Railway Language

[Gloster]

This change (the new term is "beyond") was supposedly done at the beset of the Plain English Campaign. On other forum someone involved in rule-writing has made some extremely critical remarks about the PSC's involvement with railway rules over what seem to me to be very minor issues, such as changing "temporary restriction of speed" to "temporary speed restriction".

The Plain English Campaign is a commercial organisation, although it does have a genuine campaigning element. Its aim is to reduce or eliminate the use of complicated and unclear language used by companies and organisations when communicating with the general public, such as obscure and opaque Terms & Conditions. It should not need to involve itself in the language used within an organisation, which can be specific to that organisation as it is only used by a limited group: railway rules are only used by railwaymen, who should be aware of the exact usage of any word or phrase, even when it is a railway specific one.

The alternative, an even more worrying possibility, is that the railway now has so many temporary and casual staff that it is no longer possible to instill even the most basic knowledge in staff in safety roles. Do they still do the equivalent of the week’s Induction Course that I attended at Eastleigh in 1978?

 

[eldomtom2]

It should not need to involve itself in the language used within an organisation, which can be specific to that organisation as it is only used by a limited group: railway rules are only used by railwaymen, who should be aware of the exact usage of any word or phrase, even when it is a railway specific one.

As I understand it they were invited in; relying on memorization rather than comprehension of the text when it comes to rulebooks would seem inadvisable.

 

[Gloster]

As I understand it they were invited in; relying on memorization rather than comprehension of the text when it comes to rulebooks would seem inadvisable.

It is not about memorisation or comprehension of the text, it is about clarity when communicating. It is vital that when one person says something to another, the second person understands exactly what the first means. If number one uses a general word in a way that seems perfectly reasonable to them it is possible that the second person could believe that it means something else and acts in a different way to what number one expects. Years of accumulated experience on the railway has taught people that if you do things in a particular way that all concerned understand and interpret in the same way, you reduce the risk of accidents.

My late father had a habit of quoting the old adage, ‘Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools’. I always felt that he missed the point that if you follow the rules and so do those you work with, you know how they are reacting to a situation and they know how you are reacting. The same applies to communications: you know what the other meant and they know it, or vice-versa.

 

[eldomtom2]

It is not about memorisation or comprehension of the text, it is about clarity when communicating.

In which case one would presumably want to keep specialised or potentially counter-intituive language to a minimum, unless this is an argument against changing terminology in general.