"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

cjmillsnun · 6 Apr 2017

Surreytraveller said:
I agree, but a lot of the time it is because someone has ballsed up. If the railway was open and honest, people would know what the real reason was. If someone hasn't ballsed up, then the real reason is generally more forthcoming.

Considering the nastiness I've seen on social media towards TOCs where they have accused them of lying about a suicide I think they would be calling for whoever it was to be sacked. Commuters have a nasty streak.

RailUK Forums

cjmillsnun · 6 Apr 2017

Deepgreen said:
Quite - a SPAD is not necessarily a result of driver error. Local and unforeseen low adhesion, for example, can be a factor.

How many passengers will understand that. All the general public will see is "the driver ran a red light". Not helpful and there will be a tirade of people on twitter demanding said driver is sacked. Not helpful in the slightest.

Joe Paxton · 6 Apr 2017

cjmillsnun said:
Considering the nastiness I've seen on social media towards TOCs where they have accused them of lying about a suicide I think they would be calling for whoever it was to be sacked. Commuters have a nasty streak.

Twitter, or rather many Twitterers, have a nasty streak.

GB · 6 Apr 2017

hounddog said:
A question for all the "don't need to know" merchants. If one of your family came out of hospital in a worse state than when they went in would you accept "something happened but you don't need to know what it was" or would you want details? And if the latter why do you think the railway is different?

Really? Do you not think a persons health is just a slightly be different to some delays on a train? Knowing more details on medical issues can perhaps help prevent it happening again to someone else or used in litigation if required or even help the individual concerned come to terms with the medical problem.

On trains (or other trainsport) knowing the specific reason for a train delay does not help the situation get resolved any faster or you home any quicker. You can argue 'till your blue in the face about some conspiracy theory about the railways wanting to keep everything secret but the fact of the matter is these things are all recorded and investigated by the relevant bodies and publicised where required.

AlterEgo · 6 Apr 2017

Llanigraham said:
1) SOME passengers!! Not all as you are implying.
2) Some members here certainly are and even demanding names.
3) It was not mandatory.
4) Read the responses from several guards here, and from comments by others. It happens, as has been shown numerous times.
5) One survey! Stop being so "South East Centric". There is a world outside your little sphere, you know!
6) Who said they are? There have been plenty of examples of where other industries use similar non-committal non-detailed terminology.

1) Hardly disingenuous to say "passengers" when we're talking about a survey normalised by demographic. Yes, the majority of passengers did say they wanted more accurate and honest information. That's a fact.
2) Where has someone demanded a staff member's name? I can't see that.
3) Nope, not mandatory, but a specific requirement which it should be noted the railway *agreed* to implement several years ago. It's not clear why it hasn't been implemented.
4) I quoted the anecdotes in my post, so not sure why you think I have not read the whole thread. The railway's first concern is to its customers. Secondary to that is "staff hassle" - staff are there to work for the railway and serve its customers. If your first instinct is to say "but what about the staff hassle?" then I'm afraid you're looking at the problem through the wrong lens, with the wrong priorities. What do customers say they want? Is it possible to give it to them? Are there any compelling reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to have it?
5) Okay, you look silly now - what's South East Centric about Transport Focus' national survey?
6) One of the principal concerns noted about explaining operational incidents was that passengers may get scared and lose confidence in the railway. Airlines will tell you that the plane isn't moving because the autopilot/enginee/rudder or whatever isn't working. You sometimes even get the "scary" sight of watching it getting fixed. But the airlines seem to cope without the world crashing in around them, so why is the railway different?

Three main concerns raised as to why you can't tell someone that, say, a train was brought to a halt by an automatic safety system after going past a red light:

A) some passengers will get scared - see above
B) a few passengers will ask for more info - so what? If you haven't got more info then you can't give it to them.
C) "staff hassle" - so what?

GB · 6 Apr 2017

AlterEgo said:
As I keep saying, it's not "need to know", it's "want to know". Yawn!

Um exactly? :idea:

AlterEgo · 6 Apr 2017

GB said:
Um exactly?

How do you mean "exactly"? Are you arguing that every delay on the railway should be announced as "this train is delayed by x minutes" and never give the reason?

People want information. Give it to them, unless there is a compelling reason not to (confidentiality/legal/security etc)

I continue to be aghast but not surprised at some attitudes on here.

Tetchytyke · 6 Apr 2017

Joe Paxton said:
Twitter, or rather many Twitterers, have a nasty streak.

Twitter allows angry people to be angry in a way that they'd never be in real life.

I wouldn't take too much of what happens on Twitter too seriously. It is why I've left Twitter, though.

As for passenger frustrations, generally what causes frustration is a) not knowing what is going on and b) being fobbed off or lied to. It is OK to not know, most people are reasonable about it; the ones who are unreasonable will generally be unreasonable about it regardless of what you say, so just ignore them.

But if you run away and hide behind meaningless statements, instead of having to deal with one irate arsehole you have to deal with nine reasonable but frustrated people and the irate arsehole.

The best example of customer service that I've seen was at York after a massive signalling meltdown. EC, Northern and TPE had their senior managers out talking to people, and there were regular announcements, saying exactly what had failed and why it was going to take hours to fix it. People just generally got on with it, and the York Tap did a roaring trade.

GB · 6 Apr 2017

AlterEgo said:
How do you mean "exactly"? Are you arguing that every delay on the railway should be announced as "this train is delayed by x minutes" and never give the reason?

People want information. Give it to them, unless there is a compelling reason not to (confidentiality/legal/security etc)

Christ this is going a round in circles. You HAVE been given a reason. It is an incident of an operating nature. Your train is delayed by xx amount and the problem is being worked on.

AlterEgo said:
I continue to be aghast but not surprised at some attitudes on here.

Right back at you.

rebmcr · 6 Apr 2017

455driver said:
Which would be a lie because its a track fault and the signal has reacted correctly.

That's still the signalling system, for the purposes of an announcement.

GB said:
You HAVE been given a reason. It is an incident of an operating nature.

That's not a reason. If a rail employee gets hauled in for a "please explain", and tries to pass off something as vague as that as a 'reason', I don't think it would go very well for them.

An announcement does not need to be as detailed nor technical as a "please explain", of course.

AlterEgo · 6 Apr 2017

GB said:
Christ this is going a round in circles. You HAVE been given a reason. It is an incident of an operating nature. Your train is delayed by xx amount.

Right back at you.

Operating/operational incident isn't a reason, as many have explained. It doesn't actually explain anything. It's the equivalent of saying "this train is delayed because of a problem". It leaves people - as I have evidenced, with data - wondering what happened and wishing the railway was more honest (whether that accusation of dishonesty is true or not it's the perception that matters!).

Giving people accurate, concise information helps them accept delays; that's the whole point of PIDD - which is generally an okay principle but the execution is quite poor. And yes, I've had experience in relating passenger info via social media and Tyrell.

Ultimately, people will find out more about incidents via the web or social media, even as the train is sat there. "Operational incident at Havant"? Click #Havant on Twitter and you'll see lots of people who are actually there, possibly even taking pictures, talking about the train that missed its stop, yet the guard can only say "operational incident".

I'm only saying you should empower the staff on the ground to give a proper, satisfactory reason, taking on board passenger feedback in this area. As it stands, the guard, and their role in relating passenger information, is being usurped by increasingly knowledgeable passengers who are digitally and socially connected.

So, stick your fingers in your ears and keep saying "the railway is right" all you like. Some of us can see the railway doesn't help itself in the slightest when it comes to empowering its staff or considering the needs of the customer first.

Marklund · 6 Apr 2017

rebmcr said:
That's still the signalling system, for the purposes of an announcement.

But that's a lie...

rebmcr · 6 Apr 2017

Marklund said:
But that's a lie...

Only if you are trying to be technical -- which has been pointed out at great length to be inappropriate.

3rd rail faults on the SWT/Southern/SE networks are routinely reported as signalling faults. Nobody complains about the nature of that information, but they do complain about vague catch-alls.

Marklund · 6 Apr 2017

This whole thread is full of accusations of lies and being fobbed off, yet you're now saying that being lied to is acceptable. :roll:

Wookiee · 6 Apr 2017

PHILIPE said:
I'm wondering if any of the people who want to go digging for the actual facts and, it was in fact a possible disciplinary situation such as a SPAD, would to quote a saying like "Their dirty washing out in public" if it was them involved. I apologise if it may be rather a harsh way of putting it but is intended to make point re the the theme of the thread.

I don't see the same level of coyness being exhibited when some hapless driver stoves his car/lorry/bus into a railway bridge.

sonorguy · 6 Apr 2017

Wookiee said:
I don't see the same level of coyness being exhibited when some hapless driver stoves his car/lorry/bus into a railway bridge.

Drivers of road vehicles in accidents aren't named unless they've died in the incident or taken to court, and even then only when court proceedings are under way, and clearly it shouldn't be any different for drivers of trains.

AlterEgo · 6 Apr 2017

sonorguy said:
Drivers of road vehicles in accidents aren't named unless they've died in the incident or taken to court, and even then only when court proceedings are under way, and clearly it shouldn't be any different for drivers of trains.

Oh for the love of God nobody wants the driver's name. How tiresome.

LAX54 · 6 Apr 2017

Oddly when road traffic is stopped, due to a 'Police Incident' no complains about that !

We also now have people suggesting that they say 'a fault with the signalling system' even though it might not be ! LOL

One benefit all would be close all railway Twitter accounts or reduce the amount that is responded to at the very least, by all means tweet out delays on XXX line, but not respond to all the picky whys and wherefores !

Still I don't suppose passengers would mind if they were delayed further whilst the Opertaions and Control side spent time explaining to the commercial side what the actual exact delays were down to, preventing them actually calliing to get the staff to site.

I would have thought a majority of passengers are quite happy with Operating Incident, and roughly how long the delay might be,they would be none the wiser if it was a track fault, signal fault, Xing failure. which oddly I think comes under 'Operating' ! (and an incident), maybe it should be changed to "Operating Difficulties" that covers it quite well

WelshBluebird · 6 Apr 2017

oldsiggie said:
Oddly when road traffic is stopped, due to a 'Police Incident' no complains about that !)

Granted I don't drive, but when I do travel (either with a friend, or on a coach for example) road closures are usually given a reason. Either roadworks, a crash, a breakdown etc. At least in my limited experience it is rare for it to be called a "police incident" and no more information given.

Wookiee · 6 Apr 2017

sonorguy said:
Drivers of road vehicles in accidents aren't named unless they've died in the incident or taken to court, and even then only when court proceedings are under way, and clearly it shouldn't be any different for drivers of trains.

Photos of the offending car/bus/lorry, often with visible operator's names, are usually plastered all over the news/Twitter/NRE. The rail industry is only too happy to provide as much information as possible when "it" isn't to blame, it seems.

AlterEgo · 6 Apr 2017

Wookiee said:
Photos of the offending car/bus/lorry, often with visible operator's names, are usually plastered all over the news/Twitter/NRE. The rail industry is only too happy to provide us much information as possible when "it" isn't to blame, it seems.

...and even if it weren't, the general public talk about it online and on social media anyway.

GB · 6 Apr 2017

Wookiee said:
Photos of the offending car/bus/lorry, often with visible operator's names, are usually plastered all over the news/Twitter/NRE. The rail industry is only too happy to provide as much information as possible when "it" isn't to blame, it seems.

I have seen the railway post pictures of OLE damage, derailments, broken rails and cable fires...whats your point?

Darandio · 6 Apr 2017

Wookiee said:
Photos of the offending car/bus/lorry, often with visible operator's names, are usually plastered all over the news/Twitter/NRE.

And with respect, trains are not slamming into bridges and closing the road below. So what is your point here?

Wookiee · 6 Apr 2017

Darandio said:
And with respect, trains are not slamming into bridges and closing the road below. So what is your point here?

One of the reasons quoted for not disclosing even the barest amount of info on an "operating incident" was to protect the privacy of the driver and because the incident would possibly result in disciplinary action being taken. Is a commercial driver on the roads not entitled to the same privacy? Are they not likely to be subject to disciplinary action (or even legal action) for their mistake?

ralphchadkirk · 6 Apr 2017

oldsiggie said:
Oddly when road traffic is stopped, due to a 'Police Incident' no complains about that !

Yes, they do. A lot and rather abusively in my experience.

DerekC · 6 Apr 2017

oldsiggie said:
Oddly when road traffic is stopped, due to a 'Police Incident' no complains about that !

We also now have people suggesting that they say 'a fault with the signalling system' even though it might not be ! LOL

One benefit all would be close all railway Twitter accounts or reduce the amount that is responded to at the very least, by all means tweet out delays on XXX line, but not respond to all the picky whys and wherefores !

Still I don't suppose passengers would mind if they were delayed further whilst the Opertaions and Control side spent time explaining to the commercial side what the actual exact delays were down to, preventing them actually calliing to get the staff to site.

I would have thought a majority of passengers are quite happy with Operating Incident, and roughly how long the delay might be,they would be none the wiser if it was a track fault, signal fault, Xing failure. which oddly I think comes under 'Operating' ! (and an incident), maybe it should be changed to "Operating Difficulties" that covers it quite well

I think that ignores the point that many people with no connection with the railway other than as a passenger see "Operating Incident" (or "Operating Difficulties") as management bull**** which is probably covering up something serious or embarrassing. Of course priority goes to sorting out the problem, but then provide as accurate and precise information as you can. Common sense applies in the same way as in any customer facing organisation. If you can't offer the advertised service, explain why not and keep people up to date with changes to the situation.

LAX54 · 6 Apr 2017

Wookiee said:
Photos of the offending car/bus/lorry, often with visible operator's names, are usually plastered all over the news/Twitter/NRE. The rail industry is only too happy to provide as much information as possible when "it" isn't to blame, it seems.

When there is an incident on the railway, I have seen many pictures of the train involved, and the name of the TOC on there !
Quite often i have seen Newpapers / Twitter say " A Freightliner..." or " A DBS freight train..." etc

Plus not all vehicles that hit bridges from the road hang around to be 'spoken to' they do a runner !

LAX54 · 6 Apr 2017

ralphchadkirk said:
Yes, they do. A lot and rather abusively in my experience.

The info that goes out on traffic news, normally just says Police Incident, so
not much different !

Tetchytyke · 6 Apr 2017

Marklund said:
This whole thread is full of accusations of lies and being fobbed off, yet you're now saying that being lied to is acceptable. :roll:

Not really, the driver is (an integral) part of the signalling system.

AlterEgo · 6 Apr 2017

swills said:
The info that goes out on traffic news, normally just says Police Incident, so
not much different !

And, as he explained, the reason doesn't go down very well, which is why it's not a good idea to be so vague.

"Operational incident" between Barnham and Havant 03/04

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member