"Operational Incident", Wembley Down Slow

[colchesterken]

We are the customers, We are paying for a service and are entitled to know when the service we have paid for has failed.
As some people have suggested something like "a safety device has stopped the train we are sorting it and will proceed asap". would cover a SPAD. "awaiting a driver" covers the personal needs point raised. a PHBT was referred to the other day as "a trespass incident"
It is a complete failure of customer service to say we have no right to know why our service has failed, It would not do in any other private sector service..

 

[DarloRich]

At no point have I said anything about a SPAR or SPAD or AWS or GSMR or any piece of jargon.

Tell people why the train has stopped without using jargon. It is not hard. It is not getting clever with messaging. It is simply informing the paying customer about the present situation.

Saying "we've stopped, be under way in an hour" as you seem to be advocating is a completely unacceptable way to communicate with customers. And, if no delay length is known, your message would be "we've stopped."

No one is saying that and I think you are being deliberately silly now. :roll:

My point remains that the detailed information you seem to want is not the answer to the normal customers needs. What the vast majority of people want during times of disruption (and while I haven't got the front line experience of many on here I do have some) is information on how and when they can get home. They honestly don't care that much what the problem is just how long it will delay them.

The response (9 times out of 10) when the problem is discussed is: That's nice - how long will it take to get fixed and can I get XZY train co home instead?

There is a massive appetite for transparency and openness.

Certainly from you there is. From normal non spotter types? I am not so sure.

BTW those satisfaction scores you keep quoting as a means to buttress your points aren't anything to do with detailed information on the reasons for delays.

They are about not being able to do what should be simple things like getting cross ticket acceptance in place quick enough, like telling people there even are problems, like telling people about alternative routes and options, like arranging replacement bus services asap, like having staff on the ground at stations to help, like getting services running asap.

I think we need to focus on getting the basic communications right all the time rather than worry about detail at this stage. We cant even communicate simple things right often enough and until we can that should be the focus. Get the simple right and then move on.

We are the customers, We are paying for a service and are entitled to know when the service we have paid for has failed.
As some people have suggested something like "a safety device has stopped the train we are sorting it and will proceed asap". would cover a SPAD. "awaiting a driver" covers the personal needs point raised. a Person Hit By Train was referred to the other day as "a trespass incident"
It is a complete failure of customer service to say we have no right to know why our service has failed, It would not do in any other private sector service..

No one is saying that at all! :roll:

BTW the last time the power failed National Grid ( or whoever it is now) simply said:

There has been a failure of the distribution network affecting postcode areas XYZ. Engineers are working on the problem. Services will be restored as soon as possible.

They are a private company last time I checked

 

[Minilad]

We are the customers, We are paying for a service and are entitled to know when the service we have paid for has failed.
As some people have suggested something like "a safety device has stopped the train we are sorting it and will proceed asap". would cover a SPAD. "awaiting a driver" covers the personal needs point raised. a Person Hit By Train was referred to the other day as "a trespass incident"
It is a complete failure of customer service to say we have no right to know why our service has failed, It would not do in any other private sector service..

And I would give you very good odds that if the railway started using those terms some on here would still be calling for more information.
I just don't see any reason why people feel the need to know the exact reason for a delay as long as information about how long the delay will be is given out. That is all the vast majority of people are interested in.
As for the second part I think it's only the railway that suffers from this. If a letter or package is late do you demand the post office tell you exactly why. If your phone stops working do you want the exact reason. I reckon the phone company would just give you some generic reason too.
The fact is most people do not have the level of knowledge to understand more than generic responses anyway. And that is not a poke at the intelligence of the public just that why would they. I have no knowledge of how a big logistics firm gets a package from China to my front door so I really wouldn't want a complex reason for why my parcel is delayed. I would just want to know when it was going to turn up

 

[AlterEgo]

No one is saying that and I think you are being deliberately silly now. :roll:

My point remains that the detailed information you seem to want is not the answer to the normal customers needs. What the vast majority of people want during times of disruption (and while I haven't got the front line experience of many on here I do have some) is information on how and when they can get home. They honestly don't care that much what the problem is just how long it will delay them.

The response (9 times out of 10) when the problem is discussed is: That's nice - how long will it take to get fixed and can I get XZY train co home instead?




Certainly from you there is. From normal non spotter types? I am not so sure.

BTW those satisfaction scores you keep quoting as a means to buttress your points aren't anything to do with detailed information on the reasons for delays.

They are about not being able to do what should be simple things like getting cross ticket acceptance in place quick enough, like telling people there even are problems, like telling people about alternative routes and options, like arranging replacement bus services asap, like having staff on the ground at stations to help, like getting services running asap.

I think we need to focus on getting the basic communications right all the time rather than worry about detail at this stage. We cant even communicate simple things right often enough and until we can that should be the focus. Get the simple right and then move on.



No one is saying that at all! :roll:

BTW the last time the power failed National Grid ( or whoever it is now) simply said:

There has been a failure of the distribution network affecting postcode areas XYZ. Engineers are working on the problem. Services will be restored as soon as possible.

They are a private company last time I checked

Let's address the points.

1) in the age of social media, the FOI Act, and instant accountability, it's being suggested that passengers would prefer not to know more about why their train is delayed or cancelled. Sorry, not buying that. Public accountability for both public and private companies is a thing and an increasing trend, as has been demonstrated by other posters. I think you will find some posters definitely did say that passengers had no right to be informed!

2) I am not a spotter or spotter type. I have little to no interest in SPADs or SPARs when I am travelling or anything much beyond the immediate customer experience, which I document and make notes on. I spent several years manning TOC Twitter accounts and there is a definite need to be less opaque in some, but not all areas of railway communications. Most delay reasons are perfectly fine. They state the nature of the delay. Operating incident does not and is unsatisfactory. Answer me this...why does the railway bother explaining that a signal failure caused a particular delay? The passenger does not NEED to know but they do have a basic right to be informed.

3) The NPS does not specifically ask "would you like more detailed delay reasons" but it indicates that railway is poor, and slipping further behind customer expectations about how delays are resolved and communicated. What they certainly do not do is support the assertion that "operating incident" is a good explanation.

4) I agree that basic comms are very poor in some places. I also agree it would be better to address these first, but it doesn't preclude us from having a discussion about operating incidents.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I just don't see any reason why people feel the need to know the exact reason for a delay as long as information about how long the delay will be is given out.

Not the "exact reason", just "a reason". Explain the delay in basic terms. That's all.

 

[Minilad]

Not the "exact reason", just "a reason". Explain the delay in basic terms. That's all.

Surely thats what the term "operational incident" does.
I just can't see why anyone "needs" to know any more than that. If the expected delay is communicated to people well then the vast majority of people involved will be happy. Some people might feel they would like to know more, but do they NEED to know more.

 

[AlterEgo]

As for the second part I think it's only the railway that suffers from this. If a letter or package is late do you demand the post office tell you exactly why. If your phone stops working do you want the exact reason. I reckon the phone company would just give you some generic reason too.
The fact is most people do not have the level of knowledge to understand more than generic responses anyway. And that is not a poke at the intelligence of the public just that why would they. I have no knowledge of how a big logistics firm gets a package from China to my front door so I really wouldn't want a complex reason for why my parcel is delayed. I would just want to know when it was going to turn up

If my phone stopped working I wouldn't want to hear "operating incident" as the cause! I'd want to at least know something like a mast was defective and being fixed, or my handset had a software fault, or that there was an issue with my bill.

If my plane is late I like to know why. I don't want to know about what colour the pilot's vomit was when he rang in sick, but it's crew illness, say so. If it's pilot hours, say so. If it's landing damage, say so.

Giving basic reasons for a delay, or the ruination of a punter's day, is basic customer service. It's about caring for customer.

Most railway delay reasons already satisfy that standard, but not all of them do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely thats what the term "operational incident" does.
I just can't see why anyone "needs" to know any more than that. If the expected delay is communicated to people well then the vast majority of people involved will be happy. Some people might feel they would like to know more, but do they NEED to know more.

It's not about need. It's about caring for the customer.

Operating incident is massively vague and doesn't make anyone feel cared about, informed, or less stressful.

I can see this is a losing battle.

 

[Minilad]

If my phone stopped working I wouldn't want to hear "operating incident" as the cause! I'd want to at least know something like a mast was defective and being fixed, or my handset had a software fault, or that there was an issue with my bill.

If my plane is late I like to know why. I don't want to know about what colour the pilot's vomit was when he rang in sick, but it's crew illness, say so. If it's pilot hours, say so. If it's landing damage, say so.

Giving basic reasons for a delay, or the ruination of a punter's day, is basic customer service. It's about caring for customer.

Most railway delay reasons already satisfy that standard, but not all of them do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It's not about need. It's about caring for the customer.

Operating incident is massively vague and doesn't make anyone feel cared about, informed, or less stressful.

I can see this is a losing battle.

It's not a battle. Just a differing view from different sides of the fence.

 

[DarloRich]

Let's address the points.

1) in the age of social media, the FOI Act, and instant accountability, it's being suggested that passengers would prefer not to know more about why their train is delayed or cancelled. Sorry, not buying that. Public accountability for both public and private companies is a thing and an increasing trend, as has been demonstrated by other posters. I think you will find some posters definitely did say that passengers had no right to be informed!

FOI doesn't apply to private companies - which is a big shame and would be a useful tool towards forcing the TOC's to be more open. Accountability for private companies is almost non existent. They don't care what you think as long as you keep spending and the TOC's know you have little choice but to keep spending.

It is my experience that, during perturbed working -)) , people most often want to know when they will get home. We have to remember that every time we screw up people are late for work or for their tea or for getting Johnnie to bed.

I certainly do not think that information should be withheld, just that we need to be careful that what is presented is understandable by the vast majority of real people and delivered in by the best medium. We have to consider their ability to process/grade/compute that information and make decisions accordingly. We also have to ensure that we use that window of opportunity to land the key message: trains are delayed, use alternative routes.

2) I am not a spotter or spotter type. I have little to no interest in SPADs or SPARs when I am travelling or anything much beyond the immediate customer experience, which I document and make notes on. I spent several years manning TOC Twitter accounts and there is a definite need to be less opaque in some, but not all areas of railway communications. Most delay reasons are perfectly fine. They state the nature of the delay. Operating incident does not and is unsatisfactory. Answer me this...why does the railway bother explaining that a signal failure caused a particular delay? The passenger does not NEED to know but they do have a basic right to be informed.

I think most passengers grasp a signal failure means the trains cant run. They also know, sadly, they happen often and may have built up some knowledge about how long the typical delays are in this case.

It is also worth noting that TOC's are very good at making sure the passengers knows exactly when NR have let them down. They are less good at admitting their own faults!

3) The NPS does not specifically ask "would you like more detailed delay reasons" but it indicates that railway is poor, and slipping further behind customer expectations about how delays are resolved and communicated. What they certainly do not do is support the assertion that "operating incident" is a good explanation.

Agreed - however the customer expectation has to be realistic. I will maintain the key piece of information is how long the delay will be. Giving the time estimate many want is not possible as early as it is wanted.

4) I agree that basic comms are very poor in some places. I also agree it would be better to address these first, but it doesn't preclude us from having a discussion about operating incidents.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not the "exact reason", just "a reason". Explain the delay in basic terms. That's all.

Agreed! I simply think care has to be taken not to worry or upset the customer and not to provide them with useless information they cant act upon.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not a battle. Just a differing view from different sides of the fence.

But the difference is I've seen it from both sides. I've been the guy harassed for spottery gen on operational matters, including delays. I know how frustrating that is, and I would not want the railway to succumb to pumping out jargon for neds. Nor would I ever advocate giving very detailed reasons for problems.

 

[Minilad]

But the difference is I've seen it from both sides. I've been the guy harassed for spottery gen on operational matters, including delays. I know how frustrating that is, and I would not want the railway to succumb to pumping out jargon for neds. Nor would I ever advocate giving very detailed reasons for problems.

And I have been at the pointy end of the train when it's going horribly wrong and I know that people, in the main, do not care what has happened they just want to know when they are going to get moving.
They might well ask the twitter account at a later time what went on but in the heat of the moment I am too busy sorting stuff out to get too involved. I'd imagine it's a lot easier giving that sort of info from a computer desk in an office removed from the sharp end. My priority at the time would be getting things moving again

 

[AlterEgo]

And I have been at the pointy end of the train when it's going horribly wrong and I know that people, in the main, do not care what has happened they just want to know when they are going to get moving.
They might well ask the twitter account at a later time what went on but in the heat of the moment I am too busy sorting stuff out to get too involved. I'd imagine it's a lot easier giving that sort of info from a computer desk in an office removed from the sharp end. My priority at the time would be getting things moving again

People tend to ask on social media in real time. It gives them something to do.

It is neither more nor less easy to give information from a remote desk. On the one hand, you have the benefit of not having to deal with people face to face, and you may be able to have the benefit of more than one information source. On the other hand, the information you have may be less accurate than someone on the scene has, and the information you give is entirely public and not just between you and 500 people, so much more emphasis on getting both the tone and facts right.

At the end of the day you want people to go away from their interaction from you happy. Or at least less upset than before. It's a surer thing that will happen if you're polite, reassuring, clear, concise and honest.

 

[Minilad]

People tend to ask on social media in real time. It gives them something to do.

It is neither more nor less easy to give information from a remote desk. On the one hand, you have the benefit of not having to deal with people face to face, and you may be able to have the benefit of more than one information source. On the other hand, the information you have may be less accurate than someone on the scene has, and the information you give is entirely public and not just between you and 500 people, so much more emphasis on getting both the tone and facts right.

At the end of the day you want people to go away from their interaction from you happy. Or at least less upset than before. It's a surer thing that will happen if you're polite, reassuring, clear, concise and honest.

And I would be all of those things

 

[TheEdge]

Let me be rather blunt. In four years I was working on train with passengers the only time I was asked for more detail on what had happened was when I was sat in a field having just hit a tractor at 80mph. And even then most of the time all they really wanted to know was the plans and timescale to get them on their way.

Every other time without notable exception signal failure/congestion/late train/operation incident plus a estimate of movement or delay and an apology was plenty.

 

[J-2739]

You know what, instead of brewing some fairy stories up, why can't they just keep their mouths shut on the specifics and work on engaging with the passengers and keep on updating them with how long their services would be delayed?

Just telling them something fake is gonna desend passengers into panic and confusion anyway.

 

[AlterEgo]

Let me be rather blunt. In four years I was working on train with passengers the only time I was asked for more detail on what had happened was when I was sat in a field having just hit a tractor at 80mph. And even then most of the time all they really wanted to know was the plans and timescale to get them on their way.

Every other time without notable exception signal failure/congestion/late train/operation incident plus a estimate of movement or delay and an apology was plenty.

The diametric opposite of my experience!

 

[TheEdge]

The diametric opposite of my experience!

Normal day to day delays people just don't care. They generally don't even care about the vague reason, just how long they will be waiting.

 

[tsr]

Let me be rather blunt. In four years I was working on train with passengers the only time I was asked for more detail on what had happened was when I was sat in a field having just hit a tractor at 80mph. And even then most of the time all they really wanted to know was the plans and timescale to get them on their way.

Every other time without notable exception signal failure/congestion/late train/operation incident plus a estimate of movement or delay and an apology was plenty.

This is odd, because I've provided passengers with travel information for longer than you have (including the time I had to make the decision about evacuating one of Britain's busiest stations as it was getting dangerously overcrowded with drunk, cold people on New Year's Day and I hadn't had a bus or train for near enough 3 hours... and the time when I had to explain to passengers why their train wasn't moving because someone had just decided to take a running jump onto the third rail, in front of the windows of a full airport express... and... and!) and I have to disagree.

Most people are significantly, remarkably in fact, interested in why they are being delayed, providing you explain it without too much jargon and - this is the 100% most critical bit - relate it to how their journeys are being affected. Saying "signal failure" or "operational incident" does not give any real relevance to the announcement because it does not explain how the system is actually preventing trains from running correctly to the magnitude experienced at that time. Operational performance, railway infrastructure and all manner of railway matters drive conversation all the way from the packed vestibule to the Houses of Parliament, and has done for well over one and a half centuries. Keeping people informed is part of my profession and I make no apologies for stating that over the years, I have a pretty decent record of positive feedback for doing so.

There is no need to explain that in 1960something, a train accident led to a recommendation that signals do this, that or the other. There is certainly no reason to think it is right and proper to say for sure that a driver has gone too fast over the grids and so we're going to be held while they take a moment to cool off, fill in some forms and drive to the next station before being relieved, or anything else which apportions blame unreasonably. I think we've done that particular one to death anyway. But there is absolutely a time and place, for example, to explain over the PA that the electrical system which detects trains has had a cable fault, meaning the junction ahead cannot be used because the system locks it out of use if trains cannot be detected correctly - and that we are expecting a contractor to begin diagnostics in about 40 minutes. (After continuing to explain a similar situation that way, not so long ago, with a similar delay in a particularly grim part of Kent where faredodgers and trespassers like to hang out, I remember a lovely passenger came up to me after running down the platform and told me I was the best member of rail staff she'd ever met, so y'know...)

The more transparency the better when it comes to the way trains work, a matter which is both a mystery and a laughingstock for many of the British public who have become accustomed to the wool not just being pulled over their eyes but stuffed down their throats when they have the cheek to make a complaint about it. This thread is a perfect example of how inadequate much of the information on the railway is and, regrettably, how few staff seem to care that people actually do want to know what the problem is, how it will be sorted, and why exactly the trains they spend three hours a day on, five days a week, work like that. You don't have to blame anyone, give them gruesome details of a fatality or whatever, or anything like that. An explanation of how it works - something which is even commercially viable, as proved by countless documentaries shown on mainstream, prime time TV programmes - and a reasonably frequent running commentary on any change which will affect journeys, is what is needed.

For goodness' sake, I can now find out I am house number 48 on my postman's parcel round, text him 6 hours in advance of a delivery, and ask him to reschedule to tomorrow and please leave it with the next-door-neighbour-but one unless the yellow car is on the drive. If we can track a delivery of a USB cable with such precision, why on earth is it too much to ask for good communication and explanation of exactly how a delay will affect journeys of 1,200 people?

 

[AlterEgo]

Normal day to day delays people just don't care. They generally don't even care about the vague reason, just how long they will be waiting.

Again, the complete opposite to my experience. There are lots of passengers who appreciate being told why the delay has been caused as well as when it'll be fixed, in the same way that I appreciate being told why my phone isn't working.

It may seem different to front line staff, as often passengers (sometimes) wrongly assume you know little about the incident in question. However, a brief foray into a customer relations department, or the NRE call centre, or onto social media, will reveal a different scenario. I spent a great deal of my time explaining delays to people.

I am only arguing that the vague and unhelpful "operating incident" be scrapped and replaced with something a little more descriptive depending on the incident. Nothing more.

On my regular train into WAT, the guard will often explain that we are being "held at a red signal awaiting a slot onto the fast lines". There is no need to know, and perhaps nobody would ask, but it is helpful, maintains trust and a line of communication. Communicating is good!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just in case I seem like a lone voice in the matter, have a read of Transport Focus' report (from 2014, but still the latest word on the subject):

http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/PF PIDD Rprt August14 WEB.pdf

Some highlights:

1) "Ability to find out more" was the lowest rated aspect of delay handling by a considerable margin. It was 5th most important of 13 factors driving satisfaction with delay handling.

2) "The reasons given for disruptions should be ‘real’; ‘standard excuses’ are generally unhelpful and may be disbelieved."

3) "During disruption on the train, passengers display a mixture of resignation and anxiety about loss of control over their travel. Our ‘in-the-moment’ work suggested that frustration is a key emotion at this stage, exacerbated by lack of communication or acknowledgement of problems."

4) Finally, in passengers’ words: “What else did you need to know that you weren’t told?”

“Their plan for dealing with the issue and consistent (i.e honest) reason for the problem.”
Commuter, in-the-moment

“I need to know why a service is delayed/running late at the time. I also need a genuine apology.”
Leisure, in-the-moment

5) On the train, staff announcements provide the most information, but have the weakest rating.

6) Digital and broadcast media are used and are the best rated information on any step of the journey.

7) Delayed passengers rated train companies more highly for ‘Consistency of information provided’ (46 per cent) than for ‘Level of concern shown’ (31 per cent) and ‘Keeping you informed’ (41 per cent).

8) Specific recommendation: Give information controllers the tools to accurately describe the cause of disruption. Passengers want the truth, not generalised stock descriptions some believe are intended to hide the facts. A tree across the railway is just that: don’t call it “an obstruction”. If a car has driven into the level crossing barriers say so: don’t say “a problem at a level crossing”...It should be noted that in 2012 the industry agreed significant changes to address this, but they have never been implemented.

 

[deltic]

This is odd, because I've provided passengers with travel information for longer than you have (including the time I had to make the decision about evacuating one of Britain's busiest stations as it was getting dangerously overcrowded with drunk, cold people on New Year's Day and I hadn't had a bus or train for near enough 3 hours... and the time when I had to explain to passengers why their train wasn't moving because someone had just decided to take a running jump onto the third rail, in front of the windows of a full airport express... and... and!) and I have to disagree.

Most people are significantly, remarkably in fact, interested in why they are being delayed, providing you explain it without too much jargon and - this is the 100% most critical bit - relate it to how their journeys are being affected. Saying "signal failure" or "operational incident" does not give any real relevance to the announcement because it does not explain how the system is actually preventing trains from running correctly to the magnitude experienced at that time. Operational performance, railway infrastructure and all manner of railway matters drive conversation all the way from the packed vestibule to the Houses of Parliament, and has done for well over one and a half centuries. Keeping people informed is part of my profession and I make no apologies for stating that over the years, I have a pretty decent record of positive feedback for doing so.

There is no need to explain that in 1960something, a train accident led to a recommendation that signals do this, that or the other. There is certainly no reason to think it is right and proper to say for sure that a driver has gone too fast over the grids and so we're going to be held while they take a moment to cool off, fill in some forms and drive to the next station before being relieved, or anything else which apportions blame unreasonably. I think we've done that particular one to death anyway. But there is absolutely a time and place, for example, to explain over the PA that the electrical system which detects trains has had a cable fault, meaning the junction ahead cannot be used because the system locks it out of use if trains cannot be detected correctly - and that we are expecting a contractor to begin diagnostics in about 40 minutes. (After continuing to explain a similar situation that way, not so long ago, with a similar delay in a particularly grim part of Kent where faredodgers and trespassers like to hang out, I remember a lovely passenger came up to me after running down the platform and told me I was the best member of rail staff she'd ever met, so y'know...)

The more transparency the better when it comes to the way trains work, a matter which is both a mystery and a laughingstock for many of the British public who have become accustomed to the wool not just being pulled over their eyes but stuffed down their throats when they have the cheek to make a complaint about it. This thread is a perfect example of how inadequate much of the information on the railway is and, regrettably, how few staff seem to care that people actually do want to know what the problem is, how it will be sorted, and why exactly the trains they spend three hours a day on, five days a week, work like that. You don't have to blame anyone, give them gruesome details of a fatality or whatever, or anything like that. An explanation of how it works - something which is even commercially viable, as proved by countless documentaries shown on mainstream, prime time TV programmes - and a reasonably frequent running commentary on any change which will affect journeys, is what is needed.

For goodness' sake, I can now find out I am house number 48 on my postman's parcel round, text him 6 hours in advance of a delivery, and ask him to reschedule to tomorrow and please leave it with the next-door-neighbour-but one unless the yellow car is on the drive. If we can track a delivery of a USB cable with such precision, why on earth is it too much to ask for good communication and explanation of exactly how a delay will affect journeys of 1,200 people?

One of the best posts I've read on this forum - it's a pleasure to see someone who obviously takes pride in their job and provides excellent customer service

Thank you

 

[LowLevel]

Just tell em everything that isn't likely to land you in trouble. Having done the standing on a bench in a crowd 10 deep thing being on a train is a markedly easier experience in terms of having a captive audience.

Fatalities are perhaps the worst because you get the inevitable dewy eyed person sniffing 'are they going to be OK?' - I've just taken to looking sad and saying 'probably not'.

One thing I always do though is back up the announcement by going through the train, having said 'I'll be passing through shortly, please stop me if you have any concerns regarding connections or anything else, all I ask is please don't ask how long it will be as I can't tell you - as soon as I know more I'll be back on the PA'.

 

[Sunset route]

I've giving explanations to a train driver as to why they are in a long queue as well as explaining to them again at the time of authorising pass a signal at danger and over manually set or wound points, that I have my doubts the driver had fully understood the reason, other than that they are required to pass a signal at danger, over said route upto the next signal before continuing back to normal. For them to explain to the wider travelling public or to their guard to announce to the travelling public, something is going to get lost in translation, so I'm not bothered if I'm travelling and hear the generic "signalling equipment failure" instead of something more complex, although if you get more information than that, combined with the many internet sources plus my working knowledge I can work out length of delay myself. But then again I'm not a ordinary passenger, but a worker with 30years in signalling behind. Yes better information is good, over complex and your going to start to lose the message.

Using my own knowledge I've got back home from work quicker than listening to the information the TOC, platform staff or guard has given out, mainly as they have to play it safe and give out instructions that from the most informed to a first time traveller can follow and I suppose this is the whole point, keep it simple, keep it to known facts, and give out realistic estimated departure or arrival times or alternative routes.

The ins and outs of TDM failure at X interlocking/area on both the control and or indication circuits with total loss of remote control, is not going to mean much to a train driver, other than the signal that they have just passed doing 90mph was blank and so is the one in front of them after they have pulled up in a heap is also blank and then told not to move and there is no estimates as to when you can move.

You will probably see that in the Twitter feeds as total loss of signalling or mass signalling equipment failure.

 

[QueensCurve]

Your train is delayed. Whether that delay was a fault with the train, with the track, with a signal, with staff, with people on the line, with livestock on the line... your train is still delayed.

Would you feel better if the Guard came on to announce that your train had faulty brakes? Would you be reassured if you found that it was because someone had died by throwing themselves in front of the train? How would that knowledge help anyone?

If you know that, some distance from a track access point, a relief driver will have to be brought, you understand it is likely to be a longer rather than a shorter delay that helps.

People are perfectly capable of understanding that faulty brakes will prevent the train from moving rather than meaning impeding doom. Particularly if the train has already stopped.

"Person hit by a train is regularly disclosed.

The railway can only disbenefit from a "keep them in the dark and feed them bull****"[bowdlerised not by me] attitude. Most passengers are not stupid [and they aren't mushrooms] and many will appreciate more information rather than less.

Using highly technical jargon like "TDM" probably won't help. It may however help to explain if it is a failure of multiple signals rather than just one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So whats this thread all about then?:roll:

We don't know since nobody told us. Also if the train hasn't hit another train would it matter?

I experience of passengers being told honestly that a signal had been passed at danger. The earth didn't swallow the crew or the TOC.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

When I see "operational incident" as the delay reason, the first couple of possibilities that spring to mind are that either a train has derailed (probably as a result of either a point being pulled under it or at trap points) or a signal has been spadded.