"Operating Incident" at Rhyl

[Welshman]

Does anyone know what this was this morning?

According to RTT, the 0546 Llandudno Junction to Manchester Piccadilly was held at Rhyl from 0602 to 0646, whence it departed e.c.s. to Chester.

The following 4 trains were delayed, as there's no loop on the Up line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Does anyone know what this was this morning?
According to RTT, the 0546 Llandudno Junction to Manchester Piccadilly was held at Rhyl from 0602 to 0646, whence it departed e.c.s. to Chester.
The following 4 trains were delayed, as there's no loop on the Up line.

1H80 cancelled at Rhyl "due to an incident with the train crew" on RTT.
A substitute train was provided from Chester 15 late at 0655, and the following Manchester/Cardiff services were delayed 20 minutes or so.

 

[Welshman]

Yes - I gathered that.
I just wondered what the "incident with the train crew" was.
Just me being nosy.

 

[PHILIPE]

I don't think it's always wise to speculate on such incidents without knowing the facts as such incidents can often be rather sensitive.

 

[talltim]

If you knew the facts, you wouldn't be speculating

 

[Welshman]

I don't think it's always wise to speculate on such incidents without knowing the facts as such incidents can often be rather sensitive.

Who's speculating???

We were simply repeating information already in the public domain via RTT and the ATW Journey-Check.

As a good friend was delayed by this incident, and I was simply wondering what had happened. That's all.

It could have been caused by several reasons, but please be assured that if it was of a sensitive nature, I would be the last one to pry.

 

[Mike99]

I don't think it's always wise to speculate on such incidents without knowing the facts as such incidents can often be rather sensitive.

Who has speculated?

 

[wensley]

The information in the public domain is probably all that should be available to those who don't 'need to know', or have access to such information through the course of their duties.

In my opinion sensitive information relating to incidents such as this shouldn't be shared on a public forum. ATW will no doubt release details if they feel it to be prudent.

The main thing is that everyone is safe, and that passengers affected were provided with alternatives to reach their destination.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I agree that if the details are sensitive, then they shouldn't be revealed, and also that we don't have an absolute right to know.

That said, "operating incident" is one of those absolutely meaningless, vague, jargon phrases which TOCs like to use which really grinds my gears.

 

[chefchenko]

would that be the same unit that was in the siding next to chesters platform 7 ??

 

[carriageline]

I agree that if the details are sensitive, then they shouldn't be revealed, and also that we don't have an absolute right to know.



That said, "operating incident" is one of those absolutely meaningless, vague, jargon phrases which TOCs like to use which really grinds my gears.

What use would announcing "a TPWS activation" mean to the public? The general public don't wanna know, and don't care. That isn't what happened here, but that's one example of an operating incident!

 

[Juniper Driver]

What use would announcing "a TPWS activation" mean to the public? The general public don't wanna know, and don't care. That isn't what happened here, but that's one example of an operating incident!

Got to agree,but when I hear "Operating Incident" I wonder what poor sod is in the poo now?

 

[Rich McLean]

If staff in the know came on here and revealed what the "Operating Incident" was, they would be liable to a chat with no tea or biscuits (or in some cases a P45)

A Train Operating Company (TOC) has already dismissed a member of staff for discussing info not in the public domain. A certain TOC has come down hard of late, and there are several things that the staff at that TOC cannot comment on or reveal, including speaking out against management or TOC Policy on a public forum (regardless of username - they will find out who you are)

So for those asking, I am sorry, but TOC staff cannot discuss the incident for reasons above

 

[wensley]

Got to agree,but when I hear "Operating Incident" I wonder what poor sod is in the poo now?

Quite.

As for passenger info, it's a tricky one, and sadly this is one case where giving passengers detail is not appropriate. Having been asked just what to say by a member of Traincrew in a situation like this very recently, it was a genuine dilemma - but the public don't need the detail in my opinion, alternative travel arrangements and apologies tend to do the trick!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Quite.
As for passenger info, it's a tricky one, and sadly this is one case where giving passengers detail is not appropriate. Having been asked just what to say by a member of Traincrew in a situation like this very recently, it was a genuine dilemma - but the public don't need the detail in my opinion, alternative travel arrangements and apologies tend to do the trick!

In some ways this forum, and RTT, are forms of voyeurism - a chance for armchair fat controllers to gaze into the operational railway's navel.
Network Rail has chosen to publish the data (an official open data policy, by the way) and we are just chatting about the possible causes of the incident.
Passengers actually impacted by the delays are entitled to know what happened to a certain level - it will affect the TOC's PPM after all, and things like delay/repay.
Once you stray into the world of industry H&S and HR, however, the general public has no reason to enquire further.
If anything serious happened it will be the subject of an RSSB report in due course.
In any case, I'm sure we are more interested in how the railway recovered the service (pretty well, it seems) than the incident itself.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

What use would announcing "a TPWS activation" mean to the public? The general public don't wanna know, and don't care. That isn't what happened here, but that's one example of an operating incident!

It's a very tricky line to walk, I do realise that. I agree that most wouldn't know what a "TPWS activation" would mean (I have only a vague sense myself).

That said, I disagree that the general public "don't care". I've been to a couple of NRE focus groups and it certainly seems that those people (commuters) certainly do want some level of detail, and jargon like "operating incident" is hugely unpopular, and makes them feel fobbed off.

 

[PHILIPE]

Who has speculated?

Nobody on this particular thread but people do on many incidents.

 

[wensley]

I
That said, I disagree that the general public "don't care". I've been to a couple of NRE focus groups and it certainly seems that those people (commuters) certainly do want some level of detail, and jargon like "operating incident" is hugely unpopular, and makes them feel fobbed off.

I also agree that many passengers do care. But they tend to care more about how long they'll be delayed and how they'll reach their destination!

"Operating incident" is far from ideal, but it covers a wide range of scenarios that can often be technically complex and difficult to explain to passengers. It is a means to an end -staff dealing with passengers in these scenarios are likely to be under a lot of pressure and need to get folk moving as quickly and safely as possible.

In the case I refer to earlier in the thread a similar method of communicating to the passengers was used, and not one asked for an explanation. The vast majority were co-operative and appreciative of the onward travel arrangements often it's how you deliver the message rather than what you say I find.

In some ways this forum, and RTT, are forms of voyeurism - a chance for armchair fat controllers to gaze into the operational railway's navel.

Indeed. As they say, a little knowledge can be dangerous.

The vast majority on here respect that those in the industry have the experience and understanding of such matters - but there will always be some who think there limited knowledge is enough to solve any problem!

Let them try

Passengers actually impacted by the delays are entitled to know what happened to a certain level - it will affect the TOC's PPM after all, and things like delay/repay.

If anything serious happened it will be the subject of an RSSB report in due course.

Indeed. Details that need to be shared will be. RAIB reports are very important for sharing lessons learnt (don't think there will be one in this case), but in the same was as internal bulletins and investigations do similar things, and customer relations deal with affected passengers. In my opinion it's all about appropriate material for the certain audience.

In any case, I'm sure we are more interested in how the railway recovered the service (pretty well, it seems) than the incident itself.

Service recovery did seem very good this morning, well done to all involved for getting folk on the move!

 

[A-driver]

Operating incident and incident under investigation are terms used simply because at the point (ie the delay) no one can be sure what has happened. It's not fair to announce a train has had a SPAD for example until exactly what has happened has been investigated and confirmed. The SPAD may not have actually been a straightforward cat A SPAD and the driver may infact be blameless but as the delayed train has rolled into the station to be relieved of duty he will have a platform load of passengers watching him thinking he has messed up. After a w days of investigation when it is probed the signal went back on him they can't easily track all those passengers down to tell them the driver actually did nothing wrong!

The lack of specifics is as much as anything that it's still being investigated at that point.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

OK, but how about when something like this happens, which means the driver is unable to continue (whether he did anything wrong or not), why not just say that the train crew was unavailable? Whilst that might not the root cause of the disruption, it would still be correct, and gives just a little more information than "operating incident".

 

[ExRes]

Traincrew unavailable is as pointless and meaningless as any other reason, unavailable for what reason ask the passengers, drunk, ill, overslept, on strike, arrested for high treason, family reasons, witnessed a suicide, it gives the passengers nothing more than operating incident does

 

[GB]

Because then it looks like the TOC can't get its staffing levels right.

 

[hassaanhc]

Operating incident and incident under investigation are terms used simply because at the point (ie the delay) no one can be sure what has happened. It's not fair to announce a train has had a SPAD for example until exactly what has happened has been investigated and confirmed. The SPAD may not have actually been a straightforward cat A SPAD and the driver may infact be blameless but as the delayed train has rolled into the station to be relieved of duty he will have a platform load of passengers watching him thinking he has messed up. After a w days of investigation when it is probed the signal went back on him they can't easily track all those passengers down to tell them the driver actually did nothing wrong!

The lack of specifics is as much as anything that it's still being investigated at that point.

I witnessed an "operating incident" where something went wrong while coupling two units in a terminal platform, which resulted in the train coming into contact with the buffer stops . As you say, at that point it isn't known whether the driver was at fault or if it was something wrong with the train, so not a lot of information can be given .

 

[Philip C]

My view is that there should be a presumption that the public be told enough to understand what has happened when their journey is disrupted. I believe that this is simply how citizens should be treated. They should never be patronized.

HOWEVER It may be the case that a member of staff is suspected of acting in a manner which leaves him open to disciplinary action and it would then be quite wrong to make allegations in public. A form of words would have to be used in these cases.

I would contend that it is always wrong for a company to withhold information for the sole purpose of covering up mismanagement. Obfuscation will eventually undermine the reputation of any company, but again fingers cannot be pointed publicly at individuals.

There seems much less coyness about stating that someone has been run over than there used to be. I welcome this, it does not seem to distress passengers, puts them in the picture and puts many (though not all) on the operator's/staff's side. On the other hand the old "train delayed due to earlier late running" tends to put passengers' backs up, as does "operating problems". My long experience of working on the railway is that many passengers have a surprising grasp of how a railway runs, at a certain level, and sadly vast experience of its failure modes! They are no more cretinous than any other section of society, have paid their fare and deserve to be treated as we would wish to be treated.

I'd also add that passengers should welcome indication that a company takes the performance of its staff seriously, especially in respect of safety matters. Ultimately this is not a negative message, but due process for individuals must be protected.

On a personal basis I find that a friendly chat with the guard will normally give a fuller understanding of any problem. Chatham House Rules do of course apply.

 

[edwin_m]

If some information is given on the nature of the incident, many passengers will have a better idea of how long the delay might be. For example "waiting for a platform to be clear" is probably going to be a short delay, but "freight train failure in front" is probably going to be very long. This is one reason why vague "reason" are annoying, though I agree announcements should not point the finger at specific members of staff.

 

[wensley]

If some information is given on the nature of the incident, many passengers will have a better idea of how long the delay might be. For example "waiting for a platform to be clear" is probably going to be a short delay, but "freight train failure in front" is probably going to be very long. This is one reason why vague "reason" are annoying, though I agree announcements should not point the finger at specific members of staff.

Trick is to keep people posted, even if you can't/it's innapropriate to give too much detail. If you tell people you're unsure as to the length of the delay, then give an accurate estimate as soon as possible then I personally think this keeps most passengers happy.

 

[bnm]

1H80 0546 Llandudno Jcn - Manchester Piccadilly had a Category A SPAD at signal RL88 outside Rhyl.

 

[Mojo]

Nobody on this particular thread but people do on many incidents.

Maybe people shouldn't speculate about other people speculating?

 

[Flamingo]

some people do expect way to much information, though. I remember one chap shouting at me after we'd been delayed 15 minutes waiting for an ambulance (I'd made numerous announcements and updates) that "Your announcements were rubbish. If I'm delayed, I expect to be told what's wrong with the person".

 

[carriageline]

some people do expect way to much information, though. I remember one chap shouting at me after we'd been delayed 15 minutes waiting for an ambulance (I'd made numerous announcements and updates) that "Your announcements were rubbish. If I'm delayed, I expect to be told what's wrong with the person".

Ahh, did you not get the memo? All train staff are supposed to be doctors now.