Train uncoupled at Leeds

[Chris M]

Of course if you just say “incident” then the obvious question is “what sort of incident then?”. Is it a bomb on a train? A train past a red signal? Someone thrown up in the loo? Driver fell asleep? What is the railway trying to hide?

I've seen delays on the GWR 387s between Didcot and Paddington twice now that have been officially operational incidents when the driver gave far more honest reasoning:

• He (the driver taking over the train at Reading) was delayed on connecting service because of a points problem.
• Fire alarm due to someone smoking in the toilet.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've seen delays on the GWR 387s between Didcot and Paddington twice now that have been officially operational incidents when the driver gave far more honest reasoning:

• He (the driver taking over the train at Reading) was delayed on connecting service because of a points problem.
• Fire alarm due to someone smoking in the toilet.

Both of these are what the railway would term an operational incident, yes.

I’m sure people appreciated the honest reason.

Obviously some form of smoke and mirrors would be required for very serious incidents like a terror attack or a train going off a bridge in a fireball. People understand that. I think that’s why “operational incident” grates with me. It sounds like it’s covering up something bad, when usually it is very benign.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'd guess the plan to reform some sets into 3-car units is probably one reason why replacing internal BSIs with bars hasn't been done yet. When the fleet plan was first announced there was mention on here of the 'boxed-in' /2 cabs being decommissioned and even removed, though that may have just been wibble. Has it been decided or made public which units will become 3-car yet?

All somewhat ironic when you think that many of the ex-LM 150s came as 3-cars and were reformed back into their original 2-car formations. Some of the "buried" 150/2 cabs were in rather poor condition and required a complete rewire of all the controls.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perfectly plausible - part of the journey would just have been via the passenger footbridge at the station.

P7 is just about the furthest platform from the incident being one of the two eastern facing bays at Leeds. Its not very likely at all that they went anyway near it, they will have been walked back to something like P6 being the closest platform ramp available. I was just pointing out the usual standard of lazy local journalism.

 

[rich r]

I suspect many of the twitter posts are autogenerated based on very little information. So they have fairly generic wording to inform people that there's a problem as quickly as possible, then maybe later worry about going into specifics. I really wouldn't read too much into the differences between the TOCs. This is fairly normal practice for twitter based service updates as it'd be bad to post something that isn't true, so based on insufficient information it's better to be vague. I work in the electricity supply industry, and I know that the bulk of the twitter service updates the company I work for posts are automatic and deliberately non-specific, then if it's something major a real person might step in and send out something more detailed.

Luckily I'm not at work this week - otherwise I'd have been caught up in all that as I normally get the 16:38 TPE towards Hull

 

[johntea]

There was a broken down train this morning somewhere around the station too, so quite a bit of congestion waiting for platforms and the like.

 

[Bantamzen]

I suspect many of the twitter posts are autogenerated based on very little information. So they have fairly generic wording to inform people that there's a problem as quickly as possible, then maybe later worry about going into specifics. I really wouldn't read too much into the differences between the TOCs. This is fairly normal practice for twitter based service updates as it'd be bad to post something that isn't true, so based on insufficient information it's better to be vague. I work in the electricity supply industry, and I know that the bulk of the twitter service updates the company I work for posts are automatic and deliberately non-specific, then if it's something major a real person might step in and send out something more detailed.

Luckily I'm not at work this week - otherwise I'd have been caught up in all that as I normally get the 16:38 TPE towards Hull

To be honest, whilst I can understand why members here are interested in the details of any "incident", for most members of the public all they really want to know is when their train is going, if its going, and when they are going to get home or to their intended destination. Sat on the 15:56 to Skipton yesterday as the regular announcements blared out around the station the punters around me were wondering if we'd get away or not. I did my bit by checking OpenTrains to see if a path was opening for us and they were very happy when I said I thought we'd be away on time, as indeed a couple of minutes later we were!!

Incidentally, to clear up the confusion of the various pictures of 150 203, as we passed it at Leeds West Junct there was no noticeable gap between the two cars, in fact it wasn't obvious at all just passing on the way out. So those pictures showing one portion some distance away from the other are clearly taken as one is moved onto P11 to clear the blockage, as other posters have said.

 

[brel york]

I hope that Crewe split this unit during internal refresh

 

[Bletchleyite]

All three are honest.

Does it really matter to an average person? Most wont know what a coupler is or its relevance.

Where as an operational incident or train fault (which are both correct) is easier to understand.

I can't agree. Most people know what a coach becoming uncoupled from a train is, certainly if they have ever watched Thomas the Tank Engine (and there must be very few British people who haven't at some point). Whereas an "operational incident" is just babble and is looked down upon by most people. Train fault I would say is borderline OK.

 

[northwichcat]

And no surprises the RMT have done a 'news' story which doesn't say exactly what happened or why it happened but says it demonstrates why DOO is wrong. As the union representing the guards shouldn't the issue be the safety of guards in their workplace (the train), what if the guard on this train had been trying to walk between the carriages at the time they split?

 

[northwichcat]

I hope that Crewe split this unit during internal refresh

Is that because if it wasn't the fault lies with your colleagues?

 

[brel york]

Lol no comment

 

[brel york]

He who touched it last !

 

[Bletchleyite]

And no surprises the RMT have done a 'news' story which doesn't say exactly what happened or why it happened but says it demonstrates why DOO is wrong. As the union representing the guards shouldn't the issue be the safety of guards in their workplace (the train), what if the guard on this train had been trying to walk between the carriages at the time they split?

Or had been doing tickets in the front coach.

That said, the guard could presumably have put on his hi-vis and walked to the other half. A DOO driver would have no option but to leave a coach with no staff.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect many of the twitter posts are autogenerated based on very little information. So they have fairly generic wording to inform people that there's a problem as quickly as possible, then maybe later worry about going into specifics. I really wouldn't read too much into the differences between the TOCs. This is fairly normal practice for twitter based service updates as it'd be bad to post something that isn't true, so based on insufficient information it's better to be vague.

Having actually done the job, this is not really true.

The Twitter posts are written by operatives. They are not automatically generated. They should contain the delay reason as decided on by Control, and as paged out on things like Tyrell. It is very important that the reason codes all align to avoid confusion and the appearance of disorganisation.

The issue in this case seems to stem from each Control using their own discretion and this gives the appearance of a railway which isn’t joined up.

 

[mallard]

Does it really matter to an average person? Most wont know what a coupler is or its relevance.

Even if people don't understand it, the addition of a little technical detail to show that the staff/railway does have a good grasp of the problem is reassurring and always a good thing. It also makes people more likely to trust any further advice you give them (such as how long the delay is likely to be, alternative routes that are still open, etc.)

Where as an operational incident or train fault (which are both correct) is easier to understand

If that's the case, why borther saying "operational incident" or "train fault" at all? Just go the whole hog with the patronising treatment of the travelling public and say something like "a problem" or "something happened". It's a shame that many in the rail industry believe treating "the pax" (a horribly dismissive, dehumanising bit of jargon) with such patronisng contempt is a good idea.

 

[northwichcat]

I was once on a train which broke down after stopping at a red signal. After about 10 minutes of not moving the guards announced that there was a fault 'with the unit'. A few minutes later I overheard a passenger say "What did she say, something about a fault with the train?", to which a passenger she was travelling with responded by saying "No it was a fault with something else."

 

[ValleyLines142]

euphemisms at Leeds
View attachment 42461
3 tweets 3 descriptions of problem, why could all three not be honest like TPE? Does this sort of lack of coordination just not create confusion and the impression of confusion?

To be fair I agree with National Rail because it was a train fault. VTEC's excuse, whilst true, does sound a bit far fetched to the normal joe public.

 

[pdq]

.
... and this gives the appearance of a railway which isn’t joined up.

Like the train in question

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Even if people don't understand it, the addition of a little technical detail to show that the staff/railway does have a good grasp of the problem is reassurring and always a good thing. It also makes people more likely to trust any further advice you give them (such as how long the delay is likely to be, alternative routes that are still open, etc.)



If that's the case, why borther saying "operational incident" or "train fault" at all? Just go the whole hog with the patronising treatment of the travelling public and say something like "a problem" or "something happened". It's a shame that many in the rail industry believe treating "the pax" (a horribly dismissive, dehumanising bit of jargon) with such patronisng contempt is a good idea.

"Pax" is just shorthand. At least it's a contraction of the correct term "passenger" rather than "customer"... speaking of which, the equivalent shorthand for that would be rather more insulting!

I think we get too hung up on reasons for delays given out in the immediate aftermath of an incident when the staff at the coal face (or indeed on the Twitter-face) won't necessarily have all the information. It's better to be vague than detailed but wrong. Agree that the phrase "operating incident" grates though.

 

[Loop & Link]

And no surprises the RMT have done a 'news' story which doesn't say exactly what happened or why it happened but says it demonstrates why DOO is wrong. As the union representing the guards shouldn't the issue be the safety of guards in their workplace (the train), what if the guard on this train had been trying to walk between the carriages at the time they split?

And no surprises, you were the first to jump on it, as per usual.

Funny, how you weren’t quick to jump on the Central Line ‘trap and drag’ incident last week, in fact you haven’t even mentioned it on here. Oh, but just realised that wouldn’t look good for you would it, when there’s been an incident on a DOO service?!

 

[northwichcat]

And no surprises, you were the first to jump on it, as per usual.

Funny, how you weren’t quick to jump on the Central Line ‘trap and drag’ incident last week, in fact you haven’t even mentioned it on here. Oh, but just realised that wouldn’t look good for you would it, when there’s been an incident on a DOO service?!

Being from the North I'm more interested in what happens on Northern services than on London Underground services. Note that in another thread someone reported 150203 was being used on my local line last week, so while this incident happened near Leeds, it could just have easily happened a mile from my house. Obviously you seem to think I'm some God like creation who should know what happens on every rail line at every time, :roll: I know nothing of the London Underground incident, so if you want me to comment on it then write a full unbiased account of what happened and then I might be able to make a comment.

Obviously I'm not allowed to say a union representing rail staff should be questioning why this incident happened and what will be done to prevent it happening again, or allowed to point out that if the guard had been unlucky he/she could have been moving between the carriages at the time the incident happen. DOO and guard's terms and conditions appear to be the only things you care about, just like the only things Mick Cash seems to care about. Note after the Lime Street wall collapse the RMT weren't questioning what would have happened if there were workers on the line at the time, they used it as another excuse to bring up DOO.

 

[Chris M]

I think we get too hung up on reasons for delays given out in the immediate aftermath of an incident when the staff at the coal face (or indeed on the Twitter-face) won't necessarily have all the information. It's better to be vague than detailed but wrong. Agree that the phrase "operating incident" grates though.

In which case start with start with what you know at the time and get more specific as you get more information. In this incident "train fault" would have been immediately apparent even if anything more specific wasn't.
There is never a need for something as vague (sometimes insultingly so) as "operational incident". If you don't know something yet, say "due to a problem under investigation" or something. Reasonable people will understand that if you are still investigating what the problem is that you (a) wont yet be able to give an accurate estimate of how long it will take to resolve, (b) appreciate the honesty and (c) will be pleased to know that you are doing something about the problem. Unreasonable people wont be satisfied regardless of what you tell them, so ignore them when deciding what information to give.
The key is to be open and honest, and to be perceived as being open and honest - "operational incident" fails the perception test spectacularly.

Yeah, there are some details you can't give, in this case give the details you can - if it's a SPAD say something like "an issue with the signalling system" which is true, detailed enough to indicate the nature of the problem without being too detailed and doesn't apportion blame to any party.

 

[Loop & Link]

Being from the North I'm more interested in what happens on Northern services than on London Underground services. Note that in another thread someone reported 150203 was being used on my local line last week, so while this incident happened near Leeds, it could just have easily happened a mile from my house. Obviously you seem to think I'm some God like creation who should know what happens on every rail line at every time, :roll: I know nothing of the London Underground incident, so if you want me to comment on it then write a full unbiased account of what happened and then I might be able to make a comment.

Obviously I'm not allowed to say a union representing rail staff should be questioning why this incident happened and what will be done to prevent it happening again, or allowed to point out that if the guard had been unlucky he/she could have been moving between the carriages at the time the incident happen. DOO and guard's terms and conditions appear to be the only things you care about, just like the only things Mick Cash seems to care about. Note after the Lime Street wall collapse the RMT weren't questioning what would have happened if there were workers on the line at the time, they used it as another excuse to bring up DOO.

Oh, come on, I know by your numerous threads on these forums, the slightest thing happens on the railway and you’ve posted about it. The reason the Central Line incident hasn’t been mentioned by you or others, is it doesn’t suit the agenda of the forum.

You are right about one thing though; I am passionate about DOO (anti-DOO that is) and guards T&C’s, I’m not even traincrew though, but whatever happens in the future it will affect me, it will probably even provide more job security for me, as there will be extra duties I will need to perform, so anyone would think I should be championing DOO if that’s the case. But I know from what I see day-to-day, DOO is not something I’m comfortable with on the section of railway I control at the moment.

Anyway, apologies for dragging this well off-topic, that’s the last you’ll from me on this thread.

 

[Darren R]

How was the detached rear coach rescued?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How was the detached rear coach rescued?

15x coaches operate fully independently and can run alone, so I expect by driving it somewhere, ideally forwards from the remaining cab.

 

[themiller]

I was stuck in the queue outside Leeds for an hour. Guard told us the problem was a split train. Now on 20 mins delayed Airedale service. Delay Repay time!

German ICE this morning had no such problems...

Did you get a photo of the ICE at Leeds?

 

[rich r]

Having actually done the job, this is not really true.
The Twitter posts are written by operatives. They are not automatically generated. They should contain the delay reason as decided on by Control, and as paged out on things like Tyrell. It is very important that the reason codes all align to avoid confusion and the appearance of disorganisation.
The issue in this case seems to stem from each Control using their own discretion and this gives the appearance of a railway which isn’t joined up.

Interesting - thanks. I guess, thinking about it TOCs have a proper customer information provision function as there's probably a lot more going on. Whereas electricity suppliers like us don't have much to tweet about other than the odd power outage (and that's usually just a retweet from the relevant distributor), or notification of price changes etc.

 

[Crossover]

How was the detached rear coach rescued?

15x coaches operate fully independently and can run alone, so I expect by driving it somewhere, ideally forwards from the remaining cab.

As I understand it, the leading car was taken into platform 11B at Leeds station on its own, with the rear car propelled under its own power into the same platform - there are photos online showing the two halves still detached in the platform at Leeds. It must have been reformed as it then went off to Neville Hill at around midnight - be it safety systems still isolated, but it apparently made it there in one piece!

 

[xotGD]

Did you get a photo of the ICE at Leeds?

Surprisingly enough, I was travelling on a German ICE in Germany. Incidentally, some of the window alignment was rubbish!