what the incident is, but with the delay that they are likely to incur.

How about reading the rest of the post, rather than just the bit you can spin to suit your argument?

 

[EM2]

How about reading the rest of the post, rather than just the bit you can spin to suit your argument?

Deleted

 

[EM2]

How about reading the rest of the post, rather than just the bit you can spin to suit your argument?

I already have. The various other points raised have been debated by plenty of people in the thread. I see no point in rehashing them.

 

[CentralTrainer]

deleted

I want to know IN FULL DETAIL why that post was deleted and the reasons for it - and I want it now...

 

[Darandio]

I want to know IN FULL DETAIL why that post was deleted and the reasons for it - and I want it now...

Apologies, the post was deleted due to an operational incident.

 

[GW43125]

Apologies, the post was deleted due to an operational incident.

 

[Johncleesefan]

"Operational incident" suffices as a valid reason for a delay or cancelletion in my opinion. The people who need to know what happened will know what happened.
What use is it to Joe public to broadcast ones errors or violations, all that will do it bring fear into certain types and cause a bad reputation. The railway has a good effective way of dealing with these issues, even if they take time, they take that time for a reason.

The only thing i agree on is better planning and contingency plans to give the public a better estimation as to when the ball will roll again.
If I have an incident the last thing I want is details posting over station tannoys. I wouldn't get involved in other peoples hiccups so why should they involve themselves with mine

 

[rebmcr]

If I have an incident the last thing I want is details posting over station tannoys. I wouldn't get involved in other peoples hiccups so why should they involve themselves with mine

"A train waiting ahead due to a safety system activation" neither drops anyone in it, nor causes undue alarm, and is much better than poorly-perceived internal phrasing.

 

[chris11256]

If I have just one/two trains cancelled by an Operational incident' then I rarely care. If it's a peak service I just assume something happened in the depot or whatever.

I only take an interest if it causes massive disruption. Just because on my line(c2c) they're known for being hugely inaccurate with disruption info as well as delay estimates.
So for me personally some detail is useful to judge how best to get home. For example should I get the District Line to Upminster then try & catch a train from there, or should I walk to Liverpool Street. Or even just wait it out at Fenchurch Street.

I accept that there's no need for complete detail, but a little can be helpful. After commuting for a few years I've learnt on average how long certain types of incidents will take to fix and what I should do.

 

[asylumxl]

"A train waiting ahead due to a safety system activation" neither drops anyone in it, nor causes undue alarm, and is much better than poorly-perceived internal phrasing.

I have often heard Thameslink drivers giving information in a similar manner to this and found most passengers seemed more satisfied with the information/accepting of the delay than if they were given a rather vague reason. The drivers of course require detailed information and have the benefit of being able to contact the signaller/control on demand.

As much as I berate GTR, in my experience the customer-facing staff are usually quite helpful, but it often seems they too are left out the​ loop and are given the same vague information. I note many stations seem to have CCLDB on monitors for platform staff, which gives them very little extra information regarding delays.

I get the impression that some railway staff of this forum are not privy to more detailed information in their work and would rather become defensive and argumentative than admit they don't actually have much more information than is already publicly available.

 

[Darandio]

I get the impression that some railway staff of this forum are not privy to more detailed information in their work and would rather become defensive and argumentative than admit they don't actually have much more information than is already publicly available.

Which surely implies they are lying then?

So not only the TOC's lie, but staff do as well?

 

[rebmcr]

I get the impression that some railway staff of this forum are not privy to more detailed information in their work and would rather become defensive and argumentative than admit they don't actually have much more information than is already publicly available.

I think this is reasonable, I get the same impression.

Which surely implies they are lying then?

So not only the TOC's lie, but staff do as well?

This is unnecessarily accusative and doesn't help the discussion.

 

[Darandio]

This is unnecessarily accusative and doesn't help the discussion.

Really? And what you have quoted directly above does? hock:

 

[GB]

"A train waiting ahead due to a safety system activation" neither drops anyone in it, nor causes undue alarm, and is much better than poorly-perceived internal phrasing.

...Nor (in the case of cat A spads) is it entirely accurate. What about spads at non tpws fitted signals?

And what "safety system" in what context? HABD, WILD, gsmr broadcast, unsolicited brake application, emergency brake application, pass comm etc etc??

Seems to me that if you consider "operational incident" vague then so is safety system activation.

 

[CentralTrainer]

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.

Toby soon arrives at Knapford Station where the Fat Controller is waiting for him. The Fat Controller is concerned that the workmen will not get to the quarry on time, but Toby assures him that he will get them there.

Toby pulls away and stops at the junction which is now busier than ever. Henrietta reminds him about Thomas' piece of advice and Toby checks the signal directly above his line and it is red. Toby waits, but the signal doesn't turn green.

The workmen start to get annoyed, as does James who pulls up right behind Toby. James is sure the signal must be green by now and pushes Toby who slams on his brakes and refuses to move.

Then, the Fat Controller arrives and speaks severely to Toby who still insists that his signal is red. As the Fat Controller is giving Toby a lecture about signals, one of the Fat Controller's assistants whispers in the controller's ear.

The Fat Controller realises that Toby had been right all along; the signal is still red. The Fat Controller realises that the signal must be broken and praises Toby for not going through a red signal.

Soon, the Fat Controller arranges for the signal to be fixed while a signalman works the junctions using flags. Ever since that day, Toby has never been afraid of Knapford Junction again.

 

[Johncleesefan]

On the other hand I think tocs need better communication with their staff too. Too many times passengers asking how to get to the trains final destination to which I respond, just stay on the train, to then find out passengers already know the service it terminating early due to station announcements before me, the door swings both ways

 

[Jonfun]

Safety system activation is *less vague* though. You could be more precise by saying "onboard safety system" or "lineside safety system" as appropriate. Passcom activations are relatively easy for passengers to understand if you describe it as the "alarm", or even, as many still refer to it as, the "communication cord".

There is a secondary issue in that many railway staff giving out information, rightly or wrongly, wouldn't actually know what a HABD or WILD does themselves, and as such would struggle to explain it to a passenger.

 

[rebmcr]

Really? And what you have quoted directly above does? hock:

The first quote considers the person's situation as a factor, the second just throws an insult indiscriminately.

...Nor (in the case of cat A spads) is it entirely accurate. What about spads at non tpws fitted signals?

And what "safety system" in what context? HABD, WILD, gsmr broadcast, unsolicited brake application, emergency brake application, pass comm etc etc??

Seems to me that if you consider "operational incident" vague then so is safety system activation.

Noone is arguing for such detail, just a shift towards plain english.

My personal opinion (others might disagree) is that the driver themselves can be reasonably described as a safety system (or part thereof), if their anonymity is a concern.

I think there is room for minor technical inaccuracies, as long as they are in the spirit of increased frankness.

 

[Darandio]

The first quote considers the person's situation as a factor, the second just throws an insult indiscriminately.

There have been contributions from staff in the thread stating that they do and did have access to more detailed information. The quoted post suggests that the staff are actually don't have access to this information and that they won't admit that they don't.

That implies they are not telling the truth, which last time I looked was also known as lying.

 

[rebmcr]

That implies they are not telling the truth, which last time I looked was also known as lying.

Dodging answering a question and changing the subject are certainly defensive and not lies.

 

[Darandio]

Dodging answering a question and changing the subject are certainly defensive and not lies.

Staggering.

I'll stand by what I've implied, it's pointless adding more argumentative bollocks to this thread, it's got enough of it already.

 

[Surreytraveller]

My personal opinion (others might disagree) is that the driver themselves can be reasonably described as a safety system (or part thereof), if their anonymity is a concern.

I have known a signaller's error been described as 'a fault with the signalling equipment' on more than one occasion in the past.