Passengers sick of TOC excuses

[DarloRich]

It doesnt work like that though does it - often you cant say how long it will be while a fault is identified and rectified

people want a definitive timescale as soon as you stop - and you cant give it! Often saying that is worse!

 

[Flamingo]

Often, I don't know why we have come to a stop or is running slow. I have to walk at least four carriages in either direction to get to somewhere I can talk to a driver, to find out if they have spoken to a signaller. I have to drop whatever I am doing at that time to do that. If the train has started moving by the time I have got to the Driver/guard comms, (no matter how slowly) I am not going to contact the driver, as that will mean him having to bring the train to a stop again.

Sometimes, when there is disruption, it is fluid, with my main source of information being messages over a Blackberry that may or may not be able to pick up a signal. Those messages may be vague, as sometimes that is all that there is. Sometimes we may have got past the problem before it even comes out on the pager.

I'm not saying communication is good enough, just pointing out to some of the armchair experts that it can be complicated.

Another point is that one persons brush-off is someone else's too much technical jargon.

We are held up due to a track circuit failure ahead. Do I say

1. "Sorry folks, we have a Track circuit failure ahead",

2. "Sorry folks, we are being held because of a Signalling fault" (which it is, a signal is red for no obvious reason)

3. "Sorry folks, we are currently being held by a track circuit failure, what this means is that the automatic system that detects whether a train is on a certain piece of track is showing a train where there should not be one. This has put the signal to red, which means that the driver is not allowed pass it without special authority which can only be given after several different scenarios have been ruled out. This may be due to a broken rail, a member of staff initiating an emergency stop for this train by putting down track circuit clips which initiate an emergency system, it may be due to some large metal object like a bin or a bench blocking the line and completing the circuit, or it may be due to the preceding train on that section of line coming apart and leaving a carriage behind. It might also be due to a lightening strike shorting out the electrics on that system, damage to the signalling cable either by rats chewing it, Network Rail contractors digging in the wrong place, or thieving little gits cutting it to nick it and sell it for scrap. Or it might just be a blown fuse. As soon as I find out which scenario it is, I will be able to inform you"

 

[A-driver]

I NEVER give times during disruption...I only give as honest account as I can as to what is happening and what still needs to happen before we get moving. If you say "we should be moving in about 10 mins "and 20 later u havnt moved then people stop trusting you which can lead to problems with people forcing their way off trains etc.

The industry needs to stick to certain terms aswell...I had one pax approach me a while back asking what was actually happening as she had been told signal Failiure, track circ Failiure, points Failiure and track problems. Of course they are all the same thing...

 

[michael769]

people want a definitive timescale as soon as you stop - and you cant give it! Often saying that is worse!

Some people will always be unreasonable. But that is no excuse for insulting the rest by going through the motions automated announcements. There will be plenty of folks (the ones that are not acting like petulant children and getting in your face), who will be just happy to know that someone somewhere is working on the problem.

And when I say estimates they don't need to be for the resolution. A couple of months ago I was delayed by a bridge strike. We were first told that the inspection team was 20mins away, and then updated that traffic had delayed them by a further 10 minutes. We were told when they got onside and that the inspection would take 10-15 minutes after which we would be given more information. (In that case we were then cleared to proceed).

We were simply given what details were available at the time no more no less. It's not rocket science to do this every time, it just needs the railway industry to take responsibility for their passengers journeys, the delays that cause to them and to show a little bit of empathy. You might even find that some of those in your face complainers might actually be more calm if they were given the impression that the railway actually cared about the difficulties the delay is causing them.

Unfortunately as we know many (most?) ToCs are interested only in making their annual reports look as good as they can so that the directors can get their bonuses past the shareholder's in the AGM, and unless it contributes to their bottom line they have no interest in doing it.

 

[Flamingo]

Yes, if I am forced to give a time, I always think of worst case scenario, and double it. And make sure they know it is only a guess.

 

[jon0844]

I would definitely prefer something to be said than nothing. Something that FCC seems to regularly fail to do when things go very badly wrong, and they always promise to fix 'next time'.

Saying you don't know, followed by another 'don't know' a little later on is fine - especially if you're told that people are aware of a problem, are on the way etc - but the person conveying the information doesn't directly know yet.

If you're stuck on a train, lack of regular updates is probably more understandable (and less annoying if it's the same thing over and over) than at a station where people may be continuing to arrive, and there are lots of alternatives that could be considered when there's a chance to do so (as against being stuck on a train that isn't moving).

Automated system should be able to give more information, but they're only as good as the people entering the data to be read/displayed. Personally, Twitter is proving to be the best solution as it can broadcast quick updates to everyone, with personal responses to queries from people who are hopefully in a better position to provide information.

I don't even think that giving a quite technical explanation (which is something drivers very often do) is a problem either. As said above, even if you don't fully understand it, you would at least think 'well, at least someone knows what's going on'.

 

[Flamingo]

I don't even think that giving a quite technical explanation (which is something drivers very often do) is a problem either. As said above, even if you don't fully understand it, you would at least think 'well, at least someone knows what's going on'.

Or is able to BS very effectively (which often passes for the same thing, I will admit!)

 

[jon0844]

There's that too!

 

[sheff1]

Going back to stations, there is nothing worse than an automated announcement saying 'the train to xxx is delayed, please listen for further announcements' followed by .... no further announcements.

If I can access NRES and see the train has not left, say, Doncaster why cannot a human announce this to the waiting crowds with the additional info that once it does leave Doncaster it will take a minimum of 20 mins to reach Sheffield ?

A close second is where the auto announcement says 'the train is approximately 15 mins' late when, again, a quick check of NRES reveals that it left Leeds 28 mins late and so will be at least 25 mins late into Sheffield (and maybe more if it gets caught behind a stopper). Of course, in these cases we then get 'the train is approx 18 mins late', followed by 'the train is approx 20mins late' and so on.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, the systems that just keep counting are a pain in the butt, given you can check and discover the train hasn't even started. Until it does, you have to consider that a) the time will keep going up, b) it may be cancelled and c) when it DOES finally leave, it has xx minutes before it can physically get to you, so you may well be better off finding another route, going home etc.

I've said in another thread that if services were in any way linked up, you could report a train being late (instead of 'No report' or 'Delayed') more accurately if you knew it was late inbound, with the time to change ends and start off.

I have waited at Hatfield with my service counting up the 'estimated' time, then seen online that the train hasn't left - and then I've watched my train going by the other way, which has to down on to WGC and turn around to come back up! Then I realise why it hasn't left yet - it's not even there!

 

[Oswyntail]

It doesnt work like that though does it - often you cant say how long it will be while a fault is identified and rectified

people want a definitive timescale as soon as you stop - and you cant give it! Often saying that is worse!

I would say that what passengers want is honesty. If it's a five minute job, say so, if it's a three hour job, say so; if you haven't a clue, admit it. But keep them up to date, and keep the explanations accurate but simple. In short, treat the passengers like the intelligent interested parties they are, and don't ignore or patronise them

 

[Markdvdman]

Delays are an unfortunate problem that can relate to MANY things.

The Valleys lines are continually subject to delays and a lot are due to unreasonable times at stops.

When I get the 6:38am from Merthyr, it gets to Radyr to leave at 7:23am. I can vouch for that in that it is almost ALWAYS late leaving. It is poor to say the least for timekeeping.

However, my biggest bugbear is on a Friday afternoon in Cardiff.

I need the 3:48pm FGW from London to be roughly on time to get to swansea so I can get the 5pm bus connection to Gorslas.

I only have 5 mins leeway really at a push. What is bad is when the display says on time almost always when it is late. I have seen it coming in at 3:51pm and it still says on time!

If I miss my connection I miss it. I can get another bus if i am lucky a bit later (but not always), or get to Llanelli and get a lift from there.

I just hate the lack of communication and when the train slows to a crawl in Port Talbot and suddenly from being on time to 6 mins plus late with NO explanation at all!!!

That is what gets me the sheer lack of explanation!!

the BEST excuse I ever heard was on a 2 car pacer from Barry Island in high season to Merthyr, and the conductor apologised for the ridiculously heavy passenger load saying it is normally 4 carriages which was a total lie! the only time from Cadoxton at 5:37pm they use 4 carriages is when Take that play in Cardiff (they used a 4 car 150 set then!) or a one off.

I agree it is not easy but accountability is what gets me on the railways.

Oh one unrelated quote that gets me all the time "I am on the train station" - NO you are on the railway station waiting for the TRAIN.

Rant over

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Crikey! What do they expect to be told after TWO minutes? "Err.. this train has been brought to a stop by the signaller and the driver is just getting out of the cab, hopefully to be told what's going on". Doesn't really add much to anyone's understanding of the situation.

I normally say "We have stopped at a red signal. I don't know why this is the case, but the driver is on the telephone to the signalman to find out. Once I get further information I will let you know."

And then, after a few minutes once I have found out what is going on, I will let everyone know again.

 

[button_boxer]

I remember one automated announcement system a few years ago (Didcot, I think) that was particularly soulless. It started out with my train being 20 minutes late saying "I'm very sorry for the delay to this service", then must have hit some threshold when it changed to "I am ... extremely ... sorry for the ... severe ... delay to this service" (i.e. you could hear the join where the "extremely" was edited into the earlier announcement). I can't think of a better way to say to the waiting passengers "we don't care about the delay to this service, live with it".

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Yes, the systems that just keep counting are a pain in the butt, given you can check and discover the train hasn't even started. Until it does, you have to consider that a) the time will keep going up, b) it may be cancelled and c) when it DOES finally leave, it has xx minutes before it can physically get to you, so you may well be better off finding another route, going home etc.

I've said in another thread that if services were in any way linked up, you could report a train being late (instead of 'No report' or 'Delayed') more accurately if you knew it was late inbound, with the time to change ends and start off.

I have waited at Hatfield with my service counting up the 'estimated' time, then seen online that the train hasn't left - and then I've watched my train going by the other way, which has to down on to WGC and turn around to come back up! Then I realise why it hasn't left yet - it's not even there!

I have complained about this at Manchester Victoria, Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds, and many other stations in the north many, many, many times. Each time I have got a long winded excuse about the variety of equipment they use and how they are looking to improve things, and how staff are so busy etc. But it is not difficult. Rather than just show it as "on time" until 2 minutes after departure then add 2 minutes to the expected time every 2 minutes, a simple check of the train running for the inward working shows it is at least x minutes away means it is quite clearly not going to be on time. Either add a chunk of time on all at once or just put "delayed" until such time as a definate time can be given.

 

[ushawk]

I think the article is basically to have a bit more detail (but not too much technical info). I was delayed into Victoria the other day and the reason was "due to a problem under investigation" which just seems silly as chances are someone must know why there was a delay, or if your held at a signal because of a problem which causes a delay, a staff members should say "We are currently being held here at a red signal due to a problem on the line ahead, as soon as i get more information i will pass it onto you".

I have noticed though that Southern arent saying how long you will be waiting in times of disruption now and say that, for example, the other week there was a broken rail on the fast line at Clapham so trains were diverted onto the slows at Balham the guard said that we are going to be held for a while until the signaller is able to slot us in between the stopping services so if we were moving quicker, pax wont be as unhappy and they said it was a broken rail causing the problem, i think it is info like this what pax want, not just "rail jargon".

 

[exile]

A station is where "something" stops. Eg, the stations of the cross are where Jesus' cross stopped. A police station is where policemen drink tea and eat doughbnuts. A lifeboat station is where lifeboats are kept when not out at sea. A bus station is where buses congregate between journeys.
So, "train station" is a more logical usage than "railway station" as trains stop there - even though it looks like an Americanism - though the Americans tended to use the word "depot" more often than "station".

 

[WelshBluebird]

My main bugbear is when you have a terminating service then making up a new service.
So as an example, Exeter to Barnstaple.
No matter if the Exeter to Barnstaple train is late or not, the information screen at Barnstaple will nearly always show the Barnstaple to Exeter train as on time. Despite the fact, that because of the incoming train being late, the outgoing train leaving on time is impossible.

 

[DarloRich]

I would say that what passengers want is honesty. If it's a five minute job, say so, if it's a three hour job, say so; if you haven't a clue, admit it. But keep them up to date, and keep the explanations accurate but simple. In short, treat the passengers like the intelligent interested parties they are, and don't ignore or patronise them

i agree - that is what needs to happen ( and everyone needs to use an agreed list of phrases) BUT passengers need to also agree that if the train is not on the move within the annouced period it is not a conspiracy agianst them.

 

[4SRKT]

BUT passengers need to also agree that if the train is not on the move within the annouced period it is not a conspiracy agianst them.

Paranoia alert! Plus a fundamental failure to understand that passengers, far from being just a nuisance, are the only reason trains actually run.

 

[HSTEd]

Often, I don't know why we have come to a stop or is running slow. I have to walk at least four carriages in either direction to get to somewhere I can talk to a driver, to find out if they have spoken to a signaller. I have to drop whatever I am doing at that time to do that. If the train has started moving by the time I have got to the Driver/guard comms, (no matter how slowly) I am not going to contact the driver, as that will mean him having to bring the train to a stop again.

Sometimes, when there is disruption, it is fluid, with my main source of information being messages over a Blackberry that may or may not be able to pick up a signal. Those messages may be vague, as sometimes that is all that there is. Sometimes we may have got past the problem before it even comes out on the pager.

I'm not saying communication is good enough, just pointing out to some of the armchair experts that it can be complicated.

Another point is that one persons brush-off is someone else's too much technical jargon.

We are held up due to a track circuit failure ahead. Do I say

1. "Sorry folks, we have a Track circuit failure ahead",

2. "Sorry folks, we are being held because of a Signalling fault" (which it is, a signal is red for no obvious reason)

3. "Sorry folks, we are currently being held by a track circuit failure, what this means is that the automatic system that detects whether a train is on a certain piece of track is showing a train where there should not be one. This has put the signal to red, which means that the driver is not allowed pass it without special authority which can only be given after several different scenarios have been ruled out. This may be due to a broken rail, a member of staff initiating an emergency stop for this train by putting down track circuit clips which initiate an emergency system, it may be due to some large metal object like a bin or a bench blocking the line and completing the circuit, or it may be due to the preceding train on that section of line coming apart and leaving a carriage behind. It might also be due to a lightening strike shorting out the electrics on that system, damage to the signalling cable either by rats chewing it, Network Rail contractors digging in the wrong place, or thieving little gits cutting it to nick it and sell it for scrap. Or it might just be a blown fuse. As soon as I find out which scenario it is, I will be able to inform you"

Number 3 NUMBER THREE!!!!

 

[DarloRich]

Paranoia alert! Plus a fundamental failure to understand that passengers, far from being just a nuisance, are the only reason trains actually run.

i undersrtand perfectly well the needs of a passenger as that is what i am. However i have seen many people get very nasty when they either are not told exactly how long the delay will be and this is within the first few minutes of a problem OR get nasty if they are told the delay will be 10 minutes and turns out to be 20!

Communication is the key,of course, but passengers need to just relax a bit - kicking off at the gaurd wont help!

 

[Stewart]

The trouble is they can't handle the truth because the truth is complex and long winded and requires familiarity with railway technology and operating practices to be understood. Thus railway staff have to simplify and paraphrase; thus it comes over sounding like rather pathetic, unhelpful excuses. Perhaps we should just stick to 'delayed due to circumstances beyond our control' and have done.

The question people want answering more than any other is 'how long will the delay go on for' or some similar 'how long is a piece of string' type of question. The fact that we often can't give more than a very wide/vague estimate in answer to that is often percieved as unhelpfullness. In reality it is quite the opposite - an honest attempt at a truthful answer to an impossible question.

When passengers complain of 'lack of information' or 'unhelpful staff' what they often actually mean is they don't like what they are being told.

Of course, it's the people's fault for being stupid.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, it's just a fact that the average passenger is a layman with next to no knowledge of railway operations.

I'm surprised you chose to stick around here given how much you seem to dislike the rail industry.

 

[tbtc]

No, it's just a fact that the average passenger is a layman with next to no knowledge of railway operations.

I'm surprised you chose to stick around here given how much you seem to dislike the rail industry.

Agreed - trying to explain some of the technical aspects to your average passenger is only going to confuse them.

All that matters to most people is that their train is delayed and how long it'll be delayed for (not something which the Guard/ staff will know).

People on this thread are looking at it as "what would I, as an enthusiast who knows a lot about how the railway works, like to hear about each and every delay I am involved in".

Bottom line is that most staff aren't psychic and most passengers aren't enthusiasts

 

[Schnellzug]

So should that mean that the word "incident" should be adequate?

 

[jon0844]

Number 3 NUMBER THREE!!!!

That's not enough. It gives all the reasons, but doesn't determine which exact one it is. I'd be outraged and on the phone to the Daily Mail after hearing that long list of feeble excuses.

I am sure people hearing signal failure / fault must then think that this is potentially dangerous, without realising that the fact they're stuck is that everything fail safes. Perhaps announcements should simply state "the signal in front of us has defaulted to red for safety reasons and the cause is being investigated".

That then means nobody will want to go until things are confirmed safe, which could shut them up. They will also feel a little safer and more secure.

 

[AlterEgo]

So should that mean that the word "incident" should be adequate?

No - I agree with you there. "Operational incident" grinds my gears each time I hear it. It is too vague, even for the general public. However it is sometimes the only thing that can be said to a train full of passengers, short of lying. Would you tell 500 people that your driver had passed a signal at danger?

A basic description of the problem would be much better in most instances.

 

[michael769]

I am sure people hearing signal failure / fault must then think that this is potentially dangerous, without realising that the fact they're stuck is that everything fail safes.

Or simply tell people that the fault has been fixed.

 

[A-driver]

The excuse which annoys me most is 'late running train crew' as to the public that means the driver was late for work etc. In reality it generally means that the last train the driver worked is running late and until he/she gets there their nextvtrain will be held.


I've had it announced on a train I was working delayed for the above reasons and I had lots of abuse from pax as I walked down the platform 20mins after the train was scheduled to leave. Even after a PA announcement apologising and explaining why I was late I got the impression few people believed me!