"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

[GB]

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.

So becuase staff refuse to give out confidential information on a public forum in your mind that means they don't have access to it in the first place. Yep ok :roll:

 

[GB]

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

.

I'm merely pointing out that "safety systems" can refer to many different aspects of train operations so is no different to operational incident.

 

[rebmcr]

I'm merely pointing out that "safety systems" can refer to many different aspects of train operations so is no different to operational incident.

Yes, in terms of detail, you are correct. However the point is that they are different in terms of understandability to a layperson.

 

[asylumxl]

So becuase staff refuse to give out confidential information on a public forum in your mind that means they don't have access to it in the first place. Yep ok :roll:

Why are you being so defensive?

In my experience it seems platform staff often have very little information regarding incidents. It certainly seems that many of GTRs customer-facing staff only have direct access to CCLDB. I'm more than welcome to be corrected if you're willing to explain why?

 

[LAX54]

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.

Rail Staff on here will be 'defensive' on saying too much, as it is against the social media policy, and could also be sensitive information, Those at the sharp end, when an incident starts, will indeed have very little information, that may take some time to actually work out 'what and where' by which time those who are currently waiting will have moved on anyway, station staff will have their hands full directing passengers, revising train services to have time even to call Control to find out the ins and outs of what happened, Control will also be in the thick of it, sorting things out, more accurate info will be available later, and will be put out, but those caught up at the start, and maybe sometime into the incident, may well be told operating incident, sometimes as a Signaller and involoved with late running / revisions, I still only know it as an operating incident, we find out eventually, but the main drive is getting the service back to some sort of normality, we don't need to know what happened, we need to know what the incident, whatever it maybe affects us and the service, better to have a simple generic term, than spout something that turns out to be a load of rubbish !
Having said all that, when I am not at work, and there is trouble afoot, the AGA twitter account does seem to put out info, as soon as they have concrete knowledge of the issue.

 

[asylumxl]

Rail Staff on here will be 'defensive' on saying too much, as it is against the social media policy, and could also be sensitive information, Those at the sharp end, when an incident starts, will indeed have very little information, that may take some time to actually work out 'what and where' by which time those who are currently waiting will have moved on anyway, station staff will have their hands full directing passengers, revising train services to have time even to call Control to find out the ins and outs of what happened, Control will also be in the thick of it, sorting things out, more accurate info will be available later, and will be put out, but those caught up at the start, and maybe sometime into the incident, may well be told operating incident, sometimes as a Signaller and involoved with late running / revisions, I still only know it as an operating incident, we find out eventually, but the main drive is getting the service back to some sort of normality, we don't need to know what happened, we need to know what the incident, whatever it maybe affects us and the service, better to have a simple generic term, than spout something that turns out to be a load of rubbish !
Having said all that, when I am not at work, and there is trouble afoot, the AGA twitter account does seem to put out info, as soon as they have concrete knowledge of the issue.

I wasn't really referring to this forum thread or any other form of social media, but rather the actual staff on the ground during disruption.

What you've said is what I was attempting to get at, that staff don't always actually have more info or access to it.

 

[EM2]

What you've said is what I was attempting to get at, that staff don't always actually have more info or access to it.

Which is the point that most of us have been making, and that's why it's surely better to say 'operational incident' until more information is known, rather than 'we don't know' or 'we've not been told'.

 

[rebmcr]

Which is the point that most of us have been making, and that's why it's surely better to say 'operational incident' until more information is known, rather than 'we don't know' or 'we've not been told'.

I understand why you see it that way, but I honestly think you are overlooking the value of "well, at least they're being honest" and also that admitting "I don't know" won't be as badly-perceived as you imagine.

If a nutter wants to have a go at someone, they're going to find an excuse no matter what.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Trouble is with "Operational Incident", your average passenger might assume that someone has screwed up, it's probably better to say "incident being investigated" when they nature of the incident isn't known

 

[EM2]

If a nutter wants to have a go at someone, they're going to find an excuse no matter what.

Maybe. But I've had more people scream at me for saying 'I haven't got any information' than I have for saying 'it's an operational incident'.

 

[LAX54]

I wasn't really referring to this forum thread or any other form of social media, but rather the actual staff on the ground during disruption.

What you've said is what I was attempting to get at, that staff don't always actually have more info or access to it.

I have been on stations where staff have said "sorry we have no information currently" which rewarded them with all manner of swearing and aggression, saying how thick they were etc etc , so you can see why they say 'Operational Incident' it covers all bases to start with, 9 times out of 10 if it is a long term issue, then sometime into the event staff will give the info out as best they can, but of course those caught at the outset, have to live with Operational Incident