Reasons provided for delays to train services

[westv]

Fortunately it's been a while since it happened but I hated it when a delay was ignored and no explanation forthcoming.

what does it matter if the delay was down to a broken signal, faulty train or the driver going sick. You are still late. I would much prefer the guard/staff spent time trying to help people with onward connection details rather than wasting time sorting out why we are late. The reason doesn’t matter, the fact you are late is the important point

I would suggest that 99% of passengers would consider it very condescending if the railway thought that they weren't worth being told the reason for a delay.

 

[Flamingo]

I was on a train from Bristol last year RA Didcot heading to Reading. I was a punter of this occasion, and fast reactions on board from myself, a copper and the TM, meant we had paramedics organised and waiting on the Platform at Reading. The Set left reading for Padd just 1 down.

However, that was a case of being at the right place at the right time and with certain casualties, that isn't always possible

Oh yea, it's a nightmare if the paramedics get on-board, I'll always try to get the bod onto the platform wheelchair on arrival. However, this does depend on the casualty being conscious and mobile!

 

[louis97]

Hopefully, the real time systems are being updated soon, I have heard it is coming about, so that you see the same "excuse" both online, on stations and from station/train staff.

Already has happened at EMT stations, its the new Darwin system, although it won't have any control over what members of staff announce, although the same reason will be on the output messages to all staff, its down to staff whether they choose to look or not. TPE, SWT, LO and ATW stations are still to be connected, but in the end the same reason (amongst other things) will be advertised across the whole network (and online) - with that reason (and alterations, etc) being set by the train operating company of the train.

 

[dk1]

The train has been delayed no matter what the reason. Why is it the exact reason so important? Won't change anything.

 

[Parallel]

what does it matter if the delay was down to a broken signal, faulty train or the driver going sick. You are still late. I would much prefer the guard/staff spent time trying to help people with onward connection details rather than wasting time sorting out why we are late. The reason doesn’t matter, the fact you are late is the important point

Because quite often people have other engagements straight after their train journey. If I turned up late to work one day and told my boss "Oh my train was running 20 minutes late", it would probably get a different response to "My train was 20 minutes late as there was a problem with a level crossing"

And if we go by that logic, passengers would never be informed of reasons for late running. Fair enough, it's not essential, but knowing reasons helps understanding - And a lot of guards/station staff in my patch are very good at communicating with passengers.

 

[edwin_m]

Because quite often people have other engagements straight after their train journey. If I turned up late to work one day and told my boss "Oh my train was running 20 minutes late", it would probably get a different response to "My train was 20 minutes late as there was a problem with a level crossing"

And if we go by that logic, passengers would never be informed of reasons for late running. Fair enough, it's not essential, but knowing reasons helps understanding - And a lot of guards/station staff in my patch are very good at communicating with passengers.

Also the more knowledgeable passengers can get some idea how bad things are and what they might do about it. For example if it is "this train is faulty" and there is another train about to leave on the same route then that might be a better bet, but if there is a failed freight train down the line then it might be better to look for a different route.

It's also good PR. If the operator knows what the problem is and tells passengers, then it gives the impression they are in control of the situation and doing something about it. Airlines are generally much better than train operators at doing this.

 

[A-driver]

Also the more knowledgeable passengers can get some idea how bad things are and what they might do about it. For example if it is "this train is faulty" and there is another train about to leave on the same route then that might be a better bet, but if there is a failed freight train down the line then it might be better to look for a different route.



It's also good PR. If the operator knows what the problem is and tells passengers, then it gives the impression they are in control of the situation and doing something about it. Airlines are generally much better than train operators at doing this.

The issue on the railways is that there simply enter ally arnt enough staff to provide all tht info. A common complaint with rain faults on my TOC is a lack of driver info. The problem is though that you only have a driver on board who will be out of the cab for a while fixing it, contacting the box and control. If they popped back to the cab every 10mins to update the fault would never be fixed.

 

[sheff1]

The train has been delayed no matter what the reason. Why is it the exact reason so important? Won't change anything.

But it can. As others have said, knowing the reason can be helpful in assesing the extent of the delay and taking appropriate action which could be as simple as, say, ringing ahead to someone you are due to meet. Two actual announcements I have had:

'A person is standing close to edge of the platform at Mill Hill Broadway, we will need to travel at reduced speed through the area' correctly suggested that the delay would likely be around 10-20 mins. 'An incident' would have effectively told me nothing.

'Total power failure at London Waterloo' suggested the likelihood of a much more lengthy delay and prompted me to alight at Putney and access central London via the Underground. Again, being told of 'an incident' would not have made my decision so easy.

 

[Oxfordblues]

This thread reminds me of dear old Reginald Perrin who commuted into Waterloo when he worked at Sunshine Desserts. Every day his train was delayed but always for a different reason. On arrival at the office, Reggie would tell his secretary, Joan Greengross, the reason for his late arrival.

Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, staff difficulties, Hampton Wick."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, signal failure at Vauxhall."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, staff shortages, Nine Elms."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, derailment of container truck, Raynes Park."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, seasonal manpower shortages, Clapham Junction."
Ep.2 "Eleven minutes late, defective junction box, New Malden."
Ep.4 "Eleven minutes late, overheated axle at Berrylands."
Ep.4 "Eleven minutes late, defective axle at Wandsworth."
Ep.5 "Eleven minutes late, somebody had stolen the lines at Surbiton."

Finally, in frustration, he told his secretary to take a letter to the Station Manager at Waterloo suggesting he retime the train to arrive eleven minutes later in the timetable and then it would always be on time. Timeless comedy!

 

[DarloRich]

I would suggest that 99% of passengers would consider it very condescending if the railway thought that they weren't worth being told the reason for a delay.

Because quite often people have other engagements straight after their train journey. If I turned up late to work one day and told my boss "Oh my train was running 20 minutes late", it would probably get a different response to "My train was 20 minutes late as there was a problem with a level crossing"

And if we go by that logic, passengers would never be informed of reasons for late running. Fair enough, it's not essential, but knowing reasons helps understanding - And a lot of guards/station staff in my patch are very good at communicating with passengers.

I dont disagree and knowing the reasons for a delay is of help in understanding the situation but does knowing the reason lessen the delay? Does it make you less late for your important appointment? Does it make you on time for work?

 

[edwin_m]

I dont disagree and knowing the reasons for a delay is of help in understanding the situation but does knowing the reason lessen the delay? Does it make you less late for your important appointment? Does it make you on time for work?

It may do if it allows you to conclude the day will probably be a while and take an alternative route that would normally be slower but today arrives first. Or it may lessen the effect if you are able to phone ahead and let people know roughly how late you are.

Of course the best thing of all would be an accurate prediction every time of how long the delay will be - this would help not only passengers but also railway operators in working out how to recover when things are under way again. It's sometimes possible, for example for statutory crew brakes after previous delays and to the sort of bridge strike where they're pretty sure it's OK but the inspector needs to take a look. But there are many other situations when it isn't, such as "delayed due to receiving a fitter's attention".

 

[Statto]

This thread reminds me of dear old Reginald Perrin who commuted into Waterloo when he worked at Sunshine Desserts. Every day his train was delayed but always for a different reason. On arrival at the office, Reggie would tell his secretary, Joan Greengross, the reason for his late arrival.

Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, staff difficulties, Hampton Wick."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, signal failure at Vauxhall."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, staff shortages, Nine Elms."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, derailment of container truck, Raynes Park."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, seasonal manpower shortages, Clapham Junction."
Ep.2 "Eleven minutes late, defective junction box, New Malden."
Ep.4 "Eleven minutes late, overheated axle at Berrylands."
Ep.4 "Eleven minutes late, defective axle at Wandsworth."
Ep.5 "Eleven minutes late, somebody had stolen the lines at Surbiton."

Finally, in frustration, he told his secretary to take a letter to the Station Manager at Waterloo suggesting he retime the train to arrive eleven minutes later in the timetable and then it would always be on time. Timeless comedy!

no doubt if BR did retimed the train, the train would still be 11 minutes late.

 

[Bald Rick]

Delay of the day from East Midlands, where there has been a points failure at Mansfield caused by a hedgehog in the points!

Wondering if today's date is relevant....

 

[edwin_m]

I was in York IECC many years ago doing an upgrade, when they had a loss of points detection due to an item of underwear (gender unspecified or not remembered) jammed in the point blades. I don't think that was what they announced over the PA.

 

[tocguard]

Reasons for delays over auto announcement systems at stations can vary for the same issue.

The different TOC's are responsible for inputting information to be announced regarding their services that are delayed, first class front/rear, buffet/trolley/no catering etc.

For this reason i have regularly noticed that a signalling or points problem in say the Chesterfield area will cause delays to EMT and XC services but have known EMT to input the reason as "failure of lineside equipment" yet XC will have input the reason as "signalling problem" and so the auto announcer gives 2 different reasons for the same issue although both are technically true.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

This thread reminds me of dear old Reginald Perrin who commuted into Waterloo when he worked at Sunshine Desserts. Every day his train was delayed but always for a different reason. On arrival at the office, Reggie would tell his secretary, Joan Greengross, the reason for his late arrival.

Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, staff difficulties, Hampton Wick."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, signal failure at Vauxhall."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, staff shortages, Nine Elms."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, derailment of container truck, Raynes Park."
Ep.1 "Eleven minutes late, seasonal manpower shortages, Clapham Junction."
Ep.2 "Eleven minutes late, defective junction box, New Malden."
Ep.4 "Eleven minutes late, overheated axle at Berrylands."
Ep.4 "Eleven minutes late, defective axle at Wandsworth."
Ep.5 "Eleven minutes late, somebody had stolen the lines at Surbiton."

Finally, in frustration, he told his secretary to take a letter to the Station Manager at Waterloo suggesting he retime the train to arrive eleven minutes later in the timetable and then it would always be on time. Timeless comedy!

I didn't get where I am today by quoting lines from classic 1970s comedies!

 

[trainophile]

Classic one today. The 1430 Manchester Picc to Milford Haven was stuck on platform 8 at MAN, behind the 1420 TPE to Cleethorpes, which had a door fault and was eventually cancelled and moved out of the way.

All well and good, not ATW's fault, but things got 'interesting' from there on. We finally departed MAN at 1509, and just before arriving at Shrewsbury we were told the train was, after SHR, only calling at Hereford, Newport, and being terminated at Cardiff.

However, on checking online out of interest just before reaching HFD, ATW's Journey Check page told an entirely different story... apparently the train departed MAN on time, and was delayed 51 minutes at Leominster (bearing in mind in reality it didn't even stop there!). Also it was continuing to MFH after CDF, albeit with a considerable lateness at each station.

It really looked like the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. In future I will take the information provided on their website with a large pinch of salt!

 

[PHILIPE]

Classic one today. The 1430 Manchester Picc to Milford Haven was stuck on platform 8 at MAN, behind the 1420 TPE to Cleethorpes, which had a door fault and was eventually cancelled and moved out of the way.

All well and good, not ATW's fault, but things got 'interesting' from there on. We finally departed MAN at 1509, and just before arriving at Shrewsbury we were told the train was, after SHR, only calling at Hereford, Newport, and being terminated at Cardiff.

However, on checking online out of interest just before reaching HFD, ATW's Journey Check page told an entirely different story... apparently the train departed MAN on time, and was delayed 51 minutes at Leominster (bearing in mind in reality it didn't even stop there!). Also it was continuing to MFH after CDF, albeit with a considerable lateness at each station.


It really looked like the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. In future I will take the information provided on their website with a large pinch of salt!

I don't think you have quite your facts correct. RTT shows the same arrival and departure times at Leominster which indicates it did NOT stop there. The 51L was based on a passing time. RTT has to match the train to the schedule, so if there are two times shown there something has to be shown for each of them. Also it DID terminate Cardiff Cen and a 17 41 Additional Cardiff to Milford Haven ran, restarting it in it's booked path. ATW Journey Check shows this.

 

[Tomnick]

RTT shows the same arrival and departure times at Leominster which indicates it did NOT stop there.

Not really - it indicates that it arrived and departed in the same minute, or was at least (manually, at Leominster?) reported as such. It should have been reported as a fail to call if Control had decreed that it wasn't to call - no idea how RTT shows that though.

 

[PHILIPE]

Not really - it indicates that it arrived and departed in the same minute, or was at least (manually, at Leominster?) reported as such. It should have been reported as a fail to call if Control had decreed that it wasn't to call - no idea how RTT shows that though.

It couldn't show fail to call as there is a schedule to match to so something has to be shown against both times. To show not stopping on RTT it would have to be scheduled to but at very short notice no change would be made.

 

[Tomnick]

I'm lost now! A train can certainly be manually reported as failing to call, whether that's done in advance (as a report against the original, unamended schedule) by Control or in real time by the Signalman. It certainly doesn't follow that identical arrival and departure times mean that it didn't call - I manually reported a few trains in that way yesterday, as they were late, carried out station duties quickly and therefore arrived and departed in the same minute.

 

[trainophile]

Sorry if I have inadvertently caused confusion. I was on this train from MAN to HFD, and was merely relating what actually happened to the tracking of this journey on ATW's Journey Check page, which did not reflect the true situation.

I wasn't using RTT, only ATW's site. The Guard knew what was going on, but it seems whoever provides feed to the Journey Check was making it up as they went along.

 

[PHILIPE]

Sorry if I have inadvertently caused confusion. I was on this train from MAN to HFD, and was merely relating what actually happened to the tracking of this journey on ATW's Journey Check page, which did not reflect the true situation.

I wasn't using RTT, only ATW's site. The Guard knew what was going on, but it seems whoever provides feed to the Journey Check was making it up as they went along.

If you travelled as far as Hereford, did you actually physically stop at Leominster or not? Whatever your reply, it will settle any argument.

 

[Parallel]

I think it just depends on the time sensors (or whatever they use) on the track at stations. Late trains that cancel their call at Bradford On Avon don't show up as "not stopping" on RTT, but a train skipping Keynsham would be shown as "not stopping".

The 17:30 from Weymouth today ran approximately an hour late from Castle Cary to Bristol Temple Meads due to "disruptive passengers" - FGW's journeycheck reveals that emergency services have been dealing with an incident at Castle Cary. I'm wondering what "disruptive passengers" means in relation to emergency services being called...

 

[louis97]

Not really - it indicates that it arrived and departed in the same minute, or was at least (manually, at Leominster?) reported as such. It should have been reported as a fail to call if Control had decreed that it wasn't to call - no idea how RTT shows that though.

RTT can show a train having not called at a booked stop, although only if its in a Train Describer area - which Leominster is not. A train having not called at a booked stop will show 'pass' in the arrival report and a passing time in the departure report. (Like here at Plymouth: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V39629/2015/04/02/advanced) This is based off the offset data, if the departure offset time is before the arrival offset time.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks. Just to clarify, is that something that RTT works out for itself rather than using the FTC report from TRUST? Does TRUST do the same thing at auto-reporting locations?

 

[thelongestroad]

The 17:30 from Weymouth today ran approximately an hour late from Castle Cary to Bristol Temple Meads due to "disruptive passengers" - FGW's journeycheck reveals that emergency services have been dealing with an incident at Castle Cary. I'm wondering what "disruptive passengers" means in relation to emergency services being called...

According to the railway internal equivalent of JourneyCheck the police came to the train at Castle Cary due to the disruptive passengers. Hence "emergency services dealing with an incident" at Castle Cary.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Thanks. Just to clarify, is that something that RTT works out for itself rather than using the FTC report from TRUST? Does TRUST do the same thing at auto-reporting locations?

The (public) train movement feed doesn't contain TRUST Fail To Call reports, so I guess that RTT just checks if the dwell time was 0 and assumes accordingly. This will be the case whether it's checking TRUST or the TDs directly

 

[Parallel]

According to the railway internal equivalent of JourneyCheck the police came to the train at Castle Cary due to the disruptive passengers. Hence "emergency services dealing with an incident" at Castle Cary.

Ah okay - I was thinking Castle Cary isn't usually the centre of "disruptive passengers" but thanks for this - explains why the train had a long wait for support. Hopefully the 'disruptive behaviour' wasn't towards other passengers or staff.

 

[trainophile]

If you travelled as far as Hereford, did you actually physically stop at Leominster or not? Whatever your reply, it will settle any argument.

No, we did not stop at Ludlow or Leominster and came straight through to Hereford. The guard informed us of the amended stops correctly, but the online info as per ATW was all over the place, so those on the train were well informed but those intending to board at any now 'not stopping' stations would have been disappoint

It also showed stops at Abergavenny and Cwmbran but according to the guard these were being passed through without stopping too.

I've seen some very odd 'disruption' reasons on their website, e.g. Train short formed due to waiting for a member of crew. It taxes the imagination sometimes!