How to deal with a TOC that won't engage with you? - Platform alterations at Leyland station

[RAPC]

The point I am trying to make is if Northern aren't providing any kind of proper response to my issue, then how should I trust that it is being (or going to be) investigated?

Having looked at the FOI email chain, they have responded with what you had requested, namely all emails in the time period specified.

They have chosen not to engage any more with you based on your original direct email exchanges with them, which is mentioned in the FOI response.

You have raised your issue and told them what you perceive the issues to be. I don't believe they owe you anything else and I can also see why they have chosen not to engage further based on your communications with them. A different approach to how it was originally raised, may well have yielded a more positive response, but sadly that horse will have bolted now.

 

[Moonshot]

Having looked at the FOI email chain, they have responded with what you had requested, namely all emails in the time period specified.

They have chosen not to engage any more with you based on your original direct email exchanges with them, which is mentioned in the FOI response.

You have raised your issue and told them what you perceive the issues to be. I don't believe they owe you anything else and I can also see why they have chosen not to engage further based on your communications with them. A different approach to how it was originally raised, may well have yielded a more positive response, but sadly that horse will have bolted now.

Completely agree with this....OP needs to learn a lesson here. I will say however that I myself have a general beef with Northern about this issue of incorrect screen information on platforms, it happens more than we probably care to admit. Victoria is one where it happens on a very regular basis......but of course there are dispatch staff who can guide passengers.

On a slightly separate note, the general standard of station environment at Northern stations appears to be in decline imo. There are significant numbers of them which are in need of a lick of paint !! Leyland looks quite good as it happens, but there are some horrible looking ones elsewhere

 

[AutoUnder]

Completely agree with this....OP needs to learn a lesson here. I will say however that I myself have a general beef with Northern about this issue of incorrect screen information on platforms, it happens more than we probably care to admit. Victoria is one where it happens on a very regular basis......but of course there are dispatch staff who can guide passengers.

On a slightly separate note, the general standard of station environment at Northern stations appears to be in decline imo. There are significant numbers of them which are in need of a lick of paint !! Leyland looks quite good as it happens, but there are some horrible looking ones elsewhere

We'll agree to disagree on this one. I don't want this to escalate any further than it has since its clear we aren't gonna convince each other either way. That's no good that similar happening at Victoria as well but at least there are platform staff to guide people and prevent dispatch. Do station staff have control of the CIS there?

Leyland looks the way it does because of us volunteers. It's hard work especially in this weather but it's good to hear it's paid off

 

[The exile]

Northern at Leyland are not alone in providing incorrect information long after correct information is known. I regularly experience it at Bristol Parkway in terms of platform alterations, at Bath Spa in terms of train sequence (determined by the sequence at Bathampton - several minutes away) and at several stations in terms of “First train expected 16.46 - 2nd train at same platform expected 16.43 (seen people board wrong trains because of this)

 

[Starmill]

You have raised your issue and told them what you perceive the issues to be. I don't believe they owe you anything else and I can also see why they have chosen not to engage further based on your communications with them. A different approach to how it was originally raised, may well have yielded a more positive response, but sadly that horse will have bolted now.

Seems a bit naive to me. If the OP had sent them bad language, insults to their professional competency, hurtful words about personal matters - sure. You'd be 100% right. It's hard to see what the OP has done wrong other than being a little over zealous about the importance of their station.

Your opinion may be that the OP should have used different language. That's your right to have that opinion, but my reply is that frankly it's completely irrelevant.

Northern state on their own website:

Occasionally a train’s departure platform needs to be changed at short notice. Such a change will be shown on the customer information screens and will be announced audibly as soon as possible.

The bolding is my own. So is it a surprise that the OP is "banging the drum" to get them to... follow their own stated aim? Perhaps they ought water down the aim and make less grand claims instead. https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/accessible-travel-policy

 

[AutoUnder]

The bolding is my own. So is it a surprise that the OP is "banging the drum" to get them to... follow their own stated aim? Perhaps they ought water down the aim and make less grand claims instead. https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/accessible-travel-policy

That is exactly the point. I was also going to quote from their own Passenger Charter which says something very similar but it doesn't seem to be available at the moment.

The main issue with this as I've said before, is Northern aren't effectively communicating with me. To put it in perspective, I made a complaint to Merseyrail about platform alterations at Liverpool South Parkway. They have no automated announcements at all announcements there come directly from the signaller at Manchester ROC, and they seem to forget to announce there as well. A few days later, Merseyrail called me back and explained the current arrangement and said they currently can't afford automated announcements at their stations because of their funding model. As frustrating as this is, it isn't Merseyrail's fault and the fact they gave me a phone call to explain the issue is above and beyond, bearing in mind this was only from one single email. That is very good customer service and I wish Northern would do the same.

I know it has also been mentioned on the FOI request as well as from direct contact I've had, that there is going to be a CIS upgrade in the near future. All that has been said is the upgrade 'might' fix the issue. Surely they would know whether it is going to be implemented or not? If they say yes, excellent! If they say no, why not? If it is a funding issue, then I would draw my focus away from Northern since there's not a lot they can do about that.

 

[Moonshot]

That is exactly the point. I was also going to quote from their own Passenger Charter which says something very similar but it doesn't seem to be available at the moment.

The main issue with this as I've said before, is Northern aren't effectively communicating with me. To put it in perspective, I made a complaint to Merseyrail about platform alterations at Liverpool South Parkway. They have no automated announcements at all announcements there come directly from the signaller at Manchester ROC, and they seem to forget to announce there as well. A few days later, Merseyrail called me back and explained the current arrangement and said they currently can't afford automated announcements at their stations because of their funding model. As frustrating as this is, it isn't Merseyrail's fault and the fact they gave me a phone call to explain the issue is above and beyond, bearing in mind this was only from one single email. That is very good customer service and I wish Northern would do the same.

I know it has also been mentioned on the FOI request as well as from direct contact I've had, that there is going to be a CIS upgrade in the near future. All that has been said is the upgrade 'might' fix the issue. Surely they would know whether it is going to be implemented or not? If they say yes, excellent! If they say no, why not? If it is a funding issue, then I would draw my focus away from Northern since there's not a lot they can do about that.

I wouldn't waste your time.....as others have pointed out, this is in effect a government department you are trying to communicate with. The issue will exist this time next year and the year after etc etc...

I was twice finding myself in platform change situations today ....it was managed well by station staff. No one got left behind.

 

[RAPC]

Seems a bit naive to me. If the OP had sent them bad language, insults to their professional competency, hurtful words about personal matters - sure. You'd be 100% right. It's hard to see what the OP has done wrong other than being a little over zealous about the importance of their station.

Your opinion may be that the OP should have used different language. That's your right to have that opinion, but my reply is that frankly it's completely irrelevant.

Northern state on their own website:

The bolding is my own. So is it a surprise that the OP is "banging the drum" to get them to... follow their own stated aim? Perhaps they ought water down the aim and make less grand claims instead. https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/accessible-travel-policy

Any naivety involved is on how the follow-ups were worded, the technical version of 'mansplaining' to them. There is also an assumption that Northern are obliged to answer and update on everything the OP wishes to know. Yes, Northern should probably have come back with a closing 'There will be an update at some point which we hope will address it', but I can see why they didn't, especially in the context of Leyland staff feedback in my original post #51 earlier in the thread about Northern having had issues with a member of the 'Friends of Leyland station group'. They have no obligation to provide plans for changes, timings etc just because somebody requests them.

Having spoken with Leyland station staff again recently, it is indeed the OP who has form for multiple and repetitive requests to Northern, to the point that another senior member of the FOLS had been asked to get involved by station staff by way of mediation as it was causing issues. I can't comment as to whether that is fair or true, but it explains why Northern may not wish to get in to protracted conversations. I should also add that the OPs passion for improving things is admirable, but not everything can be fixed or done in the way that would be liked.

As for the accessible travel policy, I see no issue with this as the aim is to letter passengers know of platform changes 'as soon as possible', which it currently does based upon the existing system set-up and is therefore reasonable. From an accessibility point of view, if there is a shortfall in matching the requirement, it will be if on-board staff do not wait for passengers to change platform and a service leaves before they get there.

 

[bluenoxid]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Northern team is smaller compared to the size of the operation that Merseyrail provides and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve had to prioritise what they can deal with. I’ve dealt with great people but their ideas have been outside of the capabilities of the current contracts that my current and former organisations have been managing. The biggest challenge can be cost and if there has been restrictions put in place on spending, it can really hamper your ability to do anything. Transition to a new supplier doesn’t mean anything either as the new supplier might not be providing their preferred kit until 12-36 months into the contract.

 

[Starmill]

Having spoken with Leyland station staff again recently, it is indeed the OP who has form for multiple and repetitive requests to Northern, to the point that another senior member of the FOLS had been asked to get involved by station staff by way of mediation as it was causing issues.

Sounds like you just don't like the OP to me, and are looking for an excuse to moan about them.

They've said nothing of the kind you intimate that we've seen on this thread. A little bit sad of you really to come here and just post personal criticisms of people.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 20:08 ==

From an accessibility point of view, if there is a shortfall in matching the requirement, it will be if on-board staff do not wait for passengers to change platform and a service leaves before they get there.

Onboard staff have received no brief to wait according to the posts upthread. Indeed they usually wouldn't know the platform has been changed - how could they? They weren't there. Most conscientious conductors know where to work from at Leyland so they can see the footbridge and catch anyone hurrying, obviously, but there is no possible obligation on them to do this where they've not been briefed to. It's incredibly naive to just assume as you are here that the train may wait.

I see no issue with this as the aim is to letter passengers know of platform changes 'as soon as possible', which it currently does based upon the existing system set-up and is therefore reasonable.

It's been explained multiple times above that the information is there to allow it to be advertised earlier, so it's a certainty that it's not "as soon as possible". Now maybe you don't like that and that's fine but I'm not sure you can really deny it.

 

[AutoUnder]

Sounds like you just don't like the OP to me, and are looking for an excuse to moan about them.

They've said nothing of the kind you intimate that we've seen on this thread. A little bit sad of you really to come here and just post personal criticisms of people.

Something's going on, just don't know what. I speak to the station staff on a regular basis and I asked them whether what I am doing is causing any issues, they said I'm not and I made it clear to them to say if I am causing an issue. I can also confirm that having another volunteer act as a mediator is not true either, unless something is going on without my knowledge but I will ask to make sure.

 

[Geswedey]

Looking at a track diagram of the area if a Down train is stopped at the last signal protecting the junction from either the Wigan or Warrington direction and the Signaller has to route the train away from its booked platform there is no way the alteration can be posted automatically on CIS until the signaller clears the signal or the Signaller knows what they are going to do and are to advise CIS staff accordingly. When I worked in Anglia Control we would have similar situations at several locations including Hackney Downs and Shenfield, and also remember that TOCs only have a limited number of Comms staff who can't be watching everywhere all the time and who could be dealing with significant disruption elsewhere.

 

[Horizon22]

Surely with the technological advances of recent times it should not be beyond the wit of man to enable an unwanted automated announcement to be suppressed by those making ad hoc manual interventions?

Yes, but I don’t think Leyland staff have the ability to do that. Because if they did, they would just change the platform anyway, triggering an earlier auto-announcement which would negate the manual announcement

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 22:18 ==

Seems a bit naive to me. If the OP had sent them bad language, insults to their professional competency, hurtful words about personal matters - sure. You'd be 100% right. It's hard to see what the OP has done wrong other than being a little over zealous about the importance of their station.

Your opinion may be that the OP should have used different language. That's your right to have that opinion, but my reply is that frankly it's completely irrelevant.

Northern state on their own website:

The bolding is my own. So is it a surprise that the OP is "banging the drum" to get them to... follow their own stated aim? Perhaps they ought water down the aim and make less grand claims instead. https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/accessible-travel-policy

But surely “as soon as possible” is when the manual announcements are coming out at Leyland? If the signaller literally informs no Northern staff, “as soon as possible” is when it is picked up automatically by the berth which is mere seconds. But it is still true.

The only thing I can see here is having some sort of local control of the CIS (or the signaller directly calling the relevant customer info desk in Northern control) but there are stations all over the network that have short notice platform changes.

 

[AutoUnder]

But surely “as soon as possible” is when the manual announcements are coming out at Leyland? If the signaller literally informs no Northern staff, “as soon as possible” is when it is picked up automatically by the berth which is mere seconds. But it is still true.

But manual announcements don't change the departure screens or the automated announcements, which is confusing. Yes local CIS control would definitely be beneficial but it still relies on there being a member of staff there and the signaller not making a mistake.

 

[Horizon22]

But manual announcements don't change the departure screens or the automated announcements, which is confusing. Yes local CIS control would definitely be beneficial but it still relies on there being a member of staff there and the signaller not making a mistake.

Of course. But I feel like we’re going around in circles here. Ultimately routing is made by the signaller. If they have to alter the platform, they should advise people, but in the real world that is not always possible in good time. An automated system would be great, but in several scenarios it will not help (where the platform can change at the last signal) and the technology/infrastructure is not in place at this position to help (as you are aware). There are some mitigations in place (manual announcements, guards/drivers waiting time etc.) but I don’t think any of these will satisfy you until it’s completely fixed or Northern respond in the way you wish and ultimately you may be waiting a very long time for the preferable outcome you are after.

I also think a risk that has not been noted is automation potentially throwing out “false positives” and believing there may be a platform change where there isn’t. This might be nothing and system testing could prove it but I don’t think it can be completely discounted.

Either way it would be great to resolve once and for all, but it is not as easy as it appears at first.

 

[Geeves]

We'll agree to disagree on this one. I don't want this to escalate any further than it has since its clear we aren't gonna convince each other either way. That's no good that similar happening at Victoria as well but at least there are platform staff to guide people and prevent dispatch. Do station staff have control of the CIS there?

Leyland looks the way it does because of us volunteers. It's hard work especially in this weather but it's good to hear it's paid off

Yes manipulating the CIS at Victoria is possible and it's a constant battle to make it show the correct train!

As said Ketech won't even see an issue despite you and I both knowing that there's many so as said before to try and get them to alter berthing data or anything complicated is seemingly impossible. We have given up complaining and just battle on with it. Nobody is working on anything and nothing is going on the background.

I still think giving the staff at Leyland access to their screens would solve the majority of the issues versus trying to get Ketech to do anything complicated for the few trains that swap platforms

 

[AutoUnder]

Of course. But I feel like we’re going around in circles here. Ultimately routing is made by the signaller. If they have to alter the platform, they should advise people, but in the real world that is not always possible in good time. An automated system would be great, but in several scenarios it will not help (where the platform can change at the last signal) and the technology/infrastructure is not in place at this position to help (as you are aware). There are some mitigations in place (manual announcements, guards/drivers waiting time etc.) but I don’t think any of these will satisfy you until it’s completely fixed or Northern respond in the way you wish and ultimately you may be waiting a very long time for the preferable outcome you are after.

I also think a risk that has not been noted is automation potentially throwing out “false positives” and believing there may be a platform change where there isn’t. This might be nothing and system testing could prove it but I don’t think it can be completely discounted.

Either way it would be great to resolve once and for all, but it is not as easy as it appears at first.

I probably should've made it more clear that I did produce a proof of concept program for my final year university project that would send you a push notification if a platform alteration was going to occur, using timetable data from RTT and the TD data from Network Rail's open data feed, looking at the berths I have already highlighed. In the couple of months I had it running for, I had no false positive at all and succesfully notified me of alterations on numerous occasions. I did get quite a lot of false negatives but that was my fault as I wasn't familiar with the method that Network Rail used to interface with the feeds and I wasn't able to get a stable connection with it within the time constraints I had. Also the last berths before Leyland for Preston bound services do give adequate notice and services have to slow down when joining the WCML at Euxton Junction. The only berth that provides limited notice is the one on the fast line for Manchester bound services but it is still a significant improvement in my opinion.

Of course, it has become apparent now that Northern will only take so much notice of me. The discussion on here has been good to get some other views on this. I will wait for my MPs response but then I'll probably wait for the CIS upgrade later this year before trying to take any further action.

 

[Geswedey]

I probably should've made it more clear that I did produce a proof of concept program for my final year university project that would send you a push notification if a platform alteration was going to occur, using timetable data from RTT and the TD data from Network Rail's open data feed, looking at the berths I have already highlighed. In the couple of months I had it running for, I had no false positive at all and succesfully notified me of alterations on numerous occasions. I did get quite a lot of false negatives but that was my fault as I wasn't familiar with the method that Network Rail used to interface with the feeds and I wasn't able to get a stable connection with it within the time constraints I had. Also the last berths before Leyland for Preston bound services do give adequate notice and services have to slow down when joining the WCML at Euxton Junction. The only berth that provides limited notice is the one on the fast line for Manchester bound services but it is still a significant improvement in my opinion.

Of course, it has become apparent now that Northern will only take so much notice of me. The discussion on here has been good to get some other views on this. I will wait for my MPs response but then I'll probably wait for the CIS upgrade later this year before trying to take any further action.

As I have said it does not solve the issue of a train waiting at the last protecting signal south of Leyland waiting for a routing decision, where a platform alteration will always be short notice.

 

[AutoUnder]

As I have said it does not solve the issue of a train waiting at the last protecting signal south of Leyland waiting for a routing decision, where a platform alteration will always be short notice.

Which signals are you referring to? Once you've reached the signals that protect the platforms, it's impossible for the train to change lines

 

[43066]

I probably should've made it more clear that I did produce a proof of concept program for my final year university project that would send you a push notification if a platform alteration was going to occur, using timetable data from RTT and the TD data from Network Rail's open data feed, looking at the berths I have already highlighed. In the couple of months I had it running for, I had no false positive at all and succesfully notified me of alterations on numerous occasions. I did get quite a lot of false negatives but that was my fault as I wasn't familiar with the method that Network Rail used to interface with the feeds and I wasn't able to get a stable connection with it within the time constraints I had. Also the last berths before Leyland for Preston bound services do give adequate notice and services have to slow down when joining the WCML at Euxton Junction. The only berth that provides limited notice is the one on the fast line for Manchester bound services but it is still a significant improvement in my opinion.

Of course, it has become apparent now that Northern will only take so much notice of me. The discussion on here has been good to get some other views on this. I will wait for my MPs response but then I'll probably wait for the CIS upgrade later this year before trying to take any further action.

I realise this is something you’re very passionate about but, in the nicest possible way, I would consider very carefully whether you want to keep pursuing this, given the comments above about your communications not being well received by the company, and Northern staff members/the volunteer group being impacted.

If you antagonise Northern too much there may come a point where it will create problems for you in your capacity as a volunteer.

 

[Geswedey]

Which signals are you referring to? Once you've reached the signals that protect the platforms, it's impossible for the train to change lines

The ones protecting Euxton Junction from the South I accept there is an intermediate signal before you reach Leyland, but even so it is only 2 minutes running time from Euxton Junction it does mean that platform alterations can still occur at short notice whatever system is in place.

 

[AutoUnder]

The ones protecting Euxton Junction from the South I accept there is an intermediate signal before you reach Leyland, but even so it is only 2 minutes running time from Euxton Junction it does mean that platform alterations can still occur at short notice whatever system is in place.

That is true but 2 minutes is significantly better than the current 30 seconds. In the past when alterations have been noticed at this point using either TRUST or Traksy, everyone has always been able to get across without rushing

 

[zwk500]

I probably should've made it more clear that I did produce a proof of concept program for my final year university project that would send you a push notification if a platform alteration was going to occur, using timetable data from RTT and the TD data from Network Rail's open data feed, looking at the berths I have already highlighed. In the couple of months I had it running for, I had no false positive at all and succesfully notified me of alterations on numerous occasions. I did get quite a lot of false negatives but that was my fault as I wasn't familiar with the method that Network Rail used to interface with the feeds and I wasn't able to get a stable connection with it within the time constraints I had. Also the last berths before Leyland for Preston bound services do give adequate notice and services have to slow down when joining the WCML at Euxton Junction. The only berth that provides limited notice is the one on the fast line for Manchester bound services but it is still a significant improvement in my opinion.

A key issue here is that the value of such a lookahead solution is limited if it can only be deployed where such a layout exists. The value in adding such a solution to the system is further diluted if a completely different system must be provided for other areas where there is no intermediate signal beyond the commitment point.
Put simply, Northern will not want to pay twice to resolve what is ostensibly the same issue.

Hopefully Northern or NR include a specification for the system to be able to handle more complex look-aheads in the next upgrade. That would be where I would focus my campaigning efforts at this point.

 

[AutoUnder]

A key issue here is that the value of such a lookahead solution is limited if it can only be deployed where such a layout exists. The value in adding such a solution to the system is further diluted if a completely different system must be provided for other areas where there is no intermediate signal beyond the commitment point.
Put simply, Northern will not want to pay twice to resolve what is ostensibly the same issue.

Hopefully Northern or NR include a specification for the system to be able to handle more complex look-aheads in the next upgrade. That would be where I would focus my campaigning efforts at this point.

Yeah that seems reasonable. As I said, I'll probably hold off for now and see what happens with this supposed upgrade

 

[zwk500]

Yeah that seems reasonable. As I said, I'll probably hold off for now and see what happens with this supposed upgrade

My experience of these projects, and that of this thread, suggest it is far easier to get things added the earlier they are proposed. Adding a line into a scope is much, much cheaper than trying to change a requirement already in development or delivered. However I can understand given the stonewalling so far if you prefer to wait.

 

[AutoUnder]

My experience of these projects, and that of this thread, suggest it is far easier to get things added the earlier they are proposed. Adding a line into a scope is much, much cheaper than trying to change a requirement already in development or delivered. However I can understand given the stonewalling so far if you prefer to wait.

Well my MP is still waiting on a response from Northern and I've made it very clear to them how it can be sorted. It isn't like they are not aware

 

[soccermad]

I probably should've made it more clear that I did produce a proof of concept program for my final year university project that would send you a push notification if a platform alteration was going to occur, using timetable data from RTT and the TD data from Network Rail's open data feed, looking at the berths I have already highlighed. In the couple of months I had it running for, I had no false positive at all and succesfully notified me of alterations on numerous occasions. I did get quite a lot of false negatives but that was my fault as I wasn't familiar with the method that Network Rail used to interface with the feeds and I wasn't able to get a stable connection with it within the time constraints I had. Also the last berths before Leyland for Preston bound services do give adequate notice and services have to slow down when joining the WCML at Euxton Junction. The only berth that provides limited notice is the one on the fast line for Manchester bound services but it is still a significant improvement in my opinion.

Of course, it has become apparent now that Northern will only take so much notice of me. The discussion on here has been good to get some other views on this. I will wait for my MPs response but then I'll probably wait for the CIS upgrade later this year before trying to take any further action.

I must say that I dont blame them for taking less notice of you. They must be as fed up with you and some reading this thread must be .

 

[AutoUnder]

I must say that I dont blame them for taking less notice of you. They must be as fed up with you and some reading this thread must be .

You've just read it

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 23:51 ==

I realise this is something you’re very passionate about but, in the nicest possible way, I would consider very carefully whether you want to keep pursuing this, given the comments above about your communications not being well received by the company, and Northern staff members/the volunteer group being impacted.

If you antagonise Northern too much there may come a point where it will create problems for you in your capacity as a volunteer.

The things which have been said about issues that this has caused within the group and station staff I don't think are true. I've made it clear to station staff to let me know if what I am doing is causing an issue and they have no knowledge about the comments that have been said on here. I will also have a word with our chairman but he's never mentioned anything to me about this either.

You are absolutely right and if they tell me I am causing an issue, I will reconsider how I approach it. It's just they haven't

 

[Starmill]

I must say that I dont blame them for taking less notice of you. They must be as fed up with you and some reading this thread must be .

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but why on earth would anyone even be reading this if they were "fed up" with it? It's one single thread among thousands.

 

[Class 170101]

What operators need to remember is that many potential passengers now, post covid, have a choice whether or not to use the train or some other method of transport, there are fewer commuters around now. So operators need to 'fight' for custom and the kind of can't do attitude from Northern, and others, won't do.