Incident near Bethnal Green Jan 20th

ComUtoR · 20 Jan 2016

westv said:
If everybody knows that "dealing with an incident" means person hit by train then what's the point?

For when kids go "mummy/daddy/guardian what does 'hit by train mean ?'

RailUK Forums

CC 72100 · 20 Jan 2016

HowardGWR said:
BTW I don't think this is happening elsewhere. 'Person hit by train' is still that on other lines.

That shouldn't be happening - it is a national change that came into force in December 2015.

There were two main changes:

1) Use of the term 'due to emergency services dealing with an incident' as the new way of describing a person hit by a train.
2) Not mentioning the exact location - giving a 'between x and y' description, corresponding to the line on which services are disrupted.

TheEdge said:
As explained to me it was decided based on customer feedback and on advice from BTP & Samaritans along with discussions between TOCs and ATOC, so basically most of the industry.

Logic behind it is that announcing a person hit by a train (or similar) upsets those involved on the incident train and others and could also encourage people in a similar mental place to jump under a train copycat style.

Personally I don't buy it. Tonight passengers out of LST have been going at C2C, TfL and AGA all for not actually announcing what had happened and I can't see how it will stop people jumping in-front of trains. Its not exactly secret its a quick and easy way of doing it.

That was more or less it; the new wording avoids 'advertising' the railway as a way to commit suicide.

When I briefed it out, I was however very careful to put emphasis on the fact that using the words 'person hit by a train' is not banned, it's just it can't be used in announcements. If customers ask or when you are with small groups then it's absolutely fine to explain what had happened was what was said in the original brief. I certainly had no qualms with speaking face-to-face with customers who were annoyed at the quality of the information, although I appreciate that this is not always possible.

And before anyone asks, no, I wasn't involved in coming up with the new wording or anything like that... I was just the one tasked with briefing it out at my location at the time!

Antman · 20 Jan 2016

westv said:
If everybody knows that "dealing with an incident" means person hit by train then what's the point?

Indeed, when I heard about the incident my first thought was that and I assume a lot of people would have thought the same?

Blindtraveler · 20 Jan 2016

Another reasonable thing for many, especially those not over fond of AGA would be to assume 1 of their trains had decided to impersinate a barbicue, cue read fire engines to extinguish same.

306024 · 20 Jan 2016

Alfie1014 said:
Got caught up in this evening, luckily managed to avoid the worst of the dalays. That said it pretty obvious what the problem was and some AGA staff were telling at as it was (and no I'm not going to say where because they were simply doing their best to keep their passengers informed). Whilst I can see both sides of the argument surely being honest with those that pay considerable sums of money to travel with you is least an operator can do in my opinion.

The location was unusual and yes if someone is determined they will find a way of accessing the track but even so Bow Junction is not an obvious place to get to. Thoughts with the driver of the 16:00 down and others dealing with the consequences.

Likewise for me, net delay of an hour but irrelevant compared to the loss of life.

After much criticism of AGAs ability to communicate during disruption, for a while an effort did seem to be made to tell it as it was. The train involved was mentioned on the website so people could judge roughly how long the disruption could last and for those seasoned travellers to work out their own alternative. Now it seems we are back to square one.

Felt sorry for the staff at Stratford, continuous drivel being spouted from the automatic announcements, none of it of any use. There must be an off switch somewhere in these circumstances.

185143 · 20 Jan 2016

I fully agree with announcing it as "in the x area' or between 'x and y' but am heavily against 'due to emergency services dealing with an incident'-simply as im my experience people are far more understanding and sympathetic towards station staff dealing with all the stranded commuters.

'Emergency services dealing with an incident' is far too vague and may even be thought by some to be an excuse for something else?

Llanigraham · 20 Jan 2016

westv said:
If everybody knows that "dealing with an incident" means person hit by train then what's the point?

Because they aren't always!
I've heard it for:
animals on the line (Caersws)
fire near the line (Hereford)
person threatening to jump off a bridge (Hereford)
Civil Police chasing a miscreant (Cardiff)
Over bridge hit by a vehicle (Woofferton)

455driver · 20 Jan 2016

TEW said:
The policy is not it is forbidden to mention that a person has been hit by a train, just that the general service messages should use the headline 'emergency services dealing with an incident'. If somebody asks for more details, it is still fine to tell them that a person has been hit by a train. Locations should not be referred to specifically though, but a broader description of the area affected by the incident given.

Brilliant idea, at a major station with about 1000 passengers waiting for the delayed train and announce over the tannoy-

'emergencies are dealing with an incident, if you require any further information please ask a member of staff'

how many of those 2000 passengers are going to be pestering the staff for more information?
a/ less than 50
b/ more than 50 but less than 100
c/ more than 500
(I cant be arrised to put the other options up

)

In my opinion, give the passengers enough information without going into too much detail so they can make an informed decision on their travel plans and stop treating the passengers like idiots!

HH · 20 Jan 2016

Lines were running again about 18:20, as you'd expect. Once you knew what the incident was.

dk1 · 20 Jan 2016

The location made it difficult for emergency services to reach the scene. I am hearing that a very unusual operation (in the UK anyway) was used to remove the body from the scene. Liverpool St, Stratford & Underground stations had to close entry/exits due to dangerous crowding.

DaveNewcastle · 20 Jan 2016

I guess the history of even the bloodiest of human conflicts could be described as "an operating incident", and anyone interested in understanding why people behave in such violent ways by looking at the triggers of wars which brought grotesque levels of death and suffering, could read that these triggers, too, were "operating incidents".

I resist any attempts to rewrite history, especially the unpleasant bits.

westv said:
If everybody knows that "dealing with an incident" means person hit by train then what's the point?

CC 72100 said:
. . . . the new wording avoids 'advertising' the railway as a way to commit suicide.

I'm similarly unhappy at the attempts to sanitise this unfortunate truth.

Of course we don't want to 'advertise' or 'promote' methods of dying to those seeking death. But equally (if not more so) I would resist making the wish to self-harm, or the wish to die, any more of an unspoken taboo than it is now.
If we are uncomfortable with suicide (and that would be a perfectly reasonable feeling), then we should be providing the appropriate support or interventions - not entering a state of denial or re-description.

theironroad · 21 Jan 2016

yorkie said:
Whose idea is it to not mention the actual problem? Has it come from the police, the rail industry, or some other group?

It has come into being being because the rail industry commissioned a study with a university and the outcome of the study lead to two major conclusions. Firstly that announcements that a train had hit a person caused distress and trauma to some of those passengers that heard or read the announcement and secondly, that revealing exact location details encouraged copycat suicides.

The broad advice is that general pa and other announcements should noit mention specifics, but in 121 conversations if a passenger asks for details then it is OK to mention the specific cause of the delay if appropriate...

knight2004 · 21 Jan 2016

Blindtraveler said:
But yet I get the impression no staff tonight HAVE been told

Communication at smaller stations was pretty bad, clueless

PermitToTravel · 21 Jan 2016

It's very very curious that the Samaritans have apparently said that mentioning that someone was hit by a train will encourage copycat incidents. It's been the view amongst mental health professionals for a long time that talking about suicide with potentially suicidal people is a good thing. I understand that Samaritans train their call-takers to not hesitate to ask the question "Are you feeling suicidal?" when it sounds plausible that a caller is.

The change that could plausibly reduce incidents is not mentioning their locations, as this could highlight the places where it's easier to do it, effectively giving suicidal people the means. This is a commendable change.

SpacePhoenix · 21 Jan 2016

They should just say "A person has been hit by a train", then at least people will know to expect at least a couple of hours delay whilst it's investigated (does the BTP investigate every single person hit by train incident?) and the body recovered and the scene cleaned up (and the train involved moved to a siding if it's no longer fit for service - or the driver is too shocked to drive any more that day)

SPADTrap · 21 Jan 2016

dk1 said:
The location made it difficult for emergency services to reach the scene. I am hearing that a very unusual operation (in the UK anyway) was used to remove the body from the scene. Liverpool St, Stratford & Underground stations had to close entry/exits due to dangerous crowding.

Indeed it was, it also took a while to locate the person after they were struck.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

SpacePhoenix said:
They should just say "A person has been hit by a train", then at least people will know to expect at least a couple of hours delay whilst it's investigated (does the BTP investigate every single person hit by train incident?) and the body recovered and the scene cleaned up (and the train involved moved to a siding if it's no longer fit for service - or the driver is too shocked to drive any more that day)

BTP have to investigate the cause to declare it suspicious or non suspicious.

Sherbert1 · 21 Jan 2016

yorkie said:
Whose idea is it to not mention the actual problem? Has it come from the police, the rail industry, or some other group?

At stratford the incident was mentioned to customers in explaining the disruption to services. ..? Who said it was not?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

455driver said:
Brilliant idea, at a major station with about 1000 passengers waiting for the delayed train and announce over the tannoy-

'emergencies are dealing with an incident, if you require any further information please ask a member of staff'

how many of those 2000 passengers are going to be pestering the staff for more information?
a/ less than 50
b/ more than 50 but less than 100
c/ more than 500
(I cant be arrised to put the other options up )

In my opinion, give the passengers enough information without going into too much detail so they can make an informed decision on their travel plans and stop treating the passengers like idiots!

Passengers were provided the full information and still many chose to ignore it. Why is this?

Skimpot flyer · 21 Jan 2016

PermitToTravel said:
The change that could plausibly reduce incidents is not mentioning their locations, as this could highlight the places where it's easier to do it, effectively giving suicidal people the means. This is a commendable change.

I don't see how mentioning the location can 'assist' a potentially-suicidal person. It's not as as if the announcements go into specifics and state 'below the overbridge from the A999, where it crosses the railway, between station x and station y', for example.

Every station platform is potentially a location for someone to attempt to commit suicide. Even those stations that have access to the fast lines 'fenced-off' can still become a place to commit suicide. I recall being delayed by such an incident last year, when somebody took their own life at New Southgate, which has such fences. Somebody who travels or has previously travelled on trains would know that some routes have trains that pass non-stop through their local station on the 'slow' lines.

essex_commuter · 21 Jan 2016

When I got to Stratford last night they were announcing it on platform 8 as "due to a fatality in the Bethnal Green area". So not everywhere was using the emergency services line.

PermitToTravel · 21 Jan 2016

There's a large psychological element to it too

TEW · 21 Jan 2016

455driver said:
Brilliant idea, at a major station with about 1000 passengers waiting for the delayed train and announce over the tannoy-

'emergencies are dealing with an incident, if you require any further information please ask a member of staff'

how many of those 2000 passengers are going to be pestering the staff for more information?
a/ less than 50
b/ more than 50 but less than 100
c/ more than 500
(I cant be arrised to put the other options up )

In my opinion, give the passengers enough information without going into too much detail so they can make an informed decision on their travel plans and stop treating the passengers like idiots!

Fortunately I've not had much experience of having to deal with the aftermath of an incident described as 'emergency services dealing with an incident' yet, but it hasn't seemed to have made much of a difference to how much people pester you for information in my limited experience.

johnmoly · 21 Jan 2016

I was on a Merseyrail 10:21 service this morning from Hunts Cross-Liverpool Central-Southport, and when I boarded at Hunts Cross the destination shown was Hall Road instead of Southport, just then the guard came on pa to announce due to a fatality on the line by Freshfield the train will terminate at Hall Road and replacement buses will be in operation. However by the time we got to Liverpool Central the line had been re-opened and train will proceed to Southport. A man had been killed at a pedestrian crossing at about 09:20.
Network Rail had applied to build a footbridge at the site before 2014 but the plans were opposed by Sefton Council as it would be difficult for cyclists and wheelchair users to access.

CC 72100 · 21 Jan 2016

TEW said:
Fortunately I've not had much experience of having to deal with the aftermath of an incident described as 'emergency services dealing with an incident' yet, but it hasn't seemed to have made much of a difference to how much people pester you for information in my limited experience.

I've dealt with customers under both wordings - no real change, there seemed to be an unwritten rule that 'emergency services dealing with an incident' suggested a fatality as even those who I hadn't told about the incident certainly seemed to react better than when we had a major points failure the week before.

Class 170101 · 21 Jan 2016

Have these weasel words come Japan nevermind a university?

As I recall there was a TV programme on the busiest station in Japan and to mention a fatality is very bad form.

Sherbert1 · 22 Jan 2016

Seriously I am quite underwhelmed by some of the solutions offered here and to be fair to make an announcement saying someone's been hit by a train could affect children. i also feel it's such a shame people cannot think for themselves regards what happens to that train. The body. When it's found. The diversions in place and how it creates overcrowding. I was verbally abused by customers even though I personally spoke with them explained it in full and asked them if they would be so kind to give us twenty minutes to clear the subways. I mean honestly what does that say about some commuters?

Antman · 22 Jan 2016

Sherbert1 said:
Seriously I am quite underwhelmed by some of the solutions offered here and to be fair to make an announcement saying someone's been hit by a train could affect children. i also feel it's such a shame people cannot think for themselves regards what happens to that train. The body. When it's found. The diversions in place and how it creates overcrowding. I was verbally abused by customers even though I personally spoke with them explained it in full and asked them if they would be so kind to give us twenty minutes to clear the subways. I mean honestly what does that say about some commuters?

Generally speaking, and I appreciate there are always exceptions, passengers do seem a lot more understanding if they know there has been a fatality than they would be about a signal failure or such like.

SPADTrap · 22 Jan 2016

Antman said:
Generally speaking, and I appreciate there are always exceptions, passengers do seem a lot more understanding if they know there has been a fatality than they would be about a signal failure or such like.

I wonder what this says about those travelling, good and bad?

yorkie · 23 Jan 2016

theironroad said:
It has come into being being because the rail industry commissioned a study with a university and the outcome of the study lead to two major conclusions. Firstly that announcements that a train had hit a person caused distress and trauma to some of those passengers that heard or read the announcement and secondly, that revealing exact location details encouraged copycat suicides.

Do tell me more about this study; I'd like to know whose daft idea it was and which birdbrain(s) decided to implement it.

theironroad said:
The broad advice is that general pa and other announcements should noit mention specifics, but in 121 conversations if a passenger asks for details then it is OK to mention the specific cause of the delay if appropriate...

Good job we have forums and twitter, as otherwise we'd have huge queues at information booths asking for the "121" conversation to find out what's really going on.

CC 72100 · 23 Jan 2016

yorkie said:
Do tell me more about this study; I'd like to know whose daft idea it was and which birdbrain(s) decided to implement it.

http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/communicating-suicides-on-the-railway

Simple google search brings up the details.

Transport Focus has undertaken research looking at communications with passengers in the event of a suicide on the railway. In doing so we worked closely with Network Rail and the Samaritans. The research was funded by Network Rail on behalf of the rail industry.

A key purpose was to establish if, from a passenger perspective, there is a better phrase than “person hit by a train” as the explanation for delays and cancellations following a suicide. The need to understand passenger opinion was driven by belief within the rail industry that the phrase may be advertising the railway as a place to commit suicide.

The research is clear. Irrespective of whether passengers accepted the premise that “person hit by a train” may be leading to copycat behaviour, they did not like the phrase. It was regarded as too graphic. It was regarded as insensitive when spliced into a computer-generated public address message. The phrase which passengers in the research strongly preferred was “emergency services dealing with an incident”. It was felt to be honest and convey a sense of gravity, while not being unnecessarily graphic. However, passengers felt that if an individual specifically asked about the nature of the incident, for example in conversation with a member of station staff, they should receive an honest response.

In the light of these research findings, Transport Focus has recommended that for top level communications the rail industry moves to using “emergency services dealing with an incident” in place of “person hit by a train”.

As for your huge queues comments - well take it from me that a considerable amount of people don't need to know the ins and outs of the delay (although I'm more than happy to explain what's happened and how that affects their journey) and are only concerned about the consequences for their journey going forward ie. so am I now on a bus/can I use that XC train/what about missed connections. And the latter is exactly the same irrespective of what wording was initially used to describe the incident.

In the same measure, you don't do 1-2-1s at info points in serious disruption, you mill around on platforms and approach small groups. People's ears generally also start paying attention, so you end up with people huddling round.

WelshBluebird · 24 Jan 2016

CC 72100 said:
As for your huge queues comments - well take it from me that a considerable amount of people don't need to know the ins and outs of the delay (although I'm more than happy to explain what's happened and how that affects their journey) and are only concerned about the consequences for their journey going forward ie. so am I now on a bus/can I use that XC train/what about missed connections. And the latter is exactly the same irrespective of what wording was initially used to describe the incident.

That is where many of us disagree.

Certainly for me when travelling, I am aware that someone being hit by a train will likely mean a large delay and so I am more likely to have to work out my further journey using other means.

However "emergency services dealing with an incident" could also mean paramedics taking someone off a train at a station for example (or any other number of incidents) which would have a much smaller effect on services and could mean I may aswell just wait out the delay.

So at least for me, knowing what has happened does matter because it does impact on my journey planning.

Incident near Bethnal Green Jan 20th

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member