'Due to emergency services dealing with an incident'

Bertie the bus · 5 Aug 2015

What is the point of the last 2 posts? They are just ridiculous.

The document claims it asked a representative sample of the British public. 50% of the British public aren't ethnic minorities. Therefore it is not a representative sample. Simples.

There is also the obvious contradiction in the railway's approach to suicides. They claim announcing a suicide could put the idea that the railway is a good place to commit suicide into somebody's head, yet these days you can't move on railway stations for posters about the Samaritans. How can that not have exactly the same effect?

RailUK Forums

DaleCooper · 5 Aug 2015

Bertie the bus said:
What is the point of the last 2 posts? They are just ridiculous.

The document claims it asked a representative sample of the British public. 50% of the British public aren't ethnic minorities. Therefore it is not a representative sample. Simples.

There is also the obvious contradiction in the railway's approach to suicides. They claim announcing a suicide could put the idea that the railway is a good place to commit suicide into somebody's head, yet these days you can't move on railway stations for posters about the Samaritans. How can that not have exactly the same effect?

The research was carried out in London and Manchester, various sources give the white British populations of these cities as somewhere around 50% and 30% respectively and of course the much larger population of London skews the combined figure to nearer 50%.

By the way adding "Simples" does nothing to strengthen your argument it just makes you appear uneducated.

jon0844 · 5 Aug 2015

Yeah,

Simples, Case closed, 'nuff said etc - all signs that someone hasn't got a very strong argument but doesn't wish to allow anyone to disagree.

ian959 · 6 Aug 2015

I would have thought that regular train users would soon work out that "Emergency services are attending to an incident" is polite speak for someone has been hit by the train? Accordingly, the previous status quo as regards knowing how long you would be sitting there would soon return and there would be no additional pressure upon railway staff as a result.

carriageline · 6 Aug 2015

jonmorris0844 said:
Yeah,

Simples, Case closed, 'nuff said etc - all signs that someone hasn't got a very strong argument but doesn't wish to allow anyone to disagree.

I'm so glad it wasn't just me that thought that :lol:

CharlieSpotted · 6 Aug 2015

ian959 said:
I would have thought that regular train users would soon work out that "Emergency services are attending to an incident" is polite speak for someone has been hit by the train?

Without wishing to cause another one of the circular debates that plague these forums, no, I don't think they would. "Emergency Services" (Police, Fire, Ambulance... Coastguard, Mountain Rescue?) may need to attend all kinds of incidents that might occur on our around railway property. It's just too vague.

wensley · 6 Aug 2015

ian959 said:
I would have thought that regular train users would soon work out that "Emergency services are attending to an incident" is polite speak for someone has been hit by the train? Accordingly, the previous status quo as regards knowing how long you would be sitting there would soon return and there would be no additional pressure upon railway staff as a result.

Not neccessarily the case, especially for the more infrequent traveller.
In disruption passengers, quite rightly, want to know when they'll be on the move and a relatively simple explanation of the delay. However, in the case of a fatality an accurate estimate of delay length is often not possible - especially in the earlier stages of the incident.

In my personal experience, passengers who know a fatality has occurred are, in the main (excluding the usual quota of self-centred prats), much more understanding and place less pressure on staff in terms of wanting more information and exact delay lengths etc.

I'll reserve judgement until I've dealt with a few more fatalities under the 'new' system ... but the first instance of 'new' certainly seemed a lot harder work than many instances of 'old'.

My approach is be honest, treat passengers like intelligent human beings, and they are largely content for you to do your job and get them home as soon as possible. Obviously, railway staff should be professional enough to gauge what level of detail is appropriate when speaking to passengers about any given incident.

Atishyou · 6 Aug 2015

bengley said:
Read what I said.

I said that to a PASSENGER it could mean any of those in the list, because most passengers won't know what is advertised with an accurate reason.

And it is pressured to answer 500 questions from lots of confused passengers constantly without being able to take a breath.

I read what you said, hence I was able to write a response.

You are being dramatic to try to make your point. Some passengers want to know, some don't. A generic reason, with a personal response for those that ask is more than suitable.

I'm sure if you are unable to take a breath, one of the passengers or staff members will assist in your recovery, perhaps even administering Cpr, although that will just add another vague reason you'll dislike to the NRE website.

As they (and passenger focus) do research on this, it's not just been changed on a whim to annoy you.

ComUtoR · 6 Aug 2015

Bertie the bus said:
There is also the obvious contradiction in the railway's approach to suicides. They claim announcing a suicide could put the idea that the railway is a good place to commit suicide into somebody's head, yet these days you can't move on railway stations for posters about the Samaritans. How can that not have exactly the same effect?

When you stand at the edge of the platform on those black dog days. Just maybe, having someone to talk to, may help. Pick up the phone.

http://www.samaritans.org/
08457 90 90 90

Senex · 6 Aug 2015

wensley said:
My approach is be honest, treat passengers like intelligent human beings, and they are largely content for you to do your job and get them home as soon as possible.

An approach which is unfortunately becoming all too rare in modern life, where it seems ever more normal to treat passengers or customers as though they are thick primary school pupils who cannot understand anything at all complex and who have to be spoken to utterly patronisingly in as close to words of one syllable as possible. Most of the older railway guards, thank heavens, do not do this and do talk to us as intelligent human beings, but quite a lot of the young ones do it, and as for the people who speak for the power companies, the telecomms companies etc in their call centres, well, the less said the better.

maniacmartin · 6 Aug 2015

I (a normal passenger) am strongly against this change. As other posters have mentioned upthread, a deliberately vague reason for a delay sounds like the company is trying to hide something and doesn't help me work out whether it's something minor and probably quick to remdy, or a major incident.

If I think trains will be up and running within 10 minutes, then I am unlikely to start to consider alternative routes, whereas if it's likely to be hours' delay then I will head straight off to find an alternative route. Vague reasons delay this decision, with passengers standing around in limbo wondering why no-one has the courtesy to tell them what's going on. There are a few occasions where I have claimed delay repay, but wouldn't have been late enough to do so if I was given sufficient information to decide early on to take an alternative route.

As for basic information like this only being given out on demand - this isn't feasible at busy terminal stations in rush hour where staff already have their hands full doing other duties such as crowd control, manning gates and whatnot.

If anyone has a link to this research, I'd be interested to read it.

ComUtoR · 6 Aug 2015

maniacmartin said:
If I think trains will be up and running within 10 minutes, then I am unlikely to start to consider alternative routes, whereas if it's likely to be hours' delay then I will head straight off to find an alternative route.

How do you decide how long it will be ?

I've sat at a signal for almost an hour for a trespasser and I've been barely delayed less than a couple of minutes for a trespasser. In all my years as a Driver and even knowing the specific and often intricate details of incidents etc. I still cannot tell you how long it will be.

As a passenger. How do you make your decision with such accuracy ?

maniacmartin · 6 Aug 2015

Well, it isn't an exact science and sometimes I make the wrong decision, but the more information one has, the higher the chance of making the optimum decision.

I hope we can agree that a one under is more likely to delay trains for longer than removing an unruly passenger from a train, for instance.

DaleCooper · 6 Aug 2015

maniacmartin said:
If anyone has a link to this research, I'd be interested to read it.

Try reading the thread.

Expression357 said:
For those interested in the research itself, you can find the report at: http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/communicating-suicides-on-the-railway

ComUtoR · 6 Aug 2015

maniacmartin said:
Well, it isn't an exact science and sometimes I make the wrong decision, but the more information one has, the higher the chance of making the optimum decision.

Not in my experience. There are just too many variables. As I said. Even with the most accurate information the delay is very random.

I hope we can agree that a one under is more likely to delay trains for longer than removing an unruly passenger from a train, for instance.

Nope. I've had an "unruly passenger" take quite some time to be removed from my train. Police were called and he had to be physically removed from the train. Suffice to say that the delay escalated from a minor incident to a major delay. Ran in service, Cancelled en route.

Just the other week I was running late by approx 6 minutes but had my entire return trip cancelled. I still can't fathom out why. Minor delay led to cancellation. I gave out full and complete information to passengers.

Honestly there is just too many variables to make an informed decision on the length of delay.

wensley · 6 Aug 2015

ComUtoR said:
Honestly there is just too many variables to make an informed decision on the length of delay.

I'll second that. A new manager asked me 'typical' delays for certain types on incident and I quite honestly said that every time is different.

Senex said:
An approach which is unfortunately becoming all too rare in modern life, where it seems ever more normal to treat passengers or customers as though they are thick primary school pupils who cannot understand anything at all complex and who have to be spoken to utterly patronisingly in as close to words of one syllable as possible. Most of the older railway guards, thank heavens, do not do this and do talk to us as intelligent human beings, but quite a lot of the young ones do it, and as for the people who speak for the power companies, the telecomms companies etc in their call centres, well, the less said the better.

I think a lot of that is to do with training, a lot of TOCs seem to like a very corporate approach to frontline staff which doesn't work a lot of the time - you have to adapt your interaction with each passenger to suit the circumstances.

I always tell my guys to be honest, up front, sympathetic and provide information little and often to keep passengers informed and on-side. Also, if you don't know something then admit it and sort it out by asking the right questions of the right people.

Ediswan · 6 Aug 2015

edwin_m said:
You have to wonder what they did with it once they had caught it. It would be a bit big to put on the train...

The solution was something along the lines of putting it (the horse) back in its field. This was an escapee, not fly-grazing.

Tracky · 6 Aug 2015

Interesting thread looking at some tricky issues.

My trains, particularly at the moment carry a lot of families, young kids etc. and, while I always strive to give an honest reason for the delay, I'd always try to skirt around advising of a person being hit by a train. Any thoughts.

Dumbing down is an aspect of society I dislike, however elements of society seem keen on being protected and sheltered from reality.

bengley · 6 Aug 2015

How about 'An incident involving a person and a train'?

Doesn't explicitly state that someone has been hit, hence it won't upset children or sensitive souls, yet it paints the picture for those who do want an actual reason.

rebmcr · 6 Aug 2015

I think it's quite decent for the person who dies in these circumstances, to have a bit of dignity and privacy, and not have their fate unceremoniously blared out in public.

The service is going to get back up and running no matter what information the waiting passengers get, and if 10 minutes optimisation of your replacement journey is a higher priority for you than dealing appropriately with a fatality, then you need to think hard about what sort of existence you're really getting out of those 10 minutes.

bramling · 6 Aug 2015

wensley said:
I'll second that. A new manager asked me 'typical' delays for certain types on incident and I quite honestly said that every time is different.

I think a lot of that is to do with training, a lot of TOCs seem to like a very corporate approach to frontline staff which doesn't work a lot of the time - you have to adapt your interaction with each passenger to suit the circumstances.

I always tell my guys to be honest, up front, sympathetic and provide information little and often to keep passengers informed and on-side. Also, if you don't know something then admit it and sort it out by asking the right questions of the right people.

You can't win with some passengers, no matter how much or how little information and/or assistance you give them.

Face-to-face or over the train PA I will always give as much detail as possible, to allow the more intelligent ones to make an informed decision.

However, more generally I think "passenger incident" is the correct way to advertise a fatality. I've no idea how, but there is definitely some correctness in the view that advertising suicides seems to provoke 'copycat' incidents. So many times I've had weeks or months go by without any, then one day when on I've heard about a fatality somewhere else, then a couple of hours later guess whose phone rings getting called about one?

I can also recall one incident where the person crawled out alive and said "why can't I be allowed to die like the one this morning?".

jon0844 · 6 Aug 2015

I learned a great deal from the other thread on here about the new fencing put up at many stations, and the work being done by various agencies to reduce suicides.

Therefore, I have faith that those who have studied this sort of thing for a long time probably know what they're talking about - and sometimes even the smallest things can make a difference. Just like a fence, where you could still open the gates or walk around if necessary, create a barrier that can just make people have second thoughts.

So, on that basis, let us have the change (which, I thought we'd actually tried to do some years ago) and not moan too much about not being told so we can plan alternative arrangements. Those who want to be quick to work out plan B's can just ask for info, or read between the lines, and still get on their way quickly.

321446 · 7 Aug 2015

The point has been made that you cannot get it right for everyone.

Some people will always want to know the exact reason for any delay, driver's name, what sandwiches the signaller had for lunch, why the seats on AGA 360s won't be replaced during the delay etc and anything short of that is making excuses. Others, particularly in the case of a fatality get a case of the vapours and need to lay down in a darkened room. Yes I have given two extreme examples there to make the point. There is truly no announcement you can make that will please or calm everyone. I think Wensley had it bang on with just be honest. The wording doesn't really matter as long as it's the truth. And if that means the old faithful "I'm sorry for the delay, I have no idea why, I'm trying to find out" then so be it.

CharlieSpotted · 7 Aug 2015

321446 said:
And if that means the old faithful "I'm sorry for the delay, I have no idea why, I'm trying to find out" then so be it.

This part I certainly agree with. I have a great deal of sympathy for those on the "frontline" and would appreciate this honesty. I know that sometimes at times of disruption I've known the cause faster (from Twitter!) as a passenger than the staff have. It's not the guy on the frontline's fault if the lines of communication aren't as fast as they could be.

I think the real issue here is not the level of detail given out but rather that some of the terminology used in announcements sounds to me like willful obfuscation. An "operating incident" always sounds like "none of your business" - really very irritating and condescending.

If that's some code that's used inside the industry, fair enough, but then I'd suggest that the human approach suggested in the post above "There's some kind of problem ahead, I'll just try to find out..." sounds much better than an "operating incident".

It's possible I've strayed just slightly OT there, sorry.

carriageline · 7 Aug 2015

Operating incident also cover a lot of incidents, things like SPADs etc.

1) I can't see the public wanting to hear, or even knowing what a signal passed at danger really means

2) the exact cause of the 'incident' isn't always obvious, or immediately available. Seeing as a signal passed at danger without authority, isn't always a SPAD. So if the exact reason isn't known, they can't tell you.

PHILIPE · 8 Aug 2015

ATW Journey Check reports trains disrupted between Wrexham and Bidston due to Emergency services dealing with incident. The report then goes on to say "Dealing with seriously deranged person on tracks".

suzanneparis · 9 Aug 2015

I would find it distressing to be told that 'due to a person hit by a train.'

I would rather be told emergency services attending.

Plus if at the time of the announcement they gave an idea of how long the delay would be then that would stop people pestering staff for more information.

Ianigsy · 9 Aug 2015

I remember about 15 years ago being on a Central Trains service from Manchester to Liverpool which was held up at Hunts Cross and again at Allerton Junction because somebody had been hit by a train on the fast lines somewhere around Mossley Hill. On that occasion, the guard's approach was to advise of the delay over the PA system and then (as we were about to be signalled past the scene of the incident on the slow lines) to walk through the train and advise anybody who wanted to know about the precise reason for the delay (if nothing else, to give fair warning that it probably wasn't a good idea to look out of the windows on the right hand side).

These days, of course, we'd probably just have terminated at Liverpool South Parkway.

6Gman · 9 Aug 2015

PHILIPE said:
ATW Journey Check reports trains disrupted between Wrexham and Bidston due to Emergency services dealing with incident. The report then goes on to say "Dealing with seriously deranged person on tracks".

That is dreadful. Nobody at ATW is qualified to comment publicly on the mental health of someone.

Tracky · 9 Aug 2015

Normally the term used is distressed...

'Due to emergency services dealing with an incident'

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member