"Operational Incident", Wembley Down Slow

[Darandio]

would be more helpful than "Operating incident".

How is it more 'helpful'? Helpful to who? I'm confused here.

 

[CosherB]

I consider the use of the all-encompassing "operating incident" an attempt to weasel out of giving an open and honest explanation. And I do not object to the use of industry terms, just industry abbreviations when they are likely not to be understood by the intended audience (passengers). Such as a SPAD (which I had to look up) could be communicated in plain English.

There really is no need for the Secret Society mentality, but it looks like we will have to agree to differ.

Passengers are not entitled to know infinite details regarding their train journey. It's not the responsibility of any TOC to engage in the dissemination of information that would be likely to confuse, upset or or further frustrate the customers.

Get over it.

 

[Zoidberg]

Passengers are not entitled to know infinite details regarding their train journey. It's not the responsibility of any TOC to engage in the dissemination of information that would be likely to confuse, upset or or further frustrate the customers.

Get over it.

Get over what?

And a properly worded communication covering the reason for a delay would ensure that there was no scope to confuse, upset or further frustrate the passengers.

 

[J-2739]

Get over what?

And a properly worded communication covering the reason for a delay would ensure that there was no scope to confuse, upset or further frustrate the passengers.

If someone committed suicide on the track, the passengers could get angry by the fact that now their services is delayed.?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Get over what?

And a properly worded communication covering the reason for a delay would ensure that there was no scope to confuse, upset or further frustrate the passengers.

They used to tell you when someone was hit by a train. But when they got complaints that the trains should run anyway, that was described in woolly terms. There are good reasons for describing it as they do. It's not weasel words, it's that passengers twist things themselves and turn it back at the company* even if it is properly worded.

*sometimes its deserved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If someone committed suicide on the track, the passengers could get angry by the fact that now their services is delayed.?

They do. I've seen it on twitter before. You've got members of the public who witnessed it, the driver, station staff, all shaken up and some **** on twitter lets fly because they're going to be late home after they have been told what has happened.

 

[TheEdge]

I certainly would not want any announcement to be made which apportioned blame.

For the two examples you gave, something like "A safety mechanism brought the train to a halt and there will be a delay while the cause is investigated and any remedial action necessary is taken" or "A safety warning caused the driver to halt the train, etc" would be more helpful than "Operating incident".

How are they more helpful? How in any way do they provide you with even a modicum of usable information. I return once again to the voyeuristic reasons...

As to apportioning blame both your phrases apportion blame. A safety system stopped the train because the driver didn't. Signal passed at danger means officially all is working and the driver is at fault. Signal passed at red means there is some sort of equipment failure or issue and the driver is not at fault. So when the Twitter desk (a bloke who probably also doesn't know the difference between SPAD and SPAR) tweets out passed at danger they are immediately publically blaming the driver and apportioning blame to them.

These may seem like minor things to you as at the end of the day the result id the same, a train has passed a signal it should not have but when careers hang on it these differences are really important and for TOCs to make this stuff public opens up a whole can of worms.

 

[Domh245]

So there is one thread where you have people complaining about there being too much unnecessary information in announcements, and now this one complaining about not enough! You just can't win.

 

[Trog]

If a shop was shut due to "staff sickness" would you want to know exactly what was wrong with the person?

In the case of a food shop and typhoid yes I would. A certain amount of detail is a good thing, as making the announcement too bland starts to sound like a cover up.

Although a station I was at in the early 1980's which was announcing delays due to a suicide at this station, and had bin bags of meat laying on the booking office floor may have been taking things a bit too far the other way.

 

[Loop & Link]

I think it's all personal as well, would I want all these things in the public domain? No.?SPAD's and TPWS interventions are dealt with internally.

Or do people want detail such as "This Train has been delayed due to a TPWS Intervention, due to the driver being Cat 1 on the Driver Development Plan, the Duty Control Manager judged the driver as being unfit to continue and a relief driver was resourced" Most of that would go over the public's head!

Operating Incident is easier!

 

[Zoidberg]

...

As to apportioning blame both your phrases apportion blame. A safety system stopped the train because the driver didn't. Signal passed at danger means officially all is working and the driver is at fault. Signal passed at red means there is some sort of equipment failure or issue and the driver is not at fault. So when the Twitter desk (a bloke who probably also doesn't know the difference between SPAD and SPAR) tweets out passed at danger they are immediately publically blaming the driver and apportioning blame to them.

...

Neither of my example explanations were intended to imply an apportionment of blame. I believed that I had left scope for the cause to be a technical fault, such as a safety mechanism failing safe, i.e. a false alarm. Rewording and independant reviewing would come up with a version suitable for public consumption.

But, I fear that I am fighting a losing battle. The railway seems not to want to let passengers know why their journeys are disrupted. It's not voyerism, but natural curiosity, to want to know why one is being delayed and there seems to be no good reason for fudging things. Oh, well.

 

[MotCO]

I probably would not be interested in knowing the exact reason for the delay - I would be more interested in knowing how long the delay was likely to be so that I could make other travel or personal arrangements.

Having said that, knowing the type of 'operational incident' might help me decide whether the delay was minor or major, but only in broad, impersonal terms.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I probably would not be interested in knowing the exact reason for the delay - I would be more interested in knowing how long the delay was likely to be so that I could make other travel or personal arrangements.

Having said that, knowing the type of 'operational incident' might help me decide whether the delay was minor or major, but only in broad, impersonal terms.

I think this is the issue. Regular passengers can get an idea from what the problem is how long the delay is going to be and then decide what alternatives (if any) to make. An operational incident though covers so many things that it is impossible to guess at a delay time.

Equally does it really matter if passengers know a train has passed a signal at danger? If they know it and there hasnt been a crash doesnt that imply that all the safety systems etc work?

The issue is that some passangers are more informed than others and therefore those that read and post here no that whilst not ideal a signal passed at danger doesnt mean the train was automatically seconds from a crash.

Reaching a happy medium is difficult but my knowledge from fellow passenger reaction is that an "operational incident" is not a great explanation for delays.

 

[AlterEgo]

"Operational incident" is my least favourite of all delay explanations.

It is the vaguest explanation you can give. By the logic of some posters, who say that explaining further doesn't provide any "useful information" that the passenger can do anything with, then the railways shouldn't bother explaining any delays at all!

It is not about useful information, it's about the railway company appearing accountable, open and honest. This is a public service, and while forensic detail is probably inappropriate, a basic explanation would be much better.

 

[ComUtoR]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137013

This morning I was on a SouthEastern train to Charing Cross, when the train stopped just outside Waterloo East, and remained stopped for - I would guess, about 10 minutes, before slowly pulling into the station. The explanation the driver gave was that they'd lost the interlock? I'm curious what that would mean. Anyone know?

A prime example of where a technical answer is given and it does little to help.

"operating incident" should be sufficient for any passenger. I don't see it as a TOC being dishonest or hiding behind jargon etc. Its a generic, all encompassing reason. Anything more is too much detail. "operating incident" IS a basic explanation.

 

[driver_m]

Think about it. Say you got an 'operating incident' and twitter feed of company b blamed the signal being put back at box a. Signalman then cops flak on social media for it. Turns out it was a blip in a track circuit that threw it back. Signalman then goes home stressed because he's effectively been tried before an investigation. Big delay becomes huge delay because someone opened their big mouth too quickly. 'Operating incident' allows proper investigation to take place and not prejudice it before it's even started.

 

[redbutton]

In addition to the reasons others have mentioned regarding due process and fairness for the staff involved, I'd also add that the information that comes into the control centre in the first minutes after an incident can be vague and often incorrect. So they simply can't announce what they don't know.

With the exception of the most simple and obvious operating incidents, it isn't until days later when all the data loggers and CCTV are downloaded and reviewed that a complete picture can be formed.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Think about it. Say you got an 'operating incident' and twitter feed of company b blamed the signal being put back at box a. Signalman then cops flak on social media for it. Turns out it was a blip in a track circuit that threw it back. Signalman then goes home stressed because he's effectively been tried before an investigation. Big delay becomes huge delay because someone opened their big mouth too quickly. 'Operating incident' allows proper investigation to take place and not prejudice it before it's even started.

They could have at least said that they were awaiting a relief driver to arrive whichever depot they'd have to come from, then the passengers would have some sort of idea as to how long a delay they should expect

 

[driver_m]

They could have at least said that they were awaiting a relief driver to arrive whichever depot they'd have to come from, then the passengers would have some sort of idea as to how long a delay they should expect

London traffic alone means you can't give a time estimate and availability of said driver. What if they weren't immediately available. Which is quite likely. You can't make promises which are effectively guesses.

 

[CosherB]

They could have at least said that they were awaiting a relief driver to arrive whichever depot they'd have to come from, then the passengers would have some sort of idea as to how long a delay they should expect

Assuming that everyone has an encyclopaedic knowledge of British geography and is fully up to date with all traffic updates in the local and regional area. Utter codswallop. :roll:

 

[DarloRich]

a lot of this seems to be people wanting "da gen". There is an obvious difference between the spotterish desire to know everything and seem to be in the know and the needs and interests of the general public. I would suggest most people wont care if there was a SPAD or a SPAR or TPWS overspeed or signal changing unexpectedly. You will never convince me they want this information or understand the information or the practical consequences.

Being stuck for an hour is still being stuck for an hour regardless of reason. Knowing it is a SPAD, say, wont get you home any sooner or make the rectification of the problem come any sooner.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

a lot of this seems to be people wanting "da gen". There is an obvious difference between the spotterish desire to know everything and seem to be in the know and the needs and interests of the general public. I would suggest most people wont care if there was a SPAD or a SPAR or TPWS overspeed or signal changing unexpectedly. You will never convince me they want this information or understand the information or the practical consequences.

Being stuck for an hour is still being stuck for an hour regardless of reason. Knowing it is a SPAD, say, wont get you home any sooner or make the rectification of the problem come any sooner.

Most people will just want some sort of idea as to how long they're going to be delayed for so that they can alter their plans (onward connections, appointments, people picking them up at their destination, etc)

 

[38Cto15E]

I am not for one moment suggesting that it happened in this case, but can a BM enlighten me about TPWS.
If a Pendolino reaches say 128/129mph do the brakes on the train come on automatically?
Should this be the case, is it a requirement that the driver is replaced ASAP.?
TIA Please excuse my lack of knowledge on this subject.

 

[PHILIPE]

An operating incident could have the potential to be a disciplinary matter depending on the nature of it. This, I think, is why the details should be kept under wraps although, of course, reasons could come out at a later stage.

 

[QueensCurve]

Why do you want to know? What does SPAD tell you that operation incident doesn't?

Operational incident doesn't tell you anything.

The tension here seems to be beween passengers being given full information for the delay and the railway thinking it doesn't have to give full information.

I am in the full information school. If it is a SPAD then telling us that, and the fact that the driver is being relieved, at least lets us know what is going on.

We do not need to know the identity of the driver and that would in any case be a breach of privacy.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in disclosing that an incident has occurred and that the correct procedure is being followed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Think about it. Say you got an 'operating incident' and twitter feed of company b blamed the signal being put back at box a. Signalman then cops flak on social media for it. Turns out it was a blip in a track circuit that threw it back. Signalman then goes home stressed because he's effectively been tried before an investigation. Big delay becomes huge delay because someone opened their big mouth too quickly. 'Operating incident' allows proper investigation to take place and not prejudice it before it's even started.

Agreed.

But I'm not talking about forensic detail like who put a signal back. Instead of "operating incident", just say "the train has been brought to a stop by a safety device. This will require investigation. We're sorry for the delay".

To the public, "operating incident" sounds vague and distant.

 

[PHILIPE]

I think I've read somewhere that the TOC introduced a standard list of explanations to cover all types of incidents, although some TOCs are somewhat more open.

 

[DeeGee]

They could have at least said that they were awaiting a relief driver to arrive whichever depot they'd have to come from, then the passengers would have some sort of idea as to how long a delay they should expect

I've been on a couple of trains where we've been told we have to wait for a relief driver. On one, we were told that if we wished, we could get off and wait for the next train coming past (this was a large station on the ECML)

Do you know the shorthand the passengers used to describe the incident?

"Driver's ill". Nobody that I heard thought "Driver's been told to stop because of an error", even though, it turns out, it could have been that (I don't know that, don't need to know that, but got a good reason why we had to wait). We're not all automatically out to blame railway staff, you know.

"Operating incident" sounds a lot more sinister. Like "Police incident" which pervades the traffic news these days, which generally means "crash" and not "siege".

Waiting for a relief driver will take as long whether the driver's sick or "been relieved" for investigatory reasons, but "waiting for a relief driver" is fine for us.

Anything that makes the railways seem a little bit more cuddly and makes the passengers feel a bit less like self-loading cargo surely is a good thing, no?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sometimes you get "Safety checks are being made on the line between...".
Very much better than "Operating Incident".
I'm old enough to remember that BR used to trot out "Operating Difficulties" as the reason for any and every delay.
These days, the railway is liable for delay compensation which is one reason to smarten up its communications.

 

[DarloRich]

Most people will just want some sort of idea as to how long they're going to be delayed for so that they can alter their plans (onward connections, appointments, people picking them up at their destination, etc)

I understand that point but, despite what many think, there isnt a Haynes Railway Operations handbook with the number of stop watches indicating the expected delay per incident. It takes as long as it takes sadly.

Operational incident doesn't tell you anything.

The tension here seems to be beween passengers being given full information for the delay and the railway thinking it doesn't have to give full information.

I am in the full information school. If it is a SPAD then telling us that, and the fact that the driver is being relieved, at least lets us know what is going on.

We do not need to know the identity of the driver and that would in any case be a breach of privacy.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in disclosing that an incident has occurred and that the correct procedure is being followed.

But what practical benefit does that information bring to the average passenger?

Agreed.

But I'm not talking about forensic detail like who put a signal back. Instead of "operating incident", just say "the train has been brought to a stop by a safety device. This will require investigation. We're sorry for the delay".

To the public, "operating incident" sounds vague and distant.

But I would say that to the average passenger that sounds scary and worrying. What comfort do they take from that message. Remember they are not an informed customer like you. They may not know how to process or grade that message.

All I hear is safety system. That means something went wrong and something dangerous happened or very nearly happened. That will lead to anxiety and stress.

 

[PHILIPE]

Sometimes you get "Safety checks are being made on the line between...".
Very much better than "Operating Incident".
I'm old enough to remember that BR used to trot out "Operating Difficulties" as the reason for any and every delay.
These days, the railway is liable for delay compensation which is one reason to smarten up its communications.

I tried to point out at he time (unofficially as a BR employee) but it got brushed under the carpet, that "Operating Diffficulties" was a situation rather than a cause. Anything that prevented smooth running of trains presented "operating difficulties".