Wonderfully offensive article in the Torygraph

[blacknight]

It can be frustrating with all the I.T & means of communication at hand & still get no information to front line staff. Sometimes you just have to tell travelling public its a condition called S.N.A.F.U
SITUTATION
NORMAL
ALL
F@@KED
UP

 

[Flamingo]

For all their faults(and this is a reply to many above) Railtrack/Nr were very good at training their staff in customer service and in how to word things correctly.

Instead of 'I don't know' You must use different words to avoid the conflict which comes with saying 'I don't know'.

Ive said some of them earlier in this thread such things that you were told to say. Yes it gets very tiresome yes you may actually wonder what is coming out of yoru mouth but if there is a cancellation you will probably know why and give them alternatives. If there are delays you let them know that at the present time there is nothing moving and until the problem is corrected we do not have a definitive time to when things will get moving again but as soon as we know we will let you know.

Even announcing during disruptions you just utter the same thing time and time again but we were always told never to say 'I dont know' because it sounds wrong. And i still think it is.

And since i moved out of that role and further up the ladder i now try and emphasise this to my staff too. Though im always out on which ever station i may be visiting and will deal with the passengers there too.

Isn't that part of the problem, though? Dressing up the truth in "corporate-speak", rather than being honest and direct?

I used to have to deliver bad news for a living. There is no easy way to give it. Using simple words which are not open to misinterpretation is the best way to do it so it is understood. A lot more depends on the body-language and tone of voice of the person speaking. It is well documented that this has much more bearing than the actual words.

A part of the problem with the wording of railway announcements is that they sound false, and going through the motions rather than sincere. This is especially true if couched in words that the individual would not use in everyday speech, meaning they come out stilted and like the individual is reading a script. This can cause a lot more conflict than a simply delivered, open and easy to understand message.

Stop getting so hung-up on what words are used, start concentrating on what message is being delivered, and if it is being delivered effectively and in the correct manner.

 

[yorksrob]

I can remember when I lived in Reading a few years ago the announcements went through a phase of saying "I apologise" when referring to delays. I can see that they were trying to make the announcements sound more personal and sincere but to me it sounded ridiculous. Why would the automatic platform announcer be responsible for the delay !

Sometimes I think a bit of formality is necessary when speaking on behalf of an organisation because it portrays more credibility.

 

[tbtc]

I can remember when I lived in Reading a few years ago the announcements went through a phase of saying "I apologise" when referring to delays. I can see that they were trying to make the announcements sound more personal and sincere but to me it sounded ridiculous. Why would the automatic platform announcer be responsible for the delay !

Sometimes I think a bit of formality is necessary when speaking on behalf of an organisation because it portrays more credibility.

I appreciate that there's a balance to be struck, but I cringe when I hear an automated announcement saying something like "Virgin trains sincerely apologises for the delay and any inconvenience that this may cause". It doesn't sound quite so sincere when it's automated...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Speaking as a regular passenger on the national network, if there is a delay or similar, I would far prefer for a staff member to just say "I don't know" rather than dress it up in "corporate-speak" as it was put by Flamingo.

 

[yorksrob]

I appreciate that there's a balance to be struck, but I cringe when I hear an automated announcement saying something like "Virgin trains sincerely apologises for the delay and any inconvenience that this may cause". It doesn't sound quite so sincere when it's automated...

Yes, I'd agree. I think having automated announcements feigning emotion seems nonsensicle. For me, the phrase "xxxxx apologises for the delay and any inconvenience that this may cause" is perfectly adequate.

 

[Aictos]

I appreciate that there's a balance to be struck, but I cringe when I hear an automated announcement saying something like "Virgin trains sincerely apologises for the delay and any inconvenience that this may cause". It doesn't sound quite so sincere when it's automated...

I agree, which is why I never hesitate to cut off the automated PA where possible and make my own announcements.

 

[tbtc]

I agree, which is why I never hesitate to cut off the automated PA where possible and make my own announcements.

Glad to hear - when everything is working like clockwork I don't mind a "clockwork" announcement, but when things go wrong its nice to have the human touch and reassurance that we're not forgotten about...

 

[thefab444]

That's perfectly fine if you have urgent, new information, or the information being given out by the automated announcement is incorrect, but what's the point of interupting to merely repeat what the automatic announcement was going to say anyway? It just sounds unprofessional and when you have manual announcers who witter on for 2 - 3 minutes saying the same thing over and over again, you just get the feeling they love the sound of their own voices. I'd sooner hear a well worded, concise and clear automatic announcement than a mumbled and confused manual announcement.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Again, speaking as a passenger, the automated announcements are incredibly annoying. I would far prefer to hear a staff member giving out the same information than a computer.

 

[CarterUSM]

Isn't that part of the problem, though? Dressing up the truth in "corporate-speak", rather than being honest and direct?

I used to have to deliver bad news for a living. There is no easy way to give it. Using simple words which are not open to misinterpretation is the best way to do it so it is understood. A lot more depends on the body-language and tone of voice of the person speaking. It is well documented that this has much more bearing than the actual words.

A part of the problem with the wording of railway announcements is that they sound false, and going through the motions rather than sincere. This is especially true if couched in words that the individual would not use in everyday speech, meaning they come out stilted and like the individual is reading a script. This can cause a lot more conflict than a simply delivered, open and easy to understand message.

Stop getting so hung-up on what words are used, start concentrating on what message is being delivered, and if it is being delivered effectively and in the correct manner.

Totally agree, i hate speaking from a script, (that i've somehow memorised when i didn't want too!!), much prefer doing ad hoc announcements when the need arises. I've always thought that less is more though, let the automated announcements do their stuff and only do manual when there is a need for it, i think people may be more inclined to listen then.

 

[thefab444]

I'd rather the staff member was out on the platform helping passengers directly, rather than hiding away in a cupboard with a poor quality microphone giving out no more information than the automated announcements can provide.

If there is new information then by all means provide it, but before you pick up the microphone, think about what you are going to say first, to prevent constant umming and erring which just makes passengers think you don't have a clue. You don't need to be flowery and eloquent, just get the information across in a clear and consise fashion.

EDIT: CarterUSM has hit the nail on the head with regards to the balance between automated and manual announcements.

 

[EM2]

If there is new information then by all means provide it, but before you pick up the microphone, think about what you are going to say first, to prevent constant umming and erring which just makes passengers think you don't have a clue. You don't need to be flowery and eloquent, just get the information across in a clear and consise fashion.

That's easier said than done. You can rehearse it in your head as many times as you like, but it's still easy to stumble over your words when doing an announcement.

 

[Aictos]

Glad to hear - when everything is working like clockwork I don't mind a "clockwork" announcement, but when things go wrong its nice to have the human touch and reassurance that we're not forgotten about...

Exactly, it's all very well the automated system announcing delays but passengers want to know how to continue their journey and sometimes the manual announcement is far better.

You have to consider the fact that the disruption managing plan is constantly changing and to allow the automated system to carry on might lead to incorrect information being given out which despite staying in the office so passengers can locate me, I do keep a presence on the platforms.

When it's all going well, I rarely interrupt the automated system other then if passengers are on the wrong platform or is a alteration applies to a service by which I missed out reading out the stop and leave it until the end with the reason why.

That's easier said than done. You can rehearse it in your head as many times as you like, but it's still easy to stumble over your words when doing an announcement.

Exactly, it happens to us all.

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I don't find anything unprofessional about a real human giving out platform announcements provided the information is clear and concise. The chap who used to make the announcements at Charing Cross a few years back managed to sound very human and professional.

 

[chuckles1066]

Again, speaking as a passenger, the automated announcements are incredibly annoying. I would far prefer to hear a staff member giving out the same information than a computer.

Yep, seconded.

First example: got on a train the other morning and the announcement came over the PA system along the lines of "we might be here a while folks, there's a problem with the throttle but an engineer is on his way, the next train to Bath leaves in about ten minutes from platform 13 so you might want to consider that one, I'll keep you posted".

Perfect. The guy didn't have a clue about how long we were going to be sat there *****but he kept us informed and gave us an alternative****.

Second example: the other night (with everything delayed due to the snow) we'd all jumped on a train heading to Bristol Parkway and anything north towards Great Malvern, standing room only, when a member of staff got onboard and yelled "anyone here going to Filton, Patchway or Parkway?"

No-one put their head above the parapet so I shouted "yeah, me" and the guy said "the train up there is blocking us in, that one's gonna be leaving before this one, you might want to use that one instead".

At which point about 40 people legged it off to get that train.

Communication is sometimes all it takes...........

 

[Aictos]

Yep, seconded.

First example: got on a train the other morning and the announcement came over the PA system along the lines of "we might be here a while folks, there's a problem with the throttle but an engineer is on his way, the next train to Bath leaves in about ten minutes from platform 13 so you might want to consider that one, I'll keep you posted".

Perfect. The guy didn't have a clue about how long we were going to be sat there *****but he kept us informed and gave us an alternative****.

Second example: the other night (with everything delayed due to the snow) we'd all jumped on a train heading to Bristol Parkway and anything north towards Great Malvern, standing room only, when a member of staff got onboard and yelled "anyone here going to Filton, Patchway or Parkway?"

No-one put their head above the parapet so I shouted "yeah, me" and the guy said "the train up there is blocking us in, that one's gonna be leaving before this one, you might want to use that one instead".

At which point about 40 people legged it off to get that train.

Communication is sometimes all it takes...........

Exactly, I've been on Stevenage before when I've heard similar announcements which is more helpful then hearing silence.

 

[northernrail]

I have one word for him

SNOB

 

[12CSVT]

I'd rather the staff member was out on the platform helping passengers directly, rather than hiding away in a cupboard with a poor quality microphone giving out no more information than the automated announcements can provide.

If there is new information then by all means provide it, but before you pick up the microphone, think about what you are going to say first, to prevent constant umming and erring which just makes passengers think you don't have a clue. You don't need to be flowery and eloquent, just get the information across in a clear and consise fashion.

EDIT: CarterUSM has hit the nail on the head with regards to the balance between automated and manual announcements.

Unfortunately being out on the platform means not being at hand to receive updates from contol or signaller etc

And being on the platform just gives passengers an excuse to hurl abuse at railway personnel who are already trying their best to do their job under extreme pressure.

 

[PinzaC55]

The beauty of this article is that this is the system that the Tories wanted and which the sheeplike public voted for. And of course they can't blame "British Rail" any more!

 

[Failed Unit]

I don't remember anyone voting for rail privatisation - when was the referendum?

 

[jon0844]

when was the referendum?

What you missed it?

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I don't remember anyone voting for rail privatisation - when was the referendum?

It was in the manifesto for 1992.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was more to emphasise the point that he's lived a very sheltered life and he's getting disproportionately or are you just angry when things don't go his way. Almost like a spoiled brat.

That's a rather sweeping statement. Have you got the facts to back it up or are you just generally assuming?

 

[scotsman]

That's a rather sweeping statement. Have you got the facts to back it up or are you just generally assuming?

Sorry to disappoint:

His father Sir Ferdinand Mount, Bt., is also a journalist, and was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He is a cousin of the current British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Mount was a scholar at Westminster school and read Classics and History at Oxford where he was a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club and graduated with a First.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Sorry to disappoint:

That in no way indicates he lead a sheltered life. I'm starting to find this opinion that everyone who went to a private school, a good university or comes from a well off family must live a sheltered life tiresome.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Sorry to disappoint:

I'm only disappointed in the continuing obsession with the class distinctions that people have in their minds. Read the Telegraph - obviously a snob. Read the Mirror - salt of the earth gawd bless yer guv. You'll find that there's a vast difference between living a privileged life and living a sheltered life. I was privileged to have been in the education system in this country when it was still possible to escape your background and get a Grammar school education by passing the eleven plus. I haven't in any way shape or form led a sheltered life though.
Now, get that chip off your shoulder and get out and enjoy your life and appreciate what you've got. Looking at what you imagine other people have got will only lead to resentment.

 

[12CSVT]

Whether or not he had a sheltered / priviledged life is a matter of opinion, but to refer to people working their rocks off trying to do difficult jobs under extreme pressure as 'thugs' and 'layabouts' gives the impression that he doesn't have much understaning of the real world.

 

[Failed Unit]

It was in the manifesto for 1992.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



That's a rather sweeping statement. Have you got the facts to back it up or are you just generally assuming?

It maybe was in the 1992 manifesto. I doubt that the detail of exactly how they were going to do it was. No-one voted conservative in that election just because of that single policy. Like every election before and every election to come people vote for a party because they prefer there overall manifesto. (except in certain people that would vote for a party just because their dad, grandad did irrelevant of the policies)

So in 1992 the conservatives got in because people felt they were safer than labour not because they were going to privatise BR. Which labour were going to reverse anyway if the won the next election.

 

[tbtc]

It maybe was in the 1992 manifesto. I doubt that the detail of exactly how they were going to do it was. No-one voted conservative in that election just because of that single policy. Like every election before and every election to come people vote for a party because they prefer there overall manifesto. (except in certain people that would vote for a party just because their dad, grandad did irrelevant of the policies)

So in 1992 the conservatives got in because people felt they were safer than labour not because they were going to privatise BR. Which labour were going to reverse anyway if the won the next election.

By the same logic, nobody voted for anything a Government does!

We certainly didn't vote for things like tomorrow's VAT rise (which wasn't in any manifesto).

However, rail privatisation was definitely in the Tory manifesto in 1992, and they won a clear majority of seats, so "PinzaC55" 's point that the Tories wanted it and the public voted for it is correct.

 

[yorksrob]

By the same logic, nobody voted for anything a Government does!

We certainly didn't vote for things like tomorrow's VAT rise (which wasn't in any manifesto).

However, rail privatisation was definitely in the Tory manifesto in 1992, and they won a clear majority of seats, so "PinzaC55" 's point that the Tories wanted it and the public voted for it is correct.

In a very loose sense, perhaps. I get the impression that most people vote against the other party rather than to endorse whoever they're voting for.